header-logo header-logo

The meaning of life

05 December 2012 / Hle Blog
Issue: 7541 / Categories: Blogs
printer mail-detail

HLE Blogger Sarah Lewis explores the debate surrounding whole life tariffs

Last month, the Court of Appeal considered the issue of whole life tariffs, which in three separate cases heard together were appealed on the basis that whole life orders were incompatible with Art 3 of the European Convention of Human Rights, which prohibits torture and inhuman or degrading treatment and punishment.

Although the panel, comprising the Lord Chief Justice and four appellate judges, overturned the whole life tariff for murderer Danilo Restivo and rapists Michael Roberts and David Simmons, they upheld the sentence for killer David Oakes. Their ruling, which comes just prior to the appeal by Jeremy Bamber and two other murderers to overturn their whole life tariffs at the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights, sends a signal to the Strasbourg that the courts in England and Wales are content that power to jail someone forever is, in some instances, justified.

Lord Judge stated that it was open to the individual state to make statutory provision for the imposition of a whole life minimum term and, if appropriate, as a matter of judicial discretion, for the court to make such an order; it was not for the European Court to intervene. In the UK, Parliament has legislated to enable judges to impose whole life sentences without the possibility of release, which for would be appropriate where punishment and retribution required detention for life in the literal sense.

So who do whole life tariffs apply to? They are, and should remain the court held, reserved for the few exceptionally serious offences committed by offenders judged to be the most dangerous to society. Currently 46 offenders are subject to whole life orders. Unlike other life term prisoners, they are not eligible for release on licence if, after their minimum term, they can prove that they are no longer a risk to society...

Rightly or wrongly, such offenders can wind up languishing in prison with no hope of ever being able to demonstrate that they are no longer a danger to society: life really meaning life…”

To continue reading go to: www.halsburyslawexchange.co.uk

Issue: 7541 / Categories: Blogs
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Gilson Gray—Linda Pope

Gilson Gray—Linda Pope

Partner joins family law team inLondon

Jackson Lees Group—five promotions

Jackson Lees Group—five promotions

Private client division announces five new partners

Taylor Wessing—Max Millington

Taylor Wessing—Max Millington

Banking and finance team welcomes partner in London

NEWS
Transferring anti-money laundering (AML) and counter-terrorism financing supervision to the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) could create extra paperwork and increase costs for clients, lawyers have warned 
In this week's NLJ, Bhavini Patel of Howard Kennedy LLP reports on Almacantar v De Valk [2025], a landmark Upper Tribunal ruling extending protection for leaseholders under the Building Safety Act 2022
Writing in NLJ this week, Hanna Basha and Jamie Hurworth of Payne Hicks Beach dissect TV chef John Torode’s startling decision to identify himself in a racism investigation he denied. In an age of ‘cancel culture’, they argue, self-disclosure can both protect and imperil reputations
As he steps down as Chancellor of the High Court, Sir Julian Flaux reflects on over 40 years in law, citing independence, impartiality and integrity as guiding principles. In a special interview with Grania Langdon-Down for NLJ, Sir Julian highlights morale, mentorship and openness as key to a thriving judiciary
Dinsdale v Fowell is a High Court case entangling bigamy, intestacy and modern family structures, examined in this week's NLJ by Shivi Rajput of Stowe Family Law
back-to-top-scroll