Yahoo News Why Axel Rudakubana won’t receive a whole-life order
Southport attacker Axel Rudakubana, 18, is due to be sentenced on Thursday after an unexpected guilty plea.
Southport attacker Axel Rudakubana is to be sentenced on Thursday after admitting to the murders of three young girls, and the attempted murders of 10 people in a knife rampage at a Taylor Swift-themed dance class.
In an unexpected change of pleas at Liverpool Crown Court on Monday, 18-year-old Rudakubana also admitted to the production of a biological toxin, ricin, and possession of information likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing to commit an act of terrorism.
“You will understand it is inevitable the sentence to be imposed upon you will mean a life sentence equivalent will be imposed upon you," the judge told the teenager from Banks, Lancashire.
While such severe crimes could be considered for a rare whole-life order (the harshest punishment in UK law, which means a prisoner will never be released except in exceptional compassionate circumstances) is not expected to apply to Rudakubana – here's why.
Why can’t he receive a whole life order?
It is understood that judges can only impose a whole-life order on criminals who were aged 21 and over at the time of the offence.
The punishment is only considered for those aged 18-to-20 in exceptional circumstances, but Rudakubana was 17 years old when he carried out his attack at The Hart Space on 29 July last year.
The Sentencing Act 2020 states that a court may consider a whole-life order for 18-20s "only if it considers that the seriousness of the offence, or combination of offences, is exceptionally high even by the standard of offences which would normally result in a whole-life order [for older offenders]".
Whole-life orders have become more common over the past few decades, according to the Sentencing Academy, but are still rarely issued. They are used only for the most severe crimes – almost always for murders.
Suggesting what Rudakubana can expect instead of a whole-life order, Matt Corn, partner and head of crime at criminal law firm, Olliers, said he will receive a mandatory life sentence because he pleaded guilty to murder.
"The judge will set the ‘tariff’ or minimum term that he must serve in prison before being eligible for parole. It is a complicated sentencing exercise where the judge will have regard to the sentencing guidelines," he said.
"It will consider the aggravated features of this terrible crime and the defendant's young age. It would not be appropriate for me to predict the minimum term."
Why Rudakubana’s silence could make his sentence stricter
Some legal experts have suggested that Rudakubana's sentence could be higher than otherwise, owing to the fact that he remained silent during pre-trial hearings and wouldn't even speak to confirm his name.
"Rudakubana’s refusal to speak during legal proceedings could significantly influence his sentencing", said lead partner for the crime and regulatory arm of Taylor Rose law firm, George Kampanella.
"Though the exact impact depends on the perception of the judge and the nature of his silence. Experienced judges pick up body language which can signal disrespect or lack of remorse.
"In many legal systems, defendants have the right to remain silent, and this cannot legally be held against them as evidence of guilt at trial, although inferences from silence can be drawn.
"Silence may indeed inadvertently shape perceptions. Judges might interpret it as a lack of remorse, cooperation, or accountability, potentially leading to a harsher sentence."
Hannah Costly, associate solicitor in the crime and regulatory team at Slater Heelis Solicitors, added: "Whilst failure to provide an account at any stage of these proceedings would usually have quite an impact on sentence, Rudakubana is already facing a lengthy sentence.
"A lack of explanation, mitigation or insight could lead to the sentencing judge to view him as dangerous which means he is deemed a serious risk of causing significant harm to others in the future.
"Therefore, there is the possibility the judge will extend the minimum term imposed.
"Although Rudakubana’s guilty pleas mean the families of the victims do not have to endure a trial, the lack of account from Rudakubana may leave lingering questions and a lack of sense of justice which will be taken into consideration at sentencing."
