Junior Glasgow, Re review of the tariff

A tariff reduction may be recommended on one of three bases: exceptional progress producing a significant change in maturity and attitude; a risk to continued development that cannot be materially mitigated in custody; or a new matter undermining the original tariff decision.

Exceptional progress is fact-sensitive. Relevant indicators include sustained good conduct, remorse, responsibility, constructive relationships, engagement with offending-behaviour work, and trustworthy responsibility for the benefit of others. Completion of individual courses or positive prison reports is not conclusive. Where progress has been made in a highly supportive environment, it may require testing in a less supportive establishment before it can safely be regarded as exceptional.

The applicant was detained during Her Majesty’s Pleasure for murder, with a tariff of 21 years less time spent on remand. He sought a reduction under the approach established in R (Smith) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2005] UKHL 51.

He relied on substantial educational, vocational, therapeutic and restorative work, improved maturity, acceptance of responsibility, and positions of trust at HMP Grendon. The Secretary of State’s criteria identified possible indicators of exceptional progress, while the evidence also stated that further risk-reduction work and consolidation in a less supportive environment remained necessary. The central issues were whether the progress was exceptional and whether continued detention created a prohibited risk to his development.

The application was refused. Mr Justice Hilliard held that the applicant had made real and commendable progress, but the evidence did not yet justify recommending a tariff reduction.

1. Applicable grounds. A tariff may be reduced where there has been exceptional progress resulting in a significant alteration in maturity and attitude; where continued custody creates a risk to development that cannot be significantly mitigated or reduced in custody; or where a new matter calls into question the original tariff decision.
2. Exceptional progress. The relevant indicators included an exemplary disciplinary and work record, genuine remorse and an appropriate acceptance of responsibility, successful relationships with prisoners and staff, engagement in work and offending-behaviour courses, and an additional element showing trustworthiness when given responsibility. The factors were not conclusive individually or cumulatively. The assessment remained dependent on the particular facts and on the sustainability and depth of the progress.
3. Application. The applicant’s courses, qualifications, employment, restorative work, acceptance of responsibility and roles assisting other prisoners demonstrated significant progress. However, he had denied responsibility for many years and had only recently begun the relevant progress. His work at HMP Grendon had taken place in a therapeutic and supportive setting. The outstanding risk-reduction work and need for consolidation in a less supportive environment meant that his progress required further testing before it could safely be described as exceptional.
4. The judge rejected the submission that continued custody created a risk of the relevant kind to the applicant’s development. Testing his learning in different prison conditions was instead identified as an important next step. No tariff reduction was recommended at that stage.

Not an appeal. The judgment itself does not state any prior appellate decision.