WHOLE-LIFE SENTENCES IN THE UK: VOLTE-FACE AT THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS?

2015 ◽  
Vol 74 (2) ◽  
pp. 205-208
Author(s):  
Naomi Hart
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
Fourth Section ◽  
European Court ◽  
Life Sentence ◽  
Degrading Treatment ◽  
Review Mechanism ◽  
English Law ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Life Sentences

THE ECtHR has for the second time in three years engaged with the British Government's handling of whole-life prison terms. In Hutchinson v United Kingdom (Application no. 57592/08), Judgment of 3 February 2015, not yet reported, the Fourth Section accepted the authoritativeness of an English court's decision on the meaning of English law relating to the Home Secretary's discretion to reduce a whole-life sentence. It also yielded to national judges on whether this sentence review mechanism complies with the proscription on inhuman and degrading treatment in Article 3 of the ECHR.

The Legal Protection of Believers and Beliefs in the United Kingdom

2007 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 66-86 ◽  
Author(s):  
Javier García Oliva
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Legal Protection ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Common ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Legal Mechanism ◽  
Degree Of Overlap

The enactment of the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006 is the most recent legal mechanism developed to protect believers, beliefs and religious feelings in the United Kingdom. Despite the recognition of a certain degree of overlap between the different categories, this article proposes a broad distinction between legal devices which protect believers and those which safeguard beliefs and religious feelings. The common law offence of blasphemy is analysed, taking into consideration the response of both the UK courts and the European Court of Human Rights. The endorsement of the English law of blasphemy by Strasbourg is particularly relevant. Furthermore, this paper focuses on different instruments that, throughout the last few decades, have been articulated to protect the faithful, such as the crimes of religiously aggravated offences and the offence of incitement to religious hatred.

Corporal punishment of children: a caning for the united kingdom

1999 ◽  
Vol 58 (2) ◽  
pp. 265-293
Author(s):  
Andrew Bainham
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
Corporal Punishment ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
European Court ◽  
Degrading Treatment ◽  
The Government

THE ruling of the European Court of Human Rights in A v. United Kingdom (Human Rights: Punishment of Child) [1998] 2 F.L.R. 959 that to beat repeatedly a nine-year-old boy with a garden cane, leaving linear bruises on his thighs and buttocks which remained for up to one week, amounted to “torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment” contrary to Article 3 of the Convention will occasion little suprise. What will have come as unwelcome news to some is the unanimous decision of the Court that the Government of the United Kingdom could itself be held liable for failing to take measures which could have prevented these beatings by the child's stepfather.

Free Life after Life Imprisonment as a Human Right under the European Convention: European Court of Human Rights, Grand Chamber, Judgment of 9 July 2013, Vinter and Others v. The United Kingdom

2013 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. 501-512 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marek Szydło
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
National Court ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Human Right ◽  
National Courts ◽  
European Court ◽  
Life Sentence ◽  
The Moment ◽  
Grand Chamber ◽  
Life Sentences

The recent judgment of the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (‘the ECtHR’ or ‘the Court’) in Vinter and Others reflects a very significant change in the Court's attitude to those actions of the states parties to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (‘the Convention’ or ‘the ECHR’) that consist in the imposition and further execution of whole life sentences. In this judgment, the Court concluded that Article 3 of the Convention – which prohibits torture, inhuman or degrading punishment – requires the reducibility of all whole life sentences as imposed by national courts, in the sense of a review mechanism which allows domestic authorities to conclude whether in the course of a life sentence the legitimate peno-logical grounds justifying the further incarceration of a life prisoner still exist. Moreover, such a mechanism or possibility for review of a whole life sentence must be provided for by a national law and, consequently, must be known to a life prisoner already at the moment of imposition of the whole life sentence. What is also important, a life prisoner, at the outset of his/her sentence, must know when (i.e. after how many years) and under what conditions a review of his/her sentence will take place or may be sought, and what he/she must do to be considered for release. Otherwise, the very imposition of a life sentence by a national court infringes Article 3 of the Convention.

WHOLE LIFE ORDERS: ARTICLE 3 COMPLIANT AFTER ALL

2017 ◽  
Vol 76 (2) ◽  
pp. 230-233
Author(s):  
Jonathan Bild
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
Secretary Of State ◽  
European Court ◽  
Life Sentence ◽  
Domestic Courts ◽  
Family Home ◽  
Grand Chamber ◽  
Release From Prison

The exercise of the Secretary of State's power to release from prison a murderer sentenced to a whole life order would be controversial and politically fraught. The Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights’ (“ECtHR”) succinct summary of the offending leading to the whole life order imposed on the applicant in Hutchinson v United Kingdom (57592/08), Judgment of 17 January 2017, demonstrates quite why a Secretary of State would find exercising their compassionate release powers so politically unpalatable: “In October 1983, the applicant broke into a family home, where he stabbed to death a man, his wife and their adult son. He then repeatedly raped their 18-year-old daughter, having first dragged her past her father's body” (at [10]). Yet the power to release life sentence prisoners on compassionate grounds under s. 30 of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 has become the fig leaf covering a more fundamental disagreement between the domestic courts and the ECtHR: whether it is possible to commit offences of such gravity that, for the purposes of retribution and deterrence, a person must forfeit their right to liberty for the duration of their life.

