§ Baroness Hilton of Eggardonasked Her Majesty's Government:
How they intend to implement the House of Lords judgment in R v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Pierson given on 24 July 1997.
§ Lord Williams of MostynThis judgment concerned the discretion of any holder of the office of Home Secretary to increase a tariff once set for an adult convicted of murder. The majority of the House of Lords decided that it is lawful for the Secretary of State to increase a tariff previously set, as set out in a reply by my right honourable friend's predecessor, the right honourable Member for Folkestone and Hythe, in another place on 27 July 1993,Official Report, cols. 863-65. However, one of that majority found that that statement did not purport to apply to a decision to increase a tariff set before 27 July 1993, and so a different majority found that the increase of the tariff in the Pierson case was unlawful.
13WASo far as the procedures for setting and reviewing tariffs of adult murderers are concerned, my right honourable friend is continuing the practice of his predecessor, as described in his Answers of 27 July 1993 and 7 December 1994. In particular, before setting tariff he is continuing to take the advice of the trial judge and the Lord Chief Justice, informing the prisoner of the substance of that advice and inviting representations about it, and giving reasons for any departure on his part from the judicial review.
With regard to the discretion to alter tariff, my right honourable friend reiterates that the view which he takes (or a Minister acting under his authority takes) at the beginning of a mandatory life sentence, of the period necessary to satisfy the requirements of retribution and deterrence, is an initial view of the minimum period necessary to satisfy those requirements. It therefore remains possible for him, or a future Secretary of State, exceptionally to revise that view of the minimum period, either by reducing it, or by increasing it where he, or a successor in his office, conclude that, putting aside questions of risk, the minimum requirements of retribution and deterrence will not have been satisfied at the expiry of the period which had previously been determined. The procedure for considering any increase of a tariff once set will include the opportunity for the prisoner to make representations after being informed that the Secretary of State is minded to increase tariff, and to be given reasons for any subsequent decision to increase it.
So far as the potential for a reduction in tariff is concerned, my right honourable friend will be open to the possibility that, in exceptional circumstances, including, for example, exceptional progress by the prisoner whilst in custody, a review and reduction of the tariff may be appropriate. He shall have this possibility in mind when reviewing at the 25 year point the cases of prisoners given a whole life tariff and in that respect will consider issues beyond the sole criteria of retribution and deterrence described in the Answer given on 7 December 1994. Prisoners will continue to be given the opportunity to make representations and to have access to the material before him.
My right honourable friend intends to apply these policies in respect of all tariffs for adult murderers, whether or not they were originally set before 27 July 1993 and whether or not they were originally fixed by him personally, or a Minister acting on his behalf, or by or on behalf of a previous holder of his office.
14WA
Table I. Decisions on applications' for asylum in the United Kingdom from Turkish nationals, excluding dependants, 1992 to 1996 and January to September 1997 number of principal applicants 21997 January to 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 September Total decisions 2,640 1,915 1,145 995 1,405 1,280 Recognised as a refugee and granted asylum 460 340 90 50 55 60 Not recognised as a refugee but granted exceptional leave to remain3 1,535 865 55 35 20 15 In the Pierson case, where the tariff has now been quashed, my right honourable friend intends to invite representations from the prisoner before re-setting tariff at a level which he considers appropriate.
My right honourable friend is taking this opportunity to confirm that his approach on the release of adults convicted of murder once tariff has expired will reflect the policy set out in the answer given on 27 July 1993. In particular, the release of such a person will continue to depend not only on the expiry of tariff and on my right honourable friend's being satisfied that the level of risk of his committing further imprisonable offences presented by his release is acceptably low, but also on the need to maintain public confidence in the system of criminal justice. The position of a prisoner subject to a mandatory life sentence continues to be distinct from that of a prisoner serving a discretionary life sentence, a decision on whose final release is a matter for the Parole Board alone.
Everything in this answer about my right honourable friend's practice in relation to mandatory life sentence prisoners applies equally to persons who are, or will be, sentenced to custody for life under Section 8 of the Criminal Justice Act 1982. For present purposes, a life sentence imposed under Section 2 of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 is treated as a discretionary life sentence.