�*that update, rowan. iwill come for that update, rowan. i will come back to you, i just for that update, rowan. i will come back to you, ijust paused there to get the latest from court. i wonder what this case highlights in terms of the wider problem. you have spoken about your thoughts on investigation, the challenges and your satisfaction with the outcome. more broadly, a case like this shines a spotlight on drugs and on gun crime. what is your take on the state of that in the uk at the moment and a pleasing effort to counter it? there are several issues there, if we look at the government document, and there are several issues there, if we look at the government document, and in there are several issues there, if we look at the government document, and in re-ards there are several issues there, if we look at the government document, and in re-ards to there are several issues there, if we look at the government document, and in re-ards to the there are several issues there, if we look at the government document, and in regards to the document published in summer 2021, called hour beating a crime plan. they refer to the issue specifically in regards to drugs, and in fact, around the time, they did in fact

instigate an in—depth report by dame carol baker on how we should proceed with regards to drugs, reporting wise, but with equaljustice policy, and they sort of... the researchers who think did a very good job, it is a very good document, they categorised the sort of level of deal, if you like, from at such a street dealing come into four areas, but they note that in two of them, the key drawback is that there is serious intelligence gaps. 0ne the key drawback is that there is serious intelligence gaps. one way we can mitigate that intelligence gaps and the importance of intelligence that viewers need to understand, criminal investigations these days, particularly the proactive ones, they are what we call intelligence led. that means that we know where we are going

before we do it, we are not interested in looking around on the street, that policy does not work. one way we can improve that intelligence flow, or kick it again, is by reforming a neighbourhood policing teams, because it is because of the austerity, those are the elements of operational policing that chief officers unfortunately have had to cut. that is why there is a lack of visibility on the streets of uniformed police. there are other elements of that as well, very working closely in partnership with other agencies, and reboot community safety partnerships, and start addressing these problems in our neighbourhoods, when it starts with the neighbourhood policing teams, and from that, the intelligence flow will come. the intelligence flow will come. the intelligence flow will come. the intelligence flow in the war on drugs or the battle against drugs is currency, and it is that that is

going to resolve or go some way of mitigating and reducing the impact of what we call these oh cds, the organised crime groups, or indeed, the usg is —— usgs. . —— osgs. those steps are something that we can possibly do. steps are something that we can possibly dw— steps are something that we can ossibl do. ~ . , ., ~ possibly do. peter williams, thank ou ve possibly do. peter williams, thank you very much _ possibly do. peter williams, thank you very much for _ possibly do. peter williams, thank you very much for your— possibly do. peter williams, thank you very much for your insights, . you very much for your insights, fascinating. we appreciate you joining us, thank you. an update for you the sentencing from the judge is now pretty close, five or ten minutes away. the usual caveat with timing, things cannot slip and change, as they have done indeed this afternoon. we go to daniel, daniel sandford who is standing by for us. could you just talk us through the procedure and the process here? between thejudge,

effectively getting up and going out to consider sentencing is like what is going on? the to consider sentencing is like what is going on?— is going on? the “udge will have fou~ht is going on? the “udge will have fought back — is going on? the judge will have fought back thought _ is going on? the judge will have fought back thought a _ is going on? the judge will have fought back thought a lot - is going on? the judge will have fought back thought a lot about| is going on? the judge will have - fought back thought a lot about what she was going to say you're ready, she was going to say you're ready, she will probably have sketched out the bulk of what she was going to say, in the background of the case, and quite a bit of the legal discussion that we have talked about, that was —— that will form the middle part of her sentence. she won't have filled in the numbers, she would have waited to hear what the prosecution had to say, and it is likely that what they laid out in the minimum term, the starting point for the the minimum term, the starting point forthe minimum the minimum term, the starting point for the minimum term will be something that she would have thought of already. she will then have a listen to the victim impact statements, to work that into her sentencing remarks as well, and then she will have listened to what was said in mitigation. she will essentially be starting with a document that was mostly written and she will now be going out, putting the finishing touches to that in order to come back in into pass sentences, and typically this gap is not very long, so i imagine the sentencing will be quite close. as

we have said before, it is going to be a life sentence and then with a minimum term, a tariff of how long will actually be served, as a minimum amount of time served in prison. i've noticed in recent years is that with these very high—profile cases, people started coming up to me and saying, well why don't we have the death penalty, shouldn't we have the death penalty, shouldn't we haveit have the death penalty, shouldn't we have it for these worst cases? although public opinion has been quite high, in favour of death penalty for quite a long time, it is not something that we have in the uk. when it suella braverman became home secretary, i thought, she is very much at the top end of the secretaries, i would ask her what her view was, but she was very clear that she didn't did not believe that the death penalty was the appropriate punishment in any cases. the argument has always been in the uk, since the death penalty has been abolished, is firstly, the state should not be taking life that way and secondly, that you can never be absolutely sure that the court has got things right, and of course come

