Re Luddington

On a review of a prisoner’s minimum term, the court may recommend a reduction where the offender has made exceptional and unforeseen progress, where continued imprisonment seriously prejudices welfare and welfare interests outweigh punishment, or where a new matter undermines the original term.

It is sufficient to establish one ground. Exceptional progress is assessed by reference to the offender’s sustained conduct, rehabilitation, risk reduction and development during custody. Significant welfare concerns do not justify reduction where the public interest in further punishment remains stronger.

The claimant was convicted of murder, robbery and false imprisonment committed when he was 17. He received a minimum term of 18 years for the murder. His minimum term had previously been reviewed, but no reduction was recommended.

On a further review, the court considered whether there had been exceptional and unforeseen progress, whether continued imprisonment seriously prejudiced his welfare, or whether a new matter called the original term into question. The central issue was whether the material before the court justified recommending a reduction.

1. The review was not an appeal from the earlier decision. The court had to consider the material presently before it, which was more extensive because of the passage of time and subsequent events. The formal decision was taken by the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice, who had undertaken to follow the High Court’s recommendation. The procedure had been established in light of R v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Smith [2005] UKHL 51.
2. There were three possible grounds for recommending a reduction: exceptional and unforeseen progress during the sentence; serious prejudice to the offender’s welfare, where welfare interests outweighed the public interest in further imprisonment; and a new matter calling into question the basis of the original minimum term.
3. The third ground was unavailable because no new information undermined the basis of the original decision.
4. The claimant had made remarkable progress. His disciplinary record had substantially improved, he had remained free from drug-test failures, completed demanding therapeutic and rehabilitative courses, undertaken education and employment training, accepted responsibility and leadership roles, and made sustained contributions to other prisoners and the community. The evidence, including the offender manager’s assessment, established exceptional progress by 2021.
5. The welfare ground did not independently justify reduction. Although continued detention risked institutionalisation and the claimant could not progress further in closed conditions, those considerations did not outweigh the need for punishment having regard to the gravity of the murder.
6. It was sufficient that one ground was established. The court therefore recommended a reduction of one year, so that the minimum term would expire on 5 January 2025.

The minimum term had previously been reviewed by Green J, who declined to recommend a reduction: [2018] EWHC 697 (Admin). The present review was not an appeal from that decision.