, suffering the mental and physical suffering which nikki allan experience before you killed her, this bears repetition. i have taken into account that that board of mental suffering which you must have experienced after you had pushed her into the derelict building, she must die quickly knowing that she was trapped, she must adequately moan that you were coming after her —— she must have quickly knowing that she must have quickly knowing that she was trapped. —— she must have quickly knowing that you were coming after her. it must have been a truly terrifying experience for the seven—year—old girl. i also take into account what happened outside the building, before you pushed her inside it. there was clearly some sort of struggle after your assault or attempted assault and one which she was bound to lose and i do not underestimate how frightening this experience must have been for her. a

further aggravating factor is your use of two weapons, a brick and a knife, which you took to the scene. in addressing the on the application of schedule 21 i'm urged to find that not only is paragraph three not engage but neither is paragraph four and he argues that the knife that you carried was not one which was taken to the scene in the technical sense intended to be conveyed by paragraph four but i reject the submission and i am sure that you took a knife with you to the building and that you intended when you were there to commit an offence of sexual assault and or have the knife available as a weapon, it is not disputed that you used the weapon in committing the murder of nikki allan. paragraph counter is therefore engaged and this finding is overtaken by my earlier conclusion that this is a murder of particular seriousness but the fact

that a knife was taken, even a penknife, and it was used, represents a significant aggravating factor which i must take into account. a further aggravating factor is the vicious and brutal nature of your attack upon luring involving two blows at least to their head and over 30 stabs to her body —— upon nikki. a further aggravating factor is your attempt to conceal the body and finally, your statement to the police, while this was made after george heron had been charged with her murder, you were nevertheless providing a statement which you gave yourself a false alibi, whilst another person was tried for the murder which you had committed. i must of course consider such mitigation as may exist and there is none. your counsel urges me to take into account your iq which falls within the extremely low range placing you

in the bottom 2% of the general population. i accept the content of the report prepared on your behalf by dr wood, a psychologist who describes your mild learning difficulties and a degree of intellectual impairment. however, i'm unable to accept that the content of that report in any respect is relevant to the minimum term which i must impose. any intellectual difficulties which you have faced do not affect your culpability for this offence. you demonstrated right sufficient guile to lure away and you were quick to attempt to cover your tracks by inventing a false alibi which you go to the police. nor do i accept that your age is a relevant factor, mitigating in your favour, your age is a relevant factor, mitigating in yourfavour, at your age is a relevant factor, mitigating in your favour, at the time of this murder you were an aduu time of this murder you were an adult of 25 and you are not a child oran adult of 25 and you are not a child or an adolescent who knew no better. you are now 55 and the fact that as

a result of the minimum term which i may impose you may die in prison is not it seems to be a factor which i shall take into account. therefore taking all of these factors into account, the minimum term which i would have ordered under schedule 21 is one of not less than 37 years. i move on to stage two of my assessment. this is the home secretary's determination and i must now determine what the decision of the home secretary would have been before 2002 by applying the applicable guidance at the time. on the 10th of february 1997 a letter was sent by lord bingham to all judges who made recommendations as to the appropriate term in murder cases and that letter advocated 1a years as the normal penalty for the

average or normal or unexceptional murder before taking in mitigating factors into account, and the letter went on to list the various factors which would likely call for a sentence mitigating the normal penalty and those factors included some normality, or mental abnormality, —— saab normality. for example a sudden response to family pressure or prolonged stress. lord bingham list of the following factors is likely to call for a sentence more severe than the norm, they included the killing of a child, ora they included the killing of a child, or a very old or otherwise vulnerable children, evidence of sadism or gratuitous violence, degradation before the killing, and the use of firearms or other dangerous weapons, whether carried

for defensive or offensive reasons. lord bingham remarked that whilst a recommendation of a punitive term longer than, say, 30 years, will be very rare indeed, i don't think one should set any upper limit, some crimes will certainly call for terms very well in excess of the norm, he said. it is clearfrom very well in excess of the norm, he said. it is clear from the text of the letter that lord bingham was not himself setting a tariff, but he was rather reflecting his own judicial experience and that of otherjudges in describing the level of minimum terms which were being imposed at the time of writing. a practice direction issued in 2004 said that in sentences where the murder was committed before the 31st of may 2000 so, the best guide to what would have been the practice of the secretary of state is the letter sent to judges by lord secretary of state is the letter sent tojudges by lord bingham of cornhill, lord chiefjustice, in

february 1997. cornhill, lord chiefjustice, in february1997. i mentioned cornhill, lord chiefjustice, in february 1997. i mentioned a further practice direction which was issued in 2000 so by lord woolf and although of narrow date app practice direction defines the starting point for the direction defines the starting point forthe minimum direction defines the starting point for the minimum terms to be imposed and the range extended from a reduced starting point of 8—9 years for a case with reduced responsibility and a starting point of 12 years for a number murder, for example one involving a case involving the death of an adult victim arising from a quarrel or loss of temper between two people known to each other. a higher starting point a 15—16 years for more serious cases, for a specially grave case, for example those involved in a sexual murder, or the murder of a young child and a term of 20 years or upwards would be appropriate. a term of 30 years

