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/britain-europe-whole-life-jail-sentences
The article has changed 5 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 2 | Version 3 |
|---|---|
| Britain faces new clash with Europe over whole-life jail sentences | Britain faces new clash with Europe over whole-life jail sentences |
| (about 1 hour later) | |
| Just as the home secretary, Theresa May, finally manages to get Abu Qatada on a plane and prepares to announce a coalition deal to reform UK involvement in EU justice and home affairs powers, the European court of human rights (ECHR) gives the government a massive new headache. | |
| If MPs thought giving prisoners the right to vote was provocative then there can be few more emotive propositions than that Strasbourg should order ministers to find a way of ensuring that the "life means life" sentences for the most heinous killers must be reviewed to allow at least a glimmer of hope of release. | If MPs thought giving prisoners the right to vote was provocative then there can be few more emotive propositions than that Strasbourg should order ministers to find a way of ensuring that the "life means life" sentences for the most heinous killers must be reviewed to allow at least a glimmer of hope of release. |
| The whole-life sentence was created in 1983 by the then home secretary, Leon Brittan, to curb any "excessive leniency" by judges or the parole board in setting the term to be served by those given a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment. | The whole-life sentence was created in 1983 by the then home secretary, Leon Brittan, to curb any "excessive leniency" by judges or the parole board in setting the term to be served by those given a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment. |
| Brittan argued that ensuring the release date of the most heinous killers remained the sole preserve of politicians was a trade-off that the public had expected when the death penalty was suspended in 1965. | Brittan argued that ensuring the release date of the most heinous killers remained the sole preserve of politicians was a trade-off that the public had expected when the death penalty was suspended in 1965. |
| In the 20 years between 1983 and 2003, when the home secretary lost the power to set the term for a whole-life sentence, a total of 23 murderers were told they would die in prison. They included such notorious killers as Ian Brady, Dennis Nilsen, and Rosemary West. | In the 20 years between 1983 and 2003, when the home secretary lost the power to set the term for a whole-life sentence, a total of 23 murderers were told they would die in prison. They included such notorious killers as Ian Brady, Dennis Nilsen, and Rosemary West. |
| So far nine of them – including Myra Hindley; Donald Neilson, known as the Black Panther; Colin Ireland, who tortured gay men to death; and Harold Shipman – have died behind bars. But even for this group the 1983 legislation contained a provision that the home secretary could review their position after they had served 25 years with a view to reducing the tariff in "exceptional circumstances". | So far nine of them – including Myra Hindley; Donald Neilson, known as the Black Panther; Colin Ireland, who tortured gay men to death; and Harold Shipman – have died behind bars. But even for this group the 1983 legislation contained a provision that the home secretary could review their position after they had served 25 years with a view to reducing the tariff in "exceptional circumstances". |
| The principle of reviewing a whole-life sentence was upheld by the British law lords in March 2000 when they confirmed that in Hindley's case her life sentence "must mean life" as she was "exceptionally wicked and uniquely evil". Her sentence remained lawful because there remained that glimmer of hope offered by a review by a future home secretary. | The principle of reviewing a whole-life sentence was upheld by the British law lords in March 2000 when they confirmed that in Hindley's case her life sentence "must mean life" as she was "exceptionally wicked and uniquely evil". Her sentence remained lawful because there remained that glimmer of hope offered by a review by a future home secretary. |
| But a series of legal challenges chipped away at the notion that the time a prisoner spends behind bars should be a political rather than a judicial decision. In 2002, the House of Lords upheld a successful challenge by a convicted double murderer, Anthony Anderson, to a decision by the home secretary that the 15-year sentence passed by his trial judge should be raised to 20 years. The ruling was upheld by the ECHR, which underlined that judges, not home secretaries, should sentence prisoners. | |
| David Blunkett reacted by abolishing the home secretary's remaining discretion in the 2003 Criminal Justice Act, but at the same time he introduced a more punitive sentencing menu for judges, with life terms of 15, 25 and 30 years. He also abolished the 25-year review of the whole-life sentence. "This was eliminated and no alternative put in its place," the Strasbourg ruling said on Tuesday. | David Blunkett reacted by abolishing the home secretary's remaining discretion in the 2003 Criminal Justice Act, but at the same time he introduced a more punitive sentencing menu for judges, with life terms of 15, 25 and 30 years. He also abolished the 25-year review of the whole-life sentence. "This was eliminated and no alternative put in its place," the Strasbourg ruling said on Tuesday. |
| Blunkett defended that decision on Tuesday, saying he had pushed it through parliament in response to public demand "for certainty that what starts out as a clear and unambiguous punishment will in the end be carried out". | Blunkett defended that decision on Tuesday, saying he had pushed it through parliament in response to public demand "for certainty that what starts out as a clear and unambiguous punishment will in the end be carried out". |
| Since the new regime came into effect a further 37 whole-life sentences were imposed by trial judges, with four of those criminals having died in custody. These judicial whole-life sentences can be appealed against at the high court, but only shortly after they have been passed. There is no hope of redemption once they have been confirmed. So far, two have succeeded on appeal. | Since the new regime came into effect a further 37 whole-life sentences were imposed by trial judges, with four of those criminals having died in custody. These judicial whole-life sentences can be appealed against at the high court, but only shortly after they have been passed. There is no hope of redemption once they have been confirmed. So far, two have succeeded on appeal. |
| Among the post-2003 convictions are Mark Bridger, who murdered five-year-old April Jones last October, and Dale Cregan, who murdered two police officers in Manchester last year. | Among the post-2003 convictions are Mark Bridger, who murdered five-year-old April Jones last October, and Dale Cregan, who murdered two police officers in Manchester last year. |
| The European judges make clear that it is up to the justice secretary, Chris Grayling, and the home secretary, Theresa May, to decide how they implement the ruling. But they suggested restoring the 25-year review that existed until 2003, the difference being that it would be carried out by a judge rather than a politician. | The European judges make clear that it is up to the justice secretary, Chris Grayling, and the home secretary, Theresa May, to decide how they implement the ruling. But they suggested restoring the 25-year review that existed until 2003, the difference being that it would be carried out by a judge rather than a politician. |
| The judges also stressed that their ruling was not intended to give any prospect of imminent release for the murderers: "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." | The judges also stressed that their ruling was not intended to give any prospect of imminent release for the murderers: "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." |
| But, they said, without that possibility of review the whole-life sentence was inhuman and degrading as the prisoners had no hope of release. | But, they said, without that possibility of review the whole-life sentence was inhuman and degrading as the prisoners had no hope of release. |