Robinson, Review of the tariff in the case of

A tariff review for a person detained during Her Majesty’s pleasure may result in reduction where there has been exceptional progress, where continued custody creates an unmitigable risk to the prisoner’s development, or where a new matter undermines the original tariff decision. Exceptional progress requires more than steady maturation and ordinary positive prison conduct. The assessment is fact-sensitive and must consider sustained conduct, responsibility, trustworthiness, rehabilitation, and the available evidence as a whole. Guidance issued by the Secretary of State is relevant but not conclusive. The court must make its own assessment.

The applicant was sentenced to detention during Her Majesty’s pleasure, with a minimum term of 18 years, for a murder committed when she was aged 16. Her sentence appeal was dismissed, and she sought a tariff review under R (Smith) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2005] UKHL 51. She relied on significant maturation, remorse, courses, trusted prison employment, support for other prisoners, and the possible effect of continued custody on her development. The central issues were whether her progress was exceptional, whether continued custody posed an unmitigable developmental risk, and whether any new matter called the original tariff into question.

1. The application was refused. No reduction in the tariff was recommended.

2. Following R (Smith) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2005] UKHL 51, the court identified three possible grounds for reduction: exceptional progress producing a significant change 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.

3. The welfare rationale for review was stated in R (Smith) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2004] EWCA Civ 99. The welfare requirements of a young offender may change during custody, so the offender’s position must remain under review.

4. The Secretary of State’s criteria for exceptional progress were relevant but not conclusive. They included exemplary conduct, remorse and appropriate responsibility, constructive relationships, engagement with work or offending-related courses, and an additional demonstration of trustworthiness and responsibility. The court retained responsibility for making its own assessment.

5. The applicant had made steady and positive progress. She had generally behaved well, held trusted positions, completed courses, expressed remorse, and acknowledged her involvement. However, her progress remained within the range ordinarily expected of a young person maturing during a long custodial sentence. It had not yet reached the high threshold of exceptional progress.

6. The court found no developmental risk that could not be reduced or mitigated in custody. Future opportunities, including the CARE programme and an Open University course, remained available. A further review could be requested if sustained conduct beyond ordinary expectations were later demonstrated.

The judgment records that the applicant’s sentence appeal was dismissed on 12 May 2011 and that her renewed application for permission to appeal against conviction was refused on 22 October 2014. The present proceedings were a tariff review under R (Smith) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2005] UKHL 51.