R (Venables and Thompson) v Home Secretary

Last updated

R (Venables and Thompson) v Home Secretary
Royal Coat of Arms of the United Kingdom.svg
Court House of Lords
Citation(s)[1997] UKHL 25, [1998] AC 407
Keywords
Health

R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Venables and Thompson [1997] UKHL 25 is a UK constitutional law case, concerning the exercise of independent judgement in judicial review.

Contents

Facts

Venables and Thompson claimed that the Home Secretary had unlawfully decided not to release them from prison, after they were convicted of murder as children. The Home Secretary took into account public petitions demanding the murderer be imprisoned for life. He refused to take account of their progress and development during detention. He increased the ‘tariff period’ from 10 to 15 years to delay release, and said they should be dealt with on the same basis as adult offenders, where mandatory life sentences were imposed.

Judgment

The House of Lords held by 3 to 2, that the Home Secretary acted unlawfully by taking into account irrelevant considerations (a public petition) and failing to take into account relevant considerations (progress in detention).

Lord Steyn said the following of the Home Secretary.

His legal premise was wrong: the two sentences are different. A sentence of detention during Her Majesty’s pleasure requires the Home Secretary to decide from time to time ... whether detention is still justified. The Home Secretary misunderstood his duty. This misdirection by itself renders his decision unlawful.

See also

Notes

    Related Research Articles

    Habeas corpus is a recourse in law by which a report can be made to a court in the events of unlawful detention or imprisonment, requesting that the court orders the person's custodian, to bring the prisoner to court, to determine whether their detention is lawful.

    Life imprisonment is any sentence of imprisonment for a crime under which convicted criminals are to remain in prison for the rest of their natural lives. Crimes that warrant life imprisonment are usually violent and/or dangerous. Examples of crimes that result in life sentences are murder, torture, terrorism, child abuse resulting in death, rape, espionage, treason, Illegal drug trade, Drug prohibition, human trafficking, severe fraud and financial crimes, aggravated Property damage, arson, hate crime, kidnapping, burglary, and robbery, piracy, aircraft hijacking, and genocide.

    A pardon is a government decision to allow a person to be relieved of some or all of the legal consequences resulting from a criminal conviction. A pardon may be granted before or after conviction for the crime, depending on the laws of the jurisdiction.

    A thrill killing is premeditated or random murder that is motivated by the sheer excitement of the act. While there have been attempts to categorize multiple murders, such as identifying "thrill killing" as a type of "hedonistic mass killing", actual details of events frequently overlap category definitions making attempts at such distinctions problematic.

    False imprisonment or unlawful imprisonment occurs when a person intentionally restricts another person's movement within any area without legal authority, justification, or the restrained person's permission. Actual physical restraint is not necessary for false imprisonment to occur. A false imprisonment claim may be made based upon private acts, or upon wrongful governmental detention. For detention by the police, proof of false imprisonment provides a basis to obtain a writ of habeas corpus.

    <span class="mw-page-title-main">Capital punishment in India</span> Death penalty in India, its states and union territories

    Capital punishment in India is a legal penalty for some crimes under the country's main substantive penal legislation, the Indian Penal Code, as well as other laws. Executions are carried out by hanging as the primary method of execution as given under Section 354(5) of the Criminal Code of Procedure, 1973 is "Hanging by the neck until dead", and is imposed only in the 'rarest of cases'.

    In England and Wales, life imprisonment is a sentence that lasts until the death of the prisoner, although in most cases the prisoner will be eligible for early release after a minimum term set by the judge. In exceptional cases a judge may impose a "whole life order", meaning that the offender is never considered for parole, although they may still be released on compassionate grounds at the discretion of the Home Secretary. Whole life orders are usually imposed for aggravated murder, and can only be imposed where the offender was at least 21 years old at the time of the offence being committed.

    Murder is an offence under the common law legal system of England and Wales. It is considered the most serious form of homicide, in which one person kills another with the intention to unlawfully cause either death or serious injury. The element of intentionality was originally termed malice aforethought, although it required neither malice nor premeditation. Baker, chapter 14 states that many killings done with a high degree of subjective recklessness were treated as murder from the 12th century right through until the 1974 decision in DPP v Hyam.