in the united states, where they do have the death penalty, they have been infamous cases where it has turned out many years afterwards, through the use of dna evidence, of the person that was executed by the state had turned out not to have been guilty of that crime, so although the risk quite a lot of public pressure and i think social media is having a contribution towards that at the moment, to what is perhaps the reintroduction of the death penalty, it is not something i'm really hearing many politicians talk about, and certainly almost all lawyers and judges, to engage them on the topic, they are against the idea as well. it is not something i am seeing coming down the line in any term, in terms of changes of legislation. any term, in terms of changes of legislation-— any term, in terms of changes of leaislation. ., ~ , ., , legislation. daniel, thank you very much for that. _ legislation. daniel, thank you very much for that. i _ legislation. daniel, thank you very much for that. i know _ legislation. daniel, thank you very much for that. i know daniel- legislation. daniel, thank you very much for that. i know daniel will. much for that. i know daniel will continue to stand by for us when we do get the remarks from the judge, in a five or ten minutes. not long. we go to mark easton, i want to pick up, something that we were talking about earlier, the victim impact

statement, because of course, our focus here is on cashman, the sentencing, the process, as is absolutely right, because the sentencing is imminent, but right at the forefront, we should be keeping in mind olivia and herfamily, and what they have gone through. absolutely. and a very powerful impact statement, those statements, if anyone caught the detail, i'm sure they would agree. the rules on impact statements, or at least the guidance on impact statements makes it clear that family and friends should focus on pain, on the hertz, the loss, not on it blaming, not on it demanding what should happen to the person who has been convicted of the crime. the idea that i think —— the crime. the idea that i think —— the other thing that i think is interesting, as they will have been used... , , ,, used... sorry, iwill interrupt you, we no used... sorry, iwill interrupt you, we go straight _ used... sorry, iwill interrupt you, we go straight to _ used... sorry, iwill interrupt you, we go straight to court. _ used... sorry, iwill interrupt you, we go straight to court. two - we go straight to court. two firearms _ we go straight to court. two firearms offences. - we go straight to court. two firearms offences. mr- we go straight to court. two firearms offences. mr cashman has been _ firearms offences. mr cashman has been brought to court today but has

refused _ been brought to court today but has refused to _ been brought to court today but has refused to come to be sentenced. i have directed that he should do so, but he _ have directed that he should do so, but he has — have directed that he should do so, but he has maintained his refusal. i am therefore left with no choice but to sentence him in his absence. these _ to sentence him in his absence. these sentencing remarks will be made _ these sentencing remarks will be made available to him in writing. all five _ made available to him in writing. all five offences arise out of the events — all five offences arise out of the events of the 22nd of august, 2022. when, _ events of the 22nd of august, 2022. when, armed with guns, the defendant set out _ when, armed with guns, the defendant sei out to— when, armed with guns, the defendant set out to killjoseph knee. he lay in wait _ set out to killjoseph knee. he lay in wait before opening fire in a residential street. —— joseph nee. cctv— residential street. —— joseph nee. cctv footage captured him standing, shooting _ cctv footage captured him standing, shooting at close range. when the first gunner malfunctioned, mr nee was able _ first gunner malfunctioned, mr nee was able to scramble away, but the defendant _ was able to scramble away, but the defendant had a second gun ready. he relentlessly pursued mr nee, causing

him to— relentlessly pursued mr nee, causing him to seek refuge by barging into the home — him to seek refuge by barging into the home occupied by olivia's family — the home occupied by olivia's family. under and wholly unconcerned for the safety of others, he continued to shoot at joseph nee, firing into — continued to shoot at joseph nee, firing into that family home. olivia, — firing into that family home. 0livia, just nine years old, heard the commotion from her bed. unsurprisingly, she came downstairs to seek— unsurprisingly, she came downstairs to seek the — unsurprisingly, she came downstairs to seek the comfort of her mother. her last _ to seek the comfort of her mother. her last words were, ma'am, i'm scared _ her last words were, ma'am, i'm scared -- — her last words were, ma'am, i'm scared. —— mum. in a terrible twist of fate. _ scared. —— mum. in a terrible twist of fate. she — scared. —— mum. in a terrible twist of fate, she had stepped directly into the — of fate, she had stepped directly into the line of fire. as her mother at keep— into the line of fire. as her mother at keep the — into the line of fire. as her mother at keep the front door close, the defendant— at keep the front door close, the defendant fired a shot that passed straight _ defendant fired a shot that passed straight through the door, then it through— straight through the door, then it through cheryl cup —— cheryl korbeis— through cheryl cup —— cheryl korbel's race and into olivia's chest, — korbel's race and into olivia's chest, killing her. the defendant then managed to get his hand inside then managed to get his hand inside the door— then managed to get his hand inside the door and fired another shot

