In the case of [case], which dealt with whether the Secretary of State for the Home Department could delegate the function of setting a tariff period for life sentence prisoners, the Court of Appeal said: ‘there is no express or implied requirement in the Criminal Justice Act 1967 that a decision fixing the tariff period, or for that matter a decision to release a prisoner on licence, must be taken by the Secretary of State personally’ (per Staughton LJ). This seems to suggest that, unless delegation is excluded specifically or by necessary implication, no power is non- delegable within a department.
Answer
R v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Doody [1993] AC 157
Tags
#cases #illegality #judicial-review #public
Question
In the case of [case], which dealt with whether the Secretary of State for the Home Department could delegate the function of setting a tariff period for life sentence prisoners, the Court of Appeal said: ‘there is no express or implied requirement in the Criminal Justice Act 1967 that a decision fixing the tariff period, or for that matter a decision to release a prisoner on licence, must be taken by the Secretary of State personally’ (per Staughton LJ). This seems to suggest that, unless delegation is excluded specifically or by necessary implication, no power is non- delegable within a department.
Answer
?
Tags
#cases #illegality #judicial-review #public
Question
In the case of [case], which dealt with whether the Secretary of State for the Home Department could delegate the function of setting a tariff period for life sentence prisoners, the Court of Appeal said: ‘there is no express or implied requirement in the Criminal Justice Act 1967 that a decision fixing the tariff period, or for that matter a decision to release a prisoner on licence, must be taken by the Secretary of State personally’ (per Staughton LJ). This seems to suggest that, unless delegation is excluded specifically or by necessary implication, no power is non- delegable within a department.
Answer
R v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Doody [1993] AC 157
If you want to change selection, open original toplevel document below and click on "Move attachment"
Parent (intermediate) annotation
Open it In the case of R v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Doody [1993] AC 157, which dealt with whether the Secretary of State for the Home Department could delegate the function of setting a tariff period for life sentence prisoners, the Court of Appeal said:
Original toplevel document (pdf)
cannot see any pdfs
Summary
status
not learned
measured difficulty
37% [default]
last interval [days]
repetition number in this series
0
memorised on
scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval
last repetition or drill
Details
No repetitions
Discussion
Do you want to join discussion? Click here to log in or create user.