Wayne Couzens appeal: Sarah Everard murderer loses bid to reduce sentence - how long will he spend in prison?

Wayne Couzens was jailed for life for the murder of Sarah Everard
Watch more of our videos on Shots! 
and live on Freeview channel 276
Visit Shots! now

Wayne Couzens is still set to die in prison after he lost his bid to reduce his sentence at the Court of Appeal.

He was among five killers who have had their sentences reviewed by senior judges.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

A special hearing took place on Wednesday 4 May and saw two of the killers appealing their whole life orders, while the Attorney General challenged the length of the sentences in the other three as unduly lenient.

Five killers are to face a hearing on Tuesday to have their sentences reviewed.Five killers are to face a hearing on Tuesday to have their sentences reviewed.
Five killers are to face a hearing on Tuesday to have their sentences reviewed.

The five judges are delivering their decisions today.

But who are the killers and why are their sentences being reviewed? Here’s what you need to know.

Wayne Couzens

Former Met Police officer Couzens appealed his whole life order.

He was handed the whole-life term last year after raping and murdering 33-year-old Sarah Everard after he abducted her in south London on March 3 2021.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

Sentencing Couzens, Lord Justice Fulford said the circumstances of the case were “devastating, tragic and wholly brutal” and were so exceptional that it warranted a whole-life order.

It was the first time the sentence had been imposed for a single murder of an adult not committed in the course of a terror attack.

Wayne Couzens is in prison for the murder of Sarah EverardWayne Couzens is in prison for the murder of Sarah Everard
Wayne Couzens is in prison for the murder of Sarah Everard

Members of Ms Everard’s family were present in the Royal Courts of Justice as his appeal was discussed.

Jim Sturman QC, for Couzens, said: “Mr Couzens accepts that his crimes are abhorrent and nothing I say in any way is intended to minimise them or to minimise the impact of these crimes on Sarah Everard’s family and huge circle of friends.”

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

He told the court it was accepted that Couzens deserved “decades in jail” but argued a whole-life term was excessive.

Mr Sturman added: “The combination of his remorse and his guilty pleas… should balance out that aggravating factor which clearly exists, of him being a police officer, albeit off-duty in half uniform.”

The barrister told the court Couzens was unique out of the 64 people currently serving whole life orders.

Tom Little QC, representing the Attorney General’s Office (AGO) and Crown Prosecution Service, said Couzens’ offending was of the “utmost seriousness”, adding: “His criminality was, as found by the judge, a fundamental attack in reality on our democratic way of life.”

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

“A police officer is in a uniquely powerful position,” Mr Little said.

He concluded: “The whole-life order was the right sentence to impose in this wholly exceptional case.”

However, in a summary read out in court, Lord Burnett said that the sentencing judge was entitled to impose a whole life order due to the facts of Couzens’ case.

What did Lord Burnett say?

The Lord Chief Justice, Lord Burnett, sitting with four other senior judges, dismissed Wayne Couzens’ bid to reduce his sentence.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

In Friday’s judgment, he said: “The issue at the heart of the appeal, is whether this murder, with its unique features, justified the judge’s overall conclusion that it merited a whole life order. We have concluded that it does, albeit we would, with respect, arrive at this conclusion by a different route from the judge.”

Lord Burnett continued: “This was, as the judge said, warped, selfish and brutal offending, which was both sexual and homicidal.

“It was a case with unique and extreme aggravating features. Chief amongst these, as the judge correctly identified, was the grotesque misuse by Couzens of his position as a police officer, with all that connoted, to facilitate Ms Everard’s kidnap, rape and murder.

“We agree with the observations of the judge about the unique position of the police, the critical importance of their role and the critical trust that the public repose in them.”

Emma Tustin and Thomas Hughes

Emma Tustin (right) was found guilty of Arthur's murder, while Thomas Hughes (left) was found guilty of his manslaughter, after encouraging the killingEmma Tustin (right) was found guilty of Arthur's murder, while Thomas Hughes (left) was found guilty of his manslaughter, after encouraging the killing
Emma Tustin (right) was found guilty of Arthur's murder, while Thomas Hughes (left) was found guilty of his manslaughter, after encouraging the killing
Hide Ad
Hide Ad

Emma Tustin and Thomas Hughes, who killed six-year-old Arthur Labinjo-Hughes, had their sentences challenged under the unduly lenient sentence scheme.

