"Officials in my department will receive annual reports on the progress and development of young people sentenced under s 53(1) whose initial tariff has yet to expire. Where there appears to be a case for considering a reduction in tariff, that will be brought to the attention of Ministers. When half of the initial tariff period has expired, I or a Minister acting on my behalf will consider a report on the prisoner's progress and development, and invite representations on the question of tariff, with a view to determining whether the tariff period originally set is still appropriate. In complex and difficult cases, I shall seek the assistance of my Rt Hon friend the Secretary of State for Health in securing independent professional advice (that is to say, independent of those already charged with the care of the offender) on the young offender's condition and development. Any request for a review of tariff before it expires will be considered on its merits, whether that request is made by or on behalf of the offender or by one of the agencies or individuals responsible for his or her care. In considering requests, inviting representations, and in conducting reviews, I will look for evidence of: significant alteration in the offender's maturity and outlook since the commission of the offence; risks to the offender's continued development that cannot be sufficiently mitigated or removed in the custodial environment; any matter that calls into question the basis of the original decision to set tariff at a particular level (for example about the circumstances of the offence itself or the offender's state of mind at the time); together with any other matter which appears relevant."
"Given that clear Court decision, I am bound to bring forward legislation, which will be in the Criminal Justice and Court Services Bill this Session, to provide for tariffs to be set by the trial judge in open court, in the same way as they are currently set for adults subject to discretionary life sentences, which apply to any offenders apart from those sentenced for murder. The tariff will be appealable either by the offender or by the Attorney-General if he believes it to be unduly lenient. I also plan to ensure that the views of the victims and their relatives are better taken into account. I shall announce our proposals in due course. About 250 people, sentenced as juveniles, are currently detained at Her Majesty's pleasure, and fresh cases continue to go through the courts. For new cases, pending the necessary change in the law which I have announced, I shall set any tariffs in line with the recommendation that the Lord Chief Justice makes to me in each case. For existing cases, I propose a fresh review of tariffs in line with the principles in the judgment. I shall be inviting representations from those whose tariffs have not yet expired. Where no representations are received, the tariff will be set in accordance with the original recommendation made by the Lord Chief Justice in that case. Where acceptance of the Lord Chief Justice's original recommendation would mean that the tariff had now expired, I shall refer those cases to the parole board immediately. Where the original recommendation made by the Lord Chief Justice was higher than the tariff set by Ministers, the tariff would not be increased. Where existing detainees wish to make representations, they can be made to the present Lord Chief Justice, who will then make a recommendation to me. I will then adopt his recommendation on what the tariff should be."
"They referred also to the need for the tariff I set to take into account the removal of the previous practice of continuous monitoring and periodic assessment and to reflect the issues of the detainee's welfare. As to this last point, I should make it clear that I regard it as the responsibility of the Home Secretary to undertake any future monitoring which the law requires."
"Moreover, governors will be told to report at once any exceptional development requiring action. These procedures will ensure that I can consider any special circumstances or exceptional progress which might justify changing the review date."
"First, as any parent knows and as the scientific and sociological studies respondent and his amici cite tend to confirm '[a] lack of maturity and an underdeveloped sense of responsibility are found in youth more often than in adults and are more understandable among the young. These qualities often result in impetuous and ill-considered actions and decisions.' Johnson v Texas 509 US 350, at 367 (1993) . . . It has been noted that 'adolescents are overrepresented statistically in virtually every category of reckless behaviour.' Arnett, Reckless Behaviour in Adolescence: A Developmental Perspective, 12 Developmental Review 339 (1992). . . . The second area of difference is that juveniles are more vulnerable or susceptible to negative influences and outside pressures, including peer pressure. . . This is explained in part by the prevailing circumstance that juveniles have less control, or less experience with control, over their own environment. See Steinberg & Scott, Less Guilty by Reason of Adolescence: Developmental Immaturity, Diminished Responsibility, and the Juvenile Death Penalty, 58 Am Psychologist 1009, 1014 (2003) … ('[A]s legal minors, [juveniles] lack the freedom that adults have to extricate themselves from a criminogenic setting"). The third broad difference is that the character of a juvenile is not as well formed as that of an adult. The personality traits of juveniles are more transitory, less fixed. See generally E Erikson, Identity: Youth and Crisis (1968)."
"It is difficult even for expert psychologists to differentiate between the juvenile offender whose crime reflects unfortunate yet transient immaturity, and the rare juvenile offender whose crime reflects irreparable corruption. See Steinberg & Scott 1014-1016."