This case occurred when the Home Secretary could still determine the length of sentences of prisoners, and he sentenced the killers of Jamie Bulger initially to 8 years and then, on the recommendation of the Lord Chief Justice, to 10 years.
Following a massive media campaign he moved it to 15 years.
HL said that:
The Home Secretary had failed to have regard to the development of the child along with deterrence, risk, retribution, etc. and that therefore his decision was unlawful.
That, in exercising a judicial function, the Home Secretary had to be detached from public opinion and make a decision without regard to irrelevant factors such as public opinion.
Said that if a Home Secretary is to take on a sentencing power then he must exercise it in the same way as a judge.
Said that in undertaking to breach separation of powers, Parliament would have intended the Home Secretary to act like a judge and indeed the Home Office stated that.
A judge, unlike the Home Secretary, would have ignored a newspaper campaign and thus the Home Secretary mad a decision that was not dispassionate and was therefore unlawful.
A collection of the best BCL notes the director of Oxbridge Notes (an O...
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 StartedThese product samples contain the same concepts we cover in this case.
Criminal Justice, Security, & Human Rights | Prisoners' Rights Notes (47 pages) |
Criminology | The Sentencing Framework And Risk Dangerousness And Non Commensurate Sentencing Notes (34 pages) |