JOHN DEAN RICHARDSON, BRADLEY PARKIN, JOHN SIMON RICHARDSON, NEIL BROWN, LIAM ACKROYD.

                               JOHN DEAN RICHARDSON (RING LEADER)

In October 2011, Five men were jailed for life for a brutal gang attack that left a former soldier dead.

A judge sentenced the gang for the vicious murder of 22-year-old Ian Smith, which saw him beaten with a pickaxe handle, kicked and left for dead with massive head injuries.

John Dean Richardson 44, of Wakefield Road, Fitzwilliam, Bradley Parkin, 22, of Mallard Mews, South Elmsall, Neil Brown, 29, also of Mallard Mews, and Liam Ackroyd, 22, of Bell Lane, Ackworth, were all found guilty of murder after a three-week trial at Leeds Crown Court.

John Simon Richardson, 23 – son of John Dean – of Kinsley House Crescent, Fitzwilliam, had already pleaded guilty to murder.

At the trial, the court was told that Mr Smith was attacked in the early hours of February 19 after being chased through South Elmsall town centre.

That evening he had been out with his family celebrating his aunt’s 60th birthday.

He had been involved in a dispute at the Mega Love takeaway with John Dean Richardson, who moments earlier had phoned Brown and the other three men following an argument with a group of unconnected youths.

Mr Smith punched the elder Richardson twice and pushed him to the ground before the four men arrived in a van and a car.

When they arrived, John Dean Richardson told Mr Smith: “Now it’s your turn.”

John Simon Richardson took a pick axe handle from the van and the group gave chase before carrying out the attack.

Mr Smith suffered severe head injuries after being repeatedly struck with the pickaxe handle, as well as being kicked in the head.

The Recorder of Leeds, Judge Peter Collier QC, set the minimum terms that each must serve before being eligible to apply for parole.

John Simon Richardson was told he must serve a minimum of 17-and-a-half years.

John Dean Richardson must serve 14 years, while Parkin was told he must serve 18 years, Brown 17 and Ackroyd 16.

Passing sentence, the judge said: “This was a mob-handed attack upon a man who was unarmed and alone.

“Furthermore, it was committed at night and in a public place where there were other people present; some of them were young people; some of them were friends of the victim and saw this terrible ending of his life.”

He added: “Having rendered him senseless, you all fled the scene.”

The jury of six men and six women took more than 18 hours to reach unanimous verdicts at the trial.

Members of Mr Smith’s family bowed their heads and fought back tears as the sentences were read out.

RICHARD HENRY ELLIS

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20110218200720/http:/www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/cms/144_11638.htm

1. Richard Henry Ellis (“the applicant”) was sentenced to life imprisonment on 11 June 2002 at the Central Criminal Court after he had been convicted of the murder of Fetah Marku who was an Albanian. He now applies under the provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (“the 2003 Act”) for the Court to fix the minimum period which he must serve before he can be considered for parole.

2. The facts which give rise to this offence were that the victim and three fellow Albanians visited the Oscar Wilde public house in Edgware on the night of 23to 24 March 2001. One of the friends of the victim (Emir Cakaj) danced with Natasha Hewitt for about 2 hours and they frequently kissed each other.

3. The applicant worked at this public house as a music promoter and was present on the night although he was not working. According to the prosecution case, the applicant was part of a group who stared at the dancing couple while Natasha Hewitt was the worse for drink.

4. Later on that night outside the public house, Natasha Hewitt was crying because she had mislaid her handbag and she was comforted by Cajak. The applicant, intervened and swore at Cajak and physically assaulted him. Cajak fought back and there was a dispute as to who started the violence but the two were separated by the other three Albanians. It is possible that the applicant may have suffered an injury at this stage.

5. Then a large number of people estimated between 10 and 30 emerged from the public house and chased all four Albanians with three of them getting into a car park further along the road. When they were there, Fetah Maku was attacked by punches, kicks and blows with sticks by at least one person armed with a knife. In consequence he suffered some 80 injuries of which 29 were inflicted by a sharp instrument or instruments. His death was caused by the stabbing.

