Review of whole life sentences in the UK is compatible with the European Convention
JUDGMENT:
Hutchinson v. United Kingdom 03.02.2015 (no. 57592/08)
SUMMARY:
The case concerned the complaint by a man serving a whole life sentence for the murder of three members of a family and the rape of another that his sentence amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment as he had no hope of release.
The Court reiterated that the European Convention did not prohibit the imposition of a life sentence on those convicted of especially serious crimes, such as murder. However, to be compatible with the Convention there had to be both a prospect of release for the prisoner and a possibility of review of their sentence.
The Court considered that the UK courts had dispelled the lack of clarity in the domestic law on the review of life sentences. The discrepancy identified in a previous ECtHR judgment2 between the law and the published official UK policy had notably been resolved by the UK Court of Appeal in a ruling affirming the statutory duty of the Secretary of State for Justice to exercise the power of release for life prisoners in such a way that it was compatible with the European Convention. In addition, the Court of Appeal had brought clarification as regards the scope and grounds of the review by the Secretary of State, the manner in which it should be conducted, as well as the duty of the Secretary of State to release a whole life prisoner where continued detention could no longer be justified. The European Court highlighted the important role of the Human Rights Act, pointing out that any criticism of the domestic system on the review of whole life sentences was countered by the HRA as it required that the power of release be exercised and that the relevant legislation be interpreted and applied in a Convention-compliant way.
The Court therefore concluded that whole life sentences in the United Kingdom could now be regarded as compatible with Article 3 of the European Convention
PROVISION:
Article 3
PRINCIPAL FACTS
The case concerned a man’s denunciation of a life sentence for a homicide, according to which his conviction was tantamount to inhuman and degrading treatment, as he had no hope of being released. In a previous decision, in the case of Vinter and Others v. The United Kingdom, dated the 09.07.2013, the ECtHR ruled that the domestic legislation on the Minister of Justice’s power to release an isoviet was unclear. However, in the judgment of R. v. Newell, R. v McLoughlin, 18.02. In 2014, the Court of Appeal expressly expressed its doubts and considered that the Minister of State Justice was obliged, under national law, to release the sabotage when it is shown that there are “exceptional reasons” for release, and when that power falls under the control of national courts.
THE DECISION OF THE COURT
In view of this clarification, the ECtHR has ruled that life sentences can be challenged under national law and are therefore compatible with Article 3 of the Convention (echrcaselaw.com editing).
