The applicants had been convicted of murder. The Home Secretary had to fix sentence tariffs for their release. They contended that it was a breach of their rights for that tariff to be set by a politician. The distinction was made between offences carrying mandatory and discretionary life sentences. The decision as to what measure of deterrence was required was not solely a matter suitable for decisions by the courts, but included elements to be considered which looked to wider issues. The exercise of such powers with respect to discretionary lifers had been ruled unlawful. The legislation, following that decision, explicitly excluded tariffs for mandatory lifers, and it was not for the courts to set aside such decisions. The present system might not survive challenge in the Court of Human Rights, but it must be their decision
Judges:
Lord Woolf, Lord Chief Justice, Lord Justice Simon Brown and Lord Justice Buxton
Citations:
Times 16-Nov-2001, Gazette 06-Dec-2001, [2001] EWCA Civ 1698
Links:
Statutes:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
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 – 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 . .
Appeal to – 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.
Appeal from – Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Anderson Same v Same, ex parte Taylor QBD 27-Feb-2001
When the Home Secretary set a tariff sentence for a mandatory life sentence prisoner, in order to satisfy the requirement for retribution and deterrence, that exercise was not a judicial sentencing exercise to which the provisions of the Human . .
Cited by:
Appeal from – 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.
Appeal to – Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Anderson Same v Same, ex parte Taylor QBD 27-Feb-2001
When the Home Secretary set a tariff sentence for a mandatory life sentence prisoner, in order to satisfy the requirement for retribution and deterrence, that exercise was not a judicial sentencing exercise to which the provisions of the Human . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Human Rights, Criminal Sentencing
Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.166778