Categories
Criminal Justice Law Legal Analysis

Detention at His Majesty’s Pleasure ?

Detention at His Majesty’s Pleasure is a term used in the United Kingdom for an indeterminate sentence where the offender is detained for an unspecified period. This kind of sentence is typically used for young offenders or those convicted of particularly serious crimes, where the length of detention is not fixed at the time of sentencing.

Detention during His Majesty’s Pleasure is a mandatory life sentence and will be imposed when a child or young person is convicted or pleads guilty to murder. Schedule 21 of the Sentencing Act 2020 states that the starting point for determining the minimum sentence where the offender is under 18 years of age is 12 years as opposed to 15 years for those over the age of 18.

Types of sentences for children and young peopleSentencing Council
  1. Purpose: The main idea is that the offender should be detained until they are no longer considered a threat to society or until they have been rehabilitated. This could theoretically mean detention for life, or until the offender’s behaviour and development indicate that release is appropriate.
  2. Who It Applies To: Historically, this sentence was often used for juveniles convicted of serious crimes like murder, where an adult would receive a life sentence. However, it can also apply to adults in certain contexts, particularly where mental health issues are involved. The Mental Health Act 1983 allows for the detention of individuals who have committed offenses but are also suffering from mental disorders. When someone is detained at His Majesty’s Pleasure, especially under a mental health context, it’s often because they’ve been found not guilty by reason of insanity or unfit to plead, or they’ve been convicted of an offense where a psychiatric disposal is deemed more appropriate than a penal sentence.
  3. Legal Framework: The phrase “at His Majesty’s Pleasure” reflects the historical power of the monarch to detain subjects. In modern times, this power is exercised through the Home Office or relevant judicial or parole boards who decide when it’s safe to release the individual.
  4. Review and Release: The detention period is subject to periodic review. Decisions regarding release are based on assessments of risk, rehabilitation progress, and changes in the offender’s maturity and mental state.
  5. Differences from Life Sentences: Unlike a life sentence with a tariff (a minimum term to be served before parole can be considered), detention at His Majesty’s Pleasure doesn’t set a minimum term upfront, although in practice, a minimum term might be recommended by the judge.
  6. Criticism and Reform: This type of sentencing has faced criticism for its uncertainty, which can be psychologically challenging for detainees. There have been calls for reform to provide more clarity or to set tariffs in a way similar to life sentences but tailored to the developmental needs of young offenders.
  7. International Perspective: The concept is somewhat unique to the UK legal system, though other countries have similar provisions for indefinite detention for the purposes of rehabilitation or public protection, particularly for juvenile offenders or those with mental health issues.

In 2002 the then The Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales Baron Woolf published a statement Review of Minimum Terms set for Young Offenders detained at her Majesty’s Pleasure.

King Charles III, formerly known as The Prince of Wales, became King on the death of his mother Queen Elizabeth II on 8 September 2022.

Image of King Charles III created by Grok-3


The Ministry of Injustice is not the Ministry of Justice nor is it affiliated in any way with the justice system, legal profession, police or any other law enforcement agencies.


Latest Articles


Most Popular


You should always seek formal legal advice from a qualified and reputable lawyer (solicitor or barrister).

There are a number of links to Free and Paid For Legal Resources and Legal Organisations on the Free Legal Advice , Legal Aid and Pro Bono pages.

[post_title] was last updated on the 23rd June 2026

By Dom Watts

Dom Watts founded the Ministry of Injustice in July 2021. Dom is an IT Professional with 30+ years experience in Tier 1 Banking, Government, Defence, Healthcare and Global Blue Chips. Dom has no legal training and is not a lawyer but has previously consulted for a Magic Circle Law Firm. You can find Dom on X or Google.

Dom Watts publishes the Ministry of Injustice as a citizen journalist. The journalism exemption is detailed in the Data protection and journalism code of practice published by the ICO and Section 124 of the Data Protection Act 2018.

Section 2 of the Defamation Act 2013 sets out the defence of truth. Section 3 of the Defamation Act 2013 sets out the defence of honest opinion. Section 4 of the Defamation Act 2013 sets out the defence of public interest. Section 8 of the Defamation Act 2013 sets out the single publication rule.

Section 4a of The Limitation Act 1980 defines the time limit for actions for defamation or malicious falsehood as one year from the date on which the cause of action accrued.

Article 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998 gives the right to freedom of expression. "This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers."

"Free speech encompasses the right to offend, and indeed to abuse another." - Para 43 Scottow v CPS [2020] EWHC 3421 (Admin)

"Free speech is a fundamental common law right" - Para 21 R v Shayler [2002] UKHL 11 [2003] 1 AC 247 per Lord Bingham and Para 42 Phillips -v- Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs [2024] EWHC 32 (Admin)

Dom is a member of The Free Speech Union

“A key issue here is the need to distinguish between conduct which, however objectionable, does not justify invoking the criminal law and conduct which crosses the line and results in criminal liability" - Para 31 R v O’Neill [2016] EWCA Crim 92 [2016]

“Harassment is generally understood to involve improper oppressive and unreasonable conduct that is targeted at an individual and calculated to produce alarm and distress” - Para 38 R v O’Neill [2016] EWCA Crim 92 [2016]

"The behaviour said to amount to harassment must reach a level of seriousness passing beyond irritations, annoyances....The gravity of the misconduct must be of an order which would sustain criminal liability" - Paras [40-44] Hayden v Dickenson [2020] EWHC 3291 (QB)

"If you tell the truth, you don't have to remember anything"

In 2002 Dom Watts was an unlikely consumer champion. The dad of three from Croydon took on the power and might of Kodak – and won...Dom on BBC Working Lunch

Rule of Law - Open Justice - Policing By Consent