Shane, Re

A tariff for a mandatory life sentence should be reduced only where the prisoner has made progress that is exceptional and unforeseen. Ordinary maturation and rehabilitation, even if substantial, will not ordinarily meet that threshold. Reports expressing the view that progress is not exceptional are relevant, though not conclusive. The court must also recognise that the tariff reflects both punishment for the offence and protection of the public.

The court reviewed the tariff imposed on Liam Matthew Shane, who had pleaded guilty to murdering a 56-year-old man when aged just under 18. His tariff was 14 years, less time spent on remand, expiring on 26 September 2021.

Mr Shane had made significant progress and had matured. His solicitor nevertheless sought a reduction, criticising the reporters’ assessment. The central issue was whether his progress was sufficiently exceptional and unforeseen to justify a recommendation that the tariff be reduced.

1. Threshold for reduction. The court had to be satisfied that Mr Shane had made progress that was both exceptional and unforeseen before recommending a reduction of his tariff.
2. Assessment of progress. Mr Shane had undoubtedly made good progress. He had recognised his past failings, matured, and appeared determined to avoid unacceptable behaviour, excessive drinking and substance misuse. However, maturation was expected and did not itself make the progress exceptional.
3. Reports and future opportunities. None of the reporters considered that Mr Shane’s progress was exceptional or that his tariff should be reduced. Their views were not conclusive, but they were a factor the court had to take into account. The criticism that they lacked sufficient knowledge of future placements and remedial work did not alter the assessment at that stage.
4. Nature of the tariff. The tariff contained an element of punishment for a dreadful offence as well as protection of the public. It should therefore be reduced only where progress was truly exceptional.
5. Disposition. The court was not satisfied that the required threshold had been met and made no recommendation for a reduction of the tariff.