Boot, Re review of tariff

A minimum term imposed on a person detained during Her Majesty’s Pleasure may be reduced where there is clear evidence of exceptional progress. The progress must be sustained over a lengthy period and produce a significant alteration in maturity and outlook, together with a significant reduction in the risk to public safety. The court may also consider serious prejudice to the prisoner’s welfare that cannot safely be managed in custody, or a new matter undermining the basis of the original term. Substantial rehabilitation is insufficient if it does not satisfy the exceptional and sustained nature of the test.

This was a review of the minimum term imposed on Aaron Raymond Boot, who was under 18 when he murdered Paul O’Brien and was sentenced to detention during Her Majesty’s Pleasure. The sentencing judge specified a minimum term of 11 years, less time spent on remand.

The review was conducted without representations from Mr Boot. The court considered his significant progress in custody, including his admission of responsibility and successful completion of the Resolve course. The central issue was whether that progress was exceptional and had been sustained for a sufficiently lengthy period to justify reducing the specified term.

The court refused to recommend any reduction in the specified term.

1. Applicable grounds. A tariff review may result in a reduction where: the prisoner has made exceptional and sustained progress producing a significant change in maturity and outlook and a significant reduction in risk; continued imprisonment seriously prejudices the prisoner’s welfare in a way that cannot safely be managed in custody; or a new matter calls into question the basis of the original term. The principles derive from R (Smith) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2005] UKHL 51.
2. Exceptional progress. Mr Boot had made real and very good progress. He had accepted responsibility for the killing, engaged well with the Resolve course, developed insight into the consequences of his conduct, and recognised the role of alcohol in his offending.
3. Application. The improvement was not yet exceptional for the purposes of the review. It had not been sustained for a sufficiently lengthy period, and the evidence continued to identify scope for further improvement. There were no welfare issues and no challenge to the original term.
4. The court therefore concluded that a reduction could not be recommended.