Bonelli, Re review of tariff

On a periodic tariff review for a detainee at Her Majesty’s Pleasure, a reduction may be recommended where there is clear evidence of exceptional and unforeseen progress in custody. Relevant matters include sustained exemplary conduct, genuine remorse and responsibility, constructive relationships, successful offence-focused work and reduced risk. The criteria are not individually or collectively conclusive. An additional element is required, showing that the offender has assumed responsibility and become trustworthy over a sufficient period, which may be demonstrated by sustained good works for others. A reduction in tariff does not itself secure earlier release. Release remains a matter for the Parole Board.

Stephen Bonelli was detained at Her Majesty’s Pleasure following his conviction for murder. His minimum term had been reduced on appeal to 15 years less 186 days. The court conducted a periodic review under R (Smith) v Secretary of State for the Home Department 2005 UKHL 51. The issue was whether his conduct and development in custody satisfied a recognised ground for reducing the tariff, particularly exceptional and unforeseen progress.

1. The court applied the framework identified in R (Smith) v Secretary of State for the Home Department 2005 UKHL 51. A tariff may be reduced on reconsideration where there is clear evidence of exceptional and unforeseen progress, where continued imprisonment seriously prejudices the detainee’s welfare and the public interest in welfare outweighs the public interest in further imprisonment, or where a new matter calls into question the basis of the original tariff.

2. For exceptional progress, the relevant guidance identified an exemplary work and disciplinary record, genuine remorse and appropriate responsibility, successful relationships with prisoners and staff, and successful engagement in work or offence-related courses resulting in reduced risk. These matters should ideally be sustained over a lengthy period. An additional element is required, demonstrating assumed responsibility and trustworthiness, potentially through sustained good works benefiting others.

3. The review was confined to progress and development in custody. It did not reduce the seriousness of the murder or its consequences. The relevant comparison was between the detainee’s position when sentenced and his later maturity, outlook and risk to public safety.

4. The court found that Bonelli had maintained a very good disciplinary record and an exemplary work record. He had completed relevant courses, developed genuine remorse and accepted responsibility, formed successful relationships, and shown a sustained reduction in risk. His mentoring of injured and disabled prisoners, support for prisoners undertaking the Resolve programme, and proposed work as a listener supplied the additional element of responsibility and trustworthiness.

5. The court therefore found exceptional and unforeseen progress and recommended a reduction of one year, reducing the tariff to 14 years less 186 days. Any eventual release remained entirely a matter for the Parole Board.

This was a first-instance periodic tariff review. No appellate history is stated in the judgment.