R v Anderson [2002] 4 All ER 1089
Judgement for the case R v Anderson
Table Of Contents
Plaintiff claimed that it was contrary to Article 6 for the Secretary of State to set the minimum mandatory prison sentence.
HL agreed, but said that since legislation specifically intended to give the Secretary of State this power, all it could do was issue a s.4 declaration of incompatibility.
It said that since the setting of the prison term was as much a part of the trial as sentence, and since the Secretary of State couldn’t be considered an “independent and impartial tribunal” as a member of the exec, this arrangement was contrary to Article 6.
For Further Study on R v Anderson
A collection of the best BCL notes the director of Oxbridge Notes (an O...
Need instant answers? Our AI exam tutor is here to help.
Ask questions 🙋 Get answers 📔 It's simple 👁️👄👁️
Our AI is educated by the highest scoring students across all subjects and schools. Join hundreds of your peers today.
Get StartedSimilar Cases
Related Product Samples
These product samples contain the same concepts we cover in this case.
Administrative Law notes fully updated for recent exams at Oxford and C...
Since 2010, Oxbridge Notes has been a trusted education marketplace, supplying high-quality materials from top achievers at universities like Oxford, Cambridge, LSE, Harvard, and Yale.