Tariffs

Tuesday 7 August 2001
Court 4
Royal Courts of Justice

The decision of the Lord Chief Justice of tariff in the case of Darren Patrick Dermody in accordance with the Practice Direction dated 27 July 2000 (The Times 9 August 2000)

1. Darren Patrick Dermody was born on 13 Feb 1979. He was tried with Stephen Mark Tighe, who was born 30 April 1978, and Carl Haydn Mercer, who was born 4 November 1974. On 5 December 1997, at a trial before the Hon. Mr Justice Potts, all three defendants were found guilty of murder. As Dermody was 17 years of age, he was sentenced to detention during Her Majesty’s Pleasure in accordance with section 53 (1) Children and Young Persons Act 1953. As Tighe was aged 18, he was sentenced to custody for life and as Mercer was aged 21, he was sentenced to life imprisonment. The verdicts in the case of Dermody and Tighe were unanimous, but in the case of Mercer the verdict was by a majority of 11 to 1.

The Background Facts

2. In his report to the Home Secretary the trial judge stated:
" The defendants killed Ivan Milasanovich (45 years old) in Mansfie Centre at about 12.10am on 19 October 1966 after he had intervened to stop a fight in which some of their number were involved. They did so by kicking and stamping on him after Tighe had knocked him to the ground. At post mortem the cause of death was found to be traumatic sub-arachnoid haemorrhage. The deceased had sustained 14 external marks of violence, with at least 7 being delivered to the head, any one of which could have caused the fatal haemorrhage. Three of the head injuries bore the characteristics of the sole of a shoe or trainer and these and one other were in keeping with having been caused by stamping. Such was the force of the attack that amongst the deceased’s injuries were fractures to both sides of his upper jaw, the right side of his lower jaw, the left side of the zygomatic arch and his nose were all fractured. There were no defence injuries.

3. Tighe was identified as having stamped on the deceased by reliable evidence. Mercer and Dermody undoubtedly joined in the kicking. I could not be sure whether they stamped. Four other young males were charged with the defendants. They were acquitted of murder and manslaughter by the jury. Tighe was the ringleader and initiated this violence. Mercer and Dermody played lessor roles."

4. Dermody denied participation in the attack on the deceased. Initially after conviction he maintained this position and appealed. However, after the appeal had been dismissed, he did admit his involvement to his probation officer and his account of what occurred is recorded in a report prepared by a psychologist dated 14 December 1999. According to this account Dermody says that he had been out drinking with friends. Subsequently he joined other friends. They saw some "kids fighting" and they all decided to have a look at what was happening. Dermody and his friends goaded those who were fighting and he and some of his friends became involved in the fighting. The deceased then sought to intervene. He goes on to describe a second incident in which the deceased fell to the ground after being punched. Dermody then admits kicking the deceased after he had fallen 3 times. He says he then stopped and just stood there.

5. The psychologist says that Dermody expressed remorse for the victim, he recognised that the deceased family must feel angry with those who were involved and he accepted that he deserved the tariff which was set by the Home Secretary.

6. The tariff was 12 years. This was the recommendation of the trial judge and Lord Bingham CJ who said that "But for the youth of these offenders I would have recommended longer terms." The tariff for Mercer was 12 years and that of Tighe was 14 years.

7. Having been informed of the recommendation of 12 years, Dermody’s junior counsel, having consulted leading counsel, wrote to the Home Secretary. He pointed out there was no evidence that Dermody stamped on or kicked the head of the deceased. Counsel was not then aware of the admission which Dermody was subsequently to make. Counsel points out that, while the trial judge had stated when passing sentence that he would make a distinction for Dermody on the basis of his relative youth, as he was aged only 17 at the time of the offence, in fact the tariff which was recommended in his case was the same as that which was recommended for Mercer who was aged 22 (Mercer in fact was not yet 22 on the date of the offence). In addition, counsel refers to the fact that Dermody had no previous convictions of any sort and that in this regard he was in marked contrast to both Tighe and Mercer. In addition Dermody had attended at the police station of his own accord before the police had taken any active steps to arrest him.

