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 James Ross Stemp in accordance with the Practice Direction dated 27 July 2000 (The Times 9 August 2000)

1. James Ross Stemp was born 29 January 1978. On 29 July 1996, he was convicted of murdering John Joseph Dawson and sentenced to be detained during Her Majesty's pleasure. He was also convicted of having an imitation firearm with intent to kidnap, John Joseph Dawson and attempted robbery with an imitation firearm of an Indian shopkeeper on 20 October 1995. He pleaded guilty to these additional offences and was sentenced to detention in young offenders' institution for a total of 12 years.

Facts of the Offence

2. I take the facts from the report of the trial judge to the Home Secretary. While in young offenders institution in 1995 Stemp decided to plan "a perfect crime". On 19 October 1995, having taken cocaine, Stemp put his plan into operation. He purchased an air-pistol which was an imitation Smith & Wesson automatic, two sets of handcuffs and a baseball bat. He placed these items in his rucksack and also had a new pair of gloves and a roll of sellotape. Thus armed he went into the centre of Leicester. A 59 year-old businessman, Mr Dawson, stopped his car at about 3pm and asked Stemp for directions. Stemp jumped into the car, produced the pistol and told Mr Dawson to drive unless he wanted to be shot. Mr Dawson was thus forced to drive to a wood which Stemp had previously scouted. Mr Dawson was forced to handover his car keys. He was then handcuffed and marched to a secluded and dense part of the wood. He was handcuffed to a tree. Stamp then placed sellotape over Mr Dawson's mouth and around the back of the tree so that he could not speak.

3. Stemp then walked into the wood until he saw boys erecting tents for a scout camp. He shouted out "help" twice. Stemp then returned to Mr Dawson and throttled him with a length of scout rope. On the following day having again taken crack cocaine, Stemp robbed a shopkeeper. On 21 October, the car having broken down, Stemp surrendered to the police. His explanation at the interview for carrying out the planned kidnapping was "just for kicks".

4. The pathologist who gave evidence indicated only slight pressure was required to the vagal nerves to cause almost immediate death. Stemp said that while studying A-level human biology he had learnt that pressure on the vagal nerve can kill.

5. The trial judge expressed the view that Stemp is dangerous and likely to commit serious crime if released prematurely. Stemp has considerable intelligence and had previously been subject of a combination order made on 1 August 1995 in relation to two burglaries, two further burglaries being taken into account.

6. Both the trial judge and the Lord Chief Justice recommended 18 years. The tariff was set at 18 years.

Progress in Custody

7. A report dated the 25 May 1999 was produced by the Tariff Section which indicated that Stemp had only just begun to address his areas of risk. That he had been moved from one prison wing because of misbehaviour. It was not considered there had been significant change for the better in Stemp's outlook and maturity during the three years he had spent in custody.

8. While in detention, a number of items were discovered which could be used for the purpose of an escape, including a hood with small eye slits made out of a pillow slip and a tooth brush with a sharpened end. A report dated September 1999 records that Stemp has a complete lack of remorse and seems proud of what he had done. A psychologist's report of November 1999 indicated that Stemp had not significantly reduced his level of risk. A report dated 24 September 2001 indicated that Stemp's attitude towards his offence seems to be changing. His general behaviour was good and that he fully complied with the wing's rules and regimes. While he has had a history of 23 adjudications, for eleven months he had not been placed on report. According to a psychologist's report of 3 August 2001:
" Use of violence and violent fantasy are serious areas of concern Mr Stemp needs to address."

Representations of Stemp's behalf

9. Representations were made on Stemp's behalf in September 2000 and on 19 November 2001. The earlier representations submitted that the tariff period should be fixed at the shortest possible period so as to enable the parole board to review the case bearing in mind that under the new arrangements the tariff period would not be reviewed. The report also points out Stemp's difficult childhood having a sister who suffers from cerebral palsy and a stepfather who was strict and violent towards him. The report also refers to the fact that in February 1995 Stemp was admitted to a psychiatric hospital. The representations indicate that Stemp's admissions on arrest that he had used crack cocaine and had been trying to commit a perfect crime were incorrect. It was also incorrect that he had carried out the kidnap for a buzz. It is argued that a tariff of 18 years which exceeded his age at the time of the offence is manifestly excessive. An appropriate tariff would be 5 years. It is also suggested that Stemp should be afforded an oral hearing under the requirements of Article 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights.

10. In their second report Stemp's solicitors point out the shortcomings in relation to his receiving benefit from the psychology department of prisons. They also point out that his behaviour in custody has been inconsistent and badly affected by drug use. Stemp also indicated that the items in his cell, to which reference has already been made, were to be used against a prisoner suspected of being a sex offender rather than for purposes of escape.

The Deceased's Widow

11. Mrs Dawson indicated, when interviewed, that she would abide by whatever final decision I make with regard to the length of tariff. She is conscious that her husband, who was a devout Catholic, would have considered it a waste of a young life "to spend such a long time in custody".

Conclusions

12. I have noted the representations made by the lawyers acting on behalf of Stemp, the basis for which I fully understand. However, in all the cases which I am considering, I have taken the view that it is for me to set out what I regard as the appropriate tariff at the time that a case is considered by me. When a review is required, the responsibility for conducting that review lies with the Home Secretary. This is important in this case because Stemp's behaviour since the offences were committed has varied and I can do no more than take into account his behaviour up to the present time. Oral representations would not assist me to perform my tasks.

13. In relation to the offence there were the obvious aggravating features that the offence was pre-planned, involved kidnapping using an imitation firearm, handcuffs and ended with the victim being throttled. The only mitigating features were Stemp's age at the time of the offence and the fact that he gave himself up to the police. A tariff of 18 years does, however, appear out of line with the tariff which would be imposed today. My conclusion is that the appropriate tariff is 15 years. I do, however, emphasise that I am not suggesting that Stemp should be released after 15 years. The desirability of his release will have to be carefully considered by the Parole Board who will undoubtedly take into account the nature of the offence and the comments of the trial judge. I would urge in Stemp's case that his tariff is reconsidered after he has served 10 years. It is just possible that this is a case in which there could be a significant change in the behaviour of the offender.