6. The case against the applicant which was accepted by the jury was that he was one of the attacking group and that he had participated in the attack generally when he was aware that a knife or knives were being used by a man who intended to do really serious injury or to kill. It was not the case for the prosecution nor was there any evidence to suggest that the applicant was the person who had actually used the knife to murder the victim.

7. The trial Judge (His Honour Judge Coombe) recommended a term of 11 years his reasons were:“My view of the minimum sentence that the defendant should serve is 11 years He was a secondary party to the murder. On the other hand, his actions were the beginnings of the trouble. His motives may have been some form of jealousy (although the girl Hewitt was not his girlfriend) and anger that he came off the worst in the initial fight. But there was evidence to support the fact that this killing was racially aggravated. The defendant was a black Englishman, the victim and his friends were Albanian. In his police interviews, the defendant demonstrated his hostility to Albanians (although he denied the implications of this in the witness box)”.

8. Lord Wollf CJ commented “I agree a minimum period of 11 years”.

9. Submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant who has not requested an oral hearing. No victim impact statement has been obtained from the family of the victim although attempts have been made to obtain one.

10. The submissions on behalf of the applicant are that:

(a) this was not a premeditated attack but an attack initiated as a result of an initial skirmish involving the applicant and the four Albanians;
(b) he did not have the knife and was a secondary party to the murder;
(c) the intention of the applicant was at most to cause a serious injury rather than an intention to kill; and
(d) a minimum period of not more than 9 years would be appropriate.

11. Under the 2003 Act, the starting point would be 15 years against which there would have to be a reduction for the mitigating factors which are correctly identified in paragraph10 (a) to (c) above. In my view, it is also necessary to regard as aggravating factors the findings of the trial judge first he started the violence which led to the stabbing as the trial judge explained and second that “there was evidence to support the fact that this killing was racially motivated” although this must be considered in the light of the fact there was not an intention to kill and that the applicant was a secondary party to the killing.

12. In all the circumstances, I have concluded that the appropriate minimum period for the applicant to serve under the 2003 Act before he would be considered for parole would be 12 years. In order not to breach the principle of non retroactivity, I have to ensure that the minimum term under the 2003 Act does not exceed the term that the Secretary of State would have imposed under the practice followed by him for murder committed when this murder was committed.

13. In this case the murder was committed in March 2001 and the practice adopted by the Secretary of State is stated in Lord Bingham CJ’s letter of 10 February 1997 which fixes the starting point at 14 years for the “average”, “normal” or unexceptional” murder. In the light of the aggravating and mitigating factors to which I have referred, I would be obliged to reduce that minimum period from 14 years especially in the light of the fact that the applicant was a secondary party. That would reduce the period to 11 years.

14. As I have explained, in order not to breach the principle of non retroactivity, I have to ensure that the minimum term under the 2003 Act does not exceed the term that the Secretary of State would have imposed under the practice followed by him for murder committed when this murder was committed, which means that the minimum period is 11 years less the period spent on remand before sentence. That means that the period to be served by the applicant before he can be considered for parole is 10 years 4 months and 20 days which is calculated as being the minimum term of 11 years less 7 months 10 days spent on remand before sentence.

 

From IRR

03/01, Fetah Marku, 24, Edgware, London

This Kosovan asylum seeker was beaten to death by a gang of men following an argument in a pub in Edgware, north London. Fetah suffered eighty injuries, twenty-nine of which were from sharp instruments. In June 2002, Richard Ellis, a Black man, was found guilty of his murder. The judge commented it was unlikely he was 'solely responsible'. Ellis denied knowing any of the 20-30 strong gang that beat Fetah to death. In April 2007, Ellis was told that he must serve at least 11 years for the racially motivated attack before he could seek parole.

http://www.irr.org.uk/2002/november/ak000008.html

 

From BBC

Police have appealed for help to find a number of men who beat and stabbed an asylum seeker to death in a "vicious" assault following an argument outside a pub.

Fetah Marku, a Kosovo Albanian, was chased and killed by the group in Edgware, north London, last year, as he celebrated his 24th birthday.

