This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2013/jul/09/whole-life-jail-sentences-without-review-breach-human-rights
The article has changed 7 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 0 | Version 1 |
|---|---|
| Whole-life jail terms without review breach human rights - European court | |
| (35 minutes later) | |
| Whole-life jail sentences without any prospect of release amount to inhuman and degrading treatment of prisoners, the European court of human rights (ECHR) has ruled. | Whole-life jail sentences without any prospect of release amount to inhuman and degrading treatment of prisoners, the European court of human rights (ECHR) has ruled. |
| The landmark judgment will set Strasbourg's judges on a fresh collision course with the UK government but does not mean that any of the applicants – the convicted killers Jeremy Bamber, Peter Moore and Douglas Vintner – are likely to be released soon. | |
| In its decision, the ECHR said there had been a violation of Article 3 of the European convention on human rights, which prohibits inhuman and degrading treatment. | In its decision, the ECHR said there had been a violation of Article 3 of the European convention on human rights, which prohibits inhuman and degrading treatment. |
| The judgment said: "The court found in particular that, for a life sentence to remain compatible with Article 3 there had to be both a possibility of release and a possibility of review." | The judgment said: "The court found in particular that, for a life sentence to remain compatible with Article 3 there had to be both a possibility of release and a possibility of review." |
| The court emphasised, however, that "the finding of a violation in the applicants' cases should not be understood as giving them any prospect of imminent release. Whether or not they should be released would depend, for example, on whether there were still legitimate penological grounds for their continued detention and whether they should continue to be detained on grounds of dangerousness. These questions were not in issue." | The court emphasised, however, that "the finding of a violation in the applicants' cases should not be understood as giving them any prospect of imminent release. Whether or not they should be released would depend, for example, on whether there were still legitimate penological grounds for their continued detention and whether they should continue to be detained on grounds of dangerousness. These questions were not in issue." |
| The judges in the grand chamber at Strasbourg, the appeal court above the ECHR, found by a majority of 16 to one that there had been a violation of human rights. The judges awarded Vintner €40,000 (£34,500) for his legal costs. | |
| The new British judge on the court, Paul Mahoney, pointed out in his comments that the government was "of course free to choose the means whereby they will fulfil their international treaty obligation" to abide by the judgment. | |
| In response to the decision, Bamber said: "I am the only person in the UK who was [retrospectively] given a life tariff on a majority verdict that maintains innocence. The verdict today seems in so many ways to be hollow, as I am still serving a prison sentence for a crime I did not commit. My whole-life order has now been given a system of reviews, but there is no provision for someone who is wrongly convicted to prove that they are worthy of release, such hope is in reality, no hope at all. | |
| "Reviews and parole hearings are subject to a risk assessment to gauge dangerousness and this is influenced by the inmate's confession, remorse and rehabilitation for reintegration back into the community. In my case I do not fit the criteria for parole on this basis. | |
| "The justice system, despite the investment in the Criminal Cases Review Commission, still refuses to accept that there are prisoners who are innocent of the crimes they have been convicted of and this comes into conflict with sentence reviews. | |
| "While there are some people who have been released at the end of their sentence and still maintained innocence, such as Eddie Gilfoyle and Susan May, it is unlikely that I would ever be released without my conviction being overturned in a court of law simply because of the high-profile nature of my case. As is always, the law does not apply if it assists me in anyway." | |
| Bamber's statement was released by those campaigning to overturn his conviction for killing five members of his family at a farmhouse in Essex in 1985. |