Criminal Justice Act 2003, Schedule 22, paragraph 8

Existing prisoners not notified by Secretary of State

SCHEDULE 22 Mandatory life sentences: transitional cases

8 In dealing with a reference under paragraph 6, the High Court—

(a) may not make an order under subsection (2) of section 269 specifying a part of the sentence which in the opinion of the court is greater than that which, under the practice followed by the Secretary of State before December 2002, the Secretary of State would have been likely to notify as mentioned in paragraph 2(a), and

(b) may not make an order under subsection (4) of section 269 unless the court is of the opinion that, under the practice followed by the Secretary of State before December 2002, the Secretary of State would have been likely to give the prisoner a notification falling within paragraph 2(b).

Definitions used in Schedule 22, paragraph 8 1

the court

(2) In relation to such an application or reference, any reference to “the court” in section 269(2) to (5) and Schedule 21 is to be read as a reference to the High Court.

Defined in Sch.22 para.11(2) · see it in the full Act

Cases considering Schedule 22, paragraph 8 6

Coonan (Formerly Sutcliffe), R v

[2010] EWHC 1741 (QB) · 16 July 2010Interprets

Interprets “likely” as meaning more likely than not for the purpose of deciding whether a whole life term may be imposed by reference to the former Home Secretary practice. The court found that threshold satisfied. (see paras [12], [25])

Belnavis, Re Setting of Minimum Terms In Relation To

[2005] EWHC 1933 (QB) · 6 October 2005Limits

The court could not impose a term longer than the period likely to have been notified under the pre-December 2002 practice. This ceiling required the determination to be limited to 15 years before deduction of remand time. (see paras [14], [20], [24])

McIver, Re minimum term

[2005] EWHC 1935 (QB) · 9 September 2005Limits

Limits the High Court’s order to the term the Secretary of State would probably have notified under the pre-December 2002 practice. The court applied that ceiling and maintained the previously recommended 20-year term. (see paras [12], [18], [20])

What each judgment says about Schedule 22, paragraph 8 is in the case-law panel in the full Act.