Jamal Jones, Re

On 2 October 2014, the applicant, having been convicted of murder, was sentenced to detention at Her Majesty’s Pleasure with a minimum term of 15 years less 226 days spent on remand. The applicant’s tariff expiry date is 18 February 2029.

The applicant applies for a reduction in the minimum term pursuant to section 27A of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997.

At 5.15pm on 7 February 2014 Dean Mayley, who was 24, was walking along a footway in Middlesex. He was approached from behind by the applicant who was then aged 17 and of good character, and two others. They intended to rob Mr Mayley. The applicant had a knife in his right hand. The applicant stabbed Mr Mayley once to the chest with the force of a firm punch. The three associates than ran away. The knife went into Mr Mayley’s heart and Mr Mayley died from his injuries. No attempt was made by any of the three men to call an ambulance or otherwise help Mr Mayley. The applicant pleaded guilty of attempted robbery, and he was convicted of murder. The other two were convicted of manslaughter and attempted robbery. The sentencing judge accepted that the applicant had not intended to kill Mr Mayley.

Mr Mayley was a vulnerable victim. Although aged 24 he had learning difficulties and functioned as a 9 year old, and although the applicant was not aware of that, Mr Mayley was targeted because he was alone.

The judge indicated that if the applicant had been a year older, the starting point for the minimum term would have been 25 years, or possibly even 30 years. As it was, he was 17 and the starting point was 12 years. That required a substantial uplift to reflect the aggravating features of the case. The judge did not get the impression that the applicant was remorseful. The judge told the applicant that he had the chance to keep Mr Mayley’s memory alive by tellings others about the lessons of this case: “Knives destroy lives. Knife crime equals prison. Your task is to see if you can sell that message to anyone who will listen.”

I have been provided with a number of documents. Aside from the remarks of the sentencing judge, the papers include:

The applicant has now been in custody for around 12 years. His current tariff expiry date is in 3 years’ time. He has been at HMP Stocken since April 2022.

The applicant had what has been described as a turbulent start to his sentence, involving many assaults and possession of unauthorised items, and many adjudications.

On three occasions in May and June 2016 the applicant was in unauthorised possession of an offensive weapon. He was sentenced to 18 months’ detention consecutive to the sentence that he was already serving.

The applicant’s offender supervisor says that he is now starting to evidence a change in maturity and outlook with greater levels of compliance with the regime, and a reduced number of proven adjudications. He received many adjudications whilst detained at HMP Feltham in 2014, HMP Swinfen Hall in 2015-16, HMP Aylesbury in 2017-18 and HMP Swaleside in 2021. However, the frequency of adjudications reduced markedly after 2017. Also, the nature of the adjudications has moved from assaults to disobeying lawful orders and possession of unauthorised articles.

In 2017, the applicant completed the RESOLVE programme and also the CRIMINON programme, and he has also completed victim awareness in-cell packs.

In her psychological report, Ms Kennedy draws attention to well known research to the effect that young people’s psychosocial maturation, including in respect of physical restraint, continues to develop between the ages of 14 to 25. She points out that the last incident of violence involving the applicant dates back to 2017, and the evidence suggests that he has matured and has adopted adultlike psychosocial skills. She says his record in custody is not exceptional but that there is evidence of progress, and there is no evidence of non-compliance or violence in recent years. Ms Kennedy says:

“Mr Jones is currently in a position of positivity for the future, despite the length of his sentence. Given his young age at the time of the index offence, I do not believe that a significant length of time in closed conditions will best promote his rehabilitation. Mr Jones’s tariff expires in February 2029, and it is conceivable he may begin to believe his efforts are time wasted and consequentially have a detrimental impact on his psychological health and motivation. Therefore, on balance, having considered the legal test and Mr Jones’s current circumstances I believe his case meets the threshold for a reduction in the original Tariff.”

A sentence of detention during Her Majesty’s Pleasure is “a special sentence devised to reflect the reduced responsibility and special needs of those committing murder as children or young persons… It has been an important and distinctive feature of the sentence of HMP detention that the detainee should be subject to continuing review so that the detainee may be released if and when it is judged appropriate to do so” (see Smith at [10]). The continuing review of the tariff is the responsibility of the Lord Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Justice. In practice, the review is carried out by a judge who may recommend (on certain grounds) that the tariff be reduced. The Lord Chancellor has agreed to honour any recommended reduction in tariff.

There are three possible grounds on which a tariff may be reduced:

The “Criteria for Reduction of minimum term in respect of HMP Detainees”, produced by the National Offender Management Service on behalf of the Secretary of State, states that factors that indicate exceptional progress may include a prisoner having demonstrated:

“1)

An exemplary work and disciplinary record in prison;

2)

Genuine remorse and accepted an appropriate level of responsibility for the part played in the offence;

3)

The ability to build and maintain successful relationships with fellow prisoners and prison staff; and

4)

Successful engagement in work (including offending behaviour/offence-related courses).”

The document says that, ideally, all of these factors should have been sustained over a lengthy period and in more than one prison. Further, “[t]o reach the threshold of exceptional progress there would also need to be some extra element to show that the detainee had assumed responsibility and shown himself to be trustworthy when given such responsibility. Such characteristics may well be demonstrated by the detainee having done good works for the benefit of others.” Examples given include raising money for charity. Ideally, it is said, there would need to be evidence of sustained involvement in more than one prison over a lengthy period.

