- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Anderson, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
Factual and Procedural Background
The Appellant was convicted in 1988 of two separate murders committed in 1986 and 1987. Pursuant to statute, the trial court imposed mandatory life sentences. The trial judge and the Lord Chief Justice each advised that a tariff of 15 years would satisfy the purposes of retribution and general deterrence. Relying on ministerial powers then contained in section 29 of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997, the Respondent set a higher tariff of 20 years.
The Appellant sought judicial review, which the Divisional Court dismissed. The Court of Appeal, bound by earlier European authority, also rejected the claim. The Appellant appealed to the House of Lords, arguing that the Respondent’s role in fixing tariffs for mandatory life-sentence prisoners was incompatible with Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the fixing of a tariff for a mandatory life-sentence prisoner constitutes the “determination of a criminal charge” within the meaning of Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights.
- If so, whether the Respondent—an executive officer—can lawfully perform that function consistent with the requirement that such determinations be made by “an independent and impartial tribunal.”
- The appropriate relief where primary legislation expressly assigns the tariff-setting power to the Respondent.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- Article 6(1) safeguards apply to sentencing as well as to conviction; tariff-setting is therefore a judicial function.
- The Respondent, as a member of the executive, lacks the independence and impartiality required by Article 6(1).
- European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) jurisprudence—most recently Stafford v United Kingdom—confirms that tariff-setting for murder sentences is a sentencing exercise that must be performed by a court.
- The Respondent’s decision to exceed judicial recommendations violated the Appellant’s Convention rights.
Respondent's Arguments
- The mandatory life sentence itself represents the punishment; tariff-setting is merely an administrative step in its implementation.
- Because tariff-setting is administrative, Article 6(1) is not engaged.
- Even if Article 6(1) applies, section 29 of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 compels the Respondent to act; any incompatibility would require only a declaration under section 4 of the Human Rights Act 1998.
- The ECtHR decision in Stafford was wrongly decided and should not be followed.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| R v Howe [1987] AC 417 | Illustrates the wide spectrum of culpability within the offence of murder. | Used to show why uniform life sentences mask differing levels of blameworthiness. |
| Ong Ah Chuan v Public Prosecutor [1981] AC 648 | Same principle as Howe. | Cited as further evidence of varied culpability. |
| R v Dudley and Stephens (1884) 14 QBD 273 | Demonstrates historical practice of commuting death sentences to short terms. | Supports analysis of divergence between sentence pronounced and sentence served. |
| R v SSHD, Ex p Hindley [1998] QB 751; [2001] 1 AC 410 | Establishes possibility of a whole-life tariff. | Cited to show tariff-setting may extend to lifelong imprisonment. |
| Van Droogenbroeck v Belgium (1982) 4 EHRR 443 | Court must look to substance over form. | Used to classify tariff-setting as a sentencing function despite its administrative label. |
| R v SSHD, Ex p Pierson [1998] AC 539 | Questions legality of increasing tariffs after disclosure. | Supports view that tariff-setting has sentencing characteristics. |
| R v SSHD, Ex p Doody [1994] 1 AC 531 | Earlier House of Lords analysis of mandatory life sentences. | Shows historical acceptance of ministerial role but recognises sentencing features. |
| R v SSHD, Ex p Handscomb (1987) 86 Cr App R 59 | Challenge to discretionary life sentencing. | Cited in overview of evolving jurisprudence. |
| Weeks v UK (1987) 10 EHRR 293 | ECtHR scrutiny of discretionary life sentences. | Part of comparative analysis with mandatory sentences. |
| Thynne, Wilson & Gunnell v UK (1990) 13 EHRR 666 | Led to removal of executive role for discretionary life prisoners. | Contrast used to highlight anomaly for murder tariffs. |
| Hussain v UK; Singh v UK (1996) 22 EHRR 1 | Review of juvenile sentences under Article 6. | Background to subsequent reforms. |
| R v SSHD, Ex p Venables & Thompson [1998] AC 407 | Home Secretary’s tariff-setting for juveniles breached Article 6. | Cited as analogous authority. |
| V v UK (1999) 30 EHRR 121 | Defines “independent” for Article 6 purposes. | Reinforces that ministers are not independent tribunals. |
| In re Findlay [1985] AC 318 | Earlier domestic challenge to parole powers. | Background only; no specific rule extracted. |
| Wynne v UK (1994) 19 EHRR 333 | Originally treated tariff-setting as administrative. | Expressly reconsidered and rejected by the House. |
