Ashton, R. v
2014
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
UK
CORAM
- MR JUSTICE JAY
Areas of Law
- Criminal Law and Procedure
2014
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
UK
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
Mr. Ryan Ashton, sentenced to ten years for murder, sought a review of his tariff, having previously been denied in 2012 for insufficient evidence of exceptional progress. Despite positive improvements, education, and remorse shown over the years, the court found his progress still not exceptional. Follow-up reports from his probation officer and recent behavioral issues influenced the decision, resulting in the denial of his request for a tariff reduction.
Judgment
MR. JUSTICE JAY :
Introduction
This is the second occasion on which this case has been brought before the Court on the application of Mr Ryan Ashton (“the Applicant”) for a review of his tariff. I refer to the review decision made on 5 th September 2012 on which occasion Mr Justice MacDuff determined that he could not recommend that the Applicant’s tariff be reviewed. In short, it was MacDuff J’s view that the Applicant had not yet demonstrated sufficient evidence of exceptional progress within prison, but “if, as I anticipate, the Applicant continues to mature, his behaviour remains good, he avoids adjudications and other problems, there is no reason to believe that a new application would not be successful” (see paragraph 15(b) of his Judgment).
Essential Factual Background
This has been set out in the first review Judgment, and in such circumstances I may be brief.
The Applicant was born on 23 rd September 1988. On 18 th July 2006, when he was still only 17 years of age, the Applicant murdered Mr Nathan Crawley in a brutal, senseless attack. Everyone agrees that drink played an important role in this tragic offence. On 19 th February 2007 Mr Justice Openshaw sentenced the Applicant to detention during Her Majesty’s pleasure with a minimum term of 10 years. I have carefully considered Openshaw J’s sentencing remarks and have noted the Applicant’s remorse, which is accepted to be genuine, and the fact that he played a lesser role in the attack than others.
The Applicant is now 25 years of age. He has spent over one-third of his life in prison. His tariff expiry date is 31 st July 2016. He will not be automatically released at that stage, but only if the Parole Board determines that he no longer represents a risk to the public.
The Review Jurisdiction
Again, I may refer to the first review Judgment for a synopsis of this.
An indeterminate sentence of this nature must be kept under review in accordance with the principles laid down in R(Smith) v Secretary of State for the Home Dept [2005] UKHL 51 and the “Criteria for Reduction of Tariff in respect of HMP Detainees”. In essence, the question for me is whether the Applicant has made exceptional progress in prison. In the circumstances I think that it is worth repeating the relevant criteria from MacDuff J’s summary of them.
The following matters are, in principle, indicative of exceptional progress: (i) an exceptional work and disciplinary record in prison; (ii) genuine remorse and an a