Kyle Kinghorn, Re

For a review of a minimum term imposed on a person sentenced to detention during Her Majesty’s pleasure, the established three-limb scheme remains applicable under sections 27A and 27B of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997:

• exceptional progress during custody;
• a serious risk to continued development which cannot be significantly mitigated in custody; or
• a new matter calling the original tariff into question.

Exceptional progress requires more than substantial rehabilitation. It must ordinarily be sustained over a prolonged period, demonstrated in different establishments, and accompanied by an additional element such as assuming responsibility and showing trustworthiness. The application was refused because that stringent threshold was not met.

The applicant was convicted of murder committed when he was aged 16 years and 8 months. He was sentenced to detention during Her Majesty’s pleasure with a minimum term of 16 years, less time spent on remand.

The Secretary of State referred his application for a minimum-term review to the High Court under section 27B of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997. The applicant relied on his substantial progress in custody, including remorse, responsibility for his part in the offence, educational achievements, constructive prison work and improved behaviour. The central issue was whether the statutory and established criteria justified reducing the tariff.

1. Application refused. The minimum term remained 16 years less time spent on remand, with the tariff expiry date remaining 9 July 2026.
2. Sections 27A and 27B of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997, inserted by section 128 of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, placed the review scheme on a statutory footing. They did not alter the established nature of the test, particularly the meaning of exceptional progress.
3. The court applied the three established grounds identified in R (Smith) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: exceptional progress resulting in a significant alteration in maturity and attitude; a risk to continued development which cannot be significantly mitigated in custody; and a new matter calling the original tariff into question.
4. No new matter undermined the original tariff. Nor was there a sufficient risk to the applicant’s continued development, since further progress remained possible in custody and the minimum term was approaching its end.
5. The applicant had made considerable progress. He had improved his disciplinary record, expressed genuine remorse, accepted responsibility, maintained constructive relationships, completed relevant courses, undertaken valuable work and study, and shown a significant change in maturity and attitude.
6. That progress nevertheless fell short of the exceptional standard. The relevant progress needed to be sustained over a prolonged period, demonstrated in different establishments, and accompanied by an additional element involving responsibility and trustworthiness. The threshold was not satisfied.