Tariffs

Wednesday 13 February 2002 - 10.00 am
Court 4
Royal Courts of Justice

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

1. Noel Sayles was convicted of murder on 10 June 1997 and sentenced to be detained during her Majesty's Pleasure. Sayles was born on 26 January 1981. He was aged 15 at the time of the offence.

2. Taking into account Sayles' youth, the tariff recommended by both the trial judge and the Lord Chief Justice was 14 years. In October 1998 the Home Secretary set the tariff at 14 years.

Facts of the Offence

3. The facts of this case are drawn from the trial judge's report to the Home Secretary. On 8 February 1996 a fight ensued between Sayles and the victim, Daniel Westmacott, outside a McDonalds eatery. Neither had any weapons. Sayles came off second best. After summoning some friends he returned to McDonalds to take revenge. Sayles, accompanied by two friends, entered the eatery. They were armed with bottles and a knife. In the ensuing attack Sayles fatally stabbed the victim with the knife. There were other customers in the McDonalds eatery at the time, including a party of young children.

4. Of Sayles' co-accused, one was discharged and the other's conviction was quashed on appeal. Sayles' appeal against conviction was unsuccessful.

5. The trial judge found that neither defendant expressed any remorse. On the contrary, they boasted of the killing and mocked at the victim's death.

Progress in custody

6. Early reports suggested that Sayles was co-operative and positive. He took and completed a number of courses and fully participated in the available education system. The reports also intimated that Sayles was forward looking and that he enjoyed a position of trust in the prison. The trial judge expressed some doubt about the accuracy of the reports placed before him which suggested that Sayles was much reformed.

7. In a report by the probation officer, dated 18 December 2000, it was recorded that Sayles had made "very good progress in terms of improved behaviour and increased maturity as well as improving his qualifications and undertaking courses". The report stated that Sayles had been on the enhanced regime wing of the prison since March 1999, and that there had been no positive prison adjudications since November 1998. However, his attitude to the offence remained a denial of guilt. He continued to maintain his innocence, stating that it was a case of mistaken identity. Another probation record noted that "Mr Sayles denial that he committed this offence makes the task of identifying risk factors more difficult …".

8. According to the Crown Prosecutor, at the time of the offence Sayles' had no convictions against him. However, he was on bail for alleged offences of violent disorder and robbery. He was also on police bail for an alleged assault causing actual bodily harm. Representations on behalf of Sayles

9. There are two sets of representations on behalf of Sayles. The first was in August 1998 where Sayles expresses regret at any involvement in this matter. He indicates an interest in catering and wishes to pursue this on being released. He disagrees with the conclusions of the reports and feels that the tariff imposed for this sentence was excessive.

10. The second set of representations is contained in a letter from Sayles' solicitors. Sayles' youth, his improvement in custody and a positive psychiatric prognosis for a change in conduct (dated 5 March 1997) are cited as factors that ought to be weighed in reducing his tariff. It is also alleged that the prosecution case was that all the defendants were equally culpable for the murder but that it was not demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that Sayles had in his possession the knife with which the fatal blow was delivered.

The Victim's family

11. They have been and naturally are anxious that there should be no question of Sayles' release before this can safely be done.

Conclusion

12. Sayles has made good progress since he was sentenced. He has achieved a number of qualifications and received a number of positive reports. He is hard working. It is felt that a reduction in tariff would be a source of encouragement. The one negative factor is the fact that he does not admit his responsibility. Nonetheless, the original tariff was high for a person of his age and it is my decision the tariff should be reduced to 11 years.