[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions >> Williams, Re [2015] EWHC 2844 (Admin) (14 October 2015) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2015/2844.html Cite as: [2015] EWHC 2844 (Admin)

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
		14/10/2015

Mr Justice Collins:

1. Mr Williams (whom I will refer to as the applicant) was born on 9^th August 1993. On 3^rd September 2007 he was one of a number of boys and young men who were involved in an attack on a victim whom they, as members of a gang, had mistakenly believed to have been responsible for the theft of a mobile phone from one of their number. The victim received knife wounds one of which penetrated his brain and killed him. Three of the ten defendants who appeared before the Central Criminal Court were convicted of the victim's murder. The applicant was one of the three and was sentenced by the Recorder of London to a tariff of 14 years.
2. He had denied that he was present at or involved in the killing albeit he was one of the gang whose members were responsible. The jury did not believe his account. The Recorder recognised that his youth coupled with the inability to be sure that he had wielded a knife and the acceptance that he had no intent to kill as opposed to infliction of grievous bodily harm meant that his tariff should be lower than that of the 17 year old who was the leading member of the group in planning and executing the attack.
3. The applicant appealed against the tariff. The Court of Appeal reduced it to 12 years. He had previous convictions including assaults occasioning actual bodily harm (setting a dog on his victim) which was an aggravating factor but the court took the view that the mitigating factors, namely his youth and an indication that he had, according to the pre-sentence report, expressed some remorse for his actions, balanced the aggravating factors. In addition, the leading defendant had received a tariff of 15 years and to sentence the applicant to 1 year less was not proportionate.
4. The result is that, taking account of time spent in custody on remand, his tariff expiry date is 20^th December 2019.
5. Certainly since late 2010 the applicant has made very good progress. He has, it is said, recognised that he will not be involved in gang culture and will not socialise with his erstwhile peer group. Not only has he made real progress, but he has avoided involvement in conflicts with other prisoners. That is not easy. But he has also been of real assistance to other inmates in being what is termed 'a listener'. Listeners are called on when other inmates are in crisis and can spend hours with and helping them. He is highly regarded in this and trains other listeners. He has acted as a listener for some 2½ years. In addition he has achieved enhanced status. Further, he has helped to organise events for charities.
6. On his behalf, it is submitted that he is ready for a progressive move to open conditions. A tariff reduction would enable him to apply for a pre-tariff review now rather than waiting until next year.
7. There are three Tariff Assessment Reports (TAR) in the papers. Two are dated February and April 2015 respectively, the third is undated but appears to be no earlier than some time in 2014. None of the authors suggest that there is any new information which casts doubt on the original tariff. None suggests that to remain in custody would damage the applicant or put his continued development in jeopardy. The author of the April 2015 report states that in his view the applicant has outgrown his current environment and would benefit from being placed in an adult category C establishment to progress to open conditions. Further, none of the authors, while recognising his excellent progress, has regarded that progress as exceptional.
8. I can only recommend a reduction of tariff if I am persuaded that there is clear evidence of exceptional and unforeseen progress. As an individual matures, progress can be expected. I have no doubt that the applicant has, as I have said, made excellent progress and one can be optimistic about his behaviour when he is released. But I am afraid that there is not the necessary clear evidence that the applicant's progress has been exceptional or unforeseen. There is a unanimous view of those responsible that his tariff need not be reduced because he does not, despite his progress, qualify.
9. In the circumstances I do not recommend a reduction of the applicant's tariff.