Schoolboy killer's sentence increased

The schoolboy killer of 11-year-old cystic fibrosis sufferer Joe Geeling had his 12-year minimum sentence increased to 15 years by the Court of Appeal today.

Three judges in London ruled that the term imposed last October in the case of 15-year-old Michael Hamer was "unduly lenient".

The decision was made by Sir Igor Judge, Mr Justice Gray and Mr Justice Henriques following recent submissions on behalf of the Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith QC, that the term - the least he must serve before he can be considered for parole - should have been longer.

Sir Igor said the Attorney General's case "succeeds" and that "in place of a 12-year minimum term, there will be substituted a period of 15 years".

Hamer was sentenced to life at Manchester Crown Court after admitting murder and the minimum term of 12 years was set by trial judge Mr Justice McCombe.

Hamer, aged 14 at the time of the killing, subjected Joe to a " sustained and savage attack" before he used a wheelie bin to dump his body in a park in Bury, Greater Manchester.

Hamer smashed Joe around the head 10 times with a frying pan and then stabbed him 16 times in a "frenzied" attack after the youngster had spurned a sexual advance.

He lured the boy, described by his parents as a "little angel", back to his home from their school in Bury.

After killing him, he hauled his body into a bin, wheeled it to a nearby park and dumped it in a tree-lined gully where it was discovered the next day, on March 2 last year.

Joe's parents, Tom and Gwen, later talked of their "grief and bitterness" over their son's death and described the 12-year tariff as "too lenient".

Announcing the court's ruling, Sir Igor said: We have been troubled by this fraught, worrying case.

"In essence, however, we have come to the conclusion that a number of features of the evidence militate against the conclusion that its aggravating and mitigating features balance each other out.

"The offender's culpability, and the consequent seriousness of the offence, are undoubtedly reduced by his age and mental illness, but in our judgment there are some striking features of the case which cannot be treated as wholly consistent with the offender's extreme youth."

He added: "These include the deliberate selection of the victim for the purpose of exposing him to bullying and some form of sexual abuse, the elements of planning, which survived the intervention of school staff on the day of the killing itself, the sustained violence with more than one weapon and the murderous nature of the attack, and finally the calm efforts at concealment are all significant in themselves, but even for an offender of this age, with this offender's disadvantages, taken together they represent a formidable level of culpability and seriousness."