Secretary of State v Smith [2004] EWCA Civ 99 (11 February 2004)

Secretary of State v Smith [2004] EWCA Civ 99 (11 February 2004)

Once the tariff for a young person detained during Her Majesty's pleasure has been reviewed and set by the Lord Chief Justice, and the Secretary of State has undertaken to abide by that recommendation, there is no continuing obligation on the Secretary of State to keep the tariff under periodic review. The rationale...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2004] EWCA Civ 99
Parties
Defendant / Appellant: Secretary of State; Claimant / Respondent: Maria Smith; Claimant / Appellant: Anthony Dudson; Interested Party / Respondent: Lord Chief Justice
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 February 2004
Procedural Posture
Appeal (civil) / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeals From Divisional Court Decisions in Judicial Review Proceedings
Outcome
Appeals allowed; Divisional Court decisions overturned.
Legal Topics
Sentencing of Young Offenders, Detention During Her Majesty's Pleasure, Tariff Review, Judicial Review, Article 6 ECHR, Article 5(4) ECHR, Children and Young Persons Act 1933, Powers of Criminal Courts (sentencing) Act 2000
Criminal Law Public Law Human Rights Sentencing of Young Offenders Detention During Her Majesty's Pleasure Tariff Review Judicial Review Article 6 ECHR +3 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Secretary of State

Defendant / Appellant

Maria Smith

Claimant / Respondent

Anthony Dudson

Claimant / Appellant

Lord Chief Justice

Interested Party / Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal (civil) / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeals From Divisional Court Decisions in Judicial Review Proceedings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Secretary of State is under a continuing obligation to keep under review the tariffs fixed for young persons detained during Her Majesty's pleasure in 'transitional cases' after the Lord Chief Justice's recommendation and acceptance by the Secretary of State
  2. 2 Whether the Lord Chief Justice was required to afford an oral hearing in reviewing Dudson's tariff
  3. 3 Whether the Lord Chief Justice failed to have due regard to Dudson's welfare in recommending the tariff

Ratio Decidendi

Once the tariff for a young person detained during Her Majesty's pleasure has been reviewed and set by the Lord Chief Justice, and the Secretary of State has undertaken to abide by that recommendation, there is no continuing obligation on the Secretary of State to keep the tariff under periodic review. The rationale for periodic review, as established in Venables, was based on the executive's role in setting the tariff, which is no longer present after judicial determination. The Lord Chief Justice was not required to afford an oral hearing, and due regard was given to the welfare of the detainee in the tariff recommendation.

Court Disposition

Appeals allowed; Divisional Court decisions overturned.

Orders

  • Declaration that the Secretary of State is not under a continuing obligation to keep under review the tariffs fixed for the claimants after the Lord Chief Justice's recommendation and acceptance.
  • Dismissal of the claimants' applications for judicial review.