R v Paul Michael Scott
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | The Honourable Mr. Justice Cranston |
| Judgment Date | 23 March 2015 |
| Neutral Citation | [2015] EWHC 654 (QB) |
| Date | 23 March 2015 |
| Docket Number | Case No: YOR/20/2014 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division |
[2015] EWHC 654 (QB)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
The Honourable Mr. Justice Cranston:
Case No: YOR/20/2014
The decision on review of the tariff of young offender in the case of:
Paper Application Date: 11/02/2015
Introduction
This is the review of a minimum term imposed on a person convicted of murder who was under 18 at the time of the offence and who was sentenced to detention during Her Majesty's pleasure. The House of Lords in R (Smith) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2005] UKHL 51; [2006] 1 AC 159, held that the tariff for a person sentenced to detention during her Majesty's Pleasure may be reduced on reconsideration if there is clear evidence of exceptional and unforeseen progress.
Background
The applicant in this case, Paul Michael Scott, was convicted of murder in the Crown Court at Hull on 20 February 2009. The Recorder of Hull, HH Judge Mettyear, ordered that he be detained at Her Majesty's pleasure. He specified eleven years less 266 days spent on remand as the minimum term to be spent in custody. At the time of the murder Paul Scott was 17 years old, having been born on 19 November 1990. His co-accused, Adam Robert Parker, was given the same sentence, although his minimum term was the eleven years less 266 days spent on remand.
The background to the murder was this. The victim, Anthony (Tony) McKenna was homeless and generally slept outdoors or at friends' houses. On a night in early May 2008 he slept for a period at a friend's house but due to his intoxicated state he was asked to leave just after midnight to avoid the children there seeing him in the morning.
Just prior to midnight, Mr Scott, along with the co-accused Mr Parker and a third young man, left the home of the latter's mother in Scunthorpe to meet a friend of hers in the car park of a nearby supermarket. En route they encountered Mr McKenna, who was lying against the fence of a property at the junction of two roads. In sentencing Mr Scott and Mr Parker, the judge described what happened:
"You had been drinking and probably both of you taking drugs. You came across the drunken Tony McKenna who was laid out on the floor, unable to put up any sort of defence for the attack that was to follow. He was causing no-one any problems at all. So far as your story, Adam Parker, is concerned, that you told to the police and to the jury about him attacking you, I utterly reject that.
This was a wholly unprovoked and cowardly attack by two of you on this drunken man. You set about him punching, head butting, stamping, jumping. He sustained terrible injuries including 13 broken ribs, they being to either side of his body, awful injuries to his face and his head as a result of the kicks that he sustained. He suffered a punctured lung. About three weeks later, having spent a painful time in hospital, he died as a result of the injuries to his chest."
Apparently, after meeting the mother's friend, the group returned the same way and found Mr McKenna lying where he had been left, with blood surrounding his head. An ambulance was called by the third young man and all four waited for the paramedics to arrive before leaving.
When Mr McKenna was taken to Scunthorpe General Hospital, although it seems somewhat strange, it was not realised that the injuries had resulted from an assault because he had been hospitalised on a number of occasions with alcohol-related injuries. Eventually, however, as a result of inquiries by Mr McKenna's sister, the three were arrested for murder on 29 May 2008. In interview, Mr Scott stated that Mr Parker was the main party in the assault, but also stated that the third young man had jumped on Mr McKenna. Mr Scott admitted that he had kicked Mr McKenna once to the face. Later it was decided that there was no evidence against the third young man.
Mr Scott had appeared before the Juvenile and Magistrates Courts on four occasions for seven offences, six of them being offences associated with motor vehicles and the last involving having a knife in a public place.
In sentencing Mr Scott and Mr Parker, the judge said this:
"You have been jointly convicted and it is not appropriate to distinguish between you in any way. The starting point laid down by Parliament for people of your age for the minimum term, is a starting point of twelve years. To that I must consider what aggravating factors there are and what mitigating factors there are.
This was a wholly disgraceful attack, unprovoked, on a helpless and vulnerable man and it was on the public streets of Scunthorpe. I recognise that there is some mitigation. This was not planned, I accept that it was on the spur of the moment and started by you, Parker. I also accept that it is mitigation that the Crown has accepted, as I accept, that your intention was not to kill, it was an intention to do really serious bodily injury."
Exceptional progress
Mr. Scott's case is that his tariff should be reduced on the basis of his behaviour in prison and the exceptional progress he has made while there. Indicative of exceptional progress is if a person demonstrates an exemplary work and disciplinary record in prison; displays genuine remorse and accepts an appropriate level of responsibility for the part played in the offence; shows the ability to build and maintain successful relationships with fellow prisoners and prison staff; and successfully engages in work (including offending behaviour/offence-related courses) with a resulting substantial reduction in areas of risk. All of these should, ideally, have been sustained over a lengthy period and in more than one prison. The presence of one or all of these factors is not conclusive of exceptional progress having been made in any individual case. To reach the threshold of exceptional progress there needs to be some extra element to show that the detainee has assumed responsibility in showing himself to be trustworthy when given such responsibility. Such characteristics may well be demonstrated by the detainee having done good works for the benefit of others. Again, ideally, there would need to be evidence of sustained involvement in at least two prisons over a lengthy period.
Evidence of Mr Scott's progress
In a post-sentence report dated 2 June 2009, Mr Scott maintained that he only kicked Mr McKenna once. When at HMP Hull, Mr Scott's OASys found that he posed a high risk of serious harm to the public and also to a known adult. In the first Sentencing, Planning and Review report on Mr Scott when he was at HMP/YOI Moorlands, the responsible officer opined that, since Mr Scott had no previous convictions of violence before the murder, it was more appropriate to view him as posing only a high risk to the public since there was no information to suggest a known adult was at risk. That report noted that Mr Scott had four prison adjudications – in August 2008 for theft, in early January 2009 for having a mobile telephone and a pair of scissors in his possession, in February 2009 for having fermenting liquid in his possession and in July 2009, for disobeying an order in relation to a tattoo. The report noted his motivation to address his sentencing plan targets. There had been a remand planning meeting on the 27 June 2008 where concern was expressed about his behaviour.
In December 2010, Mr Scott completed the Thinking Skills programme. The summary of his progress was that it had been "good" and that he had developed a number of skills, including demonstrating a good understanding of problem-solving steps and the application of skills to the potential problems he might encounter. The report noted that he contributed to group discussion,...
To continue reading
Request your trial