Mr Marku's body was found to have 80 separate injuries, including 29 stab wounds, when he died. The cause of death was found to be massive internal bleeding.

One man, Richard Ellis, 33, of Watford Road in Harrow, was jailed for life for his murder last week.

But police say there were "a number of others" involved in the attack, who have not been caught.

Mr Marku's 18-year-old brother Isa told a news conference Fetah had been a "very friendly" person who did not deserve such an attack.

'Horrendous assault'

Speaking through an interpreter, Isa said: "He would talk to people, he was a very hard-working person, always smiling. He liked to be in the company of others - he was very friendly."

The news conference came during Refugee Week, in which the UK press has been criticised for stirring up suspicion and ill-feeling against asylum seekers.

Mr Marku and Isa came to the UK seeking political asylum in September 2000.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2052149.stm

DONALD MACKAY

                                                AWAITING MUG SHOT PHOTO

1. On the 20 December 1989, following his conviction for murder before Mr Justice Ian Kennedy, after a trial at the Central Criminal Court, Donald Mackay was sentenced to the mandatory term of life imprisonment. Following the practice of the time, the judge recommended that he serve 18 – 19 years before being considered for release by the Parole Board (the judge thought that fully 30 years might elapse before the defendant could safely be released, but that is another matter). In due course, Lord Lane CJ recommended that the minimum term should be only 16 years. The Secretary of State fixed the minimum term which he must serve as 20 years. Under paragraph 3 of Schedule 22 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, the defendant has now asked the High Court to review the minimum term fixed.

2. I base this factual narrative entirely upon the report of the trial judge. The victim, Ann Petherick, was aged 26; she was a prostitute. The defendant was then aged 41; he was one of her regular clients. She was last seen alive on 2nd January 1989. On 19th February her naked, decomposing body was found bundled in a black plastic bag in the defendant's flat in north London after Rosemarie Saunders had gone to the police, following the defendant’s assault upon her.

3. Rosemarie Saunders was another prostitute. On the night of 17th /18th February, the defendant had picked her up. He had taken her to his flat. The agreement between them was for "straight sex". When they arrived at his flat, the defendant asked for bondage. Saunders refused. The defendant then walked naked into the room, with a rope, one end of which he fashioned into a noose, which he put around her neck; he then trussed her up. He then sexually and physically abused her for several hours. He threatened to kill her. He threatened to hang her from a hook, which he placed in the door frame. He threatened to put her body in a black plastic bag and to dump it on Hampstead Heath. He gagged her. He pulled the noose tight so that Saunders lost consciousness for a while. He attempted to bugger her and submitted her to various other indignities. So terrified had she been that she became incontinent of faeces and urine. These outrages only ended when he fell asleep from tiredness and drink. She then escaped. She was, by then, hysterical. She raised the alarm. The rope marks on her body could clearly still be seen.

4. The offences upon Rosemary Sauders gave rise to convictions, after a trial, for offences of making threats to kill, assault with intent to commit buggery, indecent assault and assault occasioning actual bodily harm. For these offences, the trial judge imposed determinate sentences totalling seven years, to run concurrently with the life sentence. In my judgement any minimum term which the defendant is ordered to serve for the murder must take account of the scale of offending against Rosemary Saunders, otherwise he will escape punishment for these ‘bestial’ offences, as the trial judge vividly described them. To put it another way: the minimum term must reflect his overall criminality, that is to say the offences committed against both victims.

5. Following her complaint, the police went to the defendant’s flat to arrest him. He was arrested while still asleep in the chair, still drunk. When they searched the flat, they found Ann Petherick’s body. Because of the decomposition, no precise mechanism of death could be established but her facial bones had been driven in by 3 or 4 heavy blows; it is probable that she died from asphyxia consequential upon those injuries. She also had a broken bone in a foot and a bruise over one shoulder blade. Although it seems to me that the inference could readily have been drawn that she had been subjected to the same kind of sexual and sadistic indignities as was suffered by Rosemarie Saunders, the trial judge was unwilling so to conclude; he heard the evidence and it would be wrong for me to make any different finding.

