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 https://www.theguardian.com/law/2017/jan/17/european-judges-uphold-uk-right-to-impose-whole-life-jail-sentences

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
European judges uphold UK right to impose whole-life jail sentences European judges uphold UK right to impose whole-life jail sentences
(35 minutes later)
European human rights judges have confirmed the right of British courts to impose “life must mean life” sentences in the most heinous cases of murder.European human rights judges have confirmed the right of British courts to impose “life must mean life” sentences in the most heinous cases of murder.
The ruling by the European court of human rights (ECHR) resolves the issue of whole-life sentences, which was cited by the former justice secretary Chris Grayling as one of the key reasons he had proposed a new British bill of rights to give the UK courts and parliament the final say in such matters.The ruling by the European court of human rights (ECHR) resolves the issue of whole-life sentences, which was cited by the former justice secretary Chris Grayling as one of the key reasons he had proposed a new British bill of rights to give the UK courts and parliament the final say in such matters.
The ruling by 17 judges in the grand chamber of the Strasbourg court dismissed an appeal brought by a triple murderer, Arthur Hutchinson, now 75, who was sentenced to spend the rest of his natural life behind bars for the 1983 murder of three members of a Sheffield family and the rape of a young woman who was staying in the house at the time. The ruling by 17 judges in the grand chamber of the Strasbourg court dismissed an appeal brought by the triple murderer Arthur Hutchinson, 75. He had been sentenced to spend the rest of his natural life behind bars for the 1983 murder of three members of a Sheffield family and the rape of a young woman who was staying in the house at the time.
Hutchinson claimed his whole-life sentence amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment as he had no hope of release. But the judges rejected his appeal, saying the European human rights convention did not ban the imposition of a life sentence on convicted murderers as long as there was a prospect of release for the prisoner and a possibility of a review of their sentence. Hutchinson claimed his whole-life sentence amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment as he had no hope of release. But the judges rejected his appeal, saying the European convention on human rights did not ban the imposition of a life sentence on convicted murderers as long as there was a prospect of release for the prisoner and a possibility of a review of their sentence.
Whole-life terms are currently being served by 65 of Britain’s most notorious criminals, including the Moors murderer Ian Brady, the Yorkshire Ripper, Peter Sutcliffe, and the serial killer Rosemary West. Whole-life terms are currently being served by 65 of Britain’s most notorious criminals, including the Moors murderer, Ian Brady, the Yorkshire Ripper, Peter Sutcliffe, and the serial killer Rosemary West.
The issue of the legality of whole-life sentences triggered a political storm in Britain in 2013 when the ECHR ruled in a separate case – involving the convicted killers Jeremy Bamber, Douglas Vinter and Peter Moore – that there was a lack of clarity in British law over whether the justice secretary could release such prisoners.The issue of the legality of whole-life sentences triggered a political storm in Britain in 2013 when the ECHR ruled in a separate case – involving the convicted killers Jeremy Bamber, Douglas Vinter and Peter Moore – that there was a lack of clarity in British law over whether the justice secretary could release such prisoners.
The original confusion stemmed from the 2003 Criminal Justice Act, which scrapped an automatic 25-year ministerial review of a whole-life sentences without putting anything in its place.The original confusion stemmed from the 2003 Criminal Justice Act, which scrapped an automatic 25-year ministerial review of a whole-life sentences without putting anything in its place.
Grayling, then justice secretary, cited the 2013 ruling as a key reason why he had proposed that the Conservative party pledge to introduce a British bill of rights. It also led to the UK court of appeal explicitly addressing the doubt expressed by the ECHR. Grayling cited the 2013 ruling as a key reason why he had proposed that the Conservative party pledge to introduce a British bill of rights. It also led to the UK court of appeal explicitly addressing the doubt expressed by the ECHR.
The British judges made clear that the justice secretary was obliged under UK law to release someone detained on a whole-life order where “exceptional grounds” for release, such as only having a few weeks to live, were shown to exist. This power of release, which is not confined to end-of-life situations, could also be reviewed in the British courts.The British judges made clear that the justice secretary was obliged under UK law to release someone detained on a whole-life order where “exceptional grounds” for release, such as only having a few weeks to live, were shown to exist. This power of release, which is not confined to end-of-life situations, could also be reviewed in the British courts.
The ruling on Tuesday by the European court of human rights confirmed that this clarification meant the British courts had “dispelled the lack of clarity in the domestic law on the review of life sentences”.The ruling on Tuesday by the European court of human rights confirmed that this clarification meant the British courts had “dispelled the lack of clarity in the domestic law on the review of life sentences”.
The judges therefore concluded that the UK’s whole-life sentences could now be regarded as compatible with article three of the rights convention and did not amount to inhumane or degrading treatment. The grand chamber ruling backs an initial ruling by the lower chamber of the human rights court in February 2015.The judges therefore concluded that the UK’s whole-life sentences could now be regarded as compatible with article three of the rights convention and did not amount to inhumane or degrading treatment. The grand chamber ruling backs an initial ruling by the lower chamber of the human rights court in February 2015.
The ruling means that the whole-life sentence imposed on Hutchinson by the then lord chief justice in 1984 will continue to stand.The ruling means that the whole-life sentence imposed on Hutchinson by the then lord chief justice in 1984 will continue to stand.
Hutchinson was imprisoned for stabbing to death Basil and Avri Laitner and their son, Richard, on the wedding day of one of the daughters of the Laitners. He repeatedly raped a young woman after dragging her into the wedding marquee and handcuffing her. He later broke into the family home and stole a watch and money. Hutchinson was imprisoned for stabbing to death Basil and Avril Laitner and their son, Richard, on the wedding day of one of their daughters. He repeatedly raped a young woman after dragging her into the wedding marquee and handcuffing her. He later broke into the family home and stole a watch and money.
The trial judge in the case sentenced Hutchinson to life imprisonment with a recommendation that he serve at least 18 months. The lord chief justice, however, recommended he serve a whole-life sentence and not be released. This was confirmed by the home secretary, Michael Howard, in 1994. The trial judge in the case sentenced Hutchinson to life imprisonment with a recommendation that he serve at least 18 years. The lord chief justice, however, recommended he serve a whole-life sentence and not be released. This was confirmed by the then home secretary, Michael Howard, in 1994.