Prisoners

Setting of tariff for mandatory life prisoners - decision administrative not judicial - secretary of state entitled to increase tariff approved by Lord Chief JusticeR (Anderson) v Secretary of State for the Home Department; R (Taylor) v Same: QBD (Rose LJ, Sullivan and Penry-Davey JJ): 22 February 2001The two applicants were sentenced to mandatory terms of life imprisonment for murder.

In each case the Home Secretary increased the tariff period for retribution and deterrence before they could be considered for release on licence from that initially set by the trial judge and confirmed by the Lord Chief Justice.The applicants sought judicial review, contending that the secretary of state's decisions infringed article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights, as scheduled to the Human Rights Act 1998, since the setting of the tariff period was in substance a judicial sentencing exercise.Edward Fitzgerald QC and Sally Hatfield (instructed by Bhatt Murphy) for Anderson.

Edward Fitzgerald QC and Philippa Kaufmann (instructed by Peter Ievins, Peterborough) for Taylor.

David Pannick QC and Mark Shaw (instructed by Treasury Solicitor) for the secretary of state.Held, refusing the applications, that mandatory life imprisonment was a fixed penalty laid down by Parliament following the abolition of the death penalty in 1965; that as such it was in a unique category, distinguishable from discretionary life imprisonment and detention during Her Majesty's pleasure; and that the setting of the tariff period was accordingly an administrative and not a judicial act which could properly be carried out by the secretary of state and need not be done by a court.