6. It should be noted that the defendant had a previous conviction for manslaughter in 1984, when he received 5 years for stabbing a man to death with a sword. This is plainly an aggravating factor to be considered when fixing the minimum term. I might add that it is likely to be a highly relevant consideration when the Parole come to consider whether he can safely be released.

7. I have read the Victim Personal Statement of Mrs Petherick, Ann’s mother. She speaks with bitterness of the dark shadow which her daughter’s murder has cast over her life.

8. The defendant still maintains his innocence; he has shown no remorse. I have seen the reports on the defendant’s progress in prison. He has achieved considerable academic success. However, there is nothing in this case which is so exceptional as to justify a reduction in the minimum term otherwise appropriate. In short, I see no mitigating features whatsoever.

9. The defendant has requested an oral hearing. I have read the detailed submissions in writing made on his behalf (and indeed the manuscript observations which the defendant made at the time before the tariff was first set). I am unable to see that anything could be gained from further oral argument. I decline to hold such a hearing.

10. Section 276 and Schedule 22 of the Act ensure when a minimum term has been fixed by the Secretary of Sate, on a review the High Court can only confirm the term fixed or reduce it; it cannot increase a minimum term already fixed.

11. Before Lord Bingham CJ wrote his letter to the judges on 10 February 1997 (conveniently set out in paragraphs IV.49.18 – 21 of the Consolidated Criminal Practice Direction, as amended) there was no guidance as to how minimum should be set. In the absence of any other guidance, the best guide to practice is probably Lord Bingham’s letter, so which I have already referred, which suggested a starting point of 14 years.

12. This was a most terrible murder. The particularly aggravating factors here were the concealment of the body, his previous conviction for manslaughter and the subsequent offending against Rosemary Saunders. These plainly justify a substantial increase upon the starting point. I think that the minimum term fixed by the Secretary of State properly reflects the grave features of this case. Accordingly, I confirm the minimum term to be 20 years. Had this murder been committed now, I do not doubt that this sentence would be longer but I must loyally apply what I take to be the conventional tariff of the time.

13. I order, as I am required to do, that the term of 20 years is reduced by the period of 10 months and 6 days which he spent in custody before being sentenced.

14. I am anxious that this sentence is not misunderstood or mis-reported. The sentence is – and remains – a sentence of imprisonment for life. The defendant may not even be considered for release until he has served at least 20 years. That is not to say that he will then be released; indeed he will be detained unless and until the Parole Board is satisfied that he no longer resents a risk to the public. Even if the Parole Board decides then or at some time in the future to authorise his release, he will be upon licence which will extend for the rest of his life. It is as well that the public knows that many prisoners are in fact detained long after their tariff has expired.

From Daily Mail

Before me is a newspaper cutting with the headline: "Bestial killer jailed for 40 years for sex attacks." It is dated December 21, 1989, and tells of the gruesome murder of a 27-year-old woman by one Donald Mackay.

The killer was described by an Old Bailey judge as a grave danger to the public and, in particular, women. The injuries inflicted upon Ann Petherick were appalling. Her body was hidden for weeks in a cupboard and discovered only when another woman narrowly escaped a similar end after a vicious sexual assault.

Mackay had killed before, and the intention in passing one of the longest jail sentences seen for many years was that the 41-year-old should never be free to strike again.

The murder of Ann Petherick naturally devastated her parents. Their daughter had lived a wayward existence and during the trial there were suggestions of prostitution. But her parents loved her deeply, not least because they had already lost a Down's syndrome son at the age of nine.

The murder particularly affected her father. He retired from work as a civil engineer with ill health and died a year ago at the age of 66. Her mother Ida, for much of her life a nurse in Essex, now lives alone, still haunted by the terrible fate of her daughter.

Nevertheless, she believed that the length of the sentence handed down to Mackay meant she would never ever hear his name again.

That was until she recently received a letter from the probation service asking for a meeting to discuss the case. She agreed and was told that the murderer's sentence was due for a "lifer review". To her horror Mrs Petherick learned that this would take place in a few weeks' time.

I have seen a copy of the confidential document reporting on the meeting with Mrs Petherick. In it, the probation service's victim contact officer, Debbie Anderson, says Mrs Petherick was "shocked" when told that what she believed to be a 40-year sentence was in fact a 20-year tariff.

