“Ministers cannot adopt blanket policies that fetter discretionary statutory powers.”
Pierson was a life sentence prisoner whose tariff period had expired. The Home Secretary adopted a policy of generally not releasing discretionary life sentence prisoners until they had served at least 20 years, regardless of individual circumstances.
Whether the Home Secretary could adopt a blanket policy that effectively prevented proper consideration of individual cases for discretionary release of life sentence prisoners.
The House of Lords held in favour of Pierson. The Home Secretary's blanket policy was unlawful as it fettered his discretionary power.
This case is fundamental to administrative law, establishing clear limits on how public bodies can use policy to guide discretionary decisions. It demonstrates the courts' willingness to scrutinize executive decision-making that affects individual liberty.
You're reading the free summary of R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Pierson. Create a free account to unlock the full reasoning, the cited authorities and the verbatim judgment — plus structured briefs for 412,000+ UK judgments.
No card required. Free forever.
OSCOLA Citation
R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Pierson [1998] AC 539 (HL)
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Falls back to Google for old citations BAILII catalogues separately
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.