UK Government Seeks to Defy European Court of Human Rights on Whole Life Sentences

The UK Government has indicated that it will defy the European Court of Human Rights over the issue of whether the United Kingdom can impose whole life sentences for the most serious crimes.

Background

In July last year the European Court of Human Rights ruled in Vinter v United Kingdom (2013) that whole life sentences – or whole life orders – amount to inhuman and degrading treatment, and therefore breach article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), because there is no option for them to be reviewed and so no possibility of the release for the offender. For more information on the Court’s judgment, see this article.

The United Kingdom is obliged to remedy the human rights breach by article 46 of the ECHR, which provides that the parties to a judgment agree to be bound by it and abide by it.

The Response

The Government was required to respond to the judgment within six months. In a formal note sent to the Council of Europe – the body responsible for the ECHR – the Government said: ‘Consideration as to what steps may be necessary as a result of the judgment is currently under way. No final decisions on those issues have yet been taken’.

The note also referred to four upcoming appeals in the Court of Appeal, where the Government is expected to argue that there is no obligation to follow the ruling because section 2 of the Human Rights Act 1998 provides that British courts need only ‘take into account’ decisions of the European Court of Human Rights, and the Vinter decision was wrong. Accordingly in those limited circumstances the British courts can decline to follow the ruling of the European Court. The United Kingdom has previously agreed with this approach, in the case of R v Horncastle (2009), a case concerning hearsay evidence.

In a separate statement, the Ministry of Justice said: ‘The Government remains firmly of the view that whole-life [orders] are wholly justified in the most heinous cases, and that they should continue to be available to the courts. We will be strenuously arguing in the Court of Appeal [in other related cases] that a judge can and must impose a whole life order [in the most serious cases]’.

Comment

The Government’s statement shows that it intends for whole life orders to continue to be available to sentencing judges. This will not ease relations between the Government and the Council of Europe. The current Conservative-led government believes that the European Court of Human Rights has excessive power over member states. It is particularly irritated by the ruling in Hirst v United Kingdom (2005), which held that a complete ban on prisoners voting in the United Kingdom was unlawful.

The statement is also interesting because it is at odds with comments made by Prime Minister David Cameron last week, where he supported 100-year reviewable sentences which would comply with the European Court’s ruling, as discussed in this article.

Nevertheless, it seems to me that this is a decision that needs to be challenged. As I noted in this article, the European Court appear to have misunderstood our law. Perhaps it would decide differently if it has the opportunity to reconsider the decision with a full appreciation of our law.

What are your thoughts?