inside — the door and fired another shot inside the — the door and fired another shot inside the house. fortunately, the door was— inside the house. fortunately, the door was closed on his hand and the bullet— door was closed on his hand and the bullet discharged into the door frame. — bullet discharged into the door frame, avoiding the people inside. for the _ frame, avoiding the people inside. for the murder of olivia, there is only— for the murder of olivia, there is only one — for the murder of olivia, there is only one sentence that can be passed, — only one sentence that can be passed, that is a mandatory life sentence — passed, that is a mandatory life sentence. let there be no misunderstanding about this, the sentence — misunderstanding about this, the sentence will be one of life imprisonment. that means that the defendant— imprisonment. that means that the defendant may spend the rest of his days in_ defendant may spend the rest of his days in prison. however, for reasons i days in prison. however, for reasons i shall— days in prison. however, for reasons i shall explain, this is not a case which _ i shall explain, this is not a case which requires a whole life order. i must _ which requires a whole life order. i must therefore specify the minimum term which— must therefore specify the minimum term which must elapse before the defendant can apply to be released on licence — defendant can apply to be released on licence. that is the shortest period — on licence. that is the shortest period that he will be required to serve _ period that he will be required to serve in — period that he will be required to serve in prison. there is no guarantee _ serve in prison. there is no guarantee that he will in fact be released — guarantee that he will in fact be released at that stage. that will be

a matter— released at that stage. that will be a matter for the parole board. i will specify sentences for the other offences, _ will specify sentences for the other offences, but they will be served concurrently with the sentence for murder, _ concurrently with the sentence for murder, which will reflect the totality— murder, which will reflect the totality of the offending. the killing — totality of the offending. the killing of olivia practical bell, is not one — killing of olivia practical bell, is not one thatjust killing of olivia practical bell, is not one that just shocked the city, but also _ not one that just shocked the city, but also the nation. olivia's name is likely— but also the nation. olivia's name is likely to — but also the nation. olivia's name is likely to be remembered for ever. she should — is likely to be remembered for ever. she should not be not only remember 404 last— she should not be not only remember 404 last moments. her family have spoken— 404 last moments. her family have spoken today of her life, and the hopes— spoken today of her life, and the hopes and — spoken today of her life, and the hopes and dreams for her future. one which _ hopes and dreams for her future. one which was _ hopes and dreams for her future. one which was so — hopes and dreams for her future. one which was so cruelly snatched away. —— pratt—korbel. it was claimed that olivia _ —— pratt—korbel. it was claimed that olivia was _ —— pratt—korbel. it was claimed that olivia was a — —— pratt—korbel. it was claimed that 0livia was a lovely little girl, who care for— 0livia was a lovely little girl, who care for others and brightens the lives _ care for others and brightens the lives of— care for others and brightens the lives of family and friends. they have _ lives of family and friends. they have suffered an unimaginable loss, which _ have suffered an unimaginable loss, which they— have suffered an unimaginable loss, which they must carry for the rest of their— which they must carry for the rest of their lives. nothing i say or do today—

of their lives. nothing i say or do today will— of their lives. nothing i say or do today will ease that, but they should — today will ease that, but they should know that they have my empathy — should know that they have my empathy. the mental scars from that [ti-ht empathy. the mental scars from that night will— empathy. the mental scars from that night will persist forever. cheryl korbel— night will persist forever. cheryl korbel must also bear the physical scars _ korbel must also bear the physical scars on _ korbel must also bear the physical scars on her wrist and hand. she must _ scars on her wrist and hand. she must have — scars on her wrist and hand. she must have suffered terrible pain, as the bullet— must have suffered terrible pain, as the bullet passed through her body, but her_ the bullet passed through her body, but her bravery and strength is obvious — but her bravery and strength is obvious. she had fought to keep the travel— obvious. she had fought to keep the travel outside, and she ignored the pain that _ travel outside, and she ignored the pain that she desperately —— as she desperately tried to save 0livia. the need — desperately tried to save 0livia. the need for her to receive emergency treatment meant that she could not— emergency treatment meant that she could not be with her daughter when she died _ could not be with her daughter when she died. nobody suggests that the defendant intended to kill 0livia, or to _ defendant intended to kill 0livia, or to harm — defendant intended to kill 0livia, or to harm cheryl. but even if he did not— or to harm cheryl. but even if he did not know 0livia was in the firing — did not know 0livia was in the firing line. _ did not know 0livia was in the firing line, the same cannot be said about— firing line, the same cannot be said about cheryl. she opened her door and stepped outside to see what was happening _ and stepped outside to see what was happening stop she immediately recognised the gravity of the

