Jodi Jones killer Luke Mitchell loses appeal to have jail term shortened

Published on Wednesday 2 February 2011 10:54

LUKE Mitchell has failed in an attempt to have his 20-year minimum jail term reduced for the murder of Jodi Jones.

Mitchell was locked up for life in 2005 and ordered to serve at least 20 years for the "truly evil" murder of his 14-year-old girlfriend.

Jodi was stripped, tied up and stabbed to death, before her mutilated body was dumped in woods near her home in Dalkeith, Midlothian, in June 2003.

Mitchell, 22, who was 14 at the time of the murder, has consistently claimed his innocence but his appeal against conviction was rejected in 2008.

Last year his legal team launched a challenge against the length of his sentence on the grounds that he was a child at the time of the crime.

But senior judges at the Court of Criminal Appeal in Edinburgh today ruled that the 20-year punishment part of Mitchell's sentence should stand.

The Lord Justice Clerk Lord Gill, who heard the case with Lord Hardie and Lady Cosgrove, told a brief hearing: "The order of the court is that this appeal is refused."

He said it was a majority decision.

Pony-tailed Mitchell, who wore a white shirt, remained impassive as the judgment was delivered.

His mother, Corinne Mitchell, was present in court to hear the decision.

Leaving court, she told reporters: "The fight goes on. We're not finished yet."

Also in court was Jodi's mother, Judith Jones, who was joined by several members of her family.

Today's decision marked the latest stage in a chain of events that began more than seven years ago.

Jodi was murdered on June 30 2003, and her body lay behind a wall running alongside a walkway known as the Rowan's Dyke path.

Her windpipe had been cut and the main artery in her neck was severed virtually all the way through.

The schoolgirl had multiple injuries to her head and wounds to her face, breast and arms.

The police investigation was one of the biggest carried out by the Lothian and Borders force.

More than 200 police staff were involved in the inquiry, taking 3,150 statements from more than 200 people.

The conviction of Mitchell, from Dalkeith, followed the longest single-accused murder trial in Scottish legal history.

The Crown's case against him was based entirely on circumstantial evidence.

Prosecutors at the High Court in Edinburgh branded the murder "the most gruesome killing of recent years".

The three judges did not reach a unanimous decision on Mitchell's sentence appeal.

The decision to let the 20-year minimum term remain was by a majority, with Lord Hardie and Lady Cosgrove refusing the appeal.

In contrast, Lord Gill, Scotland's second top judge, had argued the punishment part was "excessive" in light of Mitchell's age and suggested it should be 15 years.

But in a written decision issued today, he said that since the other judges had concluded that there was "no good reason for our interfering with the sentence appealed against, the order of the court will be that the appeal is refused".

The judgment, which runs to more than 15 pages, noted that the trial judge, Lord Nimmo Smith, found the crime to be one of the worst cases of the murder of a single victim to come before the courts in recent years. In his view, had the killer been older, the seriousness of the offence would have merited one of the longest punishment periods handed out in Scotland.

Refusing the appeal, Lord Hardie said the sentence may be "severe", but was not excessive.

He wrote: "This was a sustained, prolonged and brutal attack upon an innocent young girl involving extensive blunt force injury, mechanical strangulation, multiple cuts and penetrating injuries, as well as extensive post-mortem mutilation.

"This clearly merits a significantly longer period as a punishment part than a case of murder involving a single stab wound or even two or three stab wounds.

"Having considered the nature and extent of the attack and the consequential injuries inflicted upon the deceased before and after death, I am unable to conclude that the sentencing judge erred in the exercise of his discretion when he selected a period of 20 years.

"The period might well be severe but it cannot be categorised as excessive."

Lady Cosgrove echoed Lord Hardie's views: "There can be no doubt that the sentencing judge was correct to regard this as a very serious crime.

"It involved the repeated use of a knife and a sustained and brutal attack on a trusting and defenceless 14-year-old girl who suffered a horrible death and whose body was thereafter extensively mutilated.

"I do not consider that he can be said to have erred in considering that a longer period would have been appropriate for this crime had it been committed by an adult offender."

She added that in view of the "grave nature" of the crime, she was "unable to conclude that the punishment period chosen was outwith the reasonable range available to the sentencing judge".

Their views were in contrast to those of Lord Gill, who wrote that Mitchell faced a "significant" prospect of becoming "institutionalised beyond hope of recall" if he cannot be considered for parole until he is almost 36.

He said: "I have the utmost sympathy for the family of the victim and I understand entirely why this murder should have caused public revulsion.

"Nevertheless, I think that the sentencing judge should not have imposed a punishment part of such severity on such a young offender."