Towers, Re

A tariff reduction requires exceptional and unforeseen progress or new information casting doubt on the appropriateness of the existing tariff. Failure to accept responsibility does not automatically prevent reduction, but it is relevant to attitude, remorse and victim empathy. Continuing psychological risk factors, unresolved behavioural difficulties and the absence of exceptional progress may justify refusing a reduction, even where the prisoner has made considerable progress.

The court reviewed the tariff imposed on Jordan Towers following his conviction for murder and an offence under section 18 of the Offences Against The Person Act 1861. He had received a 13-year tariff following his involvement in attacks which caused one death and one serious injury.

The review considered his progress in custody, his failure to accept responsibility, psychological evidence, continuing risk factors and whether there was exceptional progress or new information undermining the existing tariff.

1. Tariff reduction. The court could recommend a reduction only if one of the recognised grounds for doing so was established. The relevant circumstances required exceptional and unforeseen progress, or new information casting doubt on the appropriateness of the tariff.
2. Acceptance of responsibility. Failure to accept responsibility did not automatically exclude a reduction. It nevertheless affected the assessment of attitude and could demonstrate that the required exceptional and unforeseen progress had not occurred. In this case, the continuing denial of guilt had limited remorse and full victim empathy.
3. Assessment of progress and risk. Mr Towers had made considerable progress, but the reports did not describe it as exceptional. The psychological evidence identified unresolved anger-management difficulties, negative reactions when frustrated, susceptibility to adverse influences and a medium to high risk of reoffending if released. Those risks related principally to dishonesty and disobedience of court orders rather than violence, but remained relevant.
4. Outcome. No new information cast doubt on the appropriateness of the tariff, and none of the possible grounds for reduction was satisfied. The court therefore declined to recommend a reduction. It urged the prison authorities to consider the psychologist’s recommendations for further assistance.