situation and hurried back to get inside _ situation and hurried back to get inside and — situation and hurried back to get inside and secure home. it will have been _ inside and secure home. it will have been apparent to the defendant that she was— been apparent to the defendant that she was not connected with joseph nee and _ she was not connected with joseph nee and was trying to keep him out. he knew. _ nee and was trying to keep him out. he knew, therefore, that a wholly innocent — he knew, therefore, that a wholly innocent woman was by the door and yet, innocent woman was by the door and yet. that— innocent woman was by the door and yet. that is— innocent woman was by the door and yet, that is where he chose to take aim _ yet, that is where he chose to take aim had _ yet, that is where he chose to take aim. had he paused to think for one moment— aim. had he paused to think for one moment it _ aim. had he paused to think for one moment it would have been obvious that this _ moment it would have been obvious that this was a family home, and that this was a family home, and that others, perhaps including children. _ that others, perhaps including children, were at risk. that the defendant— children, were at risk. that the defendant was focused only on the murder— defendant was focused only on the murder of— defendant was focused only on the murder ofjoseph nee, and no one else mattered to him. precisely what lay behind _ else mattered to him. precisely what lay behind the attempt on joseph nee's_ lay behind the attempt on joseph nee's life has not emerged, the court _ nee's life has not emerged, the court did — nee's life has not emerged, the court did not hear from him and the defendant— court did not hear from him and the defendant was certainly not willing to share _ defendant was certainly not willing to share the truth. 0n defendant was certainly not willing to share the truth. on his own evidence, _ to share the truth. on his own evidence, the defendant led a criminal— evidence, the defendant led a criminal lifestyle in the course of which _ criminal lifestyle in the course of which he — criminal lifestyle in the course of which he was prepared to use threats

and violence. mr nee was a man with enemies _ and violence. mr nee was a man with enemies who had been shot at previously. that provides the context — previously. that provides the context for what happened. whatever mr nee _ context for what happened. whatever mr nee may have done, it plainly did notjustify_ mr nee may have done, it plainly did notjustify the attempt mr nee may have done, it plainly did not justify the attempt on his life. he suffered serious injuries and is lucky— he suffered serious injuries and is lucky to— he suffered serious injuries and is lucky to be — he suffered serious injuries and is lucky to be alive. after things went so tragically wrong, the defendant went to _ so tragically wrong, the defendant went to the home of the woman he was brave enough to come to court to -ive brave enough to come to court to give evidence against him. i have made _ give evidence against him. i have made an— give evidence against him. i have made an order granting her lifelong anonymity— made an order granting her lifelong anonymity and will not name her now. here evidence was significant, as they both — here evidence was significant, as they both realised. she chose to do they both realised. she chose to do the right— they both realised. she chose to do the right thing. the defendant invented a defence designed to humiliate and undermine her. it did not work _ humiliate and undermine her. it did not work. she was subjected to lengthy— not work. she was subjected to lengthy questioning about most intimate — lengthy questioning about most intimate details, but she stood firm~ _ intimate details, but she stood firm i— intimate details, but she stood firm i am _ intimate details, but she stood firm. i am sorry that she had to ensure — firm. i am sorry that she had to ensure that, but injuries she did,

and her— ensure that, but injuries she did, and her courage is to be applauded. in and her courage is to be applauded. in the _ and her courage is to be applauded. in the sentencing of olivia pratt—korbel, i must follow the statutory — pratt—korbel, i must follow the statutory provisions in 21, of the sentencing — statutory provisions in 21, of the sentencing act 2020. paragraph two, two ba _ sentencing act 2020. paragraph two, two ba of _ sentencing act 2020. paragraph two, two ba of schedule 21 provides that the starting point for the murder of a child _ the starting point for the murder of a child involving a substantial degree — a child involving a substantial degree of planning or premeditation is a whole _ degree of planning or premeditation is a whole life order. i have considered whether that applies to this case — considered whether that applies to this case i— considered whether that applies to this case. i have concluded that it does _ this case. i have concluded that it does not. — this case. i have concluded that it does not, because the planning and premeditation was not directed at the child — premeditation was not directed at the child. there is no doubt, though. _ the child. there is no doubt, though, that the seriousness of the murder, _ though, that the seriousness of the murder, taken in combination with the other— murder, taken in combination with the other offences, is particularly grave. _ the other offences, is particularly grave, such as to require a lengthy minimum — grave, such as to require a lengthy minimum term. starting point for murder, — minimum term. starting point for murder, involving a firearm is 30 years. _ murder, involving a firearm is 30 years. as — murder, involving a firearm is 30 years. as set _ murder, involving a firearm is 30 years, as set out in paragraph three of schedule —

