Scott, R v

A tariff imposed on a person sentenced to detention during Her Majesty’s pleasure may be reduced on review only where there is clear evidence of exceptional and unforeseen progress. The relevant indicators include an exemplary prison record, genuine remorse, appropriate acceptance of responsibility, successful relationships with staff and prisoners, and effective engagement with rehabilitative work producing a substantial reduction in risk.

The indicators are not exhaustive or individually conclusive. Exceptional progress requires an additional element showing that the detainee has become trustworthy when given responsibility. Real and substantial improvement is insufficient where significant concerns remain about responsibility, conduct, relationships or the reliable exercise of responsibility.

Paul Michael Scott, who was 17 when he committed murder, was sentenced to detention during Her Majesty’s pleasure with a minimum term of eleven years less 266 days spent on remand. He applied for a reduction of that tariff based on his conduct, rehabilitation courses, remorse and progress in custody.

The court considered reports describing significant improvement, but also continuing concerns about his account of the offence, workplace conduct, relationships with prison staff and other prisoners, and his reliability when entrusted with responsibility. The central issue was whether that evidence established exceptional progress sufficient to justify a tariff reduction.

1. Application refused. The court concluded that no reduction of the minimum term was justified.
2. The governing principle, identified in R (Smith) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2005] UKHL 51; [2006] 1 AC 159, is that a tariff imposed on a person detained during Her Majesty’s pleasure may be reduced on reconsideration where there is clear evidence of exceptional and unforeseen progress.
3. The court identified relevant indicators of exceptional progress. They include an exemplary work and disciplinary record, genuine remorse, acceptance of an appropriate level of responsibility, the ability to build and maintain successful relationships with prisoners and staff, and successful engagement with work or offence-related courses resulting in a substantial reduction in risk. Ideally, the progress should be sustained over a lengthy period and demonstrated in more than one prison. No single factor, or combination of factors, is conclusive.
4. There must nevertheless be an additional element showing that the detainee has become trustworthy when given responsibility. Good works for the benefit of others may provide evidence of that characteristic.
5. Mr Scott had made real progress. He had completed relevant courses, developed greater remorse and acceptance of his conduct, and had undertaken roles involving responsibility. Those matters would assist the Parole Board in assessing release.
6. They did not meet the high threshold. Mr Scott continued to minimise his role in the murder. His workplace conduct, removal from kitchen duties, earlier behaviour and the incident involving food indicated difficulty in maintaining successful relationships and a willingness to follow the wrong conduct of others. His difficulty dealing with older prisoners was inconsistent with exceptional progress. His work as a listener demonstrated good works, but the court could not find that he had always succeeded when given responsibility.