The use of sentences within England and Wales is a topic that always divides the opinion of the public. However, over the last few years, there has been a fresh argument, made that those who have a life sentence without the chance of parole is in breach of their human rights. Back in 2012 convicted murderer Jeremy Bamber, along with two other prisoners, made the first steps in challenging against their sentences by appealing to the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). Their primary argument being that the sentence is in breach of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
At the end of last month, it was found that the Grand Chamber, the highest court of the ECtHR, held that there is a breach of Article 3. This was held because there is no review process, for those given life without parole sentences. In addition, although in principle there is no issue with these sentences, on a practical level there should be a review process after twenty five years. This decision has caused controversy for both politicians and the judiciary. Furthermore, there has been criticism from victims of crime and members of the public who believe that prisoners should not be entitled to rights. It is because of this ruling that the Court of Appeal is now set to hear three new appeals contesting this type of sentence.
It is important to remember, that although the appeal on human rights grounds has been successful this does not stop judges giving life without parole sentences at the present time. What makes this a hot topic of debate is the upcoming sentence of the murderers of Fusilier Lee Rigby. Mr Justice Sweeny, who presided over the murder trial, has delayed sentencing until the appeal(s) for this type of sentence have been ruled upon.
In summary, whatever the outcome for the use of life without parole sentences the debate on whether life should mean life will continue to divide everyone in society rather than just those in the legal and political world.
For more information on this topic please use the following links:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20520372
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25450555
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25870832
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23245254
At the end of last month, it was found that the Grand Chamber, the highest court of the ECtHR, held that there is a breach of Article 3. This was held because there is no review process, for those given life without parole sentences. In addition, although in principle there is no issue with these sentences, on a practical level there should be a review process after twenty five years. This decision has caused controversy for both politicians and the judiciary. Furthermore, there has been criticism from victims of crime and members of the public who believe that prisoners should not be entitled to rights. It is because of this ruling that the Court of Appeal is now set to hear three new appeals contesting this type of sentence.
It is important to remember, that although the appeal on human rights grounds has been successful this does not stop judges giving life without parole sentences at the present time. What makes this a hot topic of debate is the upcoming sentence of the murderers of Fusilier Lee Rigby. Mr Justice Sweeny, who presided over the murder trial, has delayed sentencing until the appeal(s) for this type of sentence have been ruled upon.
In summary, whatever the outcome for the use of life without parole sentences the debate on whether life should mean life will continue to divide everyone in society rather than just those in the legal and political world.
For more information on this topic please use the following links:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20520372
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25450555
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25870832
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23245254
RSS Feed