A man who committed murder at 17 was sentenced after turning 18 to a minimum of 15 years in prison; the UK Supreme Court ruled he could not seek a special review of that term

A man who committed murder at the age of 17 but was sentenced after turning 18 cannot seek a special review of his minimum prison term, the UK Supreme Court has ruled. The unanimous decision concerns Jesse Quaye, who received a minimum term of 15 years for murder and challenged legislation preventing him from applying for a reduction based on his progress in custody. In its judgment on 22 September 2026, the court upheld the legal restrictions, finding that they did not breach his human rights or amount to unlawful discrimination.Why the UK Supreme Court rejected the request to review his 15-year prison termThe case, R (on the application of Quaye) v Secretary of State for Justice, examined whether people who commit murder before turning 18 should retain the right to seek a review of their minimum prison term if they are sentenced after reaching adulthood.According to the Supreme Court's official case summary, Quaye committed the offences on 10 May 2014, when he was 17 years and 9 months old. He and a friend went uninvited to a party in Norfolk, where they stabbed and killed Connor Barrett. Quaye was also convicted of assault occasioning actual bodily harm and possessing a knife.He was convicted on 20 November 2014, aged 18 years and three months. On 16 January 2015, he was sentenced to detention at His Majesty's pleasure, with a minimum term of 15 years. He was then 18 years and five months old.The court's press summary explains that detention at His Majesty's pleasure is an indeterminate sentence imposed on people who commit murder while under 18. The sentencing judge sets a minimum period that must be served before the offender can apply to the Parole Board for release on licence.The sentence does not guarantee release after the minimum term. The Parole Board must assess whether continued detention is necessary to protect the public.How did the rules on minimum-term reviews changeFor years, the government operated a policy allowing people serving detention-at-His-Majesty's-pleasure sentences to apply for a review after completing half their minimum term. The review could lead to a reduction if the prisoner had made exceptional progress in custody.The Supreme Court judgment explains that the policy was based on the government's power to grant clemency. It did not provide an automatic reduction in the sentence, but an opportunity for eligible prisoners to demonstrate that their progress justified reconsideration.The position changed on 18 February 2021, when the Secretary of State introduced a revised policy excluding offenders who were already 18 or older when sentenced. This meant that Quaye could no longer apply for a review when he reached the halfway point of his minimum term on 15 March 2022.Parliament subsequently placed the restriction on a statutory footing through section 128 of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022. The provision amended the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 by introducing sections 27A and 27B, which came into force on 28 June 2022.Under the new rules, eligibility depends on the offender's age when the sentence is imposed. Those sentenced before their 18th birthday can apply for a minimum-term review, while those sentenced at 18 or older cannot.Why did Quaye challenge the legislationQuaye sought a judicial review, arguing that the restrictions were incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. His challenge focused on the right to liberty and security, protection against discrimination and the prohibition on imposing a heavier penalty retrospectively.The Divisional Court initially ruled in his favour, declaring the legislation incompatible with the right to liberty and the prohibition on discrimination when read together with that right. It considered that removing the possibility of a review could create a risk of arbitrary detention and that the difference in treatment based on the date of sentencing lacked adequate justification.However, the Secretary of State successfully appealed. The Court of Appeal overturned the declarations of incompatibility, prompting Quaye to take his case to the Supreme Court.According to the Supreme Court's case records, the appeal was heard on 22 and 23 June 2026. The five justices considering the case were Lord Sales, Lord Briggs, Lord Hamblen, Lord Stephens and Lady Simler.Court found the restrictions compatible with human rightsIn its judgment, delivered by Lord Stephens and Lady Simler with the agreement of the other justices, the Supreme Court unanimously dismissed the appeal.On the right to liberty, the court found that the sentence had been imposed lawfully and that there was no general requirement for every indeterminate sentence imposed on a child to include periodic reviews of its minimum term.The judges explained that legislation had fundamentally changed the nature of detention at His Majesty's pleasure. The sentencing court now fixes the minimum term, while the Parole Board assesses the offender's suitability for release after that period. The Secretary of State no longer has a general power to reconsider the minimum term through the former clemency policy.The court decided that removing the opportunity to seek a reduction did not make Quaye's continued detention arbitrary or unlawful.It also rejected his discrimination argument. Although the law treats offenders differently according to their age at sentencing, the court found that Parliament had a legitimate reason for drawing this distinction. The restrictions were intended, in part, to reduce the distress experienced by victims' families when offenders apply for reviews.Families may be contacted whenever an offender seeks a review and given the opportunity to submit a new victim personal statement.The ruling leaves the original minimum-term framework unchangedThe Supreme Court also rejected Quaye's argument under Article 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which protects against the retrospective imposition of a heavier penalty.The judges distinguished between changing the punishment itself and changing how that punishment is administered. They found that the 2022 legislation did not alter Quaye's original sentence of detention with a minimum term of 15 years. Instead, it removed an opportunity to seek a reduction during the enforcement of that sentence.The court held that the change did not amount to the retrospective imposition of a heavier penalty.You use AI every day. Now get your AI Quotient. Take the AIQ test.