Bangura, Re

A tariff may be reduced where the prisoner has made exceptional progress resulting in a significant alteration in maturity and attitude since the offence, where continued imprisonment presents an unmitigable developmental risk, or where a new matter calls the original tariff into question.

Exceptional progress is fact-sensitive. Sustained exemplary conduct, remorse, responsibility, constructive engagement, personal development and beneficial responsibility towards others may together satisfy the threshold. The presence of individual factors is not conclusive.

The applicant, detained during Her Majesty’s Pleasure for murder, sought a tariff reduction under the principles in R (Smith) v Secretary of State for the Home Department, [2005] UKHL 51. His minimum term had been set at 14 years, less 335 days spent on remand.

The application relied principally on exceptional progress during custody. The court considered his earlier disciplinary history, subsequent education and offending-behaviour work, remorse, trusted prison employment, mentoring, mediation and assistance to other prisoners. The central issue was whether those matters established exceptional progress producing a significant change in maturity and attitude.

1. Application granted. The tariff was reduced by 14 months, to 12 years and 10 months, less 335 days spent on remand.
2. Under R (Smith) v Secretary of State for the Home Department, [2005] UKHL 51, tariff reduction may be justified on three grounds: exceptional progress producing a significant alteration in maturity and attitude since the offence; a risk to the prisoner’s continued development which cannot be significantly mitigated in custody; or a new matter calling the original tariff decision into question.
3. The threshold of exceptional progress is assessed by reference to the individual circumstances. Relevant indicators may include sustained exemplary work and disciplinary conduct, genuine remorse and appropriate responsibility, successful relationships with prisoners and staff, engagement in work or offending-related courses, and an additional element showing trustworthiness when given responsibility. The factors are not individually or collectively conclusive.
4. The applicant’s early custodial conduct was seriously poor, but his later sustained progress was genuine and well embedded. He had achieved significant educational and behavioural development, undertaken trusted roles, helped other prisoners, contributed to mediation and restorative work, and demonstrated remorse. His progress therefore met the exceptional-progress criterion.
5. The court did not find that progress and motivation would stagnate without a reduction. The reduction did not entail release. Release remained dependent on a future determination by the Parole Board that it was safe to do so.