May 2008

Child-killer’s sentence reduced

A Reading lorry driver who sexually abused a four-year-old girl before beating her to death could be released in three years.

The decision by High Court judge Mr Justice Owen to cut the minimum sentence of child killer Colin Evans means he can ask the parole board to free him in early 2011 – despite a recommendation by the judge at his trial that he should “spend the rest of his natural life in prison”.

Evans, now 68, was jailed for life in December 1984 after pleading guilty to the gruesome murder of Marie Payne.

After abducting the little girl from outside her Dagenham home on March 11, 1983, Evans drove her to Epping Forest, where he subjected her to a sickening sexual attack, stripping her naked before burying her body under leaves.

The killer then returned to the scene three days later where he dug up her body and mutilated her remains, taking several photographs of them.

The young girl’s body was eventually discovered 14 months later when Evans, of Russell Street, was arrested after making three more attempts to abduct small children.

The father-of-one, whose own daughter died of leukaemia, quickly confessed to murdering Marie and led police to the spot where he had buried her body.

Officers searching his bedsit uncovered children’s books, two wigs hidden in the back of a radio and a hoard of sickening photographs of young girls, including pictures of Marie lying dead on an empty fertiliser bag.

But as reported in the Evening Post at the time, a series of police slip-ups meant the notorious child molester escaped detection for more than a year after the horrific attack.

Vital evidence from an elderly neighbour who spotted a man sitting in a yellow car outside the house on the day of the abduction was discounted, as 19 other witnesses came forward claiming they had seen Marie later that afternoon.

And when Evans was arrested six weeks later for indecent assault on a little Reading girl, he was not questioned about Marie’s disappearance.

Evans, dubbed “the evil Pied Piper”, had a long record of sex crimes against young children dating back to the mid 1960s, serving 13-and-a-half years behind bars.

The then Reading East MP Sir Gerry Vaughan called for an inquiry into the scandal, in particular how Evans was able to work as a babysitter for Berkshire Social Services in 1982.

The Evening Post also revealed how Evans had appealed for psychiatric help to try and curb his sexual desire for children long before the murder, but was turned down by doctors.

Speaking after his sentence, Marie’s heartbroken parents John and Brenda Payne said Evans deserved to be “locked up for life” and even called for the reintroduction of the death penalty.

The judge at his trial, Mr Justice Kenneth Jones, described Evans as “an evil, unfeeling man and a great danger to young children”.

Recommending that Evans serve at least 30 years behind bars, he said his intention was that Evans “should spend the rest of his natural life in prison or at least that he should remain there until age has removed his sexual drive”.

The then Lord Chief Justice, Lord Lane, agreed that Evans “should never be released”.

But following a review of the case at London’s Royal Courts of Justice yesterday, Mr Justice Owen said Evans’s guilty plea “indicated a degree of contrition” and reduced his tariff to 27 years.

The decision means that, with time spent on remand taken into account, Evans can apply for parole in early 2011.

However, the judge emphasised that he will only be released if he can convince the parole board it is safe to do so, and would remain on perpetual “life licence”, subject to prison recall if he puts a foot wrong ever again.

Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL

Date: 24/04/2008

1. On 17 December 1984 the applicant, Colin James Evans, who is now 68 years of age, pleaded guilty to the murder of a 4 year old girl, Marie Denise Payne.

2. The offence was committed in March 1983 the applicant invited the girl into his car and drove her to Epping Forest.  He began to indecently assault her, removing her tights and knickers.  When she screamed he hit her over the head with a fallen branch fracturing her skull and killing her.  He then buried the child’s body under leaves, first having stripped her.  He returned to the scene three days later, when he disinterred the body, mutilated it by inserting pieces of wood in her vagina and anus, took several photographs of her and then buried her.

3. The child’s body was discovered some 14 months later in the following circumstances.  In May 1984 the applicant attempted to abduct small children for his sexual gratification on three occasions.  The children escaped on each occasion, and the police eventually traced and interviewed the applicant.  He admitted killing Marie Payne and took the police to the spot where he had buried her.  The applicant pleaded guilty to three counts of child stealing in relation to each of the attempted abductions, and was sentenced to three years imprisonment.  On each of three counts of child stealing contrary to Section 56 of the Offence against the Person Act 1861, such sentences to be served concurrently.

4. Prior to his conviction for murder, the applicant had been convicted of sexual offences on four occasions.  On 16 December 1966 he appeared at the Central Criminal Court where he was convicted of an indecent assault on a female under 14, an indecent assault on a male under 14, and abduction of an unmarried girl under 16.  He was fined for each offence.  But on the 29th May 1970 the applicant appeared at the Essex Quarter Sessions where he was convicted of three offences of attempted buggery, two offences of indecent assault of a female under 14 and an offence of an indecent assault of a male under 14, and sentenced to a total of 10 years imprisonment.

