European Human Rights Court Ruling on Life Sentences Sets New Standard
| Author | Marion Isobel |
| DOI | 10.1177/203228441400500403 |
| Published date | 01 December 2014 |
| Date | 01 December 2014 |
| Subject Matter | Analysis and Opinions |
New Journal of Eu ropean Crimina l Law, Vol. 5, Issue 4, 2014 447
EUROPEAN HUMAN RIGHTS COURT RULING
ON LIFE SENTENCES SETS NEW STANDARD
M I*
Should a life sentence actual ly mean a life sentence? On 9 July 2013 the European
Court of Human Rig hts answered that question. e Grand Chamber held that “whole
life” sentences with no possibilit y of review and no prospect of release were inhuman
and degrading treatment in breach of Article 3 of the European Convention on
Human Rights.
e case was brought by three men in t he United Kingdom who are currently
serving li fe sentences for murder. Jeremy Bamber was convicted for killing his
adoptive parents, his sister and her t wo young children in 1985, Peter Moore was
convicted for killing four men in 1995, and Douglas Vinter was convicted for
murdering his wife in 2 008, having already been convic ted of killing a work colleague
in 1996.
Under UK law, the applicants were each given a “whole life tari ,” meaning that
they could only be freed at t he discretion of the Justice Secretary on compassionate
grounds if they beca me terminally i ll or seriously incapacitated. e applicants
submitted that the lack of any regu lar review of their progress in prison amounted to
inhuman or degrading treatment under Article 3, as they had essentially been
condemned to die in prison wit hout any chance of ever being released.
e European Human Rights Cour t has long accepted that people can be
imprisoned for life. States have a duty under the European Convention to take
measures to protect the public from violent crime, and a li fe sentence in itself is not
contrary to the C onvention. But the question here was whether a life sentence was st ill
acceptable if there was no real possibility of a review or release – in other words, no
hope.
In January last year, the lower chamber of the European Court ruled that li fe
sentences without possibility of rev iew or release did not amount to inhuman
treatment. Today the Grand Chamber of the European Court reversed that decision
by a majority of 16 to 1. e court held that because there was no dedicated review
mechanism in the U K guaranteeing a review of those life sentences a er a set period,
it violated Article3 of t he ECHR.
* Lawyer, Open Socie ty Justice Initiati ve; rst appeare d as a blog on the website of the Open Soc iety
Justice Initi ative in July 2013.
To continue reading
Request your trial