Aaron Barley – double murderer has sentence increased

Aaron Barley – double murderer has sentence increased

Photo from the BBC / West Midlands Police

We looked at the case of Aaron Barley earlier this year. It was a horrible case; Mr Barley had attacked and killed two members of a family who had gone out of their way to help him. The motiveless killing is still unexplained.

Mr Barley got a life sentence with a tariff of 30 years. The Judge had started with 35 years and reduced it due to the credit for a plea of guilty.

The Attorney-General referred the case to the Court of Appeal as being unduly lenient, the argument being that he should have got a whole life tariff, or at least a longer tariff.

It did not seem an obvious case for such a reference, but on 21st December 2017, the Court of Appeal agreed with the AG and increased the tariff to 35 years.

We haven’t seen the transcript yet with the full reasons, so it’s hard to comment on what happened,, but they will probably be published next year.



  1. I wouldn’t worry too much about the length of sentence, I’m sure some bleeding heart liberals will campaign for his release and it will find favour with the judiciary and aparatchik’s in the justice system.

    Meanwhile, Theodore Johnson from London just pleaded guilty to killing his partner. The only issue is he’s already killed two previously in the 80’s and 90’s and he’s still walking the streets !!!

    What sort of society allows double killers out for a third kill ? Surely the time has come where some independent scrutiny has to validate sentencing. This should be members of the public, as clearly the judiciary and the justice system either cannot or will not see the error of their ways.

  2. A 30 year statutory starting point for the double murder, with much additional aggravation — including at least the near-fatal attack on Mr Wilkinson, the use of a knife and the car chase to try to avoid arrest (and surely it must be further aggravation that the victims had gone out of their way to help him) — and a day-of-trial plea that should only have earned a 5% reduction. Why do you say this is “not an obvious case” to be referred?