Why Timothy Brehmer's manslaughter jail term was increased

The Court of Appeal concluded that the sentencing judge did not reach the correct conclusion when he jailed the 41-year-old for the manslaughter of Claire Parry.

Judge Mr Justice Richard Jacobs sentenced Brehmer, of Hordle, New Forest, to 10-and-a-half years’ imprisonment on a “loss on control” manslaughter basis, which differed to the view of the defendant’s counsel.

Brehmer killed Mrs Parry, his long-term lover, in the Horns Inn pub car park, West Parley, in May 2020 after she had sent a text message to his wife on his phone revealing their affair.

The Attorney General referred the sentence to the Court of Appeal as it was felt it was 'unduly lenient', while Brehmer launched his own challenge to have the prison term reduced.

During the murder trial in October, which ended with Brehmer being acquitted, many witnesses gave evidence about the former Dorset Police constable and the circumstances that led to Mrs Parry’s death.

The Court of Appeal justices, led by Lord Chief Justice, Lord Burnett of Maldon, summarised the elements of the case in no fewer than 816 words, showing the extensive details both the jury had to consider when reaching their verdict and Mr Justice Jacobs when passing sentence.

• Read more: Killer Timothy Brehmer's prison sentence is increased

Original sentence

On October 28, 2020, Brehmer was sentenced by Mr Justice Jacobs at Salisbury Crown Court to 10 years and six months’ imprisonment for the manslaughter of 41-year-old nurse Mrs Parry.

He had been charged with murder but pleaded guilty to manslaughter at the plea and trial preparation hearing (PTPH) and later, in his defence statement, advanced the case that whilst guilty of an assault he lacked the intent for murder (unlawful act manslaughter). He was tried for murder.

The judge left the partial defence of “loss of control” – a different type of manslaughter – to the jury. The jury acquitted Brehmer of murder.

It fell to the judge to decide on what basis of manslaughter to sentence the offender, with the jury not required to give the reasons for their verdict.

The judge was satisfied so that he was sure that Brehmer had the necessary intent for murder but lost control for the purposes of the partial defence.

He sentenced Brehmer having regard to the Sentencing Council guideline for manslaughter following loss of control.

The judge concluded that that the appropriate sentence was one of 12 years and six months’ imprisonment before a discount for the guilty plea to the different type of manslaughter. He applied a discount of a little over 15 per cent which resulted in the sentence of 10-and-a-half years’ imprisonment.

Mitigating and aggravating features

Mr Justice Jacobs concluded that the qualifying trigger for the defence of loss of control was only just met with the consequence that, for the purposes of the guideline, the starting point was 14 years’ imprisonment, with a range of 10 to 20 years.

He identified two aggravating factors. First, mother-of-two Mrs Parry endured significant mental and physical suffering and would have appreciated that the offender was killing her.

Claire Parry

Secondly, the offender’s conduct in the immediate aftermath of his violent attack. He sought to blame Mrs Parry and accused her of attacking him with a knife, a lie in which he persisted until the following day. As a policeman, that was especially reprehensible, it was noted.

In mitigation, the judge accepted that the offender was a man of positive good character in serving the public, that he was remorseful, that the offence was not pre-meditated and that as an ex-policeman he could expect a difficult time in prison.

He also took account of the current restrictions in prison resulting from the Covid-19 pandemic.

• Read more: How the judge reached the original sentence decision

Appeal grounds

Representing the Attorney General and making the case for the sentence to be extended, Timothy Cray QC said the seriousness of the case warranted an upward adjustment from the 14-year starting point “to ensure that the sentence for manslaughter through loss of control was not disproportionate to the sentence that would have been imposed had there been a conviction for murder”.

Mr Cray QC also said Mr Justice Jacobs erred in his balancing of aggravating and mitigating factors and, as a result, he arrived at a sentence before discount for plea which was too low by a “significant margin”.

Lastly, the barrister argued that too much credit had been given for Brehmer’s guilty plea.

