Tariffs

19 December 2001 - 09.45
Court 4
Royal Courts of Justice

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

1. Darren Lee Lawrence was convicted of murder. Lawrence was born on 25th July 1979 and at the time of the offence he was 16.

2. The tariff recommended by the trial judge was 18 years. The Lord Chief Justice recommended 16 years and the tariff was fixed at 16 years in October 1998.

Facts of the offence

3. The victim was a kindly old man who was fond of children and allowed them free and easy access to his house where they could play. Lawrence has a psychopathic mental abnormality. He wrongly claimed that the victim had murdered his younger brother and that he murdered his (Lawrence's) mother who was alive. He also stated that he murdered the victim because he had heard the night before that he was child abuser.

4. Together with two younger boys, one of whom was acquitted, he went to the victim's house: they were admitted then, out of the blue, Lawrence inflicted appalling injuries upon the victim with two huge screwdrivers, jabbing them into his skull, his eyes and finally up his nose with such force that it broke the ethmoid bone and pierced the brain. He gave it a sideways wench before pulling it out. The profuse bleeding caused Lawrence intense excitement.

5. The judge commented that Lawrence is very dangerous indeed. In addition to this dreadful murder, he had committed a very great number of crimes of violence some of which were quite severe assaults and all of which were unpleasant.

6. The Lord Chief Justice in his comments on tariff stated "if the defendant were older and less abnormal mentally, I would agree with the judge's recommendation (of 18 years) and perhaps even support a longer term. But he is only 17 now, and clearly very distressed. This being so I think the requirements of retribution and general deterrence would be served by a term of 16 years". The Chief Justice endorsed the trial judge's view that it could well be judged unsafe to release Lawrence at the end of his tariff.

Subsequent events

7. Lawrence has since been transferred to Rampton Hospital. His co-accused were found not guilty.

8. According to a report obtained by Lawrence's solicitors, Lawrence has expressed that he is very sorry for the events which occurred and that he wished he could turn the clock back. He also referred to the fact that he had been subjected to sexual abuse at an early age and that he believed that one of his co-accused was equally guilty.

Lawrence's background

9. Lawrence had a difficult childhood and was excluded from schools. He was identified as having special educational needs. He was educated at a residential school but the staff could not cope with his behaviour. He has shown propensity for self harm. He had a hearing problem during his childhood but that was never appropriately treated. He boasts of having indulged in alcohol and drug abuse.

10. It appears that neither the social nor the education services had been able to provide the consistency of care and education that Lawrence required. Despite his difficulties no special provision was made for him and he has not referred for proper assessment during his early adolescence.

11. His responsible medical officer at the time the tariff was set argues that the tariff of 16 years is too high. It being equivalent to his age in years. The responsible medical officer is also of the opinion that his adolescent immaturity and his needs for treatment encourages the view that his underlying problems are reversible due to his relatively young age. It is stated "a reduction in his tariff would give him a more realistic goal and a sign of encouragement that he has made positive progress in custody. It is also said that the decision to discontinue annual tariff reviews is detrimental to Lawrence since due to his young age he is likely to make significant annual progress now that he is in receipt of appropriate services and treatment.

12. It is also submitted that the circumstances of the offence are so particular to Lawrence's mental disorder that the public requirement of retribution and deterrence would be satisfied if the tariff were reduced as the offender continues to receive specialist treatment in the conditions of maximum security and he will continue to do so for a considerable length of time according to his responsible medical officer.

13. A psychiatric report prepared under the Mental Health Review Tribunal's Rules 1983 indicates that Lawrence is suffering from a psychopathic disorder, mental impairment and mental illness. However, the report also indicates that he has considerable independent living skills, good verbal reading and writing skills and that he can manage simple arithmetic while having difficulties of more complex arithmetic. He has, whilst in custody in prison, made very serious attempts to end his own life and not infrequently made statements about the bleak nature of his own future. He remains vulnerable to peer pressure having low self-esteem and a propensity to act out both self-destructively and aggressively if not provided with adequate support. It is anticipated that his need for medication will lessen as he becomes more engaged in therapy.

14. He remains very hostile towards those who have abused children or those who make judgmental statements about people who have killed.

15. No further reports are available on Lawrence at the present time but in a letter dated 30 August 2001 it is indicated that reports are being prepared with a view to a detailed assessment so as to formulate a detailed care plan. However it is stated that while his present classification is appropriate, further detailed assessment and treatment regarding his offending behaviour and personality disorder is required but this "work is at an early stage". However Mr Lawrence has, by his behaviour and progress, demonstrated a willingness to begin to address the relevant issues. This gives rise to reason for optimism in his case. The reports that are before me have not been disclosed to Lawrence because it is not thought this would be of assistance.

16. I therefore had to consider whether it would be appropriate to defer consideration of the tariff in this case. However I have decided this is not necessary because I am not concerned with the question when it will be appropriate for Lawrence to be released, I am concerned only with the question of what would be the appropriate period for his detention for the purposes of retribution and deterrence.

The Victim's family

17. They have been, and naturally are, anxious that there should be no question of Lawrence's release before this can be safely done.

Conclusion

18. The crime was a horrible one but there are two significant mitigating features. Lawrence's medical condition and his age. Additional aggravating features are Lawrence's record and the fact that the deceased was 72 years of age.

19. Because of Lawrence's medical condition and his age at the time of the offence, I find myself disagreeing with the very experienced trial judge and the former Lord Chief Justice. However this could be attributable to the fact that it appears that Lawrence's medical condition was not properly assessed until after this crime was committed. In particular, I find the reports relating to his time at Rampton, which would not have been available to the trial judge and the Chief Justice, helpful. Taking those reports into account I would recommend a tariff of 14 years. I emphasise that this does not mean that Lawrence will be released after 14 years. Unless there is a dramatic change in his mental condition, he will be detained as a patient for a substantially longer period. However, if his condition were to improve dramatically, and there is reason to hope for improvement, then his case should be considered by the Parole Board after the period of 14 years.