Ex parte Venables & Thompson [1998]

Facts: In 1998 HS can determine length of sentences for prisoners. 2 Ds (10 yrs old boys) murdered a younger child and were sentenced to be detained. HS sentenced to 8 yrs, then on recommendation of the Lord Chief Justice, to 10 years, then he moved it to 15 years follow by massive media campaign.

Held: 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. In undertaking a breach of SoP, HS should perform suitably like a judge (Lord Steyn) In taking public opinion into consideration, the HS exercises his discretion unlawfully (Lord Goff) because natural justice requires that they be dismissed as irrelevant to the judicial exercise (Lord Hope)

Judgements:

• Lord Browne-Wilkinson (dissenting): The court should be careful not to impose judicial procedures and attitudes on what Parliament has decided should be an executive function’. If the S of S was entitled to consider public confidence in the administration of justice, how could he discover what public attitudes were except from the media and from public petitions?

Disagreement

o   That's following the position of power (at executive) not the function (judiciary function).

o   Separation of power vs separation of function Separation of function is a legal fiction?

o   Lord Lloyd (dissenting) - Gauging public concern in relation to a particular case is part of the the task Parliament entrusted to HS to maintain public confidence in the criminal justice system.