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 tarriff was set by reference back to a judge without a proper opportunity for the applicant to make oral representations.
Held: The appeal was dismissed. Though an appeal procedure was available, that did not cure such a defect in the need for a fair trial. The paragraph should instead be read down so as to require the trial judge to consider first whether an oral hearing should be provided, and if so to provide one.
Judges:
Lord Bingham of Cornhill, Lord Hoffmann, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, Lord Carswell, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood
Citations:
[2005] UKHL 69
Links:
Statutes:
European Convention on Human Rights 86, Criminal Justice Act 2003 Sch22 p11(1)
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – X v United Kingdom ECHR 5-Nov-1981
(Commission) The application was made a patient, restricted under the 1959 Act. A mental health review tribunal which concluded that the continued detention of a restricted patient was no longer justified had power to recommend but not to order the . .
Appeal from – 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 – Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department Ex parte Anderson HL 25-Nov-2002
The appellant had been convicted of double murder. The judge imposed a mandatory life sentence with a minimum recommended term. The Home Secretary had later increased the minimum term under the 1997 Act. The appellant challenged that increase.
Cited – Adolf v Austria ECHR 26-Mar-1982
An elderly lady complained that the applicant had assaulted her. The police investigated and reported back to the prosecutor who referred the matter to the Innsbruck District Court. The court registered the case as a ‘punishable act’ under section . .
Cited – Edwards v The United Kingdom ECHR 16-Dec-1992
The fact that the elderly victim of the robbery of which the defendant had been convicted had failed to pick out Mr Edwards when she was shown two volumes of photographs of possible burglars which included his photograph was not disclosed to the . .
Cited – Stott (Procurator Fiscal, Dunfermline) and Another v Brown PC 5-Dec-2000
The system under which the registered keeper of a vehicle was obliged to identify herself as the driver, and such admission was to be used subsequently as evidence against her on a charge of driving with excess alcohol, was not a breach of her right . .
Cited – Jasper v The United Kingdom ECHR 16-Feb-2000
Grand Chamber – The defendants had been convicted after the prosecution had withheld evidence from them and from the judge under public interest immunity certificates. They complained that they had not had fair trials.
Held: The right was . .
Cited – Miailhe v France (No 2) ECHR 26-Sep-1996
Hudoc Preliminary objection joined to merits (victim); Preliminary objection rejected (victim); Preliminary objection rejected (non-exhaustion); Preliminary objection rejected (ratione materiae); No violation of . .
Cited – Le Compte, Van Leuven And De Meyere v Belgium ECHR 23-Jun-1981
Hudoc The Court was faced with a disciplinary sanction imposed on doctors which resulted in their suspension for periods between 6 weeks and 3 months: ‘Unlike certain other disciplinary sanctions that might have . .
Cited – Albert And Le Compte v Belgium ECHR 10-Feb-1983
Hudoc Violation of Art. 6-1; Just satisfaction reserved . .
Cited – Twalib v Greece ECHR 9-Jun-1998
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Preliminary objection joined to merits (non-exhaustion); Preliminary objection rejected (non-exhaustion); No violation of Art. 6-1+6-3-b; Violation of Art. 6-1+6-3-c; . .
Cited – Albert And Le Compte v Belgium ECHR 24-Oct-1983
ECHR Judgment (Just Satisfaction) – Non-pecuniary damage – finding of violation sufficient; Costs and expenses award – domestic proceedings; Costs and expenses award – Convention proceedings. . .
Cited – Albert And Le Compte v Belgium (Article 50) ECHR 24-Oct-1983
The applicants were Belgian nationals and medical practitioners. Dr Le Compte was suspended from practising medicine for two years for an offence against professional discipline. He appealed to the Appeals Council, alleging violations of Article 6. . .
Cited – Runa Begum v London Borough of Tower Hamlets (First Secretary of State intervening) HL 13-Feb-2003
The appellant challenged the procedure for reviewing a decision made as to the suitability of accomodation offered to her after the respondent had accepted her as being homeless. The procedure involved a review by an officer of the council, with an . .
Cited – Dory v Sweden ECHR 12-Nov-2002
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) . .
Cited – Regina (Holding and Barnes plc) v Secretary of State for Environment Transport and the Regions; Regina (Alconbury Developments Ltd and Others) v Same and Others HL 9-May-2001
Power to call in is administrative in nature
The powers of the Secretary of State to call in a planning application for his decision, and certain other planning powers, were essentially an administrative power, and not a judicial one, and therefore it was not a breach of the applicants’ rights . .
Cited – De Cubber v Belgium ECHR 26-Oct-1984
The applicant a Belgian, had been convicted of forgery. He said that the court had not been an impartial tribunal because one of the judges had also acted as an investigating judge in his case. Amongst the grounds on which it was contended that . .
Cited – Colozza v Italy ECHR 12-Feb-1985
The defendant complained that he had been tried and convicted in his absence.
Held: The right to a fair trial had been breached: ‘the object and purpose of [article 6] taken as a whole show that a person ‘charged with a criminal offence’ is . .
Cited – Findlay v The United Kingdom ECHR 25-Feb-1997
The applicant complained that the members of a court-martial were appointed by the Convening Officer, who was closely linked to the prosecuting authorities. The members of the court-martial were subordinate in rank to the Convening Officer who had . .
Cited – Kyprianou v Cyprus ECHR 27-Jan-2004
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1 ; Violation of Art. 6-2 ; Violation of Art. 6-3-a ; Not necessary to examine Art. 10 ; Non-pecuniary damage – financial award ; Costs and . .
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 – Riepan v Austria ECHR 14-Nov-2000
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1; Pecuniary damage – claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage – finding of violation sufficient; Costs and expenses partial award – Convention . .
Cited – Condron v The United Kingdom ECHR 2-May-2000
A direction to a jury about an accused person’s silence during police questioning was inadequate to protect the right to a fair trial. The applicants had been advised by their solicitor to remain silent during interview because they were withdrawing . .
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 – 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 . .
Cited by:
Cited – A and Others, Regina v; Regina v The Crown Court at the Central Criminal Court ex parte A Times Newspapers Ltd etc CACD 13-Jan-2006
The defendant was to be charged with offences associated with terrorism. He had sought stay of the trial as an abuse of process saying that he had been tortured by English US and Pakistani authorities. The judge made an order as to what parts of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Criminal Sentencing, Human Rights
Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.235509