| Raja v UK (App No 39047/97) | Commission decision following Wynne. | Noted as outdated precedent. |
| R v SSHD, Ex p Stafford [1999] 2 AC 38 | Highlighted tension between executive sentencing and rule of law. | Cited in support of separation-of-powers concerns. |
| Stafford v UK (App No 46295/99) | Grand Chamber held tariff-setting is a sentencing exercise requiring judicial determination. | Treated as authoritative and followed. |
| R (Lichniak & Pyrah) v SSHD [2002] QB 296 | Minister previously claimed tariff individualized punishment. | Quoted to show inconsistency in Respondent’s stance. |
| Benjamin & Wilson v UK (App No 28212/95) | Executive may not confirm tribunal decisions where Article 6 applies. | Used to conclude Respondent must play no part even if concurring with judges. |
| Attorney-General for Australia v Boilermakers' Society [1957] AC 288 | Separation of judicial and executive powers. | Background constitutional principle. |
| Liyanage v The Queen [1967] 1 AC 259 | Same principle. | Referenced in discussion of constitutional norms. |
| Hinds v The Queen [1977] AC 195 | Judicial independence. | Cited for separation-of-powers analysis. |
| Duport Steels Ltd v Sirs [1980] 1 WLR 142 | Role of judiciary in constitutional structure. | Background only. |
| R v Trade Practices Tribunal, Ex p Tasmanian Breweries (1970) 123 CLR 361 | Difficulty of defining judicial power. | Cited in comparative discussion. |
| Deaton v Attorney-General [1963] IR 170 | Punishment must be imposed by courts, not executive. | Quoted approvingly in the judgment. |
| In re Tracey (1989) 166 CLR 518 | Australian authority on judicial sentencing. | Background citation. |
| Chu Kheng Lim v Minister (1992) 176 CLR 1 | Executive detention boundaries. | Cited for principle only. |
| Nicholas v The Queen (1998) 193 CLR 173 | Judicial exclusivity over punishment. | Background citation. |
| Ringeisen v Austria (1971) 1 EHRR 455 | Article 6 extends to sentencing. | Relied on in step-by-step analysis. |
| Eckle v Germany (1983) 5 EHRR 1 | Same point as Ringeisen. | Cited in support. |
| Bromfield v UK (App No 32003/96) | Sentencing within Article 6. | Referenced in reasoning. |
| Millar v Dickson [2002] 1 WLR 1615 | Requirement of structural independence. | Illustrative analogy. |
| R (Alconbury) v Secretary of State [2001] 2 WLR 1389 | Domestic courts ordinarily follow Grand Chamber decisions. | Justification for adopting Stafford. |
| In re S (Minors) [2002] 2 WLR 720 | Limits of interpretative obligations under Human Rights Act 1998. | Cited when rejecting Appellant’s preferred remedy. |
| Engel v Netherlands (1976) 1 EHRR 647 | Sentencing is part of determining a criminal charge. | Supports application of Article 6. |
| Welch v UK (1995) 20 EHRR 247 | Court looks to substance over form. | Used to classify tariff-setting as sentencing. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
Judge Bingham, delivering the lead opinion, adopted a seven-step analysis advanced by counsel for the Appellant:
- Article 6(1) guarantees a right to a fair hearing by an independent tribunal.
- Those guarantees cover both conviction and sentencing.
- A sentence imposed other than by an independent tribunal breaches Article 6.
- In substance, fixing a tariff is the act of determining the quantum of punishment.
- Therefore Article 6 applies to tariff-setting.
- The Respondent, as a member of the executive, is not independent.
- Consequently, any ministerial involvement in setting the tariff is incompatible with Article 6.
The House dismissed arguments that tariff-setting was merely administrative, citing the similarity between the Respondent’s task and that of a sentencing judge, and relied heavily on the Grand Chamber’s decision in Stafford v United Kingdom. It concluded that even confirmation of judicial advice by the Respondent would offend the separation-of-powers principle recognised in Article 6.
Turning to remedy, the House noted that section 29 of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 expressly assigns release powers—and, by implication, tariff-setting—to the Respondent. Given the clarity of that statutory scheme, the interpretative obligation under section 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998 could not be used to read the ministerial role out of the statute. The only available remedy was therefore a declaration that section 29, in so far as it permits the Respondent to set tariffs, is incompatible with Article 6.
Holding and Implications
APPEAL ALLOWED; DECLARATION OF INCOMPATIBILITY ISSUED.
The House of Lords declared that section 29 of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 is incompatible with Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights because it allows the Respondent to determine the punitive tariff for mandatory life-sentence prisoners. Although the decision does not invalidate the statute, it places Parliament under political pressure to transfer tariff-setting to the judiciary or another truly independent body. Until legislative reform occurs, tariffs fixed by the Respondent remain legally effective, but their Convention incompatibility is formally recognised.
Alert