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 been set the Secretary would only consider matters relating to the crime or the defendant’s state of mind at that time. After V the courts were given the task of setting the tarriff. It was now said that the practice set down in Venables applied to the executive only and was no longer applicable.
Held: What matters is the nature of the sentence, ie to be detained during Her Majesty’s pleasure. She therefore had the right to have her tariff or minimum period reviewed from time to time for all of the reasons spelt out by the majority in Venables. The situation in relation to those sentenced prior to 30th November 2000 is still governed by the decision of the House of Lords in Venables.
Judges:
Lord Justice Kennedy Mr Justice Mitchell
Citations:
[2003] EWHC 692 (Admin), Times 11-Apr-2003, Gazette 19-Jun-2003, [2003] 1 WLR 2176
Links:
Statutes:
Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 90(1), Children and Young Persons Act 1933 53(1)
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Browne v The Queen PC 6-May-1999
(St Christopher and Nevis) The appellant had been convicted of murder whilst still a youth. He had accordingly been sentenced to be detained ‘during [the Governor-General’s] pleasure; and if so sentenced he shall be liable to be detained in such . .
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 – 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 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, . .
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 . .
See Also – Smith, Regina (on the Application Of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department Admn 31-Jul-2003
. .
At First instance – 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, Human Rights
Updated: 31 October 2022; Ref: scu.180455