5. On 22nd June 1978 he was convicted of an indecent assault under 14 at the Reading Crown Court and sentenced to three years imprisonment.  On 3 November 1980 he again appeared at the Reading Crown Court and was convicted of an indecent assault on a female under 14 for which he was sentenced to 6 months imprisonment.

6. In his report to the Home Secretary the sentencing judge, Mr Justice Kenneth Jones, recommended that the applicant serve a minimum period of 30 years before his release on licence.  He added, as was obvious from the facts of the case and from the applicant’s previous record, that he was a great danger to young children and added:
“I can only repeat what I said when making the recommendation viz. that my intention was that he should spend the rest of his natural life in prison or at least that he should remain there until age has removed his sexual drive.”

7. Lord Lane CJ made the following recommendation:
“Retribution and general deterrence in my view require that this man should never be released.”

8. In March 1995 the applicant made written representations as to the tariff period which were supported by written representations from the solicitor who had acted for him in 1984.  On 18 November 1996 the Secretary of State, having considered such representations, set the tariff at 30 years.

9. This is an application under Schedule 22 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003.  I have to decide whether I should order that the early release provisions under the 2003 Act should apply to the applicant after a shorter period than 17 years.  It is not open to me to order that they should apply after a longer period.  In considering this application I must have regard to the seriousness of the offence of murder that the applicant committed, and in so doing, I must have regard to the general principles set out in Schedule 21 of the Act, and also to the recommendations made to the Secretary of State by the trial judge and by the Lord Chief Justice as to the minimum term to be served by the applicant before release on licence.

10. I am also to have regard to the effect that Section 67 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967 would have had if the applicant would have been sentenced to a term of imprisonment; and should therefore, where appropriate, give credit for time spent on remand in consequence of his having been committed to custody by an order of the court made in connection with the proceedings relating to the murder.  I am satisfied that I should have regard to a period spent in custody on remand of 6 months and 27 days.

11. This was a murder of a child involving her abduction and with a sexual motivation.  Accordingly the case falls within paragraph 4(1) of Schedule 21 of the Act for which the appropriate starting point is a whole life order.

12. As the murder was committed in March 1983 I am also required to take account of the guidelines set out in the Practice Direction issued by Lord Bingham CJ on 10 February 1997.  His practice was to take 14 years as the period actually to be served for the “average”, “normal” or “unexceptional” murder.  Amongst the factors that he identified as likely to call for a sentence more severe than the norm was the killing of a child, evidence of sexual maltreatment, and macabre attempts to dismember or conceal the body.

13. Written representations as to the minimum term have been submitted on behalf of the applicant.  It is submitted on his behalf that the starting point under Schedule 21 is not whole life but 30 years.  I do not agree.  The case plainly falls within paragraph 4(1) of Schedule 21 indicating a whole life sentence.  I am satisfied both that the murder involved the abduction of the girl and secondly that there was a sexual motivation.  That is clear both from the brief account of the facts of the killing and from the applicant’s previous record.

14. It is accepted on behalf of the applicant that there were serious aggravating features, the vulnerability of the victim a girl aged 4 and the concealment of the body.  There are further serious aggravating features, the disinterment of the body and its mutilation and by the photographs then taken of the body.

15. As to mitigating factors the applicant is entitled to credit for his plea of guilty.  The sentencing guidelines counsel guidelines indicate that the maximum reduction of the minimum term do reflect credit for a plea of guilty should be one sixth, or 5 years whichever is the less where there has been an indication of willingness to plead guilty at the first reasonable opportunity.  Secondly it is submitted on behalf of the applicant that the killing was not premeditated, but that he reacted violently to her screaming when he sexually assaulted her, and hit her to silence her.  I accept that there is no evidence to suggest that the killing was premeditated, and that the applicant reacted on the spur of the moment to her screaming when he began sexually to assault her.  As I have already indicated the case in my judgement warranted a starting point of a whole life sentence under paragraph 21.  But I bear in mind that I may not set a minimum term greater than that imposed by the Secretary of State.  Secondly whilst it is reasonable to assume that the Secretary of State would have taken account of the plea of guilty in the sense that it indicated a degree of contrition on the part of the applicant, at the date at which he set the minimum term there were not a statutory recognition of the right to a credit for a plea nor the guidelines that followed.  In those circumstances I have come to the conclusion that the appropriate minimum term is one of 27 years less the period of six months and 27 days spent on remand.

16. The minimum term is the minimum amount of time that the applicant will spend in prison from the date of sentence before the parole board can order early release.  If it remains necessary for the protection of the public, the applicant will continue to be detained after that date.  When the applicant has served the minimum term, and if the parole board decides to direct his release, he will remain on licence for the rest of his life and may be recalled to prison at any time if in breach of the terms of his parole.