existed for an extremely serious case. the practice direction stated that a substantial upward adjustment might be appropriate in the most serious cases, for example those involving a substantial number of murders or if there are several factors identified as attracting a higher starting point present. in suitable cases the result might even be a minimum term of 30 years and the categorisation maintained the possibility of no minimum term being imposed for cases of exceptional gravity, in effect the imposition of a whole lifetime. these recommendations were considered by the court of appeal in the 2004 case of sun oven where there was no consistency between the advice —— of sullivan. the court stated that while a judge might be helped to be

consistent by the more specific guidance contained in the 2002 directions, their general effect is the same. both give the judge a considerable degree of discretion. what i take from all of those materials is this, what was described to be a normal or unexceptional murder, might attract a starting point for the minimum term in the region of 14 years, and for the murder of a child or the murder associated with sexual conduct, a starting point of 20 years might be appropriate. and a term of 30 years would be reserved for an extremely serious case and the imposition of such a minimum term would be a rare event. in cases of exceptional gravity a whole life term might be imposed and finally, in all cases in which a minimum term was to be imposed the court retained

considerable discretion to take a of aggravating or mitigating factors which relate to either of the offence or the offender in the particular case. it is in this context that i must stand back and examine your offending and determine where within the range of starting points the court would have placed that offending on what the effect of the many aggravating factors would have been. both councils agree this is a case in which before december 2000 so a minimum term of at least 2000 so a minimum term of at least 20 years would have been appropriate -- 2003. mr 20 years would have been appropriate —— 2003. mr wright says they should have been a significant and should have been a significant and should have been a significant and should have been then a significant increase to reflect the multiple aggravating factors. mr peter that they should be little or no increase from 20 years at all. i am entirely satisfied that before december 2000

so minimum term well in excess of 20 years would have been imposed —— 2010. lord bingham identified the killing of a child, evidence of sexual mistreatment before the killing and the use of a weapon or less factors, and all three were present in your case. —— all as factors. these factors would have increased the term substantially and increased the term substantially and in myjudgment to appoint at or beyond 20 years —— a point. the court would have to reflect on the further aggravating factors i have mentioned elsewhere and there were in reality no mitigating factors. although mr pitter mentioned your use at the time of your events, i reject that because you were 25. evenis reject that because you were 25. even is as he submits i must take

the position as it is today, i am still unable to accept that the possibility that you may die in prison is a factor which in any material way serves to reduce the minimum term. the murder of nikki allan involved the cynical manipulation of a young seven—year—old girl who you took away from her home at night with the purpose of sexually assaulting her and you attacked her twice, once inside the old exchange building and then the fatal assault and your fatal assault was brutal. you must have inflicted upon her unimaginable terror in the period before that fatal assault and then took steps to cover your tracks by hiding the body to the extent that you could that building, and by advancing your false alibi whilst another person stood trial for the murder which you had committed. i consider, having regard to all of those factors, that

your offending was so serious that a minimum term of no less than 29 years would have been imposed and any term at leicester and this would not have effective the recommendation of the trialjudge or the decision of the home secretary at the time and i have given serious consideration that the factors would have led to a time of 30 years or more but taking into consideration the observations of lord beaumont that the imposition of such a term would be very rare indeed i have concluded that i cannot be sure that a term in excess of 30 years would have been imposed —— lord bingham. accordingly i am satisfied that the minimum term of imprisonment which would have been ordered that you serve before release on licence is 29 years. that being lower than the minimum term i have determined under the contemporary regime, i set the

minimum term as one of 29 years, subject to the consideration that you have spent on remand which is 366 days. i remind all of those listening that the minimum term is just that, in minimum term which cannot be reduced in any way. after those 29 years have been served there is no guarantee that you would be released. it is only if the parole board decides that you are fit to be the least that you will be released and even then you will be subject to licence and recall if you breach the terms of your licence. david boyd, stand—up. for the murder of nikki allan on the 7th of october 1992, the sentence of the court is one of life imprisonment, and you will serve a term of 29 years subject to the 366 days which you have spent on remand before

consideration is given to your release by the parole board. you can be taken down. justice lambert there in court, sentencing david boyd for the murder of nikki allan, the seven—year—old girl in 1992. he has been sentenced to 29 years in prison. let'sjoin our correspondent outside the court. very detailed distressing account, sometimes repeated there by the judge, of what happened to nikki allan in october judge, of what happened to nikki allan in 0ctober1992. judge, of what happened to nikki allan in october 1992.— judge, of what happened to nikki allan in october 1992. that's right. if ou look allan in october 1992. that's right. if you look at _ allan in october 1992. that's right. if you look at some _ allan in october 1992. that's right. if you look at some of _ allan in october 1992. that's right. if you look at some of the - allan in october 1992. that's right. | if you look at some of the comments she made in her summing up, she said it wasa crime she made in her summing up, she said it was a crime that shocked and bewildered the community for 31 years, that nikki allan was loved, she left a hole in herfamily and in the community in which she lived.