The court ruled that the review restrictions comply with the ECHR.
The Supreme Court has unanimously dismissed Jesse Quaye’s appeal over rules governing minimum-term reviews for people sentenced to detention during His Majesty’s pleasure after committing murder as children. The court held that sections 27A and 27B of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 are compatible with Articles 5, 7 and 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
The Quaye minimum term dispute arose from Mr Quaye’s conviction for the murder of Connor Barrett in 2014. Mr Quaye was 17 years and nine months old when the offence was committed, but he was 18 when convicted and 18 years and five months old when sentenced in January 2015. He received a sentence of detention during His Majesty’s pleasure with a minimum term of 15 years.
Under a policy operated by the Secretary of State, detainees could previously apply for a review of their minimum term after serving half of it. The purpose was to consider whether the term should be reduced because of exceptional progress in custody. A revised policy introduced in February 2021 removed eligibility for offenders who were aged 18 or over when sentenced.
Parliament subsequently put the position on a statutory footing through section 128 of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022. The provision inserted sections 27A and 27B into the 1997 Act. From 28 June 2022, only people who were under 18 when the sentence of detention during His Majesty’s pleasure was imposed could apply for a minimum-term review.
Mr Quaye argued that the absence of a review mechanism breached Article 5, which protects the right to liberty and security, because it could result in arbitrary detention. He also argued that the changes imposed a heavier penalty contrary to Article 7 and amounted to unlawful age discrimination under Article 14 read with Article 5.
The Supreme Court rejected those arguments. It held that the minimum term imposed by the sentencing judge was fixed lawfully by reference to the statutory sentencing framework. The court distinguished the minimum term itself from the later arrangements governing early release. It concluded that the review mechanism concerned the execution or enforcement of the sentence rather than the penalty imposed at sentencing.
On Article 14, the court accepted that the legislation created different treatment based on age at the date of sentencing. However, it concluded that the difference in treatment was objectively justified.
The Supreme Court therefore concluded that sections 27A and 27B are compatible with Articles 5, 7 and 14 read with Article 5 of the ECHR. The appeal was dismissed