Killers challenge Home Secretary's sentencing power

Prison sentences for murderers should be set "openly, publicly and fairly" by judges and not secretly by politicians who can be influenced by public opinion, the House of Lords was told yesterday.

A challenge brought by three murderers could lead to other killers being freed and might even pave the way for the release of Myra Hindley, who has been told by successive home secretaries that "life means life".

Yesterday, a panel of seven law lords was asked to end the Home Secretary's power to overrule judges when setting the minimum period life prisoners should spend behind bars – because it breached a convict's human rights.

Edward Fitzgerald QC, for the three appellants, told the court the "tariff", or minimum jail sentence, should be set "openly, publicly and fairly in court by a judge and not secretly and unfairly by a politician who has not heard the case and is subject to all the inevitable pressures of public opinion".

Mr Fitzgerald also challenged the principle of the mandatory life sentence for murder, arguing it unfairly exposed offenders who presented no future danger to the risk of lifelong imprisonment.

He said that that if a life sentence literally meant what it said, it would be inhuman. Nobody, the court was told, would suggest that a mercy killer or a soldier who overreacted in self-defence or a long-suffering battered wife who killed her husband deserved actual lifelong punishment.

In two of the three cases before the lords the defendants were told by the trial judges they represented no future danger to the public. Daniella Lichniak and Glyn Pyrah, who were convicted of murder in separate and unrelated trials, were set minimum tariffs of ten and eight years, respectively.

Lichniak, a 41-year-old mother, stabbed a man to death in a pub fight.

Pyrah, 47, had been drinking heavily when he saw a man assaulting a woman in the street and intervened. He punched the assailant, and delivered a kick that proved fatal.

In the third case, Anthony Anderson was sentenced to life after being convicted of two murders during bungled robberies in 1988. The trial judge set a tariff of 15 years that was increased to 20 years by the then Home Secretary. His case directly affects 225 prisoners, 70 of whom have already served more time than originally recommended by the judiciary and could be freed immediately.

If the House of Lords accepts the criticisms of either mandatory sentencing or the detention of prisoners who no longer pose a risk to society, the appeal could indirectly open the way for Moors murderer Myra Hindley and others who have been told that in their cases life does means life.

Human rights lawyers argue that if the law lords rule in the appellants' favour, Hindley might be able to apply for new tariffs to be set by the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Woolf.

But lawyers for the appellants say that is not the purpose of the appeal. They argue the Home Secretary has, often on a judicial recommendation, decided the facts of the case are so serious that the offender should be detained for the remainder of his or her life as a punishment.

Mr Blunkett has made it clear he is not prepared to surrender his power to ensure killers such as Hindley serve full life sentences and has promised to bring in new laws if the courts threaten this right.