Tariffs

9.30 Friday 26th October 2001
Court 4
Royal Courts of Justice

Review of tariff in the case of Eyjolfur Andrews in accordance with the practice direction of the Lord Chief Justice dated 27th July 2000

1. Eyjolfur Andrews was convicted of murder in December 1993. He was born on the 28th of December 1976. At the time of the offence he was 16 years of age. The trial judge, His Honour Judge Geoffrey Grigson, sentenced him to be detained during Her Majesty's Pleasure. Andrews had pleaded guilty to offences of manslaughter, two of robbery and having a firearm with intent. The offence of manslaughter was an alternative to the offence of murder. In respect of the offences, apart from murder, Andrews was sentenced to be detained for periods up to eight years, concurrent.

2. The trial judge selected a tariff period of ten years, the Lord Chief Justice recommended a tariff of 14 years. The tariff was fixed at 12 years by the Home Secretary.

The Facts

3. Andrews had been taking drugs since he was 12 years old. By the age of 15 he was taking heroin and crack cocaine. He financed his drug habit by selling tablets to people in clubs. He was in the habit of carrying a sawn-off shot gun and ammunition in a holster beneath his coat.

4. In the evening of 29th January 1993, Andrews and another youth forced their way into the flat of a small-time cannabis dealer. The dealer's pregnant girlfriend was in the flat. Under threat of the gun, Andrews stole cannabis valued at £650.

5. On the evening of the murder, Andrews had taken a cocktail of drugs. He and another youth went into a small general store with the intention of robbing the proprietor. There were four people behind the counter. Andrews drew his gun and demanded money. He cocked the gun when his request was not immediately complied with. Money and cigarettes were handed over. Andrews then searched one of the people, Nat Banda. The others left the shop leaving Andrews and Nat Banda alone. Andrews shot Nat Banda in the stomach. There is no suggestion that he had resisted. He died from his wounds.

6. At the time of his trial Andrews was drug free. The trial judge suspected that the improvement would not be sustained. If this proved to be the case, the trial judge considered further offending inevitable.

7. Initially in custody Andrews was immature, but he rapidly developed and tackled his offending behaviour. The improvement continued and a project in which he was involved received the High Sheriff of Surrey's youth award for preventing crime.

8. At Her Majesty's Prison Coldingley, the reports which Andrews received were very favourable. He has been involved in counselling young people who have been identified as being at risk of crime or drug misuse on a 1 to 1 basis. His contribution has been highly praised.

9. By September 1999 he was considered suitable for opening conditions. His tariff was reduced to eleven years by the Home Secretary.

10. Since the reduction in his tariff, Andrews' behaviour has continued to be exemplary. He has strong external support. This is provided by his father, mother, sister, daughter and long-term girlfriend.

11. Most unusually, the deceased's cousin has visited Andrews on more than one occasion and supports a reduction in Andrews' tariff. The cousin is the deceased's closest relative. The cousin believes that Andrews now realises the errors of his past behaviour and the enormity of what he has done. He states that neither he nor his family bear any animosity or ill feelings towards Andrews or his family. The cousin writes as the representative of the family that "we unreservedly forgive him and hope it will not be too long before he is released to his family".

Conclusion

12. The offences committed by Andrews were extremely serious ones. The tariff which was originally fixed was wholly appropriate. In so far as anyone can make amends for a crime which is so serious, Andrews appears to have done this. In the wholly exceptional circumstances of this case, I would recommend a further reduction in tariff to nine years.