Law and Rights
The Press Association (26th February) - "Killers contest whole life tariff" - is the claim being made in the European Court of Human Rights by three men - Jeremy Bamber, Peter Moore and Douglas Vinter - who are serving "whole life tariffs" for murder. In English law, a sentence of life imprisonment is the mandatory sentence for a person convicted of murder. (This has been the position since 1965 when the death penalty for murder was abolished). When sentencing an individual, the judiciary determine a "tariff" which is the time to be served before the individual becomes eligible to be considered by the Parole Board for release on licence. A small number of prisoners are serving "whole life tariffs." In a recent case (Coonan) the Appeal (Criminal Division) insisted that a whole life tariff was appropriate in the case of Peter Coonan (formerly Sutcliffe).
In the case of present day offenders, tariffs are governed by the Criminal Justice Act 2003 Schedule 21. However, Schedule 22 applies to sentencing to the mandatory life sentence after 18th December 2003 where the offence was committed before that date. It should be noted that there is a separate power under which the Secretary of State may release a prisoner on compassionate grounds.
It would be hard to think of any issue more likely to bring the present U.K. government on to a collision course with Strasbourg and there is little doubt that, for the very worst murder cases, the British public would side with the government in opposition to any decision to rule out the whole life tariff. Such a schism might well prove to be injurious to longer term human rights protection in the U.K.
Addendum: In 2002 the Criminal Cases Review Commission referred Jeremy Bamber's case to the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division). The trigger for the appeal was new scientific evidence but further grounds of appeal were added. The court's judgment may be read here.
Further article appears on UK Human Rights blog - "When does "life" mean life?"
- Coming Soon In The Court Of Appeal - Legality Of Whole Life Terms For Murder
Update 18th February: The Court of Appeal has upheld the legality of "whole life" orders - Judgment. Original Post: The death penalty for murder was abolished in the United Kingdom and, in its place, a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment has to be...
- R V Reynolds - Sentencing By Mr Justice Wilkie
Crown Court at StaffordR -v- Jamie Reynolds Sentencing remarks of Mr Justice Wilkie Mr Justice Wilkie has imposed a whole life term on Jamie Reynolds for the murder, on 26th may 2013, of Georgia Williams (aged 17 years 9 months). The facts of the...
- May A 'whole Life' Sentence Be Imposed For Murder?
According to The Telegraph 21st October, Mr Justice Sweeney has ruled that a whole life tariff may not be imposed at the time of sentencing an individual for murder. The newspaper reported: 'Ian McLoughlin, 55, was told he must serve a minimum...
- Whole Life Orders For Murder
In 2012, the Home Secretary (Theresa May) was heckled at the Police Federation Conference in Bournemouth because of her stance on Police Pay and Conditions. This year she returned to the lion's den with a message that, subject to consultation...
- A Trio Of European Court Of Human Rights Decisions
Today, 17th January, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) was scheduled to deliver some 35 judgments. The reader will perhaps be particularly interested in the following three judgments which are all judgments of Section IV of the Court sitting...
Law and Rights
Even more fisticuffs with Europe is likely ... whole life tariffs for murder under challenge
In the case of present day offenders, tariffs are governed by the Criminal Justice Act 2003 Schedule 21. However, Schedule 22 applies to sentencing to the mandatory life sentence after 18th December 2003 where the offence was committed before that date. It should be noted that there is a separate power under which the Secretary of State may release a prisoner on compassionate grounds.
It would be hard to think of any issue more likely to bring the present U.K. government on to a collision course with Strasbourg and there is little doubt that, for the very worst murder cases, the British public would side with the government in opposition to any decision to rule out the whole life tariff. Such a schism might well prove to be injurious to longer term human rights protection in the U.K.
Addendum: In 2002 the Criminal Cases Review Commission referred Jeremy Bamber's case to the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division). The trigger for the appeal was new scientific evidence but further grounds of appeal were added. The court's judgment may be read here.
Further article appears on UK Human Rights blog - "When does "life" mean life?"
- Coming Soon In The Court Of Appeal - Legality Of Whole Life Terms For Murder
Update 18th February: The Court of Appeal has upheld the legality of "whole life" orders - Judgment. Original Post: The death penalty for murder was abolished in the United Kingdom and, in its place, a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment has to be...
- R V Reynolds - Sentencing By Mr Justice Wilkie
Crown Court at StaffordR -v- Jamie Reynolds Sentencing remarks of Mr Justice Wilkie Mr Justice Wilkie has imposed a whole life term on Jamie Reynolds for the murder, on 26th may 2013, of Georgia Williams (aged 17 years 9 months). The facts of the...
- May A 'whole Life' Sentence Be Imposed For Murder?
According to The Telegraph 21st October, Mr Justice Sweeney has ruled that a whole life tariff may not be imposed at the time of sentencing an individual for murder. The newspaper reported: 'Ian McLoughlin, 55, was told he must serve a minimum...
- Whole Life Orders For Murder
In 2012, the Home Secretary (Theresa May) was heckled at the Police Federation Conference in Bournemouth because of her stance on Police Pay and Conditions. This year she returned to the lion's den with a message that, subject to consultation...
- A Trio Of European Court Of Human Rights Decisions
Today, 17th January, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) was scheduled to deliver some 35 judgments. The reader will perhaps be particularly interested in the following three judgments which are all judgments of Section IV of the Court sitting...