Tariffs
Friday 28 September 2001 - 12.15pm
Court 4
Royal Courts of Justice
The decision of the Lord Chief Justice of tariff on the case of Jason James Warr in accordance with the Practice Direction dated 27 July 2000 (The Times 9 August 2000)
1. Jason James Warr was born 26 April 1974. On 28th May 1993 at the Crown Court at Reading he was convicted of murder. The murder was committed on the night 9/10 April 1992. At that time Warr was 17. He was therefore sentenced to be detained during Her Majesty's pleasure. The victim was Paul Newman. He had been battered to death. He had been lured to the place where the murder had been committed. This suggests that the crime was premeditated.
2. The evidence against Warr, was partly circumstantial and partly a confession which was made to a fellow prisoner. The motive for the murder was unclear. Warr had been having a sexual relationship with the 13 year-old daughter of the victim's former wife. There was evidence that the former wife of the victim had threatened to kill the victim. It is possible that Warr wished to strengthen his relationship with the daughter. The former wife of the victim was tried separately for soliciting the murder of the victim but she was acquitted.
3. The trial judge regarded the killing as one of great criminality. He noted that Warr had never cracked under cross-examination or under questioning. He considered that Warr had worked out his defence. The judge took into account Warr's good character and his youth and recommended a tariff of 15 years. The Lord Chief Justice Lord Taylor, having regard to Warr’s age, recommended a tariff of 13 years. The Home Secretary set the tariff at 14 years in July 1995. In August 1999 the Home Secretary reviewed the tariff and decided that it should remain at 14 years. Among the Home Secretary reasons for coming to this conclusion were the fact that Warr was almost 18 when he committed the murder and now was nearly 25. He accepted that Warr was serving his sentence in a positive and constructive way. However he was not persuaded that as yet, there had been significant change for the better in his outlook and maturity above that which might reasonably be expected in the normal course of the development of someone from nearly 18 to nearly 25. The Secretary of State also noted, that Warr had still not admitted his guilt and considered that there were areas of risk which Warr had not yet addressed. On balance the Home Secretary did not consider, as was suggested in a report which was before him, that Warr's personal development and re- integration into society would be seriously prejudiced by his continued detention to the expiry of his tariff in April 2006.
4. In a determining the correct tariff at the present time, the fact that Warr still denies his guilt is in the factor which weighs most heavily against him. It means that we still have no account from him as to how and why he committed the murder. I am informed that he is seeking to have his conviction reviewed by the Criminal Cases Review Commission. However, unless his conviction is set aside I have to approach the question of what is the appropriate tariff on the basis that he is guilty but does not accept this. As against this, all the reports show that he has used his time while in custody in the most constructive manner that was open to him. Unlike the position when the matter was before the Secretary of State in 1999, there is now ample evidence to establish that he has used his time while in custody in a manner which is more constructive than could normally be expected. Since then he has been re-categorised and moved to H.M. prison Downview. The Lifer Liaison Officer at that prison has made a report on Warr, having studied the earlier reports made on Warr. His report is very favourable. Warr has been employed in the education department since his arrival at Downview. His Head of education and course tutor both regard him as being and above average student. He has obtained GCSEs passes in English, human biology and physiology, 20th-century world history, sociology, and drama and has also learnt Italian. Future plans involve Warr setting up a Braille unit, he is a RNIB recognised Braille transcriber, where Warr can pass on the Braille skills he has acquired in prison to others. The report’s conclusions are that Warr has matured and developed as a responsible adult during his sentence. The report also confirms that further detention would hinder any further development of maturity and social skills with the risk of institutionalisation. It states that Warr is ready and able to undertake a category D open programme so as to enable him to develop, mature and increase his social skills outside a prison environment. A reduction in the tariff of approximately one to two years would be required and the officer recommends this reduction. The officer considered that this would justly reward Warr for the progress he has made in his personal development and educational achievements.
5. Although Warr still denies he is guilty, he understands the position of and sympathises with the victim's family. An early psychologist's report referred to Warr as being over-controlled, however this view is not supported by more recent reports. He is described as a thoughtful, reflective and assertive individual with considerable insight. It is a psychologist' s opinion that Warr's attitude to towards his sentence and his future is one which is positive and constructive and that he is maximising the opportunities that are available to him.
The Attitude of the Victim's Family
6. I have the benefit of the views of the daughter, the parents and the former partner of the victim. They were all of the view that Warr should remain in prison has long as possible. The deceased’s daughter and former partner would have taken a different view if the deceased had been killed in the heat of the moment. The daughter is concerned that as she works close to where Warr's family resides she could meet Warr accidentally. The parents are still badly affected by the crime and their view is that Warr should remain permanently in prison. All the families are affected by the horrendous injuries inflicted on the deceased.
Conclusion
7. I fully understand the views of the members of the deceased family and I have them very much in mind. However, so far as length of sentence is concerned, the sentence, which Warr is serving, will continue for the rest of his life. When Warr is released, he will be released on licence. If he breaches the terms of his licence he will be at risk of being returned to custody. A defendant who has been sentenced to be detained during Her Majesty's pleasure is released from detention if the parole board recommend his release if they come to the conclusion that the risk to the public of his release is sufficiently small to justify this. The defendant's release can be subject to conditions. I would hope in the case of Warr, that the conditions, to which he is subject, take into account the deceased's daughter's concerns about accidentally meeting Warr.
8. However, the parole board does not consider a defendant's release until after what is known as the "tariff period" has expired. My concern in the case of this decision is whether in the case of Warr that period should be reduced from 14 years. In deciding this I find it is helpful to have the views of the victim's family. However, their views are only one of the factors I have to take into account. In the case of Warr, I have to decide whether it would be in the public interest for him to be considered by the parole board before 14 years have expired. The conclusion to which I have come is that it would be desirable in the public interest if the parole board considers his case after the expiry of 12 years. This would take into account his development while in custody and avoid his becoming institutionalised. In selecting 12 years, I bear in mind that at the time he was sentenced 12 years was the normal starting point for the tariff in the case of a murder by an adult.