Re Mason (Review of Tariff)

Mr Mason was born on 24 September 1992. On 3 September 2007, some three weeks before his fifteenth birthday, he took part in a gang attack on an individual which resulted in his death. The attack was intended to deal with someone who had offended the gang but the victim was not that person. He was wholly innocent. The fatal wound was from a knife which penetrated his brain. Mr Mason was not the ringleader nor did he administer the fatal wound but he was convicted of murder on the basis of joint enterprise. His tariff was reduced on appeal from the 13 years imposed by the trial judge to 11 years.

Until last year, Mr Mason’s behaviour in custody had been relatively poor. He had received 11 adjudications for various breaches of prison discipline, some including violence. A lengthy OASys assessment dated 30 April 2014 regarded his risk to the public in the community as high. He had completed a Thinking Skills programme in August 2013. There were many positive signs and he had engaged well and done what was required of him. But anger remained a problem. It was unfortunate that towards the end of the course he was involved in an incident on the wing in which he assaulted an inmate.

In June 2014 he was transferred to Full Sutton, a high security institution, because of concerns about his behaviour. He had been involved in violence. He received a negative Tariff Assessment Report on 8 July 2014, but, as the reporting officer noted, he had only known Mr Mason for under a month and was largely depending on reports.

I have seen submissions on his behalf from his solicitors dated 18 August 2014 and have read his letter. Reliance was placed on a Substance Misuse treatment Report of May 2014. He had become a regular user of cannabis but, to his credit, he had decided that he would not revert to its use. The report is certainly positive in that it recognises a genuine desire to put his involvement in gangs or with criminals behind him. However, the report noted that it became evident that his engagement could be affected by his mood. He was capable of change but was struggling to put it into practice. More time and application is in my view clearly needed and his letter shows a clear desire to avoid future offending and to obtain employment.

I can only recommend a reduction in tariff if Mr Mason has made exceptional and unforeseen progress. Mr Mason has only shown real signs of progress over the past nine months or so. But I am afraid that I do not think that his progress, good though it is, can be regarded as exceptional or unforeseen. It may be that he can show such progress before his tariff expires but I am afraid I cannot recommend reduction.