8. Counsel again wrote on Dermody’s behalf on 31 July 2000 after consulting leading counsel. He repeated his submission that there had not been sufficient distinction made in relation to the tariff set in the case of the two older defendants and Dermody.

Dermody’s Progress in Custody

9. Counsel wrote finally, on behalf of Dermody on 16 July 2001. He there relied strongly on the reports which had been made by various officers and psychologists about Dermody’s conduct while in custody. The reports make it clear that his conduct has been exemplary. He was detained initially at Glen Parva and then at Moorland. At Moorland, in a report of 11 January 1999 the "Lifer Governor" in addition to describing his behaviour as exemplary says he is "well motivated" and "responsive to advice from staff". Another report points out that he has not been given any additional adjudications or minor reports "which for a young offender is phenomenal". The report adds, he has shown support for others and he is involved in the ‘Listeners’ scheme’, he is popular, polite and co-operative and he has continued his education and has reached about as far as he can at Moorland. The report adds, "Darren is working positively and fruitfully towards release". A further report states that he "throws himself into anything asked of him with vigour" and adds that he "has displayed a consistently good approach to imprisonment".

10. A report by a probation officer of 18 August 2000 indicates that "Darren has a clear sense of victim empathy. He also recognises that his family and friends are victims created by his ill thought out series of decisions one night in Mansfield."

11. While at Moorland Dermody excelled in hairdressing training and achieved NVQ levels I and II. A report of the 31 August 2000 by his personal officer prior to Dermody being transferred to Nottingham Prison indicated "yet again it has been an extremely busy year for Darren in which he has been a credit to himself and the prison lifer population with his enthusiasm and commitment".

12. Dermody has throughout his sentence received extensive support from his family although his mother now has a major health problem.

The Victim’s Family

13. For the purpose of this review, the deceased family have been contacted. It was not possible for the prosecution to contact the victim’s mother direct because she was too distressed, however, the deceased’s former partner, and his sister were seen by the officer in charge of the case. They were under the impression that Dermody would only serve "a sentence of eight years". Apparently believing that he would be entitled to be released after two thirds of the tariff period. The officer records that the family’s lives have been devastated by the deceased’s death and they have received substantial counselling and psychiatric help. Unfortunately, the fact of this review has itself caused them great upset. The officer was "shocked at the ongoing devastating effect" which the deceased’s death has had on the family. They are entitled to everyone’s sympathy.

Conclusions

14. My starting point is to accept the tariff of 12 years, previously recommended and adopted by the Home Secretary. I have then taken this into account as against the way the offender has performed at the young offender’s institutions at which he has attended. There has not been enough time spent at an adult prison for this to make any difference. The conclusion I have come to is that, as in the case of an offender ordered to be detained during Her Majesty’s Pleasure, it is possible to take into account the offenders behaviour while in custody, this is a case where this could and should be done. It should be done against the background of the fact that he had a previous good character and was the youngest of the three offenders involved and was not directly responsible for the blows that caused death. I also take into account the continuing very understandable trauma to the family of the deceased whose response is wholly understandable.

15. Whereas a tariff of 12 years was appropriate at the time of the offender’s conviction, his exemplary conduct now deserves recognition. I now consider that a tariff of 9 years would be appropriate. This is equivalent to a sentence of 18 years. A tariff of 9 years does not mean that after 9 years Dermody’s sentence will come to an end. It means that after that period the question of his release on licence will be considered. He will only be released when it is decided that from the public’s point of view it is safe for him to be released. The release can be subject to conditions. No doubt, in deciding upon what conditions are appropriate, the continuing distress of the family of the victim will be taken into account. Dermody will then remain liable to be detained for life and can be returned to custody if he does not comply with the terms of his licence or if he commits any further offence. He will remain subject to his present sentence for the rest of his life.