Emma Caldwell murderer loses High Court appeal against length of punishment part of life sentence

About this case:

• Citation:
  [2024] HCJAC 38
• Judgment:
  External link
• Court:
  Appeal Court of the High Court of Justiciary
• Judge:
  Lady Dorrian

Iain Packer was convicted of 33 charges, including sexual assaults on nine additional complainers, on 28 February 2024 and was sentenced to life imprisonment with a punishment part of 36 years, backdated to 28 February 2022. While he accepted that his crimes were serious, the duration was challenged as inappropriate given the age at which he would first be able to seek parole.

The appeal was heard by the Lord Justice Clerk, Lady Dorrian, together with Lord Matthews and Lady Wise. Jackson KC appeared for the appellant and Jessop KC, advocate depute, for the Crown.

Truly terrifying circumstances

The appellant’s offending mostly occurred in three scenarios. Some of the charges libelled domestic violence in relation to his partners, as well as the sister of one partner. The majority of the crimes on the indictment involved sexual assault of sex workers at brothels, or in the appellant’s vehicle, or in Limefield Woods in Lanarkshire, where he took a number of his victims. Other charges related to his conduct at sex parties at which he worked as a barman for a friend. Charge 45 on the indictment libelled that the appellant had murdered Ms Caldwell in Limefield Woods on 5 April 2005 with intent to rape.

In his evidence, the appellant acknowledged that he had been a prolific user of sex workers for most of his adult life but denied all but two of the charges by either stating he was not the person involved or that any sexual activity had been consensual. In relation to the murder of Ms Caldwell, he incriminated two Turkish nationals who were amongst the police’s initial suspects.

The trial judge sentenced the appellant to life imprisonment, as he was bound to. He referred to the victim impact statements given by Ms Caldwell’s family, in which they spoke of being unable to move on with their lives and suffering from anxiety and extreme grief. Some of the complainers in the other charges spoke of suffering from PTSD. The appellant’s previous convictions and domestic aggravations were also noted. In his conclusion, the trial judge explained that the murder charge alone would have attracted a punishment part of 22 years due to the truly terrifying circumstances in which it was committed.

Senior counsel for the appellant accepted that the judge was entitled to increase the punishment part to reflect the other offending and took no issue with the methodology adopted. The sole argument made was that it would not be in the interests of justice not to allow a parole application for such a significant length of time. Notwithstanding the severity of the appellant’s crimes, it was not appropriate in a civilised society that someone should not be eligible for parole until his mid-80s.

Appalling nature

Delivering the opinion of the court, Lady Dorrian said of the trial judge’s approach: “We did not understand senior counsel to take any issue with the periods attributed to the punishment part so far as relating to charges 45 and 46. Rightly so. There can be no legitimate criticism of the trial judge’s specification of 22 years for a sexually motivated murder in the circumstances described above. In reducing the element attributed to charge 46, that is the attempt to defeat the ends of justice, the trial judge in fact applied a significant reduction.”

She continued: “In essence the submission was that the cumulo sentence of 28 years [imposed for the charges apart from charges 45 and 46] was excessive for the offences concerned, and that being so, applying 12 years of that period to the punishment part was in turn excessive. We cannot accept that submission.”

Explaining the court’s reasoning further, Lady Dorrian said: “The other offences were of a truly appalling nature, extended over a 26 year period and affected a large number of vulnerable women. The offences were committed against 22 separate women. The appellant’s predatory activities covered all aspects of his life, from the domestic setting to his use of sex workers, and attendance at sex parties. The appellant was convicted of nineteen charges involving rape and indecent assault that would now be considered rape against fifteen different women. Charge 24 represented an earnest and violent attempt to rape a sixteenth.”

She concluded: “It is clear that the total punishment part sentence selected was within the reasonable range for the offending of which the appellant was convicted. Stripping out 16 of the 28 years to remove the element of retribution and deterrence and to reflect the absence of any prospect of early release was entirely appropriate. Against that background, and the nature and length of the offending in the present case, we are satisfied that the sentence imposed was fair and proportionate.”

The appeal against sentence was therefore refused.