header-logo header-logo

The meaning of life

05 December 2012 / Hle Blog
Issue: 7541 / Categories: Blogs
printer mail-detail

HLE Blogger Sarah Lewis explores the debate surrounding whole life tariffs

Last month, the Court of Appeal considered the issue of whole life tariffs, which in three separate cases heard together were appealed on the basis that whole life orders were incompatible with Art 3 of the European Convention of Human Rights, which prohibits torture and inhuman or degrading treatment and punishment.

Although the panel, comprising the Lord Chief Justice and four appellate judges, overturned the whole life tariff for murderer Danilo Restivo and rapists Michael Roberts and David Simmons, they upheld the sentence for killer David Oakes. Their ruling, which comes just prior to the appeal by Jeremy Bamber and two other murderers to overturn their whole life tariffs at the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights, sends a signal to the Strasbourg that the courts in England and Wales are content that power to jail someone forever is, in some instances, justified.

Lord Judge stated that it was open to the individual state to make statutory provision for the imposition of a whole life minimum term and, if appropriate, as a matter of judicial discretion, for the court to make such an order; it was not for the European Court to intervene. In the UK, Parliament has legislated to enable judges to impose whole life sentences without the possibility of release, which for would be appropriate where punishment and retribution required detention for life in the literal sense.

So who do whole life tariffs apply to? They are, and should remain the court held, reserved for the few exceptionally serious offences committed by offenders judged to be the most dangerous to society. Currently 46 offenders are subject to whole life orders. Unlike other life term prisoners, they are not eligible for release on licence if, after their minimum term, they can prove that they are no longer a risk to society...

Rightly or wrongly, such offenders can wind up languishing in prison with no hope of ever being able to demonstrate that they are no longer a danger to society: life really meaning life…”

To continue reading go to: www.halsburyslawexchange.co.uk

Issue: 7541 / Categories: Blogs
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Group partner joins Guernsey banking and finance practice

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

London labour and employment team announces partner hire

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Double partner appointment marks Belfast expansion

NEWS
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has not done enough to protect the future sustainability of the legal aid market, MPs have warned
Writing in NLJ this week, NLJ columnist Dominic Regan surveys a landscape marked by leapfrog appeals, costs skirmishes and notable retirements. With an appeal in Mazur due to be heard next month, Regan notes that uncertainties remain over who will intervene, and hopes for the involvement of the Lady Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls in deciding the all-important outcome
After the Southport murders and the misinformation that followed, contempt of court law has come under intense scrutiny. In this week's NLJ, Lawrence McNamara and Lauren Schaefer of the Law Commission unpack proposals aimed at restoring clarity without sacrificing fair trial rights
The latest Home Office figures confirm that stop and search remains both controversial and diminished. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort University analyses data showing historically low use of s 1 PACE powers, with drugs searches dominating what remains
Boris Johnson’s 2019 attempt to shut down Parliament remains a constitutional cautionary tale. The move, framed as a routine exercise of the royal prerogative, was in truth an extraordinary effort to sideline Parliament at the height of the Brexit crisis. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC dissects how prorogation was wrongly assumed to be beyond judicial scrutiny, only for the Supreme Court to intervene unanimously
back-to-top-scroll