Why Nicholas Prosper not receive a whole life order

BBC News

20-03-2025

The sentence given to a teenager who murdered his mother and siblings has been referred to the Unduly Lenient Sentence Scheme by the shadow justice minister. Nicholas Prosper admitted to using a shotgun to kill Juliana Falcon, 48, Kyle Prosper, 16, and Giselle Prosper, 13, at their home in Luton in September.The 19-year-old had planned to kill about 30 students and staff at his former primary school, but the noise his family made during the struggle alerted neighbours who called the police and interrupted his plans.A spokesperson from the Attorney General's Office confirmed it has received the request by the Conservative MP Kieran Mullan.
The office has 28 days from the point of sentencing to make a decision.
What is a whole life order?
Unlike a life sentence, which has a minimum time to serve in a prison, a whole life order (WLO) means the person will never be released.Home secretaries have been able to impose whole life orders since 1983 and judges have held such powers since the passing of the Criminal Justice Act in 2003.It is the harshest penalty available to courts since capital punishment was abolished.The sentence can be considered in exceptional cases such as those where two or more people have been killed with a significant degree of pre-meditation, or where one child is killed with similar pre-planning.Triple murderer and rapist Kyle Clifford was given three WLOs earlier this month, after he killed his ex-girlfriend, her sister and her mother in a crossbow and knife attack in Bushey, Hertfordshire.Nurse Lucy Letby received a total of 15 WLOs after murdering and attempting to murder babies at the Countess of Chester Hospital.
Previously, an individual under the age of 21 could not be given a WLO.In 2022 this was changed to include offenders aged between 18-20, but only in cases where the seriousness was "exceptionally high" even when compared to similar offences committed by those 21 and over.This was introduced after the judge could not give Hashem Abedi, the brother of the Manchester Arena bomber, an WLO because of his age.If Prosper had been given a WLO he would have been the youngest offender to receive one.
What did the judge say?
When passing sentence, High Court judge Mrs Justice Cheema-Grubb explained that while a WLO would be a starting point for similar crimes for defendants over the age of 21, those that are younger require the seriousness of their offences to be "exceptionally high".While Prosper is "indisputably a very dangerous young man", the risk to the public is met with a life sentence, she concluded.Mrs Justice Cheema-Grubb told him: "Despite the gravity of your crimes, it is the explicit joint submission of counsel that a lengthy finite term will be a sufficiently severe penalty."
During sentencing David Bentley KC argued mitigating factors on Prosper's behalf and described his client as a "young man at the start of his adult life".He pointed to the defendant's lack of previous convictions and that he had been living with an undiagnosed neurological development disorder in autism spectrum disorder (ASD).Mr Bentley told the court how Prosper's parents had separated when he was nine years old and Prosper had "retreated into a harmful, internet world" that was "isolated from the real world".The killer must also receive credit for pleading guilty "at the earliest possible opportunity", said his defence.
The judge said she would not impose a whole life order because Prosper was stopped from carrying out the school shooting: "otherwise this case would have had a very different and even more appalling outcome." She explained: "I have decided to impose a minimum term. In drawing back from a whole life order I have already taken into account your age, your guilty pleas and the fact that you did not carry out any violence after you left your flat despite having reloaded the shotgun."Having reflected, I agree with the parties and do not impose a whole life order in this case. Firstly, because you were thwarted from completing your intentions, otherwise this case would have had a very different and even more appalling outcome. Secondly, this prosecution has resulted in guilty pleas. Thirdly, you were 18 at the relevant time."She explained all three murders reach the threshold for a 30-year minimum term individually and "the increase I impose is the least possible in all the circumstances".After passing sentence she told Prosper: "You remain highly dangerous and it may be that you will never be released."
Who has criticised the sentence?
On Wednesday the Conservative shadow justice minister, Kieran Mullan, posted on X that Prosper's sentence of life with a minimum of 49 years was not enough for the nature of his crimes.He referred the case to the Unduly Lenient Sentence Scheme and said: "If we don't give criminals like this whole life orders what are they for?"The scheme allows anyone to ask for certain crown court sentences to be reviewed by the attorney general.A spokesperson from the Attorney General's Office confirmed it has received the request to consider Prosper's sentence and have 28 days from the point of sentencing to make a decision.Mullan thought it was "particularly galling" that Prosper's failure to see through his shooting plans were considered mitigating circumstances.
In his letter to Attorney General Lord Hermer, he wrote: "This was the gravest of crimes that would be difficult to surpass in its seriousness and has rightly generated public outrage."I struggle to imagine a case of such seriousness not being that for which the WLO sentence is there to be used."He described a "yawning gap" between public expectation of justice and sentences issued for serious crimes.
Mullan said: "What exactly does someone have to do in this country to be sent away for life? This was the most serious of crimes - including the murder of two children."What is the point of making provision for WLOs if they aren't used in cases like this? It makes a mockery of the justice system and is an insult to the victims."Bedfordshire's police and crime commissioner supported the sentencing decision.Speaking to BBC Three Counties Radio, Labour's John Tizard explained: "If you listen, as I did, to [the judge's] summary and her presentation in sentencing it was a very considered view that took into account the law as well as circumstances."
Follow Beds, Herts and Bucks news on BBC Sounds, Facebook, Instagram and X.