Is Murder ‘Most Foul’? R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex P. Anderson R v Lichniak; R v Pyrah
| Published date | 01 April 2003 |
| DOI | 10.1177/002201830306700206 |
| Date | 01 April 2003 |
| Author | Annabelle James,Christopher Gale |
| Subject Matter | Comment |
COMMENT
Is
Murder 'most foul'?
Rv
Secretary
of
State
for the
Home
Department,
ex
p.
Anderson
RvLichniak; Rv
Pyrah
Christopher
Gale*
and
Annabelle
James**
Over
the
past few years, concerns have
been
raised as to
the
role of
the
Home Secretary in tariff fixing
and
extendingfor life-sentence prisoners.
The Home Secretary's powers have
now
been
taken
away
in all circum-
stances save for
that
of
the
sane adult murderer.1The aim of this
Comment is therefore to discuss
whether
murder
really is 'most foul',
both
with
regard to
the
Home Secretary's tariff-fixing powers
and
the
special status of
the
offence of
murder
itself in its attraction of a man-
datory life sentence, taking into account
the
recent House of Lords'
decisions in Ex p. Anderson'
and
RvLichniak; R vPyrah?
Background
to
the
decisions
Anderson
The appellant, Anderson,
had
applied for judicial review to challenge
the
power
of
the
Secretary of State for the Home Department with
regard to his fixing
the
tariff for
mandatory
life sentences imposed for
murder." Anderson
had
been
convicted in 1988 of murdering Thomas
Walker
and
Michael Tierney
and
had
received two life sentences. The
judge,
with
the
agreement of
the
then
Lord Chief Justice, recommended
his tariff should be 15 years. In July 1994,
the
then
Home Secretary,
Michael Howard, set
the
tariff he must serve at 20 years
and
this decision
was later reaffirmed by his successor, Jack Straw.
It
was said
that
this
term was justified because Anderson
had
killed on two occasions.
The appellant, along
with
another
mandatory life-sentence prisoner,
contended
that
their rights
under
Article 6(1)
ofthe
European Conven-
tion on
Human
Rights ('the Convention'), as given effect in domestic
law via the
Human
Rights Act 1998,
had
been
breached in
that
tl.ey
were entitled
to
have this decision on tariff made by an 'independent
*LLB (Hans), LLM, ILTM,
Prindpal
Lecturer
in Law, Leeds
Metropolitan
University.
** LLB (Hans), MA, ILTM,
Senior
Lecturer in Law, Leeds
Metropolitan
University.
1 See
Comment
by C. Gale
and
A.
James,
'Mandatory
Life
Sentences
and
Executive
Interference'
(2002) 66 JCL
417
for details of
the
diminution
of
executive
powers
in this regard.
2[2002) UKHL 46, [2002) 3 WLR 1800.
3[2002) UKHL 47, [2002) 3 WLR 1834.
4 The Times (27
February
2001).
130
To continue reading
Request your trial