To her superiors, Ms Anderson acknowledges that time has not healed the mother's hurt. Whether she is fully aware of the distress this new development has caused or is simply adhering to a form of words she has learned from some manual, she uses bloodless language: "It is hoped by Mrs Petherick this offender is not released back into the community at the end of his tariff, if ever."

Limply, she opines that in the event of release being considered, her unit would "request" that Mackay is never permitted to make any attempt to contact or approach the family of the victim. This, while a laudable sentiment, is something of an insult to Mrs Petherick. A glance at the figures relating to crimes of violence shows the majority are committed by reoffenders who have been released without thought as to how they will roam free and cause further misery. Unsurprisingly, Mrs Petherick tells me the interview with the probation service has left her "devastated".

Nor do other areas of the judicial system come out of this episode with much credit. The Home Office Minister responsible for sentencing, Fiona Mactaggart, has explained to Mrs Petherick that, while in open court the judge deemed the crimes worth 40 years, this represented his assessment of future risk. In fact, the tariff he recommended to the Home Secretary after the trial was nearer half this amount.

Hence this dreadful killer's sentence is now due for review. If, as the Minister puts it, he is thought to have made "sufficient progress", he could be transferred to an open prison and be released when the tariff expires early in 2009.

One must question why, after such a high-profile public trial, the sentence was then reduced so drastically in private. At the time, the public were led to believe that this man would never be seen on our streets again. Yet, behind closed doors, the most senior political and judicial figures decided otherwise.

One must ask how many other times such a sleight of judicial hand has been practised in this way. How many other victims or relatives will receive, or have received, similar news?

The decision to keep all this a secret for so long is scandalous. No one was told that the killer of Ann Petherick had, in effect, had his sentence halved. No one at the time of this crime thought about the loved ones of the victim. No one bothered to pick up the telephone and explain to Mrs Petherick that justice as promised in 1989 would not be done.

Only when Debbie Anderson from the probation service popped around did a mother realise that no one had told her the truth. That the "bestial" killer of her beloved daughter could be freed. It is a shameful story.

MAREK MIAZGA

A Polish man has been found guilty of the double murder in Luton of two of his fellow countrymen and was jailed for life on the 12th May 2008

Marek Miazga, 41, was told he would have to serve a minimum of 25 years in custody in this country.

During a month long trial a jury had heard how the victims - the Markuszeski brothers Waldeck, 43 and Andreaus, 46 were 'savagely' murdered in their rented home in Luton. They were bludgeoned with a set of weight lifting bar bells. The motive remains a mystery.

Their bodies lay undiscovered for two days until a housemate and friend made the grisly discovery.

A cash card stolen from one of the brothers was used almost immediately after the killings to plunder his account.

Miazga, pleaded not guilty to two charges of murder on May 30 2005 and to four charges of theft and four of attempted theft. He was found guilty by a jury of all charges by a majority of 11-1.

The prosecution allege a second man, Remi Piotrowski, was involved but he fled to Poland. A warrant has been issued for his arrest.

Prosecutor Miranda Moore QC told Luton Crown Court that on May 30 2005 - the day of Luton's Bank Holiday carnival, the four men were drinking heavily together. Pictures gathered from various CCTV cameras show Waldeck, Miazga and Piotrowski walking back towards Waldeck's home in Dunsmore Road. Andreaus had become parted from them.

An hour and a half later Miazga and Piotrowski are seen back in the town centre attempting to use Waldeck's bank card, and eventually obtaining some cash.

On June 2n the bodies were found by a housemate who was brought home from hospital by a female friend.

It was discovered that Waldeck had suffered 'particularly severe' injuries to his chest and head with fractures to his skull, breast bone and ribs. The injuries were consistent with being stamped on or attacked with a heavy weapon.

Footprints were found on his body which an expert said came from at least two different shoes.

Andreaus also had severe head injuries: "All areas of his skull and facial bones had been fractured. His head was physically flattened either from heavy stamping or one or more blows from the bar bells."

