Dias, Re

A tariff may be reduced on review where the prisoner has made exceptional progress, continued detention presents an unmitigable risk to development, or a new matter undermines the original tariff decision. Exceptional progress requires more than good conduct, education, remorse and constructive activity. The progress must reach the highest level, be sustained over time, and ideally be demonstrated in more than one prison so that it can be tested in different conditions. The assessment remains fact-specific. Significant and steady progress may nevertheless fall short of the exceptional threshold.

The applicant had been detained during Her Majesty’s Pleasure for murder committed when he was 17. The Central Criminal Court imposed a minimum term of 15 years, less time spent on remand. He applied for a tariff reduction under R (Smith) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2005] UKHL 51.

The evidence showed good conduct, remorse, educational and vocational achievements, trusted prison employment and additional responsibilities. The issue was whether that evidence amounted to exceptional progress sufficient to justify a reduction at that stage.

1. The court identified the three grounds on which a tariff might be reduced under R (Smith) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2005] UKHL 51: exceptional progress resulting in a significant alteration in maturity and attitude; a risk to continued development which could not be significantly mitigated in custody; or a new matter calling into question the basis of the original tariff.

2. The applicable criteria indicated that exceptional progress might be shown by an exemplary work and disciplinary record, genuine remorse and appropriate responsibility, successful relationships with prisoners and staff, and engagement in work and offending-related courses. Additional evidence of trustworthiness and responsibility, including sustained good works for others, was also relevant. The presence of one or more factors was not conclusive.

3. The threshold was high. The applicant’s conduct, qualifications, prison work, remorse, relationships and additional responsibilities were all commended. However, his progress was significant and steady rather than exceptional. The criteria contemplated sustained progress over a lengthy period and, ideally, in more than one prison. His recent transfer to Stoke Heath meant that there had been insufficient time to assess whether his best conduct would be maintained in different conditions.

4. No reduction was recommended at that stage. The application for a tariff reduction was refused.

The judgment described the original sentence imposed by the Central Criminal Court on 9 July 2009. It was a first-instance tariff review in the Administrative Court, rather than an appeal from that sentence.