Infamous killers beg judges not to let them die in jail
Sarah Everard’s murderer showed remorse, court hears as five convicts appeal against sentences
WAYNE COUZENS does not deserve to die behind bars because he showed remorse and “did not play the system” after murdering Sarah Everard, his lawyer has said at a hearing to decide whether Britain’s most notorious killers should spend their lives in prison.
The former Metropolitan Police officer is one of five murderers challenging their lengthy sentences in the Court of Appeal, including the killers of six-year-old Arthur Labinjo-hughes; and Ian Stewart, who murdered his wife six years before killing his fiancée, the children’s author Helen Bailey.
Couzens received a whole life order, meaning he will never be released from prison, last September for killing Everard – marking the first time the sentence was imposed for a single murder of an adult not committed in a terror attack.
Yesterday, lawyers for Couzens, 49, argued that the sentence should be reduced to between 35 and 38 years with the prospect of release because he never “ran a wicked defence” and was so remorseful “he could not look anyone in the eye” during his sentencing.
Jim Sturman QC, for Couzens, told the court that while the former police officer deserves “decades in jail”, consideration should be paid to the fact that he admitted culpability and committed the offence “off-duty in half uniform”.
Despite Couzens initially claiming that he abducted the 33-year-old on the orders of an Eastern European gang, Mr Sturman said “he did not continue with that defence after that moment”.
Mr Sturman told a panel of five senior judges, including Lord Burnett of Maldon,
the Lord Chief Justice, that Couzens “did not try to play the system [as] many police officers have done”, saving Everard’s family further “hurt”.
Couzens is still yet to provide police, or Everard’s family, with a full account of what exactly happened on the night he abducted and killed her.
The evidence was part of a unique hearing in the Court of Appeal where judges considered the sentences of five killers. The judgment could set a precedent on how and when judges can issue life sentences. Tom Little QC, representing the Attorney General, told the court that in all the cases either a whole life order or a life sentence was imposed and is being challenged, or it was not and the Attorney General is seeking one.
Emma Tustin and Thomas Hughes abused and killed Arthur Labinjohughes during lockdown in June 2020. The boy died while in the sole care of Tustin, who was jailed for life with a minimum term of 29 years, while Hughes, Arthur’s father, was sentenced to 21 years for manslaughter. Mr Little said Tustin’s case “merited at the very least consideration of a whole-life order” because Arthur was “subjected to the most unimaginable suffering”.
Double killer Stewart, who was convicted of murdering his first wife Diane Stewart, 47, six years before he went on to murder his fiancée, also appealed against his whole-life order. “When one looks at the whole set of aggravating features with regard to both of these killings, it does not fall... as an exceptionally high-seriousness case,” Amjad Malik QC, for Stewart, said. Also challenging his sentence was Jordan Monaghan, who was handed a minimum term of 40 years at Preston Crown Court after he murdered two of his children and his partner. Mr Little said Monaghan’s actions were of “exceptionally high” seriousness, with “no mitigation here at all”. The Court of Appeal will hand down a judgment at a later date.