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 right to a ‘fair and public hearing’ in article 6(1). There is no absolute right to a public hearing at every stage in the proceedings at which the applicant or his representatives are heard orally. The application of the article to proceedings other than at first instance depends on the special features of the proceedings in question. Account must be taken of the entirety of the proceedings of which they form part, including those at first instance. Account must also be taken of the role of the person or person conducting the proceedings that are in question, the nature of the system within which they are being conducted and the scope of the powers that are being exercised. The overriding question, which is essentially a practical one as it depends on the facts of each case, is whether the issues that had to be dealt with at the stage could properly, as a matter of fair trial, be determined without hearing the applicant orally. ‘ An oral hearing would have been a formality, and ‘the absence of an oral hearing in this case did not violate article 6(1) of the Convention.’
Judges:
Bingham of Cornhill, Hope of Craighead, Nichols of Birkenhead, Hoffmann,LL, Baroness Hale of Richmond
Citations:
[2005] 3 WLR 422, [2005] UKHL 52, Times 29-Jul-2005, [2006] 1 All ER 421
Links:
Statutes:
Children and Young Persons Act 1933 53(1)
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
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 – Smith, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 28-Jul-2005
The applicant had, as a child been subject to detention during Her Majesty’s pleasure, the sentence being imposed before 30 November 2000. She argued that that sentence should be subject to periodic review despite the term had been fixed by the Lord . .
At First Instance – 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, . .
Appeal from – Regina (Smith) v Secretary of State for the Home Department; and similar CA 11-Feb-2004
The applicants were young persons who had been detained during Her Majesty’s Pleasure after convictions for murder. The respondent appealed a finding that he was under a duty to review the tariff with a view to release even before the expiry of the . .
Cited – Delcourt v Belgium ECHR 17-Jan-1970
The applicant had failed in appeals against conviction and sentence for offences of fraud and forgery before the Belgian Cour de Cassation. He complained that he had not enjoyed the right to a fair trial recognised by Article 6(1) of the Convention . .
Cited – Sigurthor Arnarsson v Iceland ECHR 15-Jul-2003
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1 ; Non-pecuniary damage – financial award ; Costs and expenses partial award – Convention proceedings
The applicant had been acquitted of . .
Cited – Easterbrook v The United Kingdom ECHR 12-Jun-2003
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 . .
Cited – Monnell And Morris v The United Kingdom ECHR 2-Mar-1987
ECHR No violation of Art. 5-1; No violation of Art. 6-1; No violation of Art. 6-3-c; No violation of Art. 14+5; No violation of Art. 14+6
The applicants had unsuccessfully sought leave to appeal against . .
Cited – Hoppe v Germany ECHR 5-Dec-2002
Hudoc No violation of Art. 8 ; No violation of Art. 6-1
The applicant complained that he had been denied a fair hearing in appeal proceedings concerning his right of access to his daughter contrary to . .
Cited – Fejde v Sweden ECHR 29-Oct-1991
The manner of the application of article 6 to proceedings before courts of appeal depends on the special circumstances of the proceedings involved. Account must be taken of the entirety of the proceedings in the domestic legal order and of the role . .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Doody and Others HL 25-Jun-1993
A mandatory lifer is to be permitted to suggest the period of actual sentence to be served. The Home Secretary must give reasons for refusing a lifer’s release. What fairness requires in any particular case is ‘essentially an intuitive judgment’, . .
Cited – Goc v Turkey ECHR 11-Jul-2002
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1 on account of the absence of an oral hearing; Violation of Art. 6-1 on account of the non-communication of the opinion of the Principal Public . .
Cited – Practice Statement (Juveniles: Murder Tariffs) CACD 27-Jul-2000
Legislation is to be enacted to set the tariff for life sentences for youths to be sentenced to life for murder. Until enacted the Lord Chief Justice gave recommendations for both existing and new cases, and the Home Secretary will follow them. . .
Cited – Bulut v Austria ECHR 22-Feb-1996
The Procurator General had submitted to the Supreme Court comments on a plea of nullity made by a defendant without bringing them to the attention of the accused.
Held: The principle of equality of arms had not been respected in the . .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State For The Home Department, Ex Parte Venables, Regina v Secretary of State For The Home Department, Ex Parte Thompson HL 12-Jun-1997
A sentence of detention during her majesty’s pleasure when imposed on a youth was not the same as a sentence of life imprisonment, and the Home Secretary was wrong to treat it on the same basis and to make allowance for expressions of public . .
Cited – Regina v Parole Board ex parte Smith, Regina v Parole Board ex parte West (Conjoined Appeals) HL 27-Jan-2005
Each defendant challenged the way he had been treated on revocation of his parole licence, saying he should have been given the opportunity to make oral representations.
Held: The prisoners’ appeals were allowed.
Lord Bingham stated: . .
Cited by:
Cited – Hammond, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 1-Dec-2005
The claimants had been convicted of murder, but their tariffs had not yet been set when the 2003 Act came into effect. They said that the procedure under which their sentence tarriffs were set were not compliant with their human rights in that the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Criminal Sentencing
Updated: 14 June 2022; Ref: scu.229068