Liam Douglas-O'Callaghan, Review of the tariff in the case of

A tariff review based on exceptional and unforeseen progress requires an assessment of the prisoner’s development as a whole. Relevant considerations include conduct, discipline, relationships, remorse, responsibility, rehabilitation work and risk reduction. The listed factors are indicative rather than conclusive. Progress should be sustained over a lengthy period and, where relevant, across different establishments. Continued denial of guilt is not an absolute bar, but it may make it more difficult to assess maturity, address the causes of offending and establish a substantial reduction in risk. Real and continuing progress will not justify a reduction where it has not yet become exceptional or sufficiently sustained.

The claimant was convicted of murder and sentenced in 2012 to detention during Her Majesty’s Pleasure, with a minimum term of 18 years, less time already served. He applied for a review of that tariff. The only ground relied upon was exceptional and unforeseen progress during sentence.

The court considered his rehabilitation courses, educational and charitable work, custodial conduct, relationships, remorse and attitude to the offence. The central issue was whether his progress was exceptional, sufficiently sustained and accompanied by a substantial reduction in relevant risk.

1. Legal framework. The review could result in a recommendation to reduce the tariff only if one of the specified criteria was established. The relevant criterion was exceptional and unforeseen progress during sentence.
2. Assessment of exceptional progress. Indicative factors included an exemplary work and disciplinary record, genuine remorse and an appropriate acceptance of responsibility, successful relationships with prisoners and staff, and effective engagement with work or offending-behaviour courses resulting in a substantial reduction in risk. The presence of one or all factors was not conclusive. The court had to assess the particular circumstances, including whether progress had been sustained over a lengthy period and in more than one prison.
3. Application to the claimant. The claimant had made substantial real progress. His conduct had improved, he had completed relevant courses, undertaken education and charitable work, developed constructive relationships and progressed through different prison establishments. However, his early custodial behaviour had been poor, and the court was not satisfied that the improvement had yet become embedded or exceptional.
4. Responsibility and remorse. Continued denial of responsibility was not necessarily a bar to a tariff reduction. It nevertheless affected the assessment of progress, maturity and risk. The claimant expressed regret for the consequences of the offence and accepted responsibility for being present, but remained substantially hesitant to accept responsibility for the murder. That limited the court’s ability to conclude that there had been a substantial reduction in risk.
5. Disposition. The court could not conclude that the progress was exceptional or sustained for an appropriately lengthy period. No reduction in the minimum term was recommended. The court considered that further progress might justify a later application.

This was a first-instance tariff review in the Administrative Court. The judgment does not state any appellate history.