Arthur suffered an unsurvivable brain injury while in the sole care of Tustin, who was jailed for life with a minimum term of 29 years after being convicted of murder by assaulting the child on 16 June 2020.

Arthur, whose body was also covered in 130 bruises, died in hospital the next day.

His father, Hughes, who was sentenced to 21 years in prison for manslaughter, is due to appeal against his sentence.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

Addressing the sentence reviews of the killers of Arthur Labinjo-Hughes, Tom Little QC said: “This was, we accept, not a straightforward sentencing exercise. The trial was plainly a harrowing one for all concerned.”

He continued: “[Arthur] was forced to live a solitary and lonely life in a family home for, I would add, many months.”

Mr Little said Arthur was “subjected to the most unimaginable suffering,” with the behaviour he faced “often spiteful” and sometimes “sadistic”.

Mr Little, commenting in relation to Emma Tustin’s case, said the “systemic and continual” nature of the offending ended with “a brutal murder”.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

“It’s a case which merited at the very least consideration of a whole life order.”

He added that this was a case of “exceptionally high” seriousness, due to the “sheer extent and nature of the cruelty” involved.

In written submissions, Mr Little said the trial judge failed to properly consider whether Tustin’s offences were so serious they required a whole-life order.

In written submissions, Mr Little said the trial judge failed to properly consider whether Tustin’s offences were so serious they required a whole-life order.

Jordan Monaghan has been told he must serve at least 40 years before being considered for parole (Image: PA)Jordan Monaghan has been told he must serve at least 40 years before being considered for parole (Image: PA)
Jordan Monaghan has been told he must serve at least 40 years before being considered for parole (Image: PA)

Jordan Monaghan

The length of Monaghan’s sentence was also challenged.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

In December 2021 Monaghan was jailed for at least 40 years after smothering his 24-day-old daughter Ruby as she slept in a Moses basket on New Year’s Day 2013.

Eight months later he smothered his 21-month-old son Logan, and six years after that he murdered his new partner, Evie Adams, with a drugs overdose.

During the hearing Mr Little summarised the offending of Monaghan, describing it as being of “exceptionally high” seriousness, with there being “no mitigation here at all”.

He added that the “the clear rationale or intention behind these offences was to try to distract his then partner from his gambling habit and maintain control over her despite her repeated attempts to free herself from him.”

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

Mr Little said of one of Monaghan’s victims, Evie Adams: “If that was not enough, the third murder was one involving significant planning and preparation involving a painful death having, in short, been tricked to take strong forms of medication which ultimately killed her, and that was committed whilst on police bail.”

Benjamin Myers QC, for Monaghan, stressed the high bar needed for a whole-life term, which means the criminal would die in prison.

He told the court: “A whole-life order is an extreme sentence for an extreme level of offending.

“There has to be some caution not to apply whole-life orders with a readiness that would lead to an escalation in their use.”

Ian Stewart.Ian Stewart.
Ian Stewart.

Ian Stewart

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

Double murderer Ian Stewart, who was convicted of murdering his first wife six years before he went on to murder his fiancee, is also appealing against his whole life order.

Stewart killed 51-year-old children’s book author Helen Bailey in 2016, and dumped her body in the cesspit of the £1.5 million home they shared in Royston in Hertfordshire.

A trial previously heard it was most likely she was suffocated while sedated by drugs, and Stewart was found guilty of her murder in 2017.

After this conviction, police investigated the 2010 death of Stewart’s first wife, Diane Stewart, 47.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

The cause of her death was recorded at the time as sudden unexplained death in epilepsy, but in February Stewart was found guilty of her murder.

Amjad Malik QC, for Stewart, argued that the whole-life order he was given for the murder of his first wife was not justified in the circumstances of the case.

“When one looks at the whole set of aggravating features with regard to both of these killings it does not fall in any way shape or form as an exceptionally high-seriousness case,” Mr Malik said.

However, Mr Little said: “It is difficult to say that this sentence was either manifestly excessive or wrong in principle.”