Lomax, Re

A tariff may be reduced where a detained prisoner has made exceptional progress resulting in a significant alteration in maturity and attitude since the offence. Relevant evidence includes sustained good conduct, remorse and responsibility, constructive relationships, engagement with offending-behaviour work, and responsible service to others. The assessment is fact-sensitive and no single factor is conclusive. A reduction in tariff does not itself require release. It merely permits the Parole Board to assess release at an earlier stage.

The applicant had been detained during Her Majesty’s Pleasure following conviction for murder. His minimum term was fixed at 10 years, less 174 days spent on remand. He applied for a tariff reduction under the principles identified in [2005] UKHL 51.

The application relied principally on exceptional progress during custody. Evidence described sustained good behaviour, therapeutic and offending-related work, educational and vocational achievements, improved insight into substance misuse and victim impact, and responsible roles supporting other prisoners. The central issue was whether this demonstrated exceptional progress involving a significant alteration in the applicant’s maturity and attitude since the offence.

1. Application granted. The tariff was reduced by 12 months, from 10 years to 9 years, less 174 days spent on remand.
2. A tariff may be reduced on the ground that the prisoner has made exceptional progress during the sentence, resulting in a significant alteration in maturity and attitude since the offence. Other possible grounds are a risk to continued development that cannot be sufficiently mitigated in custody, and a new matter calling into question the basis of the original tariff decision.
3. The assessment of exceptional progress is fact-sensitive. Relevant indicators include an exemplary work and disciplinary record, genuine remorse and appropriate responsibility, successful relationships with prisoners and staff, and engagement in work or offending-related courses. The evidence should ideally show sustained progress over a lengthy period and, where possible, in more than one prison. The presence of one or all indicators is not conclusive.
4. An additional element is ordinarily required, demonstrating that the prisoner has assumed responsibility and proved trustworthy when given responsibility. Good works for the benefit of others may provide such evidence.
5. The applicant had demonstrated all four principal indicators over time. His roles within the therapeutic community, including mentoring and chairing responsibilities, showed responsibility towards others. His former problems with aggression, substance misuse and peer approval had been materially addressed, and his maturity and attitude had significantly changed.
6. The reduction did not determine entitlement to release. Release remained dependent on a subsequent decision by the Parole Board that it was safe to do so.

Not stated in the judgment.