Mandatory Life Sentences and Executive Interference: R (on the Application of Anderson) v Secretary of State for the Home Department; R (on the Application of Taylor) v Secretary of State for the Home Department; Stafford v United Kinqdom
| Author | Christopher Gale,Annabelle James |
| Date | 01 October 2002 |
| Published date | 01 October 2002 |
| DOI | 10.1177/002201830206600507 |
| Subject Matter | Comment |
Comment
Mandatory
Life
Sentences
and
Executive
Interference:
R
(on
the
application of
Anderson)
v
Secretary
of
State
for
the
Home
Department;
R
(on
the
application of
Taylor)
v
Secretary
of
State
for
the
Home
Department;
Stafford
v
United
Kinqdom
Christopher Gale* and Annabelle James**
Over the past months, the debate as to
whether
there is still a place for
the
Executive in
the
fixing of tariffs' for
mandatory
life sentence prison-
ers has
been
reopened both domestically
and
in
the
European Court of
Human
Rights. The facts
and
issues in the cases of Anderson and
Taylorl
and
Stafford v
United
Kingdom
are set
out
below.' together
with
an
explanation of the decisions
and
a
comment
on
their implications for
the
future. The authors conclude
that
the
decision in Stafford was long
overdue and its inevitable implications on domestic law are
not
revolu-
tionary, merely just.
'Tariff' in this context means
the
point after which
the
requirements
of
punishment
and
retribution required in sentencing have
been
sat-
isfied
and
after which release, on licence or otherwise, can be con-
sidered.
It
is
noted
with interest
that
the
mandatory
life sentence
remains
the
only type
untouched
by recent parliamentary deliberations
as to executive control, although, as discussed below, it is
hard
to
imagine
that
this will remain
the
case indefinitely. The types of life
sentences that can currently be imposed domestically
and
the
tariff-
fixing methods employed are outlined below:
Mandatory life
sentencing
Under
the
Murder
(Abolition of Death Penalty) Act 1965, s. 1(1), a
defendant over the age of 21 at the time of
the
offence
must
be
sentenced to imprisonment for life. Where an offender is aged
18-20
the
*LLB (Hans), LLM,
ILTM,
Principal Lecturer in Law, Leeds Metropolitan University.
** LLB (Hons), MA,
ILTM,
Senior Lecturer in Law, Leeds
Metropolitan
University.
I This article refers
to
'tariffs'
throughout
for
the
sake of consistency as this was
the
term
referred to in proceedings. It
must
however
be
noted
that
the
Practice
Statement
of 31 May 2002, below n. 12, effectively
renames
the
tariff as a
'minimum
term'.
2[2002] 2WLR 1143.
3App. No.
46295/99,
28 May 2002,
European
Court of
Human
Rights.
417
To continue reading
Request your trial