In the Matter of Moses Mathias

A tariff imposed on a person sentenced to detention during Her Majesty’s Pleasure may be reduced on specified grounds, including exceptional progress resulting in a significant alteration in maturity and attitude since the offence. A risk to continued development in custody may also support reduction, but that ground is not necessarily sufficient in isolation. Exceptional progress is assessed cumulatively, including sustained conduct, responsibility, relationships, education, work and offending-related progress. A tariff reduction does not determine release. Release remains subject to the Parole Board’s assessment of safety.

The applicant was sentenced in 2011 to detention during Her Majesty’s Pleasure for murder committed when he was 15. The minimum term was set at 18 years, less time spent on remand.

He sought a reduction under the principles identified in R (Smith) v Secretary of State for the Home Department, relying on substantial changes in maturity and outlook, exceptional and unforeseen progress in custody, and the effect of continued detention on his welfare and development. The central issue was whether the evidence satisfied a recognised ground for tariff reduction.

1. Applicable framework. Detention during Her Majesty’s Pleasure is a special sentence reflecting the reduced responsibility and special needs of children and young persons who commit murder. Its distinctive feature is continuing review so that release may occur when appropriate. Three grounds for tariff reduction were identified: exceptional progress producing a significant alteration in maturity and attitude; an unmitigable or insufficiently mitigated risk to continued development in custody; and a new matter calling into question the original tariff.
2. Developmental risk. The risk that continued detention would hinder completion and use of education and vocational achievements was not, standing alone, sufficient. The risk was mitigated by the opportunity to pursue a Master’s degree in custody.
3. Exceptional progress. The applicant had made truly exceptional progress over many years and in different custodial establishments. His progress extended across the identified criteria, including conduct, discipline, responsibility, relationships, education, work and engagement with offending behaviour and restorative activities. The evidence demonstrated a significant transformation from the circumstances in which he entered custody.
4. Disposition. The tariff was reduced by one year, from 18 to 17 years less time on remand, expiring on 7 April 2028. The applicant would remain in custody until then and would not necessarily be released. Release would occur only if and when the Parole Board considered him safe for release.