Decision reserved on prison term tariffs

The Human Rights Act came into force last October

Two prisoners serving life sentences must wait until Thursday to hear if their challenge to the home secretary's power to set their jail term, is upheld.

Three High Court judges, who are considering the challenge under the Human Rights Act, said their decision would be reserved until midday.

Other cases raising the same issue have been put on hold pending the outcome of this landmark decision.

If successful, hundreds of sentences for others serving life terms could be reviewed - including those of the country's most notorious criminals.

The home secretary argues that setting tariffs are "administrative"

However, the Home Office said most of the 3,000 prisoners serving mandatory life sentences already had tariffs set in line with judicial guidelines.

The legal challenge has been brought by Anthony Anderson and John Taylor who both had their tariffs for murder increased by the home secretary.

Arguing on their behalf, Edward Fitzgerald, QC, said the minister's powers were "incompatible" with human rights.

Double murder

Anderson, 38, was convicted in 1988 for the murder of 60-year-old Thomas Walker and Michael Tierney.

The trial judge and Lord Chief Justice recommended a tariff of 15 years on his life sentence.

But in 1994, then home secretary Michael Howard, ruled he must serve at least 20 years.

This decision was twice confirmed by current home secretary, Jack Straw, the current Home Secretary, who said it was justified because Anderson was a double murderer.

Juveniles

In 1989, Taylor, now 45, was convicted of murdering Susan McNamara, and a tariff of 16 years was set by the courts.

But Mr Straw increased it to 22 years citing the "brutal nature" of the attack, the absence of motive, sexual interference or theft against Ms McNamara, and Taylor's previous convictions in 1983.

Mr Fitzgerald told the High Court mandatory lifers should be subject to similar procedures as those now applied to juveniles who were ordered to be detained indefinitely at Her Majesty's Pleasure, like the child killers of James Bulger.

Lack of openness'

In these cases the home secretary has adopted the principles of Article 6 (1) of the Act and bound himself not to exceed the tariffs recommended by the Lord Chief Justice.

Mr Fitzgerald also criticised the lack of openness in the current system.

He said no one knew how the home secretary approached his tariff decisions.

Mr Straw's lawyer accepted in the court that setting a tariff was "closely analogous to a sentencing exercise".

But he argued that a tariff for a mandatory life prisoner was "an administrative procedure" relating to a sentence and therefore the Human Rights Act did not apply.