Thomas, Re

On a tariff review for a mandatory life sentence imposed on a child, reduction may be justified only where one of three grounds is established: exceptional progress during custody; a risk to the prisoner’s continued development that cannot be significantly reduced in custody; or a new matter undermining the original tariff decision.

Exceptional progress requires an assessment of the prisoner’s overall development in context. Relevant matters include sustained good behaviour, remorse and responsibility, relationships, constructive engagement and achievement. Recent improvement, without sufficient evidence of its duration and continuation in a different establishment, may fall short of the exceptional threshold.

The applicant had been sentenced to detention during Her Majesty’s Pleasure for murder, with a minimum term of nine years. He sought review of that tariff on the basis of progress in custody, the effect of continued detention on his development, and matters said to affect the original decision.

The court considered reports concerning his conduct, education, offending-behaviour work, relationships, insight and rehabilitation. The central issue was whether his substantial and recent improvement amounted to exceptional progress, or whether either of the other recognised grounds justified reduction.

1. Applicable grounds. Following the approach in R (Smith) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2005] UKHL 51, tariff reduction could be considered on three grounds: exceptional progress producing a significant alteration in maturity and attitude; a risk to continued development that could not be significantly mitigated in custody; or a new matter calling into question the basis of the original tariff.
2. Exceptional progress. The relevant assessment was fact-sensitive. The guidance identified exemplary conduct, genuine remorse and appropriate responsibility, successful relationships, and engagement in work or offending-related courses as indicative factors. Evidence should ideally show that progress was sustained over a lengthy period and in more than one prison. The presence of one or all factors was not conclusive. An additional element of trustworthiness and responsible conduct was ordinarily required.
3. Application. The applicant had made significant progress, particularly since October 2017. He had behaved well, completed courses, obtained qualifications, improved his relationships and undertaken mentoring. However, he did not accept responsibility consistently with the jury’s verdict, and the evidence did not sufficiently establish the duration and effect of his progress in the adult estate or the sustained impact of his mentoring.
4. The risk to his continued development was not shown to be incapable of significant mitigation in custody. Any contrary risk would have been speculative, particularly as he could be safely managed in a Category C establishment. No new matter undermined the original tariff decision.
5. The court therefore declined to recommend a tariff reduction.