The Judicial report regarding Thompson and Venables

 What Source Have I used?

This is a supreme court law report on an appeal by the Home Secretary to increase the tariff from 10 to 15 years. I originally accessed this source on the 18th August 2021, through House of Lords - Reg. v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex parte V. and Reg. v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex parte T. (parliament.uk) (published 1997).  This source is extremely useful as it allows me to see why the appeal of the Home Secretary was dismissed, and the relevant legislation as to why their sentence was so low. 

What have I learnt?

• Trial Judge- "The killing of James Bulger was an act of unparalleled evil and barbarity....you will be securely detained for very very many years until the Home Secretary is satisfied that you have matured and are fully rehabilitated and are no longer a threat to society"
• Trial Judge's Mandatory Life Sentence Case Trial: Judge's Report to the Home Secretary-"If the defendants had been adults I would have said that the actual length of detention necessary to meet the requirements of retribution and general deterrence should have been 18 years....8 years is 'very very many years' for a 10 or 11 year old"
• Home Secretary on the 16th June 1994- "the public concern about the case which was evidenced by the petitions....and to the need to maintain confidence in the system of criminal justice"
• 278,300 signatures in support of life sentences for Venables and Thompson
• 6,000 signatures in support for a minimum tariff of 25 years for Venables and Thompson. 
• Divisional Court of the High Court- "young offenders sentenced to detention during Her Majesty's pleasure should, like adults upon whom mandatory life sentences have been imposed, have to serve an identified penal element in their sentence before their release could be considered, was unlawful...punishment and deterrence should play no part in the Home Secretary's decision upon a release date"
• "In the result, the Home Secretary's decisions of 22nd July 1994 were quashed" (Lord Goff) 
• Court of Appeal- "Divisional Court's decision was upheld and the Secretary of State's appeal was dismissed" (Lord Goff)
• S.53 of the Children and Young Person's Act 1933 replaced S.103-105 of the Children Act 1908
• "At all events, the position is made clear in both the Act of 1908 and the Act of 1933, where the power of discharge is expressly provided for, and is a power vested in the Secretary of State to discharge the Young offender at any time on licence, subject to revocation of that licence by him at any time- see section 53(4) of the act of 1933 (now repealed), formerly section 105 of the act of 1908" (Lord Goff)
• Court of Appeal's dismissal due to:
• "1) failure to disclose material; (a) failure to disclose the judges' summary of the facts contained in his report to the home secretary, (b) failure to disclose a psychiatric report about Thompson, (c) failure to disclose information about an earlier case relied on by the home secretary 
• "2) Failure by the home secretary himself to obtain material such as psychiatric and social inquiry-reports to enable him to form his own view about the responsibility to be attributed to the respondents ,
• "3) Taking into account petitions and other material from the public demanding an increase in the tariff recommended by the judiciary"
• "By crossing the boundary from one type of public concern to the other, the Secretary of State erred in the present case. In reaching this conclusion, I find myself to be in substantial agreement with the opinion expressed by Lord Woolf M.R on this point...I would dismiss the appeal of the Secretary of State" (Lord Goff)

Where next? 

From this, I will now look at the morals and ethics of the case, and evaluating if the sentence given was morally acceptable. 

2022 Update**- I originally did this research in August 2021, however due to computer difficulties the post did not publish. I have luckily managed to find the notes I made and re-publish them/