years, as set out in paragraph three of schedule 21. i must therefore consider— of schedule 21. i must therefore consider the aggravating and mitigating factors, set out in paragraphs nine and ten, together with any— paragraphs nine and ten, together with any other relevant circumstances. they can be no doubt that this _ circumstances. they can be no doubt that this shooting involves a significant degree of planning and premeditation. i bear in mind that many. _ premeditation. i bear in mind that many. if— premeditation. i bear in mind that many if not — premeditation. i bear in mind that many, if not most murders, involving firearms, _ many, if not most murders, involving firearms, involve some premeditation, and that is already accounted — premeditation, and that is already accounted for in the starting point. the evidence in this case demonstrates planning it going well beyond _ demonstrates planning it going well beyond that. the defendant had sourced — beyond that. the defendant had sourced two guns, presumably to allow _ sourced two guns, presumably to allow for— sourced two guns, presumably to allow for the possibility of whiteness hiring, he knew what van joseph— whiteness hiring, he knew what van joseph nee was driving and i am sure that he _ joseph nee was driving and i am sure that he was— joseph nee was driving and i am sure that he was looking out for him earlier— that he was looking out for him earlier that day. —— the possibility of it misfiring. having spotted the van, he _

of it misfiring. having spotted the van, he changed his clothes and conceal— van, he changed his clothes and conceal his _ van, he changed his clothes and conceal his face before heading towards — conceal his face before heading towards him, only to realise that mr nee had _ towards him, only to realise that mr nee had left. later, having seen the van again. _ nee had left. later, having seen the van again, and realising that mr nee was likely— van again, and realising that mr nee was likely to remain where he was, until the _ was likely to remain where he was, until the end of the televised football, the defendant again changed his clothes, got into position. _ changed his clothes, got into position, and lay in wait. this was a targeted, planned execution attempt. it commenced in a residential street, even as mr nee ran for— residential street, even as mr nee ran for his — residential street, even as mr nee ran for his life, the defendant ruthlessly pursued him. he then fired _ ruthlessly pursued him. he then fired more — ruthlessly pursued him. he then fired more shots as mr nee tried to take cover— fired more shots as mr nee tried to take cover in a determined effort to complete _ take cover in a determined effort to complete what he had set out to do. it is accepted on the defendant's behalf— it is accepted on the defendant's behalf that 0livia was a particularly vulnerable victim because _ particularly vulnerable victim because of her age. i do not necessarily agree that olivia's age made _ necessarily agree that 0livia's age made her— necessarily agree that olivia's age made her more vulnerable to being killed _ made her more vulnerable to being killed in— made her more vulnerable to being killed in these specific circumstances, but it is academic to

debate _ circumstances, but it is academic to debate whether the case comes with the within— debate whether the case comes with the within paragraph nine b. the real gravity of this case is a young child _ real gravity of this case is a young child was— real gravity of this case is a young child was shot and killed in her own home _ child was shot and killed in her own home as _ child was shot and killed in her own home. as children do, 0livia was coming _ home. as children do, 0livia was coming downstairs to seek reassurance. cheryl korbel should have been— reassurance. cheryl korbel should have been able to give that reassurance and put 0livia back into bed. reassurance and put 0livia back into bed what _ reassurance and put 0livia back into bed. what has happened instead is chilling _ bed. what has happened instead is chilling and it strikes fear, not only— chilling and it strikes fear, not only into — chilling and it strikes fear, not only into the immediate community, but also _ only into the immediate community, but also into the minds of other children. — but also into the minds of other children, and their parents. shooting _ children, and their parents. shooting into a family home, with no regard _ shooting into a family home, with no regard for— shooting into a family home, with no regard for whom it may be caught in the crossfire is obviously a very significant, aggravating factor, which — significant, aggravating factor, which must be reflected in the minimum _ which must be reflected in the minimum term. none of the statutory mitigating _ minimum term. none of the statutory mitigating factors apply in this case _ mitigating factors apply in this case stop while right that there was no intent _ case stop while right that there was no intent to kill 0livia, the fatal shot _ no intent to kill 0livia, the fatal shot was —

no intent to kill 0livia, the fatal shot was fired with the clearest possible — shot was fired with the clearest possible intent to kill. i have determined that the shooting was premeditated. the fact that the intent _ premeditated. the fact that the intent was directed towards joseph nee offers no mitigation, had the defendant planned to kill 0livia, he would _ defendant planned to kill 0livia, he would have been facing a whole life order. _ would have been facing a whole life order. even — would have been facing a whole life order. even had the defendant killed joseph— order. even had the defendant killed joseph nee, ratherthan order. even had the defendant killed joseph nee, rather than 0livia, the premeditated nature of the killing, the use _ premeditated nature of the killing, the use of— premeditated nature of the killing, the use of two mac firearms, and the firing _ the use of two mac firearms, and the firing of— the use of two mac firearms, and the firing of a _ the use of two mac firearms, and the firing of a shot into a family home would _ firing of a shot into a family home would still— firing of a shot into a family home would still have acquired a substantial uplift. the fact that it was olivia — substantial uplift. the fact that it was 0livia who died undoubtedly makes _ was 0livia who died undoubtedly makes the offence more serious still. _ makes the offence more serious still. further, lam not considering this offence — still. further, lam not considering this offence in isolation stop the defendant must also be sentenced for the other— defendant must also be sentenced for the other offences. i shall take care _ the other offences. ishall take care not— the other offences. i shall take care not to double count features that are — care not to double count features that are common to counts 1—3. i am very conscious — that are common to counts 1—3. i am very conscious that the shot that

