The prisoner was convicted of an armed robbery in which a policeman had been shot, and had been sentenced to life imprisonment. The judge set no tariff himself. The tariff was set by the Home Secretary, but only after some time. The discretionary life prisoner had been refused the right to make oral representations to the Lord Chief Justice upon him recommending the tariff he was to serve.
Held: There had been a violation of Article 6.1 regarding the procedure adopted in fixing the applicant’s tariff: ‘The Court would observe that the sentencing exercise carried out in criminal cases must necessarily be carried out by an independent and impartial tribunal, namely a court offering guarantees and procedure of a judicial nature. It was not a court that fixed the applicant’s tariff in a public adversarial hearing and in the circumstances it is not sufficient to satisfy the fundamental principal relating the separation of powers that the member of the executive who issued the decision was guided by judicial opinion’.
Citations:
48015/99, Times 18-Jun-2003, [2003] ECHR 278, [2003] 37 EHHR 812
Links:
Statutes:
European Convention on Human Rights 6.1
Jurisdiction:
Human Rights
Citing:
Cited – V v The United Kingdom; T v The United Kingdom ECHR 16-Dec-1999
The claimant challenged to the power of the Secretary of State to set a tariff where the sentence was imposed pursuant to section 53(1). The setting of the tariff was found to be a sentencing exercise which failed to comply with Article 6(1) of the . .
Cited – Stafford v The United Kingdom ECHR 28-May-2002
Grand Chamber – The appellant claimed damages for being held in prison beyond the term of his sentence. Having been released on licence from a life sentence for murder, he was re-sentenced for a cheque fraud. He was not released after the end of the . .
Cited – Benjamin and Wilson v The United Kingdom ECHR 26-Sep-2002
The applicant challenged the system in the UK of deciding on his release from a secure mental hospital. He had been a discretionary life prisoner, but then later his detention was continued because of his mental condition. Though an independent . .
Cited by:
Cited – Regina (on the Application of Dudson) v Secretary of State for the Home Department and the Lord Chief Justice Admn 21-Nov-2003
The applicant had been sentenced to detention during Her Majesty’s Pleasure. He sought a judicial review of the Lord Chief Justice’s recommendation to the Home Secretary for the minimum term he was to serve.
Held: In exercising this function, . .
Cited – Hammond, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department Admn 25-Nov-2004
The defendant had heard that the sentencing judge would set his sentence tarriff without an oral hearing, and would then give his decision in open court. He sought judicial review.
Held: Review was granted. The availability of a right of . .
Cited – Dudson, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 28-Jul-2005
The defendant had committed a murder when aged 16, and after conviction sentenced to be detailed during Her Majesty’s Pleasure. His tarriff had been set at 18 years, reduced to 16 years after review.
Held: ‘What is at issue is the general . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Criminal Sentencing, Constitutional, Human Rights
Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.183759