R (Anderson) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2003] 1 AC 837

Court: House of Lords

Facts: Anderson received mandatory life sentences after being convicted of two murders. Following his conviction, the Secretary of State for the Home Department set a period for his release on license that was longer than the recommended time frame. Anderson challenged this decision, asserting that the legislation governing his sentencing was incompatible with his rights. Issue: Is the Secretary of State's authority to impose a longer than recommended period for release incompatible with the Human Rights Act 1998?

Held: The appeal was allowed, and the House of Lords issued a declaration of incompatibility against Section 29 of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 under Section 4 of the Human Rights Act 1998. The Court concluded that legislation cannot be interpreted in a way that resolves the incompatibility if it is based on “necessary implication.”

Key Judicial Statements: The House of Lords stated that legislation cannot be read down under Section 3(1) of the Human Rights Act where the incompatibility arises from necessary implications in the law.

💡 LevelUpLaw: This case underscores the limitations of legislative interpretation in resolving human rights incompatibilities. It illustrates the need for clear legislative frameworks that align with human rights standards, emphasizing that when statutes are incompatible, a declaration of incompatibility may be necessary to uphold the rule of law and protect individual rights