killed _ very conscious that the shot that killed 0livia was one of those aimed atjoseph_ killed 0livia was one of those aimed atjoseph nee, while attempting to kill him. _ atjoseph nee, while attempting to kill him, and was the same shot that wounded _ kill him, and was the same shot that wounded cheryl korbel. however, i must _ wounded cheryl korbel. however, i must reflect the fact that the harm caused _ must reflect the fact that the harm caused was not limited to killing olivia. _ caused was not limited to killing 0livia, but also concluded in serious _ 0livia, but also concluded in serious injury to other people, —— to other— serious injury to other people, —— to other people. had i been sentencing the defendant for the attempted murder ofjoseph nee attempted murder of joseph nee alone. _ attempted murder of joseph nee alone. i— attempted murder ofjoseph nee alone, i would attempted murder ofjoseph nee alone, iwould have imposed attempted murder ofjoseph nee alone, i would have imposed a life sentence — alone, i would have imposed a life sentence of because of the obvious risk of— sentence of because of the obvious risk of serious harm he posted to other— risk of serious harm he posted to other member is a public. i agree with submissions that this is a category— with submissions that this is a category a to case, within the relevant — category a to case, within the relevant sentencing guidelines. that -ives relevant sentencing guidelines. that gives a _ relevant sentencing guidelines. that gives a starting point of the determinate sentence of 30 years. and a _ determinate sentence of 30 years. and a range of 25—35 years. —— nee. even _ and a range of 25—35 years. —— nee. even in _ and a range of 25—35 years. —— nee. even in the — and a range of 25—35 years. —— nee. even in the context of a category a case. _ even in the context of a category a case. the — even in the context of a category a case, the offence is aggravated by the planning, the relentless pursuit of mr_ the planning, the relentless pursuit of mr nee. — the planning, the relentless pursuit of mr nee, and the use of tea firearms. _ of mr nee, and the use of tea firearms. i_ of mr nee, and the use of tea

firearms. i will select a figure towards — firearms. i will select a figure towards the upper end of the range. in towards the upper end of the range. in its— towards the upper end of the range. in its setting a minimum term to be served _ in its setting a minimum term to be served on— in its setting a minimum term to be served ona— in its setting a minimum term to be served on a discretionary life sentence _ served on a discretionary life sentence for the notion should be discounted for a... one third privation. _ discounted for a... one third privation, which would apply to a determinate sentence. i need not dwell— determinate sentence. i need not dwell further on the minimum term for count— dwell further on the minimum term for count two, since it will make no practical— for count two, since it will make no practical difference to the minimum term which— practical difference to the minimum term which must be served, which will be _ term which must be served, which will be that— term which must be served, which will be that imposed on account one. the count— will be that imposed on account one. the count three, winding it cheryl korbel— the count three, winding it cheryl korbel with intent to do grievous bodily— korbel with intent to do grievous bodily harm to another, the offence falls into _ bodily harm to another, the offence falls into category a2, in the relevant _ falls into category a2, in the relevant guideline. it gives a starting _ relevant guideline. it gives a starting point of the seven years imprisonment and a range of 6—10 years. _ imprisonment and a range of 6—10 years. the — imprisonment and a range of 6—10 years. the offences aggravated being a committed against women in her own home. _ a committed against women in her own home. and _ a committed against women in her own home. and i_ a committed against women in her own home, and i consider this a sentence at the _ home, and i consider this a sentence at the top _ home, and i consider this a sentence at the top of— home, and i consider this a sentence at the top of that range, as appropriate. the firearms offences were charged as counts five, are part and — were charged as counts five, are part and parcel of the other

