Ashton, R. v

Reduction of an indeterminate sentence tariff requires exceptional progress in prison. Very good progress, substantial course completion, genuine remorse and positive relationships may be insufficient if the evidence leaves unresolved concerns about maturity, adaptation to new situations, or the ability to apply learning in practice. The assessment should consider the whole period of detention and the relevant indicators cumulatively. A disciplinary incident should not be given disproportionate weight when viewed in isolation, but it remains a relevant part of the overall assessment. The threshold requires solid evidence of something exceptional, including sustained responsibility and trustworthiness where appropriate.

The claimant applied for judicial review of a decision concerning Ryan Ashton’s second application for reduction of his tariff. He had been detained during Her Majesty’s pleasure after murdering Nathan Crawley when aged 17 and had received a minimum term of 10 years. A previous review by MacDuff J had declined to recommend reduction but indicated that a future application might succeed if his progress continued.

The evidence showed substantial educational and offending-behaviour work, genuine remorse and good relationships, but also a recent adjudication after his transfer to open conditions and continuing concerns about maturity, consequential thinking and putting theoretical learning into practice. The central issue was whether his progress had become exceptional.

1. The application was refused. The court accepted that the applicant had made very good progress but was not satisfied that the evidence established exceptional progress warranting the one-year tariff reduction previously contemplated.
2. The review jurisdiction was governed by the principles in R (Smith) v Secretary of State for the Home Dept [2005] UKHL 51 and the applicable tariff-reduction criteria. Relevant indicators included an exceptional work and disciplinary record; genuine remorse and appropriate acceptance of responsibility; successful relationships with prisoners and staff; and successful engagement in work or courses producing a substantial reduction in risk.
3. There also needed to be an additional element showing that the detainee had assumed responsibility and proved trustworthy when given responsibility. Good works for the benefit of others could demonstrate that element. Ideally, the relevant characteristics should be sustained over a lengthy period and in more than one prison.
4. The court treated the October 2013 adjudication as a relevant blot on the disciplinary record. It reinforced concerns about maturity and adaptation to new situations, although the incident was not particularly serious in isolation and was not given excessive weight.
5. The favourable evidence was substantial, including course completion, enhanced victim empathy, remorse and good relationships. However, the probation report left material questions about converting theoretical learning into practical behaviour and about maturity and consequential thinking. The evidence therefore fell short of the solid proof required for an exceptional reduction.
6. The decision did not prevent a further application. Continued progress could also assist the Parole Board in deciding when the applicant no longer represented a risk to the public.

The judgment describes a second tariff-review application. An earlier review by MacDuff J had declined to recommend a reduction while indicating that a later application might succeed if sufficient progress continued. The present application was refused.