Secretary of State for Justice (Respondent) v R (on the application of Quaye) (Appellant)

Case summary

Case ID

UKSC/2025/0138

Parties

Appellant(s)

Jesse Quaye

Respondent(s)

Secretary of State for Justice

Issue

Issue 1: What is the meaning and substance of “detention at His Majesty’s pleasure”, the mandatory sentence for those who commit murder while they are children under the age of 18, as provided for by section 259 of the Sentencing Act 2020? Issue 2: Is section 128 of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, which inserted sections 27A and 27B into the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997, compatible with articles 5, 7, and 14 (read with article 5), of the European Convention on Human Rights?

Facts

Persons who commit murder while under the age of 18 are sentenced to detention at His Majesty’s pleasure. As part of that sentence, the trial judge determines the minimum term that the person must serve in detention before he may apply to the Parole Board to be released on licence. Until 18 February 2021, the respondent, the Secretary of State for Justice, operated a policy which enabled those detained at His Majesty’s pleasure to apply for a review of the minimum term after half of it had been served. This appeal concerns a legislative change to the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 (“the 1997 Act”), sections 27A and 27B, as inserted by the Police, Crime, Courts and Sentencing Act 2022 (“the 2022 Act”), section 128(1). Section 27A removed the opportunity for child offenders detained at His Majesty’s pleasure to have their minimum term reviewed if the sentencing hearing took place on or after their 18th birthday. The appellant is currently serving a sentence of detention at His Majesty’s pleasure following conviction for murder, assault occasioning actual bodily harm, and possession of a knife. The appellant committed the offences on 10 May 2014, aged 17 years and 9 months. He turned 18 on 15 August 2014. On 20 November 2014 he was convicted, aged 18 years and 3 months. On 16 January 2015 he was sentenced to detention at Her Majesty’s pleasure with a minimum term of 15 years, then aged 18 years and 5 months. Section 27A of the 1997 Act came into force on 28 June 2022. This meant that, as the appellant was 18 years old when he was sentenced, he was not eligible to apply for a review of his minimum term when he had served one half of that term. The appellant applied for judicial review, seeking a declaration that section 128(1) of the 2022 Act is incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights (“ECHR”). The appellant argued that the relevant provisions were incompatible with articles 5, 6, 7 and 14 (read with article 5) of the ECHR. These concern the right to liberty and security, the right to a fair trial, the right to no punishment without law, and the right to freedom from discrimination. The Divisional Court held that removing the possibility of a reduction in the minimum term gave rise to a risk of arbitrary detention, sufficient to engage the protection of article 5 ECHR. Differential treatment resulting from random events such as the date of sentencing could not be objectively justified, therefore section 27A was also incompatible with article 14 (read with article 5). The Divisional Court consequently granted a declaration under section 4 of the Human Rights Act 1998 (“HRA”) that sections 27A(1) and 27A(11) of the 1997 Act, as inserted by section 128 of the 2022 Act, are incompatible with articles 5 and 14 (read with article 5) of the ECHR. The Secretary of State appealed successfully to the Court of Appeal, and the declaration of incompatibility was set aside. The appellant now appeals to the Supreme Court.

Date of issue

4 August 2025

Case origin

PTA

Back to top