offences. it would be wholly artificial _ offences. it would be wholly artificial to consider the appropriate sentence for these two offences. _ appropriate sentence for these two offences, had they stood alone stop they are _ offences, had they stood alone stop they are category a1 offences, within— they are category a1 offences, within the relevant guideline. the sentences— within the relevant guideline. the sentences on these counts will not impact _ sentences on these counts will not impact on — sentences on these counts will not impact on the overall term the defendant must serve. it is therefore unnecessary to say more, and i_ therefore unnecessary to say more, and i will— therefore unnecessary to say more, and i will simply adopt the starting point _ and i will simply adopt the starting point suggested, namely 18 years imprisonment. i have explained the exploit _ imprisonment. i have explained the exploit to— imprisonment. i have explained the exploit to the sentences for the individual— exploit to the sentences for the individual sentences, —— defendants, so that— individual sentences, —— defendants, so that the _ individual sentences, —— defendants, so that the defendant and others note that — so that the defendant and others note that hat i have arrived at the eventual— note that hat i have arrived at the eventual sentence which i have chosen. — eventual sentence which i have chosen. the reality is that the defendants offending cannot be compartmentalised. the minimum term to be served _ compartmentalised. the minimum term to be served will reflect the totality— to be served will reflect the totality of his offending. the defendant murdered 0livia pratt—korbel, a young child in her own home — pratt—korbel, a young child in her own home. he did so in the course of attempting _ own home. he did so in the course of attempting to murderjoseph nee, as

part of— attempting to murderjoseph nee, as part of a _ attempting to murderjoseph nee, as part of a planned and sustained attack— part of a planned and sustained attack involving the use of two firearms. _ attack involving the use of two firearms. he caused serious injuries to mr_ firearms. he caused serious injuries to mr nee _ firearms. he caused serious injuries to mr nee and came close to killing him. he _ to mr nee and came close to killing him. he also shot cheryl korbel, causing — him. he also shot cheryl korbel, causing her— him. he also shot cheryl korbel, causing her significant physical injury. — causing her significant physical injury, to say nothing of the psychological scars he caused her and others. that is the basis on which he will be sentenced. the defendant is now aged 34, he is not of previous— defendant is now aged 34, he is not of previous good character. any attempt — of previous good character. any attempt to rely on an absence of any significant _ attempt to rely on an absence of any significant history of violence has to be _ significant history of violence has to be viewed in the context of what he told _ to be viewed in the context of what he told the — to be viewed in the context of what he told the jury. he made it quite clear— he told the jury. he made it quite clear that — he told the jury. he made it quite clear that he was a criminal who used _ clear that he was a criminal who used threats and violence when it suited _ used threats and violence when it suited him. — used threats and violence when it suited him. although i will not treat— suited him. although i will not treat that, as no mitigation to be found _ treat that, as no mitigation to be found in— treat that, as no mitigation to be found in his — treat that, as no mitigation to be found in his history, the defendant has not _ found in his history, the defendant has not acknowledged his responsibility for olivia's death, and so. — responsibility for olivia's death, and so, here is timoney ——

demonstrated no remorse. his failure to come _ demonstrated no remorse. his failure to come into — demonstrated no remorse. his failure to come into court is perhaps further— to come into court is perhaps further evidence of that, although i make _ further evidence of that, although i make it _ further evidence of that, although i make it clear that this has not caused — make it clear that this has not caused me to increase his sentence. the defendant is a father and i accept — the defendant is a father and i accept that being taken away from his children is a loss for him and for them. — his children is a loss for him and for them. it— his children is a loss for him and forthem. it is his children is a loss for him and for them. it is a loss that he is wholly— for them. it is a loss that he is wholly responsible for. there is, in myjudgment, no real mitigation available — myjudgment, no real mitigation available to the defendant. i now pronounce — available to the defendant. i now pronounce the sentence. 0n available to the defendant. i now pronounce the sentence. on account one, pronounce the sentence. on account one. the — pronounce the sentence. on account one, the murder of olivia pratt—korbel, the sentence will be life imprisonment. the minimum term will be _ life imprisonment. the minimum term will be 42 _ life imprisonment. the minimum term will be 42 years, less the time the defendant— will be 42 years, less the time the defendant has already spent on remand. — defendant has already spent on remand. 0n defendant has already spent on remand. on account two, the attempt murder— remand. on account two, the attempt murder of— remand. on account two, the attempt murder ofjoseph nee, the sentence is life _ murder ofjoseph nee, the sentence is life imprisonment with a minimum term of— is life imprisonment with a minimum term of 22_ is life imprisonment with a minimum term of 22 years. on account three, winding _ term of 22 years. on account three, winding cheryl korbel within —— with intent to— winding cheryl korbel within —— with intent to do— winding cheryl korbel within —— with intent to do grievous bodily harm to another. _

