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 oral submissions before that determination was made.
Held: The court was satisfied that there was no substance in these submissions. (Woolf) ‘In coming to that conclusion I bear in mind that the argument is not based upon any dispute as to the facts which an oral hearing would have helped to clarify. The facts in this case were not in issue. Mr Easterbrook had an opportunity of advancing oral submissions before the Judge as to matters that were relevant to sentence and also on the oral hearing before the Court of Appeal. The Lord Chief Justice had the benefit of the full and well drafted submissions to which I have already made reference. I do not believe that an oral hearing could have provided anything which would have influenced the Lord Chief Justice to come to a different conclusion . . . . I do not consider anything would have been achieved in this case by an oral hearing.’
Judges:
Lord Woolf MR
Citations:
[1999] EWCA Civ 1054
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
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, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Criminal Sentencing
Updated: 05 December 2022; Ref: scu.145969
