Tariffs

11 March 2002 - 10.00
Court 4
Royal Courts of Justice

The decision of the Lord Chief Justice on tariff in the case of Ryan Brett Elliott in accordance with the Practice Direction dated 27 July 2000 (The Times 9 August 2000)

1. Ryan Brett Elliott was born on 15 November 1981. On 24 July 2000, at Mold Crown Court, Elliott pleaded guilty to murder and was sentenced to be detained during Her Majesty's Pleasure. The offence was committed on 25 October 1999, at which time Elliott was 17 years of age.

2. At the time of the offence Elliott was on bail for affray. Elliott has previous convictions for burglary, taking a vehicle without consent and possession of a bladed article.

Facts of the Offence

3. On the night of 23 October 1999 Elliott was arrested following a violent incident in which he had threatened his mother with a kitchen knife. On 25 October he was granted bail. Having been bailed Elliott set fire to the home of a girl who he wrongly believed had given him AIDS. She was not present.

4. Elliott stole a hand axe and went to the home of his step-father, Mr David Jackson, who had become estranged from his mother following her discovery that Mr Jackson had indecently assaulted Elliott and his younger sister Kathleen. Elliott went to Mr Jackson's home having told Kathleen that he intended to use the axe on Mr Jackson for what he had done to them. Mr Jackson let him in. At some stage Elliott attacked Mr Jackson, striking him at least 9 times to the head with the axe, shattering his skull.

5. The trial judge, Mr Justice Grigson, recommended a tariff of 10 years. He noted that there was evidence that Elliott was suffering from 'an adjustment disorder with depressive features' and that one psychiatrist had diagnosed a significant abnormality of mind. Elliott had admitted murder where others would have argued for manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility or provocation. The judge stated that this 'may be an indication of real remorse'.

Post-Conviction Behaviour

6. I have read the report of Prison Officer Simpson, Elliott's Personal Officer at HMPYOI Swinfen Hall, dated 3 January 2002 and I have taken its contents into account in reaching my conclusions.

7. Elliott has 9 adjudications recorded against him since September 2000. These have mostly been for disobeying lawful orders. However, the most recent adjudication, dated 13 December 2001, is for theft of tobacco from a fellow inmate's cell.

8. He is considered polite and respectful to staff and is currently on enhanced privilege status, a position he has enjoyed since September 2001. I note that since being moved to the enhanced wing Elliott appears more settled and better behaved.

9. It is clear that Elliott recognises that he has alcohol and drugs problems. He has recently started a Cognitive Skills course and he has gained qualifications in Key Skills and Social Skills.

10. I also note that Elliott continues to show no regret for his actions and that he does not trust himself not to re-offend should similar circumstances arise in the future.

Representations on behalf of Elliott

11. Elliott has chosen not to make any representations in respect of this review.

The Views of the Deceased's Family

12. Oral representations via the CPS have been received from Mr Jackson's sister, Mrs Patricia Pennell, and his widow (who is also Elliott's mother) Mrs Janice Jackson. I have taken these representations into account in reaching my conclusions.

13. Both Mrs Jackson and Mrs Pennell express the view that Elliott should not be released until he has received adequate psychiatric treatment so as to treat the condition from which he was suffering at the time of the offence. This is to minimise the risk of Elliott repeating his offence.

14. Mrs Pennell expresses the view that Elliott should spend the rest of his life in prison but accepts that this is not realistic. Mrs Jackson expresses no view as to the appropriate length of the tariff, provided her son's mental health problems are addressed.

Conclusion

14. On the basis of the information before me I see no reason to alter the recommendation which was made by the trial judge of 10 years.