Tariffs

Tuesday 19 February 2002 - 10.00 am
Court 4
Royal Courts of Justice

The decision of the Lord Chief Justice on tariff in the case of Daniel Peter Driscoll in accordance with the Practice Direction dated 27 July 2000 (The Times, 9 August 2000)

1. Daniel Peter Driscoll was born on 27 May 1974. On 7 May 1993 at Luton Crown Court Driscoll was convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. This sentence was quashed in October 1996 by the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division); a sentence of detention during Her Majesty's Pleasure was substituted. The offence was committed on 5 April 1992, at which time Driscoll was 17 years of age.

2. Driscoll was convicted together with one co-defendant, Anthony Coughtrey, born on 27 January 1973, who was 19 years of age at the time of the offence.

Facts of the Offence

3. On 5 April 1992 Driscoll, Coughtrey and a friend of theirs, Mr Lee Upson, started drinking heavily at 12 noon at Mr Upson's house. At about 2.45 pm they went to the off licence to purchase more drink. At the off-licence, they met Mr William Walsh. He was invited back to Mr Upson's house to join them in their drinking.

4. At about 5.30 pm Driscoll and Mr Walsh were playing at arm wrestling when they began to quarrel. Mr Walsh may have thrown a punch at Driscoll. In response Coughtrey took a very heavy wrench and, whilst Mr Walsh was on the floor, struck him with it several times on the head, cracking his skull.

5. Both Driscoll and Coughtrey kicked and stamped on Mr Walsh's head and face. Mr Walsh died just after 1 am on 6 April 1992 from the injuries he suffered. The deceased was 19 years of age and married with three young children.

6. At the time of sentencing, Driscoll had one previous conviction, for assault occasioning actual bodily harm in July 1990.

7. The trial judge, Mr Justice Drake, described the killing as 'extremely violent…provoked by no more than some petty difference of opinion and the victim perhaps having swung a punch at Driscoll, which missed'. He further found that whilst Coughtrey had hit Mr Walsh with the wrench, both Coughtrey and Driscoll had kicked or stamped on Mr Walsh's head. He recommended a tariff of 15 years each.

8. The Lord Chief Justice commented that although it was a 'dreadful and unprovoked attack', the tariff recommendation of the trial judge was in his view 'on the high side in view of the age' of the defendants. He concluded his remarks by saying that he would have recommended a 13 or 14 year tariff, but that he 'would not dissent from the view of this very experienced trial judge who actually saw and heard the defendants'.

9. In August 1998 the Secretary of State set the tariff for Driscoll at 13 years. Coughtrey's tariff has since been reduced to 13 years because it was considered wrong for his tariff not to be reduced with Driscoll's to 13 years.

Post-Conviction Behaviour

10. Driscoll has a good prison record. He has no adjudications against him for violence. He has a number of adjudications against him for substance misuse and one for refusing to undertake a drug test.

11. Despite an initial period of denial, Driscoll has for sometime accepted full responsibility for the offence and has shown remorse for the consequences of his actions. He has undertaken significant amounts of work to address his offending and its causes, including courses on alcohol and drug awareness, anger management, Enhanced Thinking Skills and a 12 month Cognitive Self-Change Programme, which he has recently completed. In respect of this latter course, he is described in the report of Governor Simon Daly of HMP Ranby, dated 3 December 2001, as 'a highly motivated student who has maintained a significant level of commitment to the programme'.

12. Driscoll was assessed as suitable for category C status by Governor Ashman of HMP Nottingham in his report of 28 June 1999 and by Mr T Hyatt-Butt of the Probation Service in his report of May 1999. He was transferred to a category C prison, HMP Ranby, in January 2000.

13. Since being at HMP Renby he has demonstrated a willingness to deal with his drug use. He has voluntarily placed himself on the frequent drug-testing programme. He has failed one drug test since being on this programme, but has been able to demonstrate that he has been drug free since August 2001.

14. I note from Mr Daly's report that Driscoll has completed one escorted visit outside of the prison and that further such visits are planned. I also note that Mr Daly is likely to recommend at the next review that Driscoll be given a progressive move to Category D conditions.

Representations on Behalf of Driscoll

15. I have read the representations made by Driscoll's family in 1995, the representations made on his behalf by Mr Spencer of Counsel and those made by Kate Akester of JUSTICE dated 12 June 1998, 23 July 1999, 2 May 2000. I have also read the letters written by Driscoll dated 8 May 2000 and 23 August 2001. I have taken these into account in reaching my conclusions.

The Views of the Deceased's Family

16. The deceased's parents, Mr and Mrs Walsh, have made oral representations via the Crown Prosecution Service, which I have taken into account. Mr and Mrs Walsh state that they are still angry about having their young son taken away from them and that they believe it would be unfair and unjust for their son's murders to be released.

17. No representations have been received from the deceased's widow or children.

Conclusion

The fact that Driscoll was newly 18 at the time of the offence is a factor against reduction of the tariff as are the disciplinary offences. However, Driscoll has shown very significant progress and I would recommend a tariff of 12 years