On the review of the tariff in the case of Lemar Omar Martin

A tariff reduction based on exceptional progress requires more than solid improvement in custody. The court must assess the prisoner’s work and disciplinary record, remorse and responsibility, relationships, and engagement with offending-related work, together with whether the progress has been sustained over a lengthy period and across more than one prison. The factors are indicative rather than conclusive. The assessment remains fact-sensitive. Continued difficulty in accepting guilt and unresolved concerns about negative influences may prevent progress from being exceptional, even where educational, vocational and behavioural development is substantial.

The applicant was convicted of murder and unlawful wounding and sentenced to detention during His Majesty’s Pleasure, with a minimum term of 14 years. He applied for review of that term, relying on exceptional and unforeseen progress during sentence. The application was supported by evidence of remorse, responsibility for bringing weapons to the scene, educational achievement, trusted prison work, positive relationships, offending-behaviour courses and improved conduct.

The dossier also recorded concerns about associations, unauthorised items, risk-taking and the applicant’s continuing difficulty in fully accepting guilt. The issue was whether the progress shown satisfied the applicable criteria for a tariff reduction.

1. The application for a reduction of the minimum term was refused. The court could not recommend any reduction.

2. The relevant assessment required consideration of whether the prisoner had made exceptional and unforeseen 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 successful engagement in work or offending-related courses resulting in a substantial reduction in risk. The progress had to be considered over a lengthy period and in more than one prison. No individual factor, or combination of factors, was conclusive.

3. The applicant had made real and sustained progress in education, employment, offending-behaviour work, relationships and general maturity. He had expressed regret and remorse and accepted responsibility for bringing the knives to the scene. However, he had not fully accepted guilt for the offences, his ability to disassociate from negative influences remained uncertain, and his disciplinary record was not faultless.

4. Viewed cumulatively, the progress amounted to solid improvement but was not yet exceptional, and had not been demonstrated over an appropriately lengthy period for the purpose of reducing the tariff.

5. The court observed that a further application might succeed if the applicant could acknowledge his guilt without reservation and demonstrate a faultless disciplinary record in future.

The judgment records that an application for an extension of time to seek permission to appeal the conviction and sentence was dismissed by the Court of Appeal Criminal Division on 20 November 2015.