Osman and police immunity in the English law of torts

Legal Studies ◽  
2000 ◽  
Vol 20 (3) ◽  
pp. 372-392 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paula Giliker
Keyword(s):  
Public Policy ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
European Convention ◽  
European Court ◽  
House Of Lords ◽  
English Law ◽  
The Law

This article examines and questions the nature of police immunity from claims for negligence in the investigation and suppression of crime, as stated by the House of Lords in Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire. This issue has been discussed before the European Court of Human Rights in Osman v United Kingdom, where the court held that a blanket application of the immunity was contrary to art 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. This article will argue that this decision does not overturn the basic public policy principles for the immunity stated in Hill and that further examination of this area of law is required. It is submitted that if the law is considered in terms of proximity rather than in terms of public policy immunity, a clearer understanding of the principles underlying this area of law can be reached together with the desirable goal of removing the term ‘immunity’ from this area of law.

Life Meaning Life: Is There Any Hope of Release for Prisoners Serving Whole Life Orders?

2011 ◽  
Vol 75 (1) ◽  
pp. 70-87 ◽  
Author(s):  
Seema Kandelia
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Life Meaning ◽  
England And Wales ◽  
European Court ◽  
Life Sentence ◽  
Domestic Courts ◽  
Degrading Treatment

This article reviews the system of whole life orders in England and Wales, looking in particular at whether such sentences constitute inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment contrary to Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. This issue came before the European Court of Human Rights in 2008 in the case of Kafkaris v Cyprus. The court held that a whole life tariff would not violate Article 3 as long as there was some possibility that a life sentence was de jure or de facto reducible. The possible grounds for the release of a prisoner serving a whole life sentence in England and Wales is, however, extremely limited. This article will assess to what extent the release procedures regarding whole lifers meet the criteria laid down by the European and domestic courts and whether there is any realistic hope of release for prisoners sentenced to whole life orders.

Republic of Ireland v United Kingdom (1979-80) 2 EHRR 25, European Court of Human Rights

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas E. Webb
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
Northern Ireland ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Republic Of Ireland ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
European Court ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Human Rights Act 1998 ◽  
Degrading Treatment

Essential Cases: Public Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Republic of Ireland v United Kingdom (1979-80) 2 EHRR 25, European Court of Human Rights. This case concerned whether interrogation techniques employed by the United Kingdom in Northern Ireland between 1971 and 1975 amounted to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment, contrary to Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. More generally, the case note considers the differences between absolute, limited, and qualified rights. The case predates the passage of the Human Rights Act 1998. The document also includes supporting commentary from author Thomas Webb.

United Kingdom

2021 ◽  
pp. 89-108
Author(s):  
Christian Leuprecht
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Intelligence Community ◽  
State Security ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Accountability System ◽  
European Court ◽  
Legal Challenges ◽  
The Uk

The United Kingdom’s intelligence accountability system reviews and oversees the Five Eyes’ oldest intelligence and security community. Her Majesty’s intelligence community illustrates the challenge of managing the tension between state security with human security: a cycle of reform driven in an attempt to (re)gain the trust of a sceptical UK public and in response to technological progression. Over the course of the last century, the UK and its intelligence and security agencies (ISAs) assisted other Five Eyes members in establishing their own ISAs, while its cycle of reform has had equally important ramifications for driving innovation in intelligence accountability across the Five Eyes community. Controversies have undermined the prospect for public trust on which the legitimacy of the UK’s intelligence community ultimately depends. Changes from the initial focus on general administrative and executive review and oversight were driven by domestic and transnational legal challenges. The European Convention on Human Rights and the European Court of Human Rights have had a notable impact on security and intelligence in the United Kingdom. The chapter reviews the member organizations of the UK’s intelligence community, the strategic environment that has informed intelligence and accountability in the UK, national security threats from the vantage point of the UK, and the UK’s intelligence accountability architecture: the Investigatory Powers Commissioner and Judicial Commissioners Office, the Investigatory Powers Tribunal, the Intelligence and Security Committee composed of members of both Houses of Parliament, and the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document