Lynch, Re review of the 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, serious prejudice to the detainee’s welfare outweighing the public interest in continued detention, or a new matter undermining the original tariff decision.

Exceptional progress is assessed by reference to sustained conduct, genuine responsibility and remorse, constructive relationships, successful risk-reduction work, and any additional evidence of trustworthiness and contribution to others. The assessment is relative to the offender’s starting point and must focus on progress in custody. A tariff reduction does not itself secure release, which remains a matter for the Parole Board.

The court conducted a periodic review of the tariff imposed on Michael Lynch, who had been detained at Her Majesty’s Pleasure following convictions for murder and section 18 grievous bodily harm. His minimum term had been set at 14 years, 5 months and 21 days.

A first tariff review had recognised excellent progress but recommended no reduction because the high threshold had not been met. The present review concerned further rehabilitation, reduced risk, improved prison status, victim empathy, abstinence from alcohol and proactive work designed to deter young people from gang-related violence. The central issue was whether that progress was exceptional and unforeseen so as to justify a tariff reduction.

1. Legal framework. Applying R (Smith) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2005] UKHL 51, the court held that a tariff may be reduced on reconsideration where there is clear evidence of exceptional and unforeseen progress, serious prejudice to the detainee’s welfare outweighing the public interest in continued imprisonment, or a new matter calling into question the original tariff decision.
2. Assessment of progress. The relevant assessment is confined to progress and development in custody. The seriousness of the offence remains unchanged. The guidance identifies sustained exemplary conduct, genuine remorse and responsibility, constructive relationships, and successful work producing reduced risk. An additional element demonstrating trustworthiness, responsibility or beneficial work for others may be required.
3. Application. The offender had progressed from category A to category C, reduced his assessed risk from high to medium, completed substantial cognitive-behavioural and alcohol-related work, developed victim empathy, accepted that he had habitually carried a knife, and shown sustained commitment to helping prevent gang-related violence. Although disciplinary matters and intelligence reports remained relevant, they did not outweigh the broader evidence of rehabilitation.
4. Disposition. Judged against the very low base from which the offender began, the progress was both exceptional and unforeseen. The tariff was therefore reduced by six months. Any eventual release remained entirely a matter for the Parole Board.