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, the LCJ was acting in a judicial capacity, and therefore his recommendation was not subject to judicial review. ‘Article 6.1 may require an appellate court conducting an appeal against a sentence to afford the appellant an oral hearing, and perhaps occasionally to give or lead evidence at that hearing, if on the facts of his case and the issues arising in it such a step is necessary to ensure that the procedure is fair.’ In this case it was not. The Lord Chief Justice had been under no obligation to afford the appellant an oral hearing and, alternatively, that, if he was entitled to an oral hearing, he had waived that entitlement. The Lord Chief Justice had paid due regard to the appellant’s welfare.
Judges:
Lord Justice Kennedy Mr Justice Mackay
Citations:
[2003] EWHC 2797 (Admin), Times 27-Nov-2003
Links:
Statutes:
Children and Young Persons Act 1933 53(1), European Convention on Human Rights 6.1
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
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 . .
Revisited – Regina (Smith, Trevor) v Parole Board CA 30-Jun-2003
The applicant had been granted leave to present a petition for judicial review, but on certain grounds only. On the hearing, he sought again to present the case including the grounds upon which permission had not been granted.
Held: The judge . .
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 . .
Not followed – Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Furber Admn 30-Jun-1997
The court, not the Home Secretary should set the tariff for the detention of a young offender sentenced to life- half determinate sentence. The role of the Lord Chief Justice in relation to tariffs is that ‘The Lord Chief Justice in this context is . .
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 – Practice Statement (Crime: Life sentences) LCJ 31-May-2002
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 . .
Cited – Regina on the Application of Smith v The Secretary of State for the Home Department Admn 3-Apr-2003
The case asked what duty the respondent had, in respect of youths sentenced to be detained during Her Majesty’s Pleasure before 30th November 2000, to review their continued detention at regular intervals. A statement said that once a tarriff had . .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department and Another Ex Parte Bulger QBD 7-Mar-2001
The family of a murder victim has no standing to intervene to challenge the tariff set for the sentence to be served by the youths convicted of the murder. They had been invited to state the impact of their son’s death, but not the sentence to be . .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Easterbrook CA 22-Mar-1999
A prisoner subject to a discretionary life sentence argued that as the Lord Chief Justice, in advising the Secretary of State on his tariff, was performing an act equivalent to an act of sentencing the appropriate course was to allow him to make . .
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 – Goc v Turkey ECHR 9-Nov-2000
The applicant had claimed compensation for unlawful detention and mistreatment during that detention; although the proceedings were civil in nature, they were governed by the code of criminal procedure. The applicant was not given an oral hearing . .
Mentioned – 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 – Botten v Norway ECHR 19-Feb-1996
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Preliminary objection rejected (non-exhaustion); Violation of Art. 6-1 (fair hearing); Costs and expenses – claim withdrawn
The lower court had had taken . .
Cited – Zumtobel v Austria ECHR 21-Sep-1993
The Zumtobel partnership objected to the compulsory purchase of their farming land to build the L52 by-pass road in the Austrian Vorarlberg. The appropriate Government committee heard their objections but confirmed the order. They appealed to an . .
Cited – Rolf Gustafson v Sweden ECHR 1-Jul-1997
Article 6 was engaged by an application for compensation under a statutory compensation scheme. . .
Cited by:
At First Instance – 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, Judicial Review, Human Rights
Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.188050