Harris, Re review of the tariff

A tariff imposed on a child or young person detained during Her Majesty’s pleasure may be reviewed where there is clear evidence of exceptional and unforeseen progress during the sentence. The progress must go beyond the normal expectation of maturation in custody. Relevant considerations include the prisoner’s disciplinary record, responsibility and remorse, relationships, and engagement with rehabilitative work. Some improvement is insufficient where the overall evidence remains mixed, particularly where misconduct continues, remorse is limited, or engagement with courses is poor.

The applicant was sentenced at the age of 16 to 16 years’ detention during Her Majesty’s pleasure for murder. He sought a review of his tariff on the basis that he had made exceptional and unforeseen progress in custody. The review was advisory: any reduction was a matter for the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice.

The court considered the applicant’s disciplinary history, assessments by prison and probation staff, risk assessment, and engagement with rehabilitative courses. The central issue was whether the evidence demonstrated exceptional and unforeseen progress sufficient to justify recommending a reduction.

1. Applicable principle. Following R v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Smith [2005] UKHL 51, a tariff imposed on a child or young person detained during Her Majesty’s pleasure is reviewable and may be reduced on specified grounds, including clear evidence of exceptional and unforeseen progress during the sentence. The welfare rationale was explained in the Court of Appeal decision in R v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Smith [2004] EWCA Civ 99.
2. The court had to be persuaded that the applicant’s progress went beyond the normal expectation that a young person will mature during custody. The HMPPS criteria provided relevant guidance. They identified exceptional progress, risk to continued development which could not be significantly mitigated in custody, and matters calling into question the original tariff as relevant routes to reduction.
3. On the first criterion, the indicative factors included an exemplary disciplinary record, genuine remorse and acceptance of responsibility, successful relationships with prisoners and staff, and successful engagement with work and offence-related courses.
4. The applicant had made some progress and was beginning to accept responsibility. However, his record remained inconsistent, with repeated adjudications, including later misconduct and some incidents involving violence. His acknowledgement of responsibility appeared grudging and was not accompanied by genuine remorse. He had also failed to engage consistently with efforts to identify suitable rehabilitative courses.
5. The overall picture was therefore mixed. The criteria were not met, and the court was unable to conclude that the applicant had made exceptional and unforeseen progress. No recommendation was made to reduce the tariff. A further review remained possible if there were real and exceptional unforeseen progress.