Life sentances violate EU Human Rights laws

[the_ultimate_evil]

Locking up some of Britain's most notorious killers for life without any prospect of release is a breach of their human rights, European judges have ruled.

Murderer Jeremy Bamber is among those facing a review of their whole-life tariffs after winning an appeal that the sentences were "inhuman and degrading".

The judges found that for a life sentence to remain compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights there had to be both a possibility of release and a possibility of review.

It means the Government must amend the law to ensure it complies with human rights legislation, and opens the door to demands for early release from prisoners who were told they could never walk free.

The panel of 17 judges in the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights said their decision did not mean Bamber and two other men - Douglas Vinter and Peter Moore - can look forward to being freed in the near future.

They said: "In finding a violation in this case … the court did not intend to give the applicants any prospect of imminent release."

However, the decision has been slammed by many in Westminster - including Prime Minister David Cameron, who said he was "very, very disappointed".
Jeremy Bamber heads to an earlier court appearance. Bamber arrives for a previous court hearing

A spokesman said: "He is a strong supporter of whole-life tariffs."

Justice Secretary Chris Grayling said people would find the ruling "intensely frustrating".

"I think this will simply reinforce the desire in this country for wholesale reform of our human rights laws," he told Sky News.

"I suspect that the vast majority of the public think the court is just getting this wrong - at the very least it should be a matter for the British Parliament."

However, Eric Allison, a journalist who spent 15 years serving time in British prisons, said it was a "victory for the possibility" of rehabilitating even the worst of criminals.

"I've seen people who've done some awful things and I've seen them change their character completely in prison," he said.

The appeal was brought by Vinter, who stabbed his wife in February 2008, and means the cases of Bamber - who killed his parents, sister and two young children in August 1985 - and Moore, who killed four gay men in 1995, will also be considered.

Bamber, 51, has been behind bars for more than 25 years for shooting his wealthy adopted parents June and Neville, his sister Sheila Caffell and her twin sons Daniel and Nicholas at their farmhouse in Tolleshunt D'Arcy, Essex.

A statement from Bamber described winning the appeal as "hollow" as he is in prison "for a crime I did not commit".
European Court of Human Rights The European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg

He added: "My whole life order has now been given a system of reviews, but there is no provision for someone who is wrongly convicted to prove that they are worthy of release, such hope is in reality, no hope at all."

In their ruling the judges said it was up to national authorities to decide when a review should take place, but existing laws point to a review happening no later than 25 years after a life sentence is handed down.

Current UK law says whole-life tariff prisoners will almost certainly never be released because their offences are deemed to be so serious.

Only the Justice Secretary can free them on compassionate grounds - if, for example, they are terminally ill.

The judges said the decision on whether to release prisoners jailed for their entire lives would depend on whether there were legitimate grounds for their continued detention.

Until 2003, whole-life tariff prisoners had a right to a review but this was removed in a change to the law.

Vinter's lawyer Simon Creighton, of Bhatt Murphy Solicitors, said the ruling could not be used as a "get out of jail free" excuse.

He said: "They have not said that anyone must be released, what they have said is that it must be reviewed.

"It's now for the Government to respond."

The ruling comes shortly after Home Secretary Theresa May voiced her frustrations with the European courts in the House of Commons in the wake of the lengthy and costly fight to boot radical cleric Abu Qatada out of the country.

She said she wanted the Human Rights Act itself to be scrapped.

http://news.sky.com/story/1113395/whole-life-inmates-win-human-rights-victory


so if you kill and destroy a life its against your human rights to be locked up for the rest of yours.

 

[zeroapoc]

Yeah it's "degrading" apparently.

 

[NickNitro]

On paper they can put down "chance" but in every officials eyes its still going to be a no.

 

[Manic]

So... their sentences have basically been changed from "life without chance of parole" to "25 to life"? Meh.

 

[jonathancrane]

I agree with Schlosser85.

 

[Thundercrack85]

I'd rather be shot than have to spend of the rest of my life in a cell.

Which is why I oppose the death penalty. It's not much of a punishment, compared to life in prison.

 

[Llama_Shepherd]

The UK won't listen. In October 2011 the EU said it violated the ECHR to deny prisoners voting rights as under the ECHR voting is a human right.

Almost 2 years later, and all that happened was probably just a stern letter.

 

[chamber-music]

This, along with banning the death penalty, shows what a bunch of wishy-washy *****es the EU is made up of.

To be fair most European governments just ignore the these rulings and pay the fines later on and these court members are glorified bureaucrats out of touch with the views and wishes of most Europeans.

So many people in the UK want out the EU because of dumb stuff like this. These stupid human rights rulings are used like a get out of jail free card which is only making the general public more and more angry.

The only reason the UK government goes along with this **** is because they helped draft it and don't want to look like hypocrites which they are anyway.

All the main the political parties opposed this verdict just as they opposed the EU Human Rights ruling that prisoners should get the right to vote in elections.

 

[regwec]

Remember that the ECtHR is a separate entity from the EU; the Convention was held in 1945, and the UK was a principle architect and the first subscriber to the charter. The EU began life as a coal and steel union, and its focus is still primarily the common market and the free movement of goods, people and services. This has become blurred by the fact that the EU, as an institution, has subsequently ratified the ECHR. So, Britain can't abandon the ECHR without leaving the EU, or renegotiating the Lisbon Treaty.

That is easier said than done. We have to remember that a lot of the EU's newer members were formerly police states under the influence of the USSR. To their citizens, the protection of their rights by a supranational court with a written constitution, may seem like a good idea.

The problem with simply ignoring the rulings of the ECHR is that the Human Rights Act 1998 obliges UK judges to interpret UK legislation harmoniously with the Convention. The ECtHR is the ultimate authority on the interpretation of the Convention. UK courts have to give effect to acts of parliament, and the result of all of this is that the ECtHR has a kind of parliamentary seal of approval until parliament expressly repeals it.

 

[NHawk19]

There are plenty of articles out there that say people have a chance of making it to 150 years old so a 100 year sentence gives them a chance to get out.

 

[<(o_o)>]

Yeah it's "degrading" apparently.

Being on the other end of the ass rape is what is really degrading.