Jimmy Connors, Re

A minimum-term review for a person detained during His Majesty’s Pleasure may result in a reduction order where the statutory criteria are met. Exceptional progress requires more than participation in courses, improved behaviour, remorse or developing relationships. The court must assess the evidence cumulatively and in its specific context. Relevant considerations include whether progress has been sustained over a lengthy period, whether the disciplinary and work record is exemplary, and whether the detainee has assumed responsibility and shown that he is trustworthy when given responsibility.

The applicant was convicted of murder committed when he was aged 16 and received a minimum term of 15 years, less time spent on remand. After serving half of that term, he applied for a minimum-term review under section 27A of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997. The Secretary of State referred the application to the High Court.

The applicant relied on improved behaviour, education and vocational courses, offending-behaviour work, remorse, drug rehabilitation, employment and responsibility for other prisoners. The central issue was whether this demonstrated exceptional progress resulting in a significant alteration in his maturity and outlook since the offence.

1. The court had jurisdiction under section 27A of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 to conduct a minimum-term review. Under section 27B, it could make a reduction order or confirm the minimum term.

2. The statutory assessment required particular consideration of exceptional rehabilitation and whether continued detention for the remainder of the minimum term was likely to create a serious welfare or rehabilitation risk which could not be significantly mitigated in custody. The criteria published by the Ministry of Justice were relevant to that assessment.

3. Exceptional progress requires evidence of a significant alteration in maturity and outlook. Relevant indicators may include an exemplary work and disciplinary record, genuine remorse and appropriate responsibility for the offence, successful relationships with prisoners and staff, and successful engagement in work and offending-behaviour courses. These factors are not individually or collectively conclusive. They should ideally be sustained over a lengthy period and in more than one prison.

4. A further element is ordinarily required: evidence that the detainee has assumed responsibility and shown himself to be trustworthy when given responsibility. Good works benefiting others may demonstrate that element, but sustained evidence remains important.

5. The applicant had made real progress after a poor start. However, his early disciplinary and behavioural record was poor, later improvements were not free from significant incidents, drug misuse remained a problem at least until November 2021, and the more recent positive developments had not been sustained for a sufficiently lengthy period. His progress was therefore not exceptional.

6. The court declined to make a reduction order and confirmed the minimum term.