She said examination of the bar bells revealed it had been used as a weapon and DNA from the absent suspect was found on them, said Miss Moore.

But she said no forensic evidence was found to link Miazga to the crime scene.

Miazga who lived in Leagrave Road at the time, moved within days to Brook Street.

He claimed he never went to the house but was in a drunken stupor in a nearby park, later meeting back up with Piotrowski.

Mr Justice Keith told Miazga that he believed Waldeck was killed first after something flared up between them.

"I believe Andreaus stumbled upon the crime and had to be silenced. They were both subjected to attacks of real savagery."

After the case Mariusz Markuszeski, a brother of the two dead men, who had listened to much of the case said in a statement: "A special thanks to Bedfordshire Police who have painstakingly put all the pieces together. I have never doubted the justice system in Great Britain and I have not been disappointed.

"However no punishment can justify our loss of our dearly loved brothers who are greatly missed."

The Judge also commended the police investigation.

Acting Det Chief Insp Andrew Richer said: "We do not consider the case closed until we have the other defendant tried here for the murders."

 

RICHARD DETTMER

The killer of a popular Luton shopkeeper stabbed to death for the sake of a few pounds to spend on alcohol was jailed for a minimum of 31-and-a-half years in November 2009.

Jashbhai Patel was stabbed eight times by Richard Dettmer, 39, as he was opening the family business, Moon's Newsagents, in Park Street at 6.30am on June 14 2009.

Three hours earlier Dettmer had stabbed another man, James Foster, 18, who he had been drinking with in a park at Manor Road, Luton, and then demanded money from him.

Dettmer, who habitually carried a knife strapped to his leg, was angry at being thrown out of a friend's flat and having no money when he attacked Mr Patel.

The stabbing of Mr Foster had been potentially fatal, prosecutor Beverley Cripps said at Luton Crown Court.

She said a 77-year-old customer, Daniel Bacchus, had seen Dettmer struggling with Mr Patel in the shop doorway. He grabbed Dettmer and pushed him away and then saw the attacker had a knife.

Miss Cripps said: "He threatened the customer with it, saying 'if you want some more of the same', before taking some coins from the till area, possibly £20 or a little more. Then he fled.

"Mr Bacchus tried to help Mr Patel and dialled 999 before going to fetch his family who lived nearby. But he was in cardiac arrest and died shortly afterwards."

Dettmer was arrested at lunchtime the same day and at first made no reply to questions. But then he told an officer he wanted to make a confession. He first told how he stabbed Mr Foster twice in the back but the knife had then broken.

He said he had gone to the newsagents intending to steal a 'nourishment' drink. They were stored low down and when Mr Patel bent over he stabbed him.

He said: "It was a bit odd how that all came about. I stabbed him twice in the back and twice in the front [although it was in fact six times in the back and twice in the chest].

"He got up and started fighting me. I twisted the knife so he could not get hold of it."

Dettmer, of no fixed address, had originally intended to contest the murder charge on the grounds of diminished responsibility, but ten days ago wrote personally to the judge to say he wanted to plead guilty.

He has been examined by two psychiatrists who have diagnosed him with an emotionally unstable personality disorder.

Members of the family wore Tshirts with a picture of Mr Patel on the front to all court hearings.

Speaking on behalf of the family, Mr Patel's daughter, Jaina Patel, said: "Our family was a happy small family with a comfortable life and loving parents who would do anything to ensure that all our needs and wishes were fulfilled.

"My father came to this country from India to settle down and make a go of his life. He called this place home.

"He went on to build a reputation for himself and the people of Luton knew who he was, what type of man he was and what he would do for others.

"His friendliness was priceless. He would go above and beyond for anyone, especially those who needed help.

"If it was snowing he would deliver papers to his customers and many were elderly and could not get out of their houses.

"My dad was a genuine family man he was close to retirement and would look forward to seeing his grandson every day.

"With my niece she completed the family. Both grandchildren were my dad's pride and joy. Spoiling them, loving them and playing with them was something he made sure he did.

"On June 14 our lives changed in a way that was unimaginable. Our lives have come to a halt and we are rebuilding it, learning to live again but things will never be the same.

