Nanthakumar, Re review of tariff

A tariff imposed on a person detained during Her Majesty’s Pleasure is provisional and may be reduced on review. The relevant question is whether there has been exceptional and unforeseen progress since sentence, producing a significant change in maturity and outlook and a significant reduction in risk to public safety. Relevant evidence may include sustained exemplary conduct, remorse, responsibility, constructive relationships, offending-behaviour work and trusted work benefiting others. A reduction does not itself authorise release; it permits earlier consideration by the Parole Board.

The applicant was convicted of murder committed when he was nearly 18 and was sentenced at age 18 to detention during Her Majesty’s Pleasure, with a minimum term of 14 years less 385 days. The Court of Appeal rejected his appeals against conviction and sentence. He sought review of the tariff on the basis of his progress in custody, including his conduct, rehabilitation, maturity and work assisting other prisoners.

The central issue was whether that progress satisfied the criteria for reducing the minimum term before the Parole Board could consider release.

1. Nature of the review. The sentence of detention during Her Majesty’s Pleasure carries continuing review. The fixed minimum term is provisional because progress in custody may justify a reduction. The humane purpose of the sentence is that a person who committed murder while legally immature should not necessarily be punished as an adult without later assessment of maturity and rehabilitation.
2. Applicable criteria. A reduction requires one or more of: exceptional progress in prison producing a significant alteration in maturity and outlook and a significant reduction in risk; a risk to continued development that cannot be significantly mitigated in custody; or a matter calling into question the basis of the original tariff, together with any other relevant matter.
3. Exceptional progress is assessed in context. Relevant indicators include sustained exemplary conduct and work, genuine remorse, acceptance of appropriate responsibility, constructive relationships, successful offending-related courses and a substantial reduction in risk. The court must also look for an additional element showing that the detainee has assumed responsibility and proved trustworthy, such as helping others, mediation or charitable work. No single factor is conclusive.
4. The applicant’s progress was sufficiently sustained and objectively supported. His model-prisoner record, trusted role assisting IPP prisoners, mediation work, educational and offending-related courses, relationships with staff and prisoners, and charitable involvement demonstrated the necessary exceptional progress and additional element of responsibility and trustworthiness. His continuing denial of personal responsibility was considered in context and did not defeat the application.
5. The court recommended that the minimum term be reduced from 14 years less 385 days to 13 years less 385 days. The reduction did not require release. Release remained dependent on a future finding by the Parole Board that it was safe and appropriate.

The judgment records that the Court of Appeal rejected the applicant’s appeal against conviction in [2009] EWCA Crim 2368 and rejected the appeal against sentence. The present court subsequently recommended a one-year reduction in the tariff.