Williams, Re

A tariff reduction may be recommended only where there is clear evidence of exceptional and unforeseen progress. Excellent progress following maturation does not, without more, satisfy that threshold. The court must assess the evidence from those responsible for the prisoner’s development and consider whether continued detention would damage the prisoner or jeopardise continued progress.

The applicant had been convicted of murder arising from a gang attack and sentenced to a 14-year tariff. The Court of Appeal reduced the tariff to 12 years. On review, he relied on sustained rehabilitation, assistance to other prisoners, enhanced status and charitable work. He sought a reduction so that he could apply earlier for a pre-tariff review and progress towards open conditions. The issue was whether the evidence demonstrated exceptional and unforeseen progress warranting a further tariff reduction.

1. Application refused. The court did not recommend any reduction of the applicant’s tariff.
2. A reduction could be recommended only if there was clear evidence that the applicant’s progress was both exceptional and unforeseen. Maturation ordinarily brings progress, so progress attributable to that maturation did not itself meet the required threshold.
3. The applicant had made excellent progress since late 2010. He had withdrawn from gang culture, avoided prison conflicts, worked as a listener supporting prisoners in crisis, trained other listeners, achieved enhanced status and helped organise charitable events.
4. That progress was not described as exceptional by any of the three Tariff Assessment Reports. None identified new information casting doubt on the original tariff, and none considered that continued detention would damage the applicant or jeopardise his development. Although one report considered that he had outgrown his current environment and would benefit from a move to an adult category C establishment, that did not establish the necessary threshold.
5. The unanimous professional assessment was that the tariff should not be reduced. The court therefore declined to recommend a reduction.

• Court of Appeal: reduced the applicant’s original 14-year tariff to 12 years. No citation for that decision was stated in the judgment.
• High Court (Administrative Court): declined to recommend any further reduction.