Sentencing remarks: R -v- Thomas William Palmer
R -v- Thomas William Palmer
Sentencing Remarks by Mr Justice Bean
at Reading Crown Court – 20 March 2007
Thomas William Palmer, the jury have found you guilty of the murders of Steven Bayliss and Nuttabut Meechao “Twood” Nadauld . Steven was 16, Twood a month short of his 15th birthday. They had done no harm to you or anyone else. They were boys with the whole of their lives before them – dearly loved by their families and popular with their friends. All this was wiped out in a matter of minutes on 11th September 2005 when you killed them both in a savage and brutal attack. I have read in full the very moving victim impact statements made by Steven’s mother and the partner of Twood’s mother. Putting it in short, the two families’ lives have been shattered. The effect of what you have done will continue for decades to come.
The penalty for murder is fixed by law. You will go to custody for life.
I am required by the Criminal Justice Act 2003 to determine if and when the provisions regarding release from prison should apply to you. In my judgment they do apply and I must now determine the period that you must serve before the Parole Board will be entitled to consider your release.
Since you have committed two murders, the appropriate starting point is 30 years. I do not consider that this murder involved a substantial degree of pre-meditation or planning or any other matter listed under paragraph 4(2) of schedule 21 to the Act. I also do not find any aggravating features within the meaning of paragraph 10.
Turning to mitigating factors under paragraph 11, I find on the balance of probabilities that the killings were not premeditated. The most likely explanation is a sudden and lethal explosion of anger, though what caused it remains something of a mystery.
I also find, having heard the evidence of the three medical experts, that you were suffering from mental disorder, namely an anxiety state, which to a limited extent lowers what would otherwise be your degree of culpability, even though it was insufficient to establish the defence of diminished responsibility. But the evidence of Dr Joseph, which the jury have clearly accepted, was that if this anxiety state was not apparent to your friends and family it cannot have been very serious, and I therefore regard it as being of relatively minor importance in fixing the minimum term.
Most importantly, you were only aged 18 when you committed the offences. I bear in mind that had you been a year younger the starting point under the statute would have been 12 years, although the actual minimum term would have been longer than that.
Taking all these factors into account I conclude that the appropriate minimum period that you must serve is 20 years from the date of the killings and your arrest. From that term must be deducted the period that you have spent on remand in custody namely 555 days. The minimum period from today will therefore be 18 years 175 days.
I emphasise that this is a minimum term. It is no necessary indication of how long you actually will serve because it is only after that time that the Parole Board will be entitled to consider your release. It is obvious in the light of these horrific killings that you are a very dangerous young man. It is only when the Parole Board is satisfied that you need no longer be kept in custody for the protection of the public that it will be able to direct your release.
Thus this period of 20 years from the offences represents the very minimum that you will serve. If you are ever released it will be on terms that you are on licence for the rest of your life and liable to be recalled to prison at any time if your licence is revoked either on the recommendation of the Parole Board or if it is thought expedient in the public interest by the Secretary of State.
Mr Justice Bean
Crown Court at Reading
20 March 2007