F, Re review of tariff

On a periodic review of a tariff imposed on a person detained at Her Majesty’s Pleasure, reduction may be recommended where there is clear evidence of exceptional and unforeseen progress in custody. The relevant assessment is comparative. The court must consider the offender’s development from the circumstances existing at sentence, including whether there has been a significant reduction in risk to public safety.

The assessment may take account of prison conduct, remorse and responsibility, relationships, engagement with offending-behaviour work, and sustained evidence of trustworthiness and contribution to others. These matters should ordinarily be demonstrated over a lengthy period. A reduction in tariff does not determine release, which remains a matter for the Parole Board.

F was convicted of murder and two offences of wounding with intent committed when he was aged 14. He was detained at Her Majesty’s Pleasure and, following an appeal against sentence, became subject to a minimum term of 12 years less time spent on remand.

He applied for a periodic review of that tariff. The application relied principally on extensive rehabilitative work, improved prison conduct, remorse, acceptance of responsibility and expert evidence that his risk of violence had reduced. The issue was whether his progress satisfied the criteria identified in R (Smith) v Secretary of State for the Home Department 2005 UKHL 51, particularly whether it was exceptional and unforeseen.

1. The court applied the framework 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 during the sentence. The other possible grounds are serious prejudice to the prisoner’s welfare outweighing the public interest in continued imprisonment, or a new matter calling into question the basis of the original tariff.

2. For exceptional progress, the assessment is confined to the offender’s progress and development in custody. The court must compare the offender’s position with that at sentence and consider whether there has been a significant alteration in maturity and outlook, together with a significant reduction in the risk posed to public safety. The seriousness of the original offence remains relevant background but is not itself the measure of progress.

3. The relevant guidance identifies exemplary work and disciplinary conduct, genuine remorse and an appropriate acceptance of responsibility, successful relationships with prisoners and staff, and engagement in work or offence-related courses producing reduced risk. These matters should ideally be sustained over a lengthy period. An additional element of responsibility and trustworthiness may be shown by good works for the benefit of others.

4. F had completed substantial rehabilitative work, demonstrated sustained positive conduct, developed insight and empathy, and provided a frank account of his offending after previously minimising his role. Although further rehabilitative work might be required, the court accepted the expert assessment that his current risk of violence was low and found that his progress was both exceptional and unforeseen.

5. The tariff was reduced by one year, to 11 years less 223 days spent on remand. The reduction did not determine release. Any release remained subject to the Parole Board’s assessment of safety.