"We will miss his life which was devoted to his family and to those who were his close friends. This was not my dad's time to die."

JOHN O'ROURKE

A man who flew into a “murderous rage” and battered his lover to death at her quiet country cottage has been found guilty of the frenzied attack and was sentenced to life on the 1st December 2011.

John O’Rourke, 66, used two glass ornaments to beat Amanda Sorrell, 55, around the head and body in a “prolonged, determined attack” in her bedroom.

 

The married former plumber had always admitted killing the divorced mother-of-two, who worked at Cornwall Registration Service, but denied her murder.

Jurors heard he was the sole carer for his wife, who suffered from paranoid schizophrenia. His five-year relationship with Ms Sorrell was known to family and friends.

Following a trial at Truro Crown Court, the jury took two-and-a-half hours to find O’Rourke, from Milton Abbot, near Tavistock, guilty of murder. He received a mandatory life sentence and was told by judge Graham Cottle he must serve a minimum term of 14 years, less the 419 days served on remand, before he can be considered for parole.

In evidence, O’Rourke said he could not remember killing Ms Sorrell at her home at Pempwell, near Stoke Climsland, South East Cornwall, on September 27 last year.

He has never revealed what sparked the attack and claimed he could not remember what he had done.

Judge Cottle told him: “You took Amanda Sorrell’s life in a most brutal way. “You literally battered her to death in a prolonged and determined attack.

“In view of the nature and extent of the injuries sustained by her it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that you intended she should not survive.

“It might be in the aftermath of your frenzied attack you regretted what you had done in taking the life of someone you had been in a relationship with for some years, a relationship which, by all accounts, both of you valued.”

Judge Cottle said his lack of an explanation for the murder left Ms Sorrell’s family with unanswered questions and he believed O’Rourke knew the reason.

He said: “I believe something happened to trigger your murderous rage and I believe you knew what that was but you have never revealed it at any stage.”

Much had been made during the trial of the mental strain O’Rourke had been under caring for his wife. Judge Cottle said that, while he understood the strain must have been “considerable”, he did not accept it caused the attack.

The court heard O’Rourke met Ms Sorrell at a local jazz club in 2005 and their blossoming relationship gave him an escape from his home life.

After O’Rourke killed his victim, he used a kitchen knife to stab himself in the neck and abdomen and paramedics later found scratches around his wrists in another apparent suicide attempt.

O’Rourke and Ms Sorrell were discovered lying on the bedroom floor behind the door with a duvet pulled over them by a friend and colleague of hers who became concerned that she failed to attend a meeting.

Ms Sorrell was on her back with a pillow under her head, O’Rourke lying cuddled up next to her.

After sentence was passed, O’Rourke’s two daughters, Victoria and Bobi, broke down in tears and were led away from the courtroom. Ms Sorrell’s family and friends also wept.

Speaking outside the court, her sons, Edward and William Salatas, aged 27 and 25 respectively, described Ms Sorrell as a “devoted mother, sister, auntie and dear friend to all”.

In a joint statement, they said: “When we heard of our mother’s horrific death our worlds fell apart. Amanda was only 55 when her life was taken, just three weeks before the birth of her first grandchild – something she was looking forward to more than anything.

“It’s impossible to begin to understand the cowardly and selfish actions of John, who violently murdered our mother.

“We will never know why he did what he did, but we are grateful that John’s failed suicide attempt has lead us to where we are today and that justice can be served on him.

“We take comfort knowing that he did not succeed with taking his own life after he took our mother’s and hope the memory of his actions haunt him until the day he finally dies alone.

“Even with the support and best efforts from the police officers in charge, we have still had to endure many delays. These delays have resulted in a 14-month wait for the trial and the sentence to finally be heard.”

They added: “During this time, John has shown no remorse for our mother or her family and friends.

“We are glad that today John O’Rourke has finally been found guilty of murdering our mum.

“We will always be shocked and perplexed that this has happened to such a lovely person.”

Detective Inspector Ian Ringrose of the major crime team, who led the investigation, said: “Amanda suffered a prolonged, vicious, inexplicable attack at the hands of John O’Rourke. “He has never offered any explanation for this completely inexplicable attack.

