Ashtiaq Asghar, Review of the Tariff in the Case of

A tariff review for a person detained at Her Majesty’s Pleasure requires clear evidence of exceptional and unforeseen progress before the minimum term may be reduced. Ordinary rehabilitation, good conduct and developing insight are insufficient unless they demonstrate the particular quality required by that test. The review does not reopen the correctness of the original sentence or determine the risk posed on release. Release remains a matter for the Parole Board.

The applicant pleaded guilty to murder and received detention at Her Majesty’s Pleasure with a minimum term of 17½ years. He sought a review of the tariff, supported by evidence of rehabilitation, educational achievement, good conduct and work undertaken in a therapeutic community and through relationship programmes.

The court was asked to review the tariff and recommend whether a reduction should be made. The central issue was whether the applicant had produced clear evidence of exceptional and unforeseen progress warranting alteration of the minimum term.

1. Applicable test. The court adopted the continuing-review principle identified in R (Smith) v Secretary of State for Home Department [2006] 1 AC 159. A reduction in the minimum term required clear evidence of exceptional and unforeseen progress reasonably judged to require reconsideration of the term imposed.
2. Scope of review. The review did not require the judge to reconsider the correctness of the original sentence or assess the risk that the applicant would present if released. The latter issue remained for the Parole Board when the minimum term expired. The parameters described in R (Cunliffe) v Secretary of State for Justice [2016] EWCA Civ 416 were applied, including that exceptional progress was a high threshold.
3. Assessment of the evidence. The applicant had made good and creditworthy progress. His rehabilitation programmes helped him discuss the offence, develop insight and begin to understand how to reduce the risk of reoffending. His conduct in custody, employment and work as a listener and key worker were also positive.
4. Those matters did not establish exceptional and unforeseen progress. He had struggled fully to engage in therapeutic-community group work, and his Tariff Assessment Report did not positively conclude that his progress exceeded what was expected of life sentence prisoners. The evidence therefore did not justify altering the minimum term.
5. Disposition. The application was dismissed. The court made no recommendation to the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice to reduce the sentence.

First-instance tariff review in the Administrative Court. No appellate history is stated in the judgment.