Hull, On the review of the tariff in the case of

A tariff review following R v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Smith [2005] UKHL 51 requires evidence of progress that is both exceptional and unforeseen. Commendable rehabilitation, including completion of recommended courses, improved behaviour and increasing maturity, will not ordinarily satisfy that threshold where it represents the progress reasonably expected of a life sentence prisoner. A reduction should be recommended only where the evidence demonstrates that the original tariff date ought to be brought forward.

Adrian Hull was convicted of murder committed when he was aged 17 years and 9 months and was detained at Her Majesty’s pleasure. His tariff had been fixed at 15 years and was later reviewed without reduction by the Lord Chief Justice. The Lord Chancellor referred the tariff for reconsideration following R v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Smith [2005] UKHL 51, on the ground of exceptional and unforeseen progress in custody. The central issue was whether Mr Hull’s rehabilitation justified bringing forward the tariff expiry date.

1. Review jurisdiction and threshold. The court was asked to recommend a reduction in the tariff in light of R v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Smith [2005] UKHL 51. The relevant question was whether there had been progress that was both exceptional and unforeseen.
2. The assessment required attention to the whole custodial record. Mr Hull had accepted responsibility for the offence, completed courses addressing reasoning, anger, substance misuse and education, improved his behaviour, undertaken trusted employment and engaged in constructive prison activities.
3. The court assumed in Mr Hull’s favour that allegations of involvement in the prison drug culture were unfounded, because the alleged intelligence was unsupported by evidence. That assumption did not alter the conclusion.
4. Progress which is commendable may nevertheless fall within what can be expected of a life sentence prisoner, particularly one who began the sentence at a young age and would naturally be expected to mature. The appropriate focus was consolidation of skills and completion of further relapse-prevention work.
5. The evidence did not demonstrate that the original tariff date should be brought forward. No reduction was therefore recommended. Release on expiry of the tariff remained a matter for the Parole Board.

The judgment records that the tariff was originally fixed at 15 years by the Secretary of State following recommendations by the trial judge and the Lord Chief Justice. It was subsequently reviewed by Lord Woolf, who made no reduction, including after reconsideration of further documentation. The present decision was a further tariff review.