More than two years after Gafoor finally took responsibility for murdering Lynette White, Mr Justice Royce gave his reasons for the tariff that he imposed – one that is widely viewed as an insult to justice, even though Royce cannot be blamed. While Gafoor enjoyed his ill-deserved freedom, the system of imposing tariffs changed. A decision in the European Court of Human Rights took the power to determine them away from the Home Secretary, yet bizarrely a decision that was supposed to give greater freedom to judges placed greater restraints on them.

Legislation was drafted that allowed judges to set a starting point according to the law at the time of arrest, before taking aggravating and mitigating circumstances into account. The judge could impose up to a third of the starting point for aggravating factors, but had to take a swift guilty plea into account in mitigation. Royce acknowledged moving victim impact statements had been made by her family, yet despite being victims of Gafoor's crime, the law failed to offer the opportunity to the Cardiff Five and their families to detail the effect that Gafoor's crime had had on them. Why? They were victims of his actions as well as Lynette White. They may never recover from the experience that Gafoor's cowardly refusal to take responsibility for his crime until caught had upon them. The law could at least have acknowledged that they were victims of a deeply flawed system and given them the right to make victim impact statements as well.

*****

“You allowed innocent men to go to prison for a crime that you knew you had committed,” Royce told Gafoor when he sentenced him to life imprisonment in July 2003. It was expected that this fact would loom large in determining the tariff that Gafoor would serve. A psychiatric report was commissioned on Gafoor to determine what risk he would pose to the public on release. Royce did not receive that report.

He outlined the new process and set the starting point at fifteen years. “I regard it as a very serious aggravating factor the fact that he [Gafoor] was content to allow innocent men to be arrested, to stand their trial and be convicted of a murder he knew he had committed,” wrote Royce. “Furthermore it was accepted on his behalf that those men notwithstanding their release by the Court of Appeal had been stigmatised over the ensuing years. I also regard it as an aggravating factor that the body was hacked so terribly and so frequently. It verged on the sadistic. It was also of note that he had taken a knife with him that night, it was said for his own protection. I conclude that these aggravating factors justify an increase from the 15 year starting point to 19½ years.”

Four and a half years for allowing men he knew to be innocent and a vicious attack involving more than fifty wounds, including some that were inflicted as she was dying or even dead. This is absurd and brings the law into disrepute. It does not begin to take into account the aggravating circumstances of this case, yet even this limited amount was to be diluted further. Mitigation would reduce the minimum term that Gafoor would have to serve.

by Satish Sekar © Satish Sekar (December 26th 2008)