    <i>Al-Kateb v Godwin</i> 2004 decision of the High Court of Australia

    Al-Kateb v Godwin, was a decision of the High Court of Australia, which ruled on 6 August 2004 that the indefinite detention of a stateless person was lawful. The case concerned Ahmed Al-Kateb, a Palestinian man born in Kuwait, who moved to Australia in 2000 and applied for a temporary protection visa. The Commonwealth Minister for Immigration's decision to refuse the application was upheld by the Refugee Review Tribunal and the Federal Court. In 2002, Al-Kateb declared that he wished to return to Kuwait or Gaza. However, since no country would accept Al-Kateb, he was declared stateless and detained under the policy of mandatory detention.

    <span class="mw-page-title-main">Dante Arthurs</span> Australian murderer

    Dante Wyndham Arthurs is an Australian murderer, convicted of the murder of eight-year-old Sofia Rodriguez-Urrutia Shu.

    In United States law, habeas corpus is a recourse challenging the reasons or conditions of a person's confinement under color of law. A petition for habeas corpus is filed with a court that has jurisdiction over the custodian, and if granted, a writ is issued directing the custodian to bring the confined person before the court for examination into those reasons or conditions. The Suspension Clause of the United States Constitution specifically included the English common law procedure in Article One, Section 9, clause 2, which demands that "The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it."

    <span class="mw-page-title-main">United Kingdom administrative law</span>

    United Kingdom administrative law is part of UK constitutional law that is designed through judicial review to hold executive power and public bodies accountable under the law. A person can apply to the High Court to challenge a public body's decision if they have a "sufficient interest", within three months of the grounds of the cause of action becoming known. By contrast, claims against public bodies in tort or contract are usually limited by the Limitation Act 1980 to a period of 6 years.

    In Germany, life imprisonment has an indeterminate length and is the most severe punishment that can be imposed. A person sentenced to life imprisonment may normally apply for parole after having served 15 years. If the parole court rejects the application, the inmate may reapply after a court determined blocking period no longer than two years. If the court has determined a "severe gravity of guilt" exists, parole is delayed for a non-specific period beyond 15 years.

    <span class="mw-page-title-main">Murder of James Bulger</span> 1993 child murder in Liverpool, England

    On 12 February 1993 in Merseyside, two 10-year-old boys, Robert Thompson and Jon Venables, abducted, tortured, and murdered a two-year-old boy, James Patrick Bulger. Thompson and Venables led Bulger away from the New Strand Shopping Centre in Bootle, after his mother had taken her eyes off him momentarily. His mutilated body was found on a railway line two and a half miles away in Walton, Liverpool, two days later.

    Yong Vui Kong is a Malaysian who was sentenced to death in Singapore for trafficking more than 15 grams of heroin in 2007. His sentence was reduced to life imprisonment and caning as a result of Singapore's amendments to the Misuse of Drugs Act.

    In England and Wales, the imprisonment for public protection sentence was a form of indeterminate sentence introduced by section 225 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 by the Home Secretary, David Blunkett, and abolished in 2012. It was intended to protect the public against criminals whose crimes were not serious enough to merit a normal life sentence but who were regarded as too dangerous to be released when the term of their original sentence had expired. It is composed of a punitive "tariff" intended to be proportionate to the gravity of the crime committed, and an indeterminate period which commences after the expiration of the tariff and lasts until the Parole Board judges the prisoner no longer poses a risk to the public and is fit to be released. The equivalent for under-18s was called detention for public protection, introduced by s. 226 of the 2003 Act. The sentences came into effect on 4 April 2005.

    Zealand v Minister of Justice is an important case in South African constitutional law.

    Wong Wing v. United States, 163 U.S. 228 (1896), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court found that the Fifth and Sixth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution forbid the imprisonment at hard labor without a jury trial for noncitizens convicted of illegal entry to or presence in the United States.

    <span class="mw-page-title-main">Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000</span> United Kingdom legislation

    The Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000 is a United Kingdom Act of Parliament that advances a number of agendas related to criminal justice. It instituted the National Probation Service as well as the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service. The Act also makes the parents of persistent truants criminally liable and subject to a maximum penalty of three months in prison, a legal change that led to the first imprisonment of parents in 2002.

    <span class="mw-page-title-main">Life imprisonment in Singapore</span> Legal punishment in Singapore

    Life imprisonment is a legal penalty in Singapore. This sentence is applicable for more than forty offences under Singapore law, such as culpable homicide not amounting to murder, attempted murder, kidnapping by ransom, criminal breach of trust by a public servant, voluntarily causing grievous hurt with dangerous weapons, and trafficking of firearms, in addition to caning or a fine for certain offences that warrant life imprisonment.

    References