Hanchard-Kerr, On the Review of the Tariff in the case of

A minimum term may be reduced only on one of the prescribed grounds: exceptional and unforeseen progress during sentence; serious prejudice to the offender’s welfare outweighing the public interest in continued detention; or a new matter undermining the basis of the original decision. Ordinary improvement in prison conduct, participation in rehabilitative programmes and educational achievement do not, without more, amount to exceptional progress. The relevant progress must materially exceed what the authorities are entitled to expect from a detained offender.

The claimant, detained during Her Majesty’s pleasure after being convicted of murder committed when aged 17, sought review of his 15-year minimum term. He relied principally on improved prison behaviour, a lower security classification, educational qualifications and participation in offending-behaviour programmes. The review was conducted under the procedure established in light of R v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Smith [2005] UKHL 51. The central issue was whether his progress was exceptional and unforeseen, or whether either of the other statutory grounds for reduction applied.

1. The court identified three possible grounds for reducing the minimum term: exceptional and unforeseen progress during sentence; serious prejudice to the offender’s welfare where the public interest in welfare outweighed the public interest in further imprisonment; and a new matter calling into question the basis of the original decision.

2. The welfare ground and the new-matter ground were not engaged. Nothing showed that continued detention seriously prejudiced the claimant’s welfare, and nothing called into question the basis of the original minimum term.

3. The claimant’s disciplinary record had improved markedly. He had achieved category C status, held enhanced prisoner status for substantial periods, undertaken educational work and completed the Thinking Skills Programme and Self-Confidence Programme. Positive staff references also supported his application.

4. Those developments did not satisfy the governing threshold. The improvement represented movement from a very low starting point to the level which the authorities were entitled to expect. Educational work and programmes addressing risk were likewise expected of those detained during Her Majesty’s pleasure. The progress was therefore not exceptional, despite the positive signs.

5. The court did not recommend any reduction in the minimum term.