• As it happened: Timothy Brehmer's Court of Appeal hearing

Meanwhile, Jo Martin QC, representing Brehmer, said it was not open to the judge on the evidence to conclude that the defendant had the necessary intent for murder.

She said the judge was bound to sentence on the offender’s unlawful act manslaughter case, while she added that, in her representations, the balancing of the factors and guilty plea discount was accurate.

Brehmer had served in Dorset Police for many years before being dismissed and placed on the national barred list for killing Mrs Parry

Court of Appeal discussion

In the handed down judgement from the three senior judges, a summary of their assessment is published.

They said Mr Justice Jacobs was sure that the offender was guilty of manslaughter by reason of loss of control and was therefore right to sentence on this basis.

The sentencing judge correctly placed the offence in the highest category of culpability within the sentencing guideline, the Court of Appeal justices found, and there was no basis to adjust the starting point before looking at aggravating and mitigating features.

It is at this stage that they felt Mr Justice Jacobs went astray. While he correctly identified the factors, he gave too little weight to the aggravating factors.

Brehmer, inset, killed Mrs Parry at the Horns Inn pub car park in West Parley

Lord Burnett said: “The extent of her injuries shows that she was under attack for some time and clearly a period which exceeded the 10 to 30 seconds or more that her neck was compressed. She struggled in a fruitless attempt to protect herself and must have been aware of what was going to happen.

“The judge said that he ’was sure that you did deliberately take Claire Parry by the neck applying significant force with your forearm or the crook of your elbow for a period of time whilst she struggled against you’.

“The offender’s conduct and lies after the attack were reprehensible and calculated to deflect attention from what he had done.

“These aggravating factors have the effect of moving above the starting point significantly before considering the mitigating factors. In respect of the mitigating factors identified by the judge, we observe that lack of pre-meditation is a necessary part of the loss of control defence.”

The justices concluded the appropriate sentence before guilty plea discount should have been 15 years’ imprisonment, rather than 12 years and six months used by Mr Justice Jacobs.

On the subject of credit, the Court of Appeal accepted Mr Cray QC’s submission that Brehmer’s plea at the PTPH on an unlawful act manslaughter basis produced none of the ‘key principle’ benefits of an early guilty plea in the sentencing guidelines

1. Normally reduces the impact of the crime upon victims
2. Saves victims and witnesses from having to testify
3. Is in the public interest in that it saves time and money on investigations and trials

Lord Burnett said: “There was a trial which lasted for several days and many witnesses were called, both lay and expert.

“We doubt that the effect of the offender’s plea in July 2020 afforded the family of Claire Parry much solace or comfort.

“Although Ms Martin submitted that, had the trial been limited to the issue of loss of control, little evidence beyond the offender himself would have been called, we do not accept this.”

As a result of this conclusion, the justices determined that too much credit had been given for Brehmer’s plea to manslaughter.

Covid in mitigation

Throughout the pandemic, mitigating barristers have frequently uttered the words “in the case of Manning”.

This refers to a Court of Appeal judgement, which involved Lord Burnett in April last year.

In the Manning case, the Lord Chief Justice highlighted that in the current climate a sentencing judge should, while taking account the usual factors, consider the impact of the Covid-19 crisis, such as those in custody being in their cells for 23 hours a day.

This point was made in mitigation by Brehmer’s counsel during the sentencing hearing and considered by Mr Justice Jacobs.

However, when handing down the judgement in Brehmer’s appeal case, Lord Burnett provided further comments on the subject when it relates to longer custodial sentences.

 “We would make a general observation about Covid related adverse impacts of imprisonment,” said Lord Burnett.

“Over the last year it has been a potent factor in cases involving relatively short sentences, those where there is a question whether a custodial sentence may be avoided and those where the sentence might be suspended.

“There continue to be restrictions on those in custody which result in long periods in the cell and which limit visits; for how long or with what intensity they will continue is unclear.

“Nonetheless, the longer the sentence required by the offending the less impact this feature can have.”