Regina v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex Parte Pierson [1998]

Facts: D convicted of double murder. Lord Chief Justice recommended 15 years tariff, but a 20-year minimum tariff was fixed by the HS. HS realised his mistake but refused to alter.

Held: Home sec did not have the power. The Home Secretary was only entitled to increase the sentence recommended where there was an “exceptional circumstance” which was not the case here. The fundamental principle of not raising fixed tariffs was not mentioned in the legislation giving Home Sec this power and therefore we assume parl did not intend that he should get it.

• Lord Steyn: “A HS or judge cannot alter the sentence after 28 days has lapsed since the original sentence: this is important since the family of the convicted may plan their lives around the sentence. Also the Home Sec’s power is to state when the earliest possible release date for the prisoner is: NOT to retrospectively increase the sentence. Steyn says that the fundamental principle of not raising fixed tariffs was not mentioned in the legislation giving Home Sec this power and therefore we assume parl did not intend that he should get it.”

• Lord Browne-Wilkinson (Dissenting) The courts do not have "any right to quash administrative decisions on the simple ground that the decision is unfair”. Parliament......intends those powers to be exercised by him according to his own standards. ‘Parliament does not legislate in a vacuum. Parliament legislates for a European liberal democracy founded on the principles and traditions of the common law. And the courts may approach legislation on this initial assumption.’