The statement followed the report of the Sentencing Advisory Panel of March 15, 2002. The statement contained guidance, not firm rules. The phrase ‘minimum term’ should replace the term ‘tariff’. Offenders are normally not released on the expiry of the minimum term. The judge should say how the minimum term had been arrived at, and also the equivalent determinate term. The normal starting point for murder is 12 years. It might be reduced or increased according to the presence of other factors as described. Where there is exceptional progress on the part of the young offender and it is clear that his welfare would be improved by release from detention that is one of the factors the Secretary of State must take into account: ‘The Home Secretary does not consider that this statement as to his responsibility is relevant now that the minimum term is set by the trial judge. The trial judge can only act on the information before him in taking into account the welfare of the child at the time that he announces the minimum term. It has been suggested that in these circumstances section 44(1) of the 1933 Act requires judges to fix the lowest possible minimum term so as to ensure the Parole Board will consider the case at the correct time if a child happens to make exceptional progress. It is recommended that this suggestion is not followed although it is appreciated that the Home Secretary’s view means that apparently exceptional progress by a child while in detention will not influence the date his case is considered by the Parole Board.’
Judges:
Lord Justice Kennedy
Citations:
Times 04-Jun-2002, [2002] 1 WLR 1789, [2002] 3 All ER 412, [2002] 2 Cr App R 18
Statutes:
Murder (Abolition of Death Penalty) Act 1965 1, Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000 60, Children and Young Persons Act 1933 33(1)
Citing:
Replaced – 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 – In Re Thompson and Venables (Tariff Recommendations) CACD 27-Oct-2000
An invitation to the parents of a deceased victim of crime to make representations was useful to help establish the effect of the crime on the victims, but it was not for the family to express views as o the proper sentence. When reconsidering the . .
Cited – In Re Thompson and Venables (Tariff Recommendations) CACD 27-Oct-2000
An invitation to the parents of a deceased victim of crime to make representations was useful to help establish the effect of the crime on the victims, but it was not for the family to express views as o the proper sentence. When reconsidering the . .
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 – Regina v Sullivan; Regina v Gibbs; Regina v Elener; Regina v Elener CACD 8-Jul-2004
The appellants, each convicted of murder, challenged the minimum periods of detention ordered to be served.
Held: As to the starting point for sentencing, judges should have regard to the published practice directions, and not the letter from . .
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Criminal Sentencing
Updated: 05 May 2022; Ref: scu.172217