intent to do grievous bodily harm to another, the sentence is ten years imprisonment, and on counts four and five, imprisonment, and on counts four and five. the _ imprisonment, and on counts four and five, the firearms offences, the sentence — five, the firearms offences, the sentence is 18 years imprisonment on each. _ sentence is 18 years imprisonment on each. all— sentence is 18 years imprisonment on each. all of— sentence is 18 years imprisonment on each. all of those sentences are to be served — each. all of those sentences are to be served concurrently, meaning that the shortest period of the defendant will be _ the shortest period of the defendant will be required to serve, before he can be _ will be required to serve, before he can be considered for early release from _ can be considered for early release from the _ can be considered for early release from the sentence of life imprisonment, is 42 years, less 182 days he has served on remand. after having _ days he has served on remand. after having served that minimum term, he can only— having served that minimum term, he can only be _ having served that minimum term, he can only be released if the parole board _ can only be released if the parole board decided that is appropriate. he would — board decided that is appropriate. he would then remain on licence for the remainder of his life. the statutory _ the remainder of his life. the statutory surcharge will be added to the record. — statutory surcharge will be added to the record. thank you. that completes my sentencing remarks and it completes the sentencing hearing. studio: _ it completes the sentencing hearing. studio: there we have it. those comments there from the judge, right at the end, we got the final

sentence. 42 years minimum, before he will be considered for parole. that is minus the 182 days that he has already served. after 42 years, there is an automatic release —— there is an automatic release —— there is an automatic release —— there is not an automatic release will be down to the parole board to make that decision at that time, if he was released at that point. he will also serve the rest of his sentence on a license. just explain that, 42 years for murder, attempted murder, 22 years, wounding, ten years, firearms offences, 18 years, but as we had there, concurrently, so basically those sentences are not all added one to another, to make a grand total, instead, they all run side by side, so effectively, the longest sentence, 42 years, minimum, for life, is the one that will actually play out, and influence the actually play out, and influence the actual length of time spent in prison. a lot of detail in that

statement from the judge, talking through the events of that night. we had a discussion about any potential mitigation, basically thejudge finding that there is no real mitigation in this instance. let us cross to our correspondent who was listening to all of that from the crown court. what you did you make of that? ., , , , ., of that? there were gasps and members _ of that? there were gasps and members of — of that? there were gasps and members of olivia's _ of that? there were gasps and members of olivia's family - of that? there were gasps and j members of olivia's family are crying in the public gallery in court, as some police officers are also tearful, as the judge handed down the comments and the sentence of 42 years, a significant uplift on the 30 year minimum that thomas cashman could have faced. i think that reflects the relentlessness and the ruthlessness of the attack that the ruthlessness of the attack that the judge so that thomas cashman carried out, the nature of the premeditated planning that

went into the attack by the fact that he carried two guns, that he shot a nee in a public street, that thomas cashman then fired his gun straight into a family home, a place without family should have felt safe. the fact that he injured cheryl, meaning that she could not be with her daughter at the point is that he was an —— that she was dying, to be with her and her last moments. those were clearly factors that the judge felt clearly aggravated the case. the fact that thomas cashman showed no admitted guilt, he denied having any role, in his police interface, in having a role in olivia pratt—korbel�*s death. that has been factored into the judge's decision, in a significant sentence. it will mean that thomas cashman will be in his mid—70s before he can be considered for release. he is on a life sentence meaning he may never be released. thank you very much for that. i know just behind where rowan is a standing outside the court there in manchester, we are expecting, potentially some reaction from the police, potentially or indeed olivia's family. rowan hasjust stepped aside for us. just so you

know what we'll be doing over the next few minutes, just keeping an eye on that live camera, and you can see the microphones there on the right—hand side the picture. as and when we do get any reaction to that sentencing, at least 42 years, minimum, in a prison, as soon as we getany minimum, in a prison, as soon as we get any reaction, potentially, as i said, from the family, orfrom the police there, we will frustrate to it. we go to our home editor, mark easton in the newsroom. wejust want to get your reaction to that sentencing. to get your reaction to that sentencing-— to get your reaction to that sentencin.. ~ . ., , , sentencing. what really interesting was the technical _ sentencing. what really interesting was the technical nature, - sentencing. what really interesting was the technical nature, almost, l was the technical nature, almost, what the judge was doing. there was a very good reason for that. she went through all the explanation, in a way that was, for the most part, very dispassionate. because of course, there is always the possibility that something is not said, that should be said, within the sentencing statement, which gives the defendant the chance to appeal against that sentence. that

is why it has to be so technical and it may feel slightly odd, particularly in a case that inspired such emotions as this. what was particularly interesting, i thought, was the distinction between a whole life tariff, and a life sentence, which may be confusing to some. a whole life tariff is what it says. it is that you will spend the rest of your days, the rest of your time locked up in prison, until you die. a license, despite the name, in this country, in england and wales, means that there is a possibility of parole, at some point, in that sentence. you're not going to be locked up necessarily forever, you might well be, unless the parole board feel there is a good reason for deciding you are no longer a threat, you will stay in prison for the rest of your life, but at some point, within that process, you will be eligible to apply for parole, and in this case, as you have been

hearing, 42 years, as a starting point of 30. there is