Megan Newborough: Judges reject bid to increase murderer's sentence

Ross McCullam strangled Megan Newborough in the living room of his home

The Court of Appeal has rejected a bid to increase the prison term of a man who murdered his girlfriend.

Ross McCullam was jailed for life for the murder of Megan Newborough, 23, and told he would serve at least 23 years before parole could be considered.

The 30-year-old killed Ms Newborough at his home in Coalville, Leicestershire, on 6 August 2021.

Judges turned down the solicitor general's appeal to increase the minimum term on Tuesday.

Ms Newborough's family said she "was the most generous, loving and caring person"

Solicitor General Michael Tomlinson had intervened in the case arguing the original sentence, handed down at Leicester Crown Court in December, had appeared "unduly lenient".

In the Court of Appeal hearing, lawyers said the original trial judge had failed to recognise the murder was sexually motivated.

But Lord Justice Holroyde, sitting with Mr Justice Hilliard and Mr Justice Chamberlain, decided not to increase McCullam's sentence, concluding they were "not persuaded that there is any basis in which it can be said that the judge fell into error".

• The 'one-in-a-million' denied a glowing future

• Murderer who 'brutalised' girlfriend jailed for life

• Man who strangled girlfriend convicted of murder

McCullam and Ms Newborough, from Nuneaton, Warwickshire, were colleagues who had been in a relationship in the weeks leading up to her death.

The court heard the pair had arranged to meet at McCullam's home in Windsor Close.

After Ms Newborough arrived, McCullam strangled her, slashed her throat 14 times with a knife before bundling her into her own car and driving to a secluded spot, near Woodhouse Eaves, Leicestershire, where he dumped her in undergrowth.

McCullam, who had admitted manslaughter but denied murder, was convicted after a six-week trial in which he claimed he had suffered an episode of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).

The jury rejected McCullam's claim that PTSD, triggered by sexual abuse he suffered as a child, caused him to lose control of his actions when Ms Newborough went to perform a sexual act on him.

Lord Justice Holroyde said Ms Newborough's murder was a dreadful crime

Lawyers representing the solicitor general told Tuesday's hearing McCullam had shared messages with Ms Newborough outlining extreme and violent sexual fantasies "which she did not share".

They also told the appeal judges that McCullam had searched the internet for violent killers and watched pornography in the hours after he killed his victim and hid her body.

Alison Morgan, representing the solicitor general, said McCullam's actions demonstrated the murder had involved sexual conduct and the starting point for sentencing should therefore have been 30 years before the consideration of parole.

'Dreadful crime'

The original trial judge, Philip Head, concluded it was speculative to suggest the killing was sexually motivated.

He said a combination of factors caused "the dam" of McCullam's rage to break.

These included McCullam's sexual frustration, recent failed mortgage applications and his fear Ms Newborough might tell others after he confided in her that he had been abused as a child.

The judge therefore started his consideration at 15 years before parole, adding eight years for aggravating factors including McCullam cutting Ms Newborough's neck and his concerted attempts to hide his crime.

Kerim Fuad, representing McCullam, said the trial judge had considered the evidence "meticulously" and been "best placed to come to the conclusions he had".

Lord Justice Holroyde told members of Ms Newborough's family, who attended the hearing, the appeal judges' ruling did not mean her murder "was anything other than a dreadful crime", but they had to decide cases "in accordance with law".

Following the hearing, Solicitor General Michael Tomlinson said: "This was a shocking case where Megan Newborough's life was cut short due to Ross McCullam's horrific crime.

"I still believe it was right to test the sentence in the Court of Appeal, but I respect the court's judgment."