Man convicted of firearm murder in armed inter-family confrontation loses appeal against sentence

About this case:

• Citation:
  [2022] HCJAC 29
• Judgment:
  External link
• Court:
  Appeal Court of the High Court of Justiciary
• Judge:
  Lord Matthews

Jordan Owens was convicted of murdering Jamie Lee on 8 July 2017 and was given a life sentence with a punishment part of 23 years. The appellant was also convicted of the attempted murder of Joseph Lee, for which he was sentenced concurrently to 12 years’ imprisonment, although he did not challenge the sentence imposed from the second charge 

The appeal was heard by the Lord Justice General, Lord Carloway, sitting with Lord Pentland and Lord Matthews. McConnachie QC and G Brown, solicitor advocate, appeared for the appellant and Cameron, solicitor advocate, for the Crown.

Smuggled out the country

The charges arose from an armed conflict between two family groups in Castlemilk which culminated in a confrontation near a playpark in July 2017. The appellant, who had come with a gun and a bulletproof vest, fired shots during the course of the confrontation, one of which killed 22-year-old Jamie Lee by damaging the femoral vessels in his left leg.

After the conflict, the appellant, then aged 23, was smuggled out of the country in the hidden compartment of a lorry and evaded authorities until his arrest on a European Arrest Warrant in Lisbon in 2019. Following trial in March 2022, the appellant was convicted of both charges. In a plea in mitigation the trial judge was told the appellant had consented to his extradition and had a 4-year-old child with whom he had bonded while on remand.

The trial judge reasoned that the appellant’s lifestyle, resourcefulness, and ability to escape the country confirmed he was not immature or susceptible to being led by others. While his criminal record was limited, there was an inference that the murder was premeditated and the result of a conflict he had chosen to escalate. He further pointed out that the deceased had a young child of his own who would have to grow up without a father, and the court had to do all it could to deter the use of guns.

Counsel for the appellant accepted that a significant punishment part required to be imposed, but argued it fell to be reduced in this case. The murder was not a pre-planned assassination, and the unusual cause of death inferred the appellant was wickedly reckless rather than harbouring an intention to kill. Nothing about the evidence of his lifestyle indicated a significant degree of maturity as expressed by the sentencing judge and the sentence was excessive in light of recent case authority including HMA v Morton Eadie and others (2022).

No realistic challenge

Lord Matthews, delivering the opinion of the court, said of the weight of the appellant’s age: “While there may be some force in the submission that the fact that the appellant drove a particular vehicle and that he had become a father at a young age did not necessarily point to his maturity, these were minor factors in the judge’s overall assessment, which included the highly significant features of the appellant’s arming himself with a gun, obtaining a bulletproof vest and thereafter having the wherewithal, albeit assisted, to leave the country, sustaining himself in the meantime.”

He continued: “The judge’s assessment that he was not a typical 23-year-old cannot realistically be challenged. He was entitled to attach little weight to the appellant’s age at the time of the offences and the circumstances were not redolent of immaturity. The contrary was the case.”

Assessing the circumstances of the murder, Lord Matthews said: “There is no suggestion of this being a targeted assassination and it may well be that the jury convicted on the basis of wicked recklessness. However, the courts have repeatedly made it clear that the use of a firearm to commit murder is something which must be deterred and which will be visited by severe penalties.”

He went on to say: “In fixing the punishment part the trial judge had regard to the sentence of 12 years he imposed in relation to the charge of attempted murder. It is a reasonable inference that had the murder charge stood alone it would have attracted a punishment part of the order of 18 years. Neither that, nor the punishment part which in fact was imposed can be said to be excessive.”

Lord Matthews concluded: “An analysis of the cases to which counsel referred leads inevitably to the conclusion that the trial judge selected a punishment part which is entirely in line with recent authority and with recent trends. It is of a lesser order than punishment parts imposed in gangland executions.”

The appeal against sentence was therefore refused.