Case No: YOR/16/2015
Neutral Citation Number: [2015] EWHC 2843 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT

Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL

Date: 14/10/2015

Before :

MR JUSTICE COLLINS

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

The decision of Mr Justice Collins on the review of the tariff in the case of Jordan Towers

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Judgment
Mr Justice Collins: 
1.	Jordan Towers was born on 9 December 1990. On 19 May 2007 he together with two others was involved in attacks on two men which resulted in the death of one and the wounding of the other. As a result, on 23 November 2007 all three were convicted of murder and of an offence contrary to Section 18 of the Offences Against The Person Act 1861. Mr Towers received a tariff of 13 years so that taking into account days spent on remand, his tariff expiry date is 22 May 2020.
2.	Mr Towers did not use the knife on either of the victims. He was convicted on the basis of joint enterprise in disgraceful conduct on the evening in question. He has not accepted that he was guilty and still insists that he was wrongly convicted as he had, as he put it, done nothing wrong. While he did not stab either victim, he threw a lump of concrete or a brick at the deceased after he had been stabbed and he approached the second victim in order, the prosecution alleged, to enable the other two to attack him. While a failure to accept responsibility for what occurred does not necessarily mean that an individual is precluded from a reduction in tariff if otherwise he would qualify, it undoubtedly affects his attitude and can show that there has not been the exceptional and unforeseen progress that is needed.
3.	I note from the representations made by Mr Towers’ solicitor that it is said that there is an appeal outstanding. This is surprising since the conviction was some 8 years ago. In fact, the Sentence Planning report of 29 April 2014 states that his appeal against conviction and sentence was denied in February 2008. Hard though it may seem, the reality is that albeit he may have taken a back seat there was ample evidence to justify the jury’s verdict that he was guilty by virtue of joint enterprise.
4.	There is a very helpful and detailed report from an independent psychologist. She records that Mr Towers, as the Tariff Assessment Reports (TAR) show, had as recently as the summer of 2014 received negative CNOMIS entries relating to his attitude if things did not go his way. He has had anger management problems and it is clear that he still can react in a negative way because of that. To his merit, he is working at it and wishes to complete a course which is designed to help.
5.	Mr Towers has made considerable progress since being sentenced. There is concern that, albeit he has some empathy for his victims, his view that he was not guilty has disabled him from true remorse and full victim empathy. None of those producing TARs states that Mr Towers’ progress has been exceptional nor that there is any new information which casts doubt on the appropriateness of the tariff.
6.	The psychologist says that Mr Towers still presents with a number of risk factors which have not been sufficiently addressed. Were he to be released now, he would be a medium to high risk of reoffending, albeit for offences of dishonesty and failing to obey court orders rather than violence. He was someone who was easily led and joined in with the wrong crowd. That danger still exists.
7.	In the circumstances, I cannot recommend a reduction in tariff since none of the possible reasons for so doing are met. The psychologist in her report identifies ways in which in a Category C prison Mr Towers can be assisted. I would urge those responsible to give careful consideration to those suggestions since there is it seems real hope that Mr Towers can put his past appalling behaviour behind him.