England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
		14/10/2015

Mr Justice Collins:

1. Liam Shane was born on 3 September 1989. On 25 July 2007 when just under 18 he together with a co-defendant who was 2 years older murdered a 56 year old man. Both were under the influence of alcohol. They had with his consent entered the victim's home with a young woman. The victim retired to bed. Apparently Mr Shane was upset by his co-defendant kissing the young woman and reacted by setting fire to a curtain and kicking a cupboard. When the victim came into the room and asked them to leave, both then attacked him violently and killed him.
2. Mr Shane pleaded guilty to murder but his co-defendant did not. The trial judge thus was able to form a clear view of the parts played by each defendant. The attack on the victim was extremely violent, there being some 45 injuries, and a wire flex was pulled round his neck. The judge was satisfied that Mr Shane played the leading role in the attack and that each had an intent to kill. Further, Mr Shane attempted to stab his victim.
3. Mr Shane had an appalling record of offending. Offences of dishonesty were committed to fuel his substance misuse and he showed aggression in offences of criminal damage, threatening behaviour and affray.
4. His tariff was 14 years less time spent on remand. His tariff expiry date is 26 September 2021.
5. Mr Shane has undoubtedly made good progress. His solicitor contrasts the young man who has recognised his past failings and seems intent on ensuring that he will not let his temper lead to unacceptable behaviour or drink to excess, with the aggressive youth prone to violence by mixing with the wrong types and indulging in substance abuse. He has certainly matured. But it would be a real sign of failure if he had not.
6. I have to be satisfied that he has made exceptional and unforeseen progress if I am to recommend a reduction in Mr Shane's tariff. It is not suggested that continued detention would have a damaging effect on him, although one reporter thinks that it is possible that the time could come when he does need to have the opportunity for at least some degree of freedom.
7. While Mr Shane's solicitor criticises the reporters for not having sufficient knowledge of future placements and possible remedial work, none have believed that Mr Shane's progress has been exceptional or that his tariff should be reduced. I recognise that that is not conclusive. But it is a factor that I should take into account. Overall I am afraid I do not think that, certainly at this stage, the progress which I hope will continue has been exceptional. The tariff includes an element of punishment for a dreadful offence as well as protection of the public. That is why it should only be reduced if progress has been truly exceptional.
8. In the circumstances I make no recommendation.