HL Deb 15 October 1986 vol 480 c904WA
Lord Avebury

asked Her Majesty's Government:

In how many cases in 1985 the Secretary of State asked the Lord Chief Justice and the trial judge for advice on the minimum sentence of discretionary life sentence prisoners and in how many of these cases the Secretary of State decided not to accept that advice; and

Whether the Secretary of State, in consulting the Lord Chief Justice and the trial judge on the minimum period a discretionary life sentence prisoner should serve, invites them to say what fixed-term sentence they would have awarded for the offence in question, and if so whether, assuming that he accepts that advice, the Secretary of State would then refer the case to the parole authorities after the expiry of two-thirds of that period.

The Minister of State, Home Office (The Earl of Caithness)

The procedure which applies to all life sentence cases, irrespective of whether the life sentence is mandatory or discretionary, is that the trial judge (if available) and the Lord Chief Justice are provided with a detailed memorandum on the offence and the prisoner's background, a copy of any letter sent to the Home Secretary by the trial judge after sentence and copies of the latest reports on the prisoner's conduct and progress in prison, and are asked to state their views on the case and on the period of detention necessary to meet the requirements of retribution and general deterrence. The judiciary were asked for their views on 329 life sentence cases under this procedure during 1985. The record of cases sent to the judiciary does not distinguish between mandatory and discretionary life sentences.

On the basis of the same information that was before the trial judge and the Lord Chief Justice and in the light of their views, the circumstances of the individual case, and having regard to his own wider responsibilities, the Home Secretary decides on the date of the first reference of the case to the local review committee. In all cases, he takes account of the views of the judiciary. It is not a question of his accepting or rejecting their advice.