Shaun Johns (Minimum term review) (No.2)

On a review of a life prisoner’s minimum term, the High Court may recommend a reduction where the offender has made exceptional and unforeseen progress during the sentence. The available grounds are independent, so it is sufficient to establish one of them. The review is not an appeal from an earlier High Court decision; the court must assess the material presently available. A reduction of the minimum term does not determine whether the prisoner will be released. That question remains for the Parole Board, which must assess whether the risk to the public is compatible with release.

Shaun Johns was convicted of murder and other offences and sentenced to detention during His Majesty’s pleasure with a minimum term of 22 years, reduced by time spent on remand. The minimum term had previously been reviewed by Langstaff J, who made no recommendation for reduction. The present application relied on subsequent evidence of Mr Johns’s rehabilitation and on the possible welfare prejudice caused by continued imprisonment. The central issue was whether the new material justified recommending a reduction in the minimum term.

1. Nature of the review. The court was not exercising an appellate function over the earlier High Court decision. It had to consider the material then before it, together with the more extensive material subsequently available, and decide whether a reduction should now be recommended.
2. Available grounds. A reduction could be recommended if:
   • the offender had made exceptional and unforeseen progress during the sentence;
   • continued imprisonment might seriously prejudice the offender’s welfare, with the public interest in welfare outweighing the public interest in further imprisonment until expiry of the current minimum term; or
   • a new matter called into question the basis on which the original minimum term had been fixed.
   These grounds were independent.
3. Application. There was no new matter undermining the basis of the original minimum term. However, the evidence showed sustained and substantial rehabilitation. It included a long period without adverse adjudications, reduced security categorisation, completion of risk-reduction and therapeutic programmes, educational achievement, mentoring and other constructive work, and highly favourable professional and prison reports. The court concluded that Mr Johns had made exceptional and unexpected progress.
4. The court also accepted that there was force in the evidence that continued detention to the existing tariff date could cause institutionalisation and harm reintegration, particularly because Mr Johns had achieved as much as he could in his current security category. That ground would independently have justified a reduction if necessary.
5. The court recommended that the minimum term be reduced by two years, so that it would expire in 2025. The recommendation did not determine release. The Parole Board would decide at the appropriate time whether the risk to the public was compatible with release on licence.

The judgment states that the minimum term had previously been reviewed by the High Court in Shaun Jones Minimum Term Review, [2018] EWHC 204 (Admin). The present court expressly stated that it was not hearing an appeal from that decision, but conducting a fresh review on the basis of more extensive material.