With effect from 28 June 2022, the system for considering applications to review the minimum term in these circumstances has been put on a statutory basis by sections 27A and 27B of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997, inserted by section 128 of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022. Sections 27A and 27B of the 1997 Act state:

“27 A Sentence of detention during Her Majesty’s pleasure imposed on a person under 18: application for minimum term review

(1)

This section applies to a person who—

(a)

is serving a DHMP sentence, and

(b)

was under the age of 18 when sentenced;

and such a person is referred to in this section as a “relevant young offender”.

(2)

A relevant young offender may make an application for a minimum term review to the Secretary of State after serving half of the minimum term.

(3)

An “application for a minimum term review” is an application made by a relevant young offender for a reduction in the minimum term.

…

(5)

Where the Secretary of State receives an application under this section, the Secretary of State must—

(a)

consider the application, and

(b)

unless the Secretary of State forms the view that the application is frivolous or vexatious, refer it to the High Court.

…

(8)

In this section—

“DHMP sentence” means a sentence of detention during Her Majesty’s pleasure imposed (whether before or after this section comes into force) under a provision listed in column 1 of the table in subsection (9);

“minimum term”, in relation to a person serving a DHMP sentence, means the part of the sentence specified—

(a)

in the minimum term order made in respect of the sentence…

“minimum term order”, in relation to a DHMP sentence, means the order made under [section 269 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003].

(10)

For the purposes of subsection (4), an application for a minimum term review is determined—

(a)

when the court makes a reduction order or a decision confirming the minimum term (see section 27B)…

(11)

There is no right for any person who is serving a DHMP sentence to request a review of the minimum term other than that conferred by this section.

27

B Power of High Court to reduce minimum term

(1)

This section applies where the Secretary of State refers an application for a minimum term review made by a relevant young offender under section 27A to the High Court.

(2)

The court may—

(a)

make a reduction order in relation to relevant young offender, or

(b)

confirm the minimum term in respect of the offender’s DHMP sentence,

and a decision of the court under this subsection is final.

(3)

A reduction order is an order that the relevant young offender’s minimum term is to be reduced to such part of the offender’s DHMP sentence as the court considers appropriate and is specified in the reduction order.

(4)

In deciding whether to make a reduction order, the court must, in particular, take into account any evidence—

(a)

that the relevant young offender’s rehabilitation has been exceptional;

(b)

that the continued detention or imprisonment of the offender for the remainder of the minimum term is likely to give rise to a serious risk to the welfare or continued rehabilitation of the offender which cannot be eliminated or mitigated to a significant degree.

(5)

In this section “DHMP sentence”, “minimum term” and “relevant young offender” have the same meaning as in section 27A.”

I am grateful to the applicant’s representative who has provided clear, succinct and helpful representations in support of his application for a tariff reduction. It is submitted that he has made exceptional and unforeseen progress during his sentence and that his welfare would be seriously prejudiced by his continued imprisonment and that the public interest in the applicant’s welfare outweighs the public interest in a further period of imprisonment until the expiry of the current minimum term. It is pointed out that the applicant appears to have addressed his risk of violence by his participation in the RESOLVE programme, because there is no record of him having been violent since then. Attention is drawn to the suggestion in the psychological report that the applicant’s case meets the threshold for a reduction in the tariff. Further, it is said that the applicant has completed his sentence plan and it would be harmful to keep him in custody to his current tariff release date because he has achieved all he can in his present security category.

The test: Before the introduction of sections 27A and 27B, one of the factors that could lead to the reduction of a tariff was evidence of a new matter which called into question the basis of the original decision to set the tariff at a particular level. Section 27B of the 1997 Act does not expressly suggest that a tariff may be reduced on this basis. However, sections 27A and 27B of the 1997 Act were introduced against the backdrop of an established and well-understood scheme for the consideration of applications to review the minimum in term in these types of case. Nothing in the language of those provisions, or in the explanatory notes accompanying section 128 of the 2022 Act, indicate an intention to change the nature of the test that is applied. The factors identified in section 27B(4) are not said to be exhaustive of the factors that may be taken into account by the court. I therefore consider the application by reference to the three limbs set out at paragraph 14 above.

Exceptional rehabilitation: The applicant has clearly made considerable progress in custody, and this will stand him in good stead when the Parole Board come to consider him for release. In particular, there has been a marked change in his behaviour since around 2018. That is evidenced by the pattern of adjudications (and the absence of any adjudications since 2022) and also by the tariff assessment review and the psychological report.

The applicant is to be commended on the good progress that he has made. I regret that I do not, however, consider that this reaches the level of true exceptionality so as to support an adjustment to the tariff. In particular, the very good progress has not been maintained for a sufficient period of time across different institutions. Moreover, evidence of remorse, ability to build and maintain successful relationships and successfully to engage in work is still limited.

Risk to continued development: I note everything that has been said by the applicant’s offender supervisor, by Dr Kennedy and by the applicant’s representative. It appears that the applicant has now done much, if not all, of the offence related work that is required of him, and that continued incarceration in closed conditions will not significantly promote his rehabilitation. Rehabilitation is not, however, the only purpose of incarceration. There is also a punitive and a protective element. The test for a reduction in tariff is not simply that continued incarceration is unnecessary for rehabilitation, it must be shown that continued detention or imprisonment of the offender for the remainder of the minimum term is likely to give rise to a serious risk to the welfare or continued rehabilitation of the offender which cannot be eliminated or mitigated to a significant degree. I do not consider that this test has been met.

New matter: There is no new matter to call into question the tariff that was set by the sentencing judge.

It is to the applicant’s great credit that he has made such progress as he has in custody. That will stand him in good stead when the Parole Board consider him for release

However, I do not consider that the stringent test for a reduction in tariff has been shown to be satisfied. I therefore refuse the application. The applicant’s tariff expiry date therefore remains 18 February 2029.