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 Daniel Peter Nelson in accordance with the Practice Direction dated 27 July 2000 (The Times 9 August 2000)

1. Daniel Peter Nelson was born on 17 September 1984. On 9 February 2000, at the Central Criminal Court, Nelson was convicted of murder and was sentenced to be detained during Her Majesty's Pleasure. The offence was committed on 18 June 1999 at which time Nelson was 14 years of age. A psychologist's report indicated Nelson was functioning within the lower range of intellectual ability.

2. Nelson has no other convictions but there was a history of confrontational behaviour.

Facts of the Offence

3. On 18 June 1999 Nelson was waiting at a bus stop on his way home from school. Leon Henry, who was 15 years old, approached Nelson and a short fight between them ensued. This fight was broken up by respective friends. Nelson then went to his bag and took from it a medium sized kitchen knife. Nelson made his way over to where Leon Henry was standing and stabbed him 5 times with the knife, penetrating the bone and entering his heart.

4. There was some history between Nelson and Leon Henry. On 7 May 1999 Nelson with another boy had tried to take some money from Leon Henry.

5. The trial judge, HHJ Michael Hyam, the Hon. Recorder of London, recommended a tariff of 8-9 years. He stated that had Nelson been over 18 then he would have recommended a tariff of 12-13 years. The Lord Chief Justice agreed with the trial judge's recommendation.

Post-Conviction Behaviour

6. With the exception of a small number of minor incidents, Nelson's behaviour in Vinney Green Secure Unit has been good. He is described in the report prepared by his key worker at Vinney Green, Mr Sair Dyce, dated 12 December 2000 as having an 'excellent relationship with all members of staff' and as never having been a management problem. He is also seen by staff at Vinney Green as a positive influence on his peers. There were, however, some episodes of less acceptable behaviour and he had to be warned about bullying.

7. The report of his review meeting held on 9 April 2001 indicates that Nelson has remained on the highest level of the Rewards and Incentives Scheme for the majority of his time at Vinney Green.

8. He is reported as having acknowledged his responsibility for his offence and as having expressed remorse for the deceased's family.

9. Nelson was transferred to HMYOI Hollesley Bay on 9 July 2001. I have read the report by Officer M. Teager dated 16 August 2001. I note that he is described as 'polite and respectful' and has fully co-operated with all agencies at Hollesley Bay.

Representations on behalf of Nelson

10. A number of representations have been made on behalf of Nelson. I have read the representations made on his behalf by his solicitors, Messrs. Bishop Lloyds Jackson, dated 21 January 2002 and 18 January 2001; the undated letter from Nelson himself; the letter from Nelson's mother dated 18 January 2001; the letter from Nelson's parents dated 1 December 2001; the letter from Nelson's grandparents dated 10 November 2001; the cards from Nelson's form tutor and English tutor; the letter from Mrs Bushell dated 16 June 2001, the mother of one of the boys present at the time of the murder; and the report by Dr Derek Indoe, Consultant Clinical Psychologist, prepared on behalf of Nelson dated 22 December 2000. I have taken account of all of these representations in reaching my conclusions.

11. I note Nelson's expression of remorse and his concern for the feelings of the deceased family. I further note his sense of shame about the hurt he has caused his own family, who have clearly been greatly affected by his offence.

12. I further note Dr Indoe's view that the threat posed to society by Nelson diminished in his time at Vinney Green but may be adversely affected by a move into the adult prison system at 21.

The Views of the Deceased's Family

13. Representations have been received from the family of the deceased. Written representations have been received in the form of a letter dated 31 May 2001 from the deceased's mother, Mrs Sandra Cruickshank. Additionally oral representations via the CPS have been received from the deceased's father, Mr Robinson Henry, and the deceased's maternal grandparents, Mr and Mrs Bryan. I have taken their views into account in reaching my conclusions.

14. Mrs Cruikshank expresses no view on the length of the tariff. She does, however, say that she wants to see justice for her son and that in her view a cold blooded murder must carry a price which 'lays well beyond a minimum sentence in juvenile detention, and that whilst 'every person deserves a chance…this chance must be balanced by a sense of personal responsibility and the safety of the public at large'.

15. It is clear that Mrs Bryan remains extremely distressed by the loss of her grandson. She feels that Nelson should spend the rest of his life in custody.

Conclusion

16. The progress which Nelson has made justifies fixing his tariff at the lower end of the bracket suggested by the trial judge and the then Lord Chief Justice. Tariff 8 years.