Lord Steyn and Lord Hope expressed similar views at pp.521 and 531-2. All three of their Lordships explain the policy which underlies such an approach which is to maintain flexibility and to enable the duration of the defendant's detention to take into account his welfare, the desirability of reintegrating him into society and his developing maturity through his formative years. But it was also accepted that punishment was part of the purpose of the sentence and therefore that the Secretary of State, in exercising his statutory discretion regarding the duration of the detention, should have regard to the need to punish the defendant. An order of detention during Her Majesty's pleasure involves merely an authority to detain indefinitely. That means that the Home Secretary must decide from time to time, taking into account the punitive element, whether detention is still justified.
Life imprisonment involves an order for custody for life.
Under Chapters III and V of the Constitution of St. Christopher and Nevis, the Governor-General is part of the Executive, not the Judiciary. This makes relevant the second case which the Attorney-General has accepted to be applicable. Hinds was a decision of the Privy Council on appeal from the Court of Appeal of Jamaica. These constitutions are drafted upon the principle of separation of powers. Various defendants who had been convicted before the court and sentenced in accordance with section 8 appealed contending that the sentence was unconstitutional.