“Amanda was a well-respected and admired member of her local community and loved by family and friends.

“Hopefully now O’Rourke has been convicted they can start to rebuild their lives.”

CLEMENT MCNALLY

A PSYCHOPATHIC Satanist, given a 'life means life' sentence for strangling his cell mate whilst already serving life for murder, has had that cut to 20 years by top judges on appeal.

The move came despite the admission that double killer, Clement McNally, is likely to pose the gravest risk to others for the rest of his life.

Dad-of-one Anthony Hesketh, of Eastham Way, Worsley, who was in custody for a driving offence and facing drugs charges, was found dead with a ligature made of T-shirt material around his neck in September 2003, on the floor of the Strangeways cell he shared with McNally.

McNally, 34, a devil worshiper who decorated his cell with satanic symbols and suffers from a toxic brew of psychopathic, narcissistic, paranoid and obsessive-compulsive disorders, all mixed together - was serving a mandatory life term for stabbing to death his friend, Arthur Skelly, outside a party in Ashton under Lyne in July 2002.

He was given a life term, with a whole life tariff, for thesecond killing, after pleading guilty to manslaughter by way of diminished responsibility at Manchester Crown Court on July 12 2004.

But now the minimum term on his life sentence has been slashed to 20 years by Lord Justice Hughes, at London's Criminal Appeal Court.

The judge said it was not right that McNally should be denied a light at the end of the tunnel and never have a chance of release.

McNally, who was prescribed anti-depressants and mood-stabilisers, had told a psychiatrist after being jailed for Mr Skelly's murder that he had worshipped the devil for two years and had been allowed to read books on the occult while in prison, some of which came from the prison library.

Satanic symbols

His cell was adorned with satanic symbols, including a pentagram and an inverted cross.

Nevertheless petty criminal, Mr Hesketh, was locked up with him and met his death through the man who called himself 'the hands and eyes of Satan.'

Lord Justice Hughes, sitting with Mr Justice MacKay and Mr Justice Davis, said of Mr Hesketh's killing: "McNally had no particular grievance against his victim - he simply suffered an urge to kill him.

"He said it was exciting - better than sex. He said Satan told him to do things and it was his job to do as he was told.

"He said he was not in the least bit sorry for what he had done, but had derived a great deal of pleasure from subsequently thinking about it.

"He suffers from compulsive homicidal urges and poses an exceptional risk to other prisoners. He made it perfectly clear that he would kill again if the opportunity arose and the urge to kill was of sufficient intensity."

However the judge said it was wrong not to give McNally the chance of being freed if, at some point in the future, his mental state stabilises to the extent that the authorities no longer consider him a danger to society.

He told the court: "The life sentence was plainly correct as he was likely to represent a danger of the gravest kind, for a period which could not be determined.

"However the imposition of a whole life tariff was a mistaken application of the process of sentencing.

"The life sentence itself is designed to cater for a prisoner in whom it cannot be seen when, or if ever, they will cease to be a danger to the public.

Danger

"The Parole Board will not release a prisoner under a life sentence until it is convinced that they no longer pose a danger to the public.

"The minimum term should be set on the basis of the severity of what the offender has done and his level of culpability for it.

"If this man never ceases to be a danger, he will never be released.

"But what cannot be known is whether his condition will change in the future.

"Accordingly, we set aside the order, declining to set a minimum term, and the question of his dangerousness now and in the future is reserved to the Parole Board.

"His culpability was plainly reduced because he was in the mentally abnormal condition that he was, but the circumstances and gravity of the acts were considerable.

"It was a second homicide within about 15 months. It was a pointless killing, generated simply to satisfy an internal impulse.

"The appropriate course now is to set a minimum term which takes account of both the murder and manslaughter offences. We arrive at a minimum term of 20 years.

"However, the plainest evidence of the absence of a risk would be needed before any consideration could be given to his release.

"It may very well be that there is never sufficient evidence of an absence of danger, but those decisions lie in the future and, to that extent, this appeal is allowed," the judge concluded.