Prince, Review of the tariff in the case of

A tariff review for a young person detained during Her Majesty’s Pleasure may result in reduction where there has been exceptional progress, continued detention creates an unmitigable risk to development, or a new matter undermines the original tariff decision. Exceptional progress requires the court’s own assessment of the whole case. Indicative factors include sustained good behaviour, remorse, responsibility, constructive relationships and successful offence-related work. Those factors are not conclusive. The assessment must also consider whether the detainee has developed trustworthiness and accepted responsibility when given responsibility. Significant improvement is insufficient if material issues concerning responsibility, insight, risk factors or complacency remain unresolved.

The applicant was sentenced by the Crown Court at Birmingham in 2011 to detention during Her Majesty’s Pleasure for murder, with a minimum term of 14 years less time spent on remand. He applied for a review and reduction of his tariff following R (Smith) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2005] UKHL 51. The application relied principally on exceptional progress in custody, including improved behaviour, educational work, offence-related courses and increased responsibility.

The central issue was whether the applicant’s progress was sufficient to justify a reduction, or whether any other recognised ground for review was established.

1. Application dismissed. The applicant’s tariff was not reduced. A further review remained open if he built on his progress and addressed the outstanding concerns.
2. The purpose of reviewing a tariff imposed on a young offender is that welfare and development may change during custody. A provisional tariff reflecting punishment and deterrence must therefore remain subject to review where the offender’s development justifies earlier release, applying the reasoning in R (Smith) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2005] UKHL 51 and the Court of Appeal decision at [2004] EWCA Civ 99.
3. The recognised grounds for reduction were: exceptional progress producing a significant change in maturity and attitude; a risk to continued development which cannot be significantly mitigated in custody; or a new matter calling into question the basis of the original tariff.
4. Whether progress is exceptional requires an independent assessment of all the material. The Secretary of State’s criteria are indicative rather than conclusive. Relevant matters include sustained exemplary behaviour, genuine remorse and responsibility, constructive relationships, successful work and offence-related courses, together with an additional element showing trustworthiness and responsible conduct.
5. The applicant had made substantial improvements, but continued to deny intending to cause really serious harm and had further to go in accepting responsibility for deliberately stabbing the victim, understanding his offending and risk factors, and addressing complacency. Those matters were critical to the assessment of maturity and attitude. Continued custody did not create an unmitigable risk to his development, and no new matter undermined the original tariff.

The judgment records that the applicant was sentenced by the Crown Court at Birmingham in 2011 and subsequently sought a tariff review in the High Court. No appeal from an intermediate decision is stated.