Anderson, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department, United Kingdom House of Lords, Judgment, Law, casemine.com

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Judges

LORD STEYN
LORD RODGER OF EARLSFERRY
LORD HUTTON
LORD SCOTT OF FOSCOTE
LORD NICHOLLS OF BIRKENHEAD
LORD BINGHAM OF CORNHILL

See more information ...

Click here to read the full judgment

Anderson, R (on the application of) v. Secretary of State for the Home Department

Smart Summary

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.