Nevertheless, this does not mean that individuals with a genuine concern for the matter under challenge will always be granted standing. To illustrate this, it is useful to contrast two cases concerning the sentencing of the child murderers of James Bulger. On the one hand, it was entirely clear that the convicted murderers themselves had standing, in R v Secretary of State for Home Department, ex parte Venables, [1998] AC 407 to challenge the tariff sentence set by the Home Secretary, as they were directly impacted by it. (Indeed, standing was never an issue in this case.) However, in R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Bulger, [2001] 3 All ER 449 the application of the father of the murder victim to challenge the setting of the tariff sentence given to the two defendants was dismissed for lack of standing. The Divisional Court held that, in criminal cases, the only two parties with an interest are the Crown and the defendant, and therefore a third party does not have a right to intervene in this context.