Court Rules Against Britain in Life Terms for 3 Convicts

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/10/world/europe/10iht-britain10.html

Version 0 of 1.

LONDON — Britain’s fraught relations with Europe’s top human rights court worsened Tuesday when judges there ruled that life sentences handed to three convicted murderers amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment because they had no hope of release.

The decision came just two days after the deportation of the militant Islamic cleric known as Abu Qatada to face terrorism charges in his native Jordan.

That step had been held up for years, partly because of the European Court of Human Rights, which is based in Strasbourg, over worries that evidence obtained under torture would be used against him in Jordan.

Established in 1959, the court rules on claims of violations of the European Convention on Human Rights. It is not part of the European Union’s structures, but its judgments are binding on countries that have signed the convention and have led many governments to alter specific laws to comply.

The ruling Tuesday came in a case initiated by three men, all convicted of murders and given “whole-life tariffs” because of the gravity of their crimes. Those receiving such a punishment cannot be released, except at the discretion of the justice secretary on compassionate grounds, for example if a person has a terminal illness.

The judges in Strasbourg ruled 16 to 1 that there should be a review of three men’s sentences, with the possibility that they could eventually be freed, although the judgment said this did not mean there was “any prospect of imminent release.”

Whether they should be allowed out of jail would depend, for example, on whether there were legitimate reasons for their detention, like on grounds of dangerousness, the court said.

It was the previous Labour government that changed the law in Britain in 2003 to create whole-life tariffs and it said Tuesday that it wanted to retain such sentences.

But the court’s ruling is one of several that have annoyed the now dominant Conservative Party, including one against Britain’s failure to give prisoners the right to vote.

Prime Minister David Cameron was “very disappointed” by the decision Tuesday and “profoundly disagrees with the court’s ruling,” said his spokesman, who is normally not identified by name in line with government policy.

Moves to redefine Britain’s relationship with the court are not imminent because they would not get support from the junior coalition party, the Liberal Democrats. Instead, they are being considered for inclusion in the Conservative Party manifesto for the next general election, planned for 2015.

In a separate development in Britain, Home Secretary Theresa May announced Tuesday plans to ditch dozens of the European Union’s justice and policing measures but to try to stay part of the most important ones, including a controversial system of Europe-wide arrest warrants.

Under an E.U. agreement, Britain has the right to opt out of justice and policing cooperation, but it has to quit all of the 133 E.U. measures and then try to negotiate rejoining the ones it wants to stay part of.

Ms. May’s statement, which was less far-reaching than some critics of the European Union within the Conservative Party had hoped, reflected the fact that the British police have come to rely on several European cooperation mechanisms to fight international crime. Britain has used the arrest warrant, which avoids the need for lengthy extradition proceedings, to repatriate suspects in several high-profile cases.

Speaking in Parliament, Ms. May said she wanted to rejoin Europol, the European Union’s law enforcement agency, providing it does not gain new rights to direct national police forces, and Eurojust, which helps to coordinate action to tackle serious cross-border crime. In all ,she said she wanted to take part in 35 of the E.U. law and order measures.