Teenagers who kill will face twice as long in prison under 'Ellie’s Law'

Sentencing crackdown will treat young criminals more like adults, following the murder of a 17-year-old by her ex-boyfriend

Ellie Gould, 17, who was stabbed to death in the kitchen of her home by Thomas Griffiths
Ellie Gould, 17, was stabbed to death in the kitchen of her home by Thomas Griffiths Credit: PA

Teenage killers face twice as long in prison under a new “Ellie’s Law” sentencing crackdown to be unveiled by the Justice Secretary next week.

Robert Buckland will announce new laws that will mean teenage killers guilty of the most serious murders will be sentenced to at least 27 years in jail compared with the current minimum of 12 years.

He will also abolish the right of 17 year olds who are jailed after they turn 18 to have their sentences reviewed halfway through their prison term, forcing them to serve the full term in jail.

The move is designed to treat older teenage killers more like adults and will mean that Thomas Griffiths, who stabbed his ex-girlfriend Ellie Gould to death in the kitchen of her home, will lose his right to have his 12-year sentence reviewed at the halfway point.

Griffiths was 17 when he stabbed Ellie, also 17, at least 13 times before calmly returning to classes. Her parents Carole and Matthew have campaigned for “Ellie’s Law”, which would see young offenders treated more like adults if convicted of murder.

The family was unhappy with proposals originally set out in the white paper last year because they felt they would not make any difference to crimes such as Griffiths's case.

They said they did not want their daughter’s name associated with the proposed new law unless it was amended. Now Mr Buckland has come forward with changes that would mean Griffiths would have faced a minimum of 14 years in jail – and will lose his right to a review of his sentence.

Credit: PA

“It is not just about Ellie’s Law. It is a wider issue about the way we actually approach what is the most serious crime,” Mr Buckland told The Telegraph.

He also revealed that he will review the law on apparent “spur of the moment” killings where a sentence is reduced because a killer, like Griffiths, does not take a knife to a murder with the intention to kill. Instead, they grab one at the scene.

Under the reforms, Mr Buckland is proposing that instead of the blanket minimum of 12 years in jail for killers under 18, there will be a sliding scale where children aged 10 to 14 will face minimum starting points for their sentences set at 50 per cent of the adult equivalent.

For children aged 15 and 16, it will be 66 per cent of the adult sentence – and for 17 year-olds, it will be 90 per cent of an adult’s minimum jail term.

There are four categories with the most serious murders involving sadism, sexual motives or killing of a police officer at the top.

Where an adult here faces a minimum of 30 years, the scale means 17 year olds face a minimum 27 years jail, 15 and 16 year olds 20 years and younger children 15 years.

Unpremeditated “category four” killings will carry a minimum of 14 years for 17 year olds, 10 years for 15 and 16 year olds and eight years for 10-14 year olds.

Mr Buckland said the aim was to create a “more subtle gradation where by the time you get to 17 you are going to be in a position where it is not that different from an 18-year-old.”

He said he believed it was also justified to remove the right to a halfway review of sentences for 17-year-old killers who turn 18 at sentencing and rolling two-yearly reviews for under 18s.

“If someone is sentenced after the age of 18, they should not have a review because you are not a child,” he said.

“You are in your mid-20s or more and you are in fact having the same right as if you were still a child. I struggle with that.”

He said a review of premeditated versus “spur of the moment'' killings was more complex and he wanted time to consider it.

While he accepted someone who did not go armed to a killing might still have had an intent and could deserve a longer sentence, a change in the law could mean unduly harsher sentences for, say, abused women who use a weapon “on the spur of the moment” against a violent partner.