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 opinion. Of a sentence under the section: ‘The Secretary of State is not dealing with a sentence of the same kind as the mandatory life sentence imposed on an adult murderer, the duration of which is determined by the sentence of the court and is for life. In cases of detention during Her Majesty’s pleasure the duty of the Secretary of State is to decide how long that detention is to last, not to determine whether or not to release prematurely a person on whom the sentence of the court is life imprisonment.’ The fixing of the tariff amounted to a sentencing exercise, to which Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights applies, and that the requirements of Article 6(1) were not met because the Home Secretary, who set the initial tariff, was not independent of the executive.
Judges:
Lord Goff of Chieveley, Lord Browne-Wilkinson, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, Lord Steyn, Lord Hope of Craighead
Citations:
Gazette 10-Sep-1997, [1997] Fam Law 786, [1998] AC 407, [1997] UKHL 25, [1997] 3 All ER 97, [1997] 3 WLR 23, [1997] 2 FLR 471
Links:
Statutes:
Murder (Abolition of Death Penalty) Act 1965 1(5) 4, Children and Young Persons Act 1933 53(1), European Convention on Human Rights 6
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department Ex Parte Venables Regina v Same, Thompson CACD 7-Aug-1996
A sentence of a young person to ‘Detention during Her Majesty’s pleasure’ is not to be thought of as the same as a life sentence; The Home secretary had been unfair in setting the tarriff sentence for two youths convicted of murder on a basis which . .
At First instance – Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department Ex Parte Venables; Regina v Similar QBD 7-May-1996
The Home Secretary was wrong to apply adult criteria on setting a release date for a child detained during Her Majesty’s Pleasure for an offence of murder. . .
Cited by:
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 (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 (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 . .
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 – 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 . .
See Also – T and V v The United Kingdom ECHR 8-Apr-1999
Public trial in an adult court of juvenile charged with murder and imposition of a sentence of detention during Her Majesty’s pleasure with a tariff of fifteen years fixed by a member of the executive. The trial of two ten year olds in a public . .
See Also – 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 – 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 . .
Cited – O’Dowd (Boy George) v National Probation Service London Admn 23-Dec-2009
Refusal of curfew relaxation was reasonable
The claimant had been released from prison early on licence subject to conditions including a home detention curfew. He was offered a place on a TV programme, Celebrity Big Brother, which would require relaxation or alteration of his place of . .
Cited – Shoesmith, Regina (on The Application of) v OFSTED and Others CA 27-May-2011
The claimant appealed against dismissal of her claim. She had been head of Child Services at Haringey. After the notorious violent death of Baby P, the Secretary of State called for an inquiry under the Act. He then removed her as director. She . .
Cited – Sandiford, Regina (on The Application of) v The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs SC 16-Jul-2014
The appellant a British Citizen awaited execution in Singapore after conviction on a drugs charge. The only way she might get legal help for a further appeal would be if she was given legal aid by the respondent. She sought assistance both on Human . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Criminal Sentencing, Children, Human Rights
Updated: 31 May 2022; Ref: scu.158900