In the case of present day offenders, tariffs are governed by the Criminal Justice Act 2003 Schedule 21. However, Schedule 22 applies to those sentenced to the mandatory life sentence before the CJA 2003 came into force. It should be noted that there is a separate power under which the Secretary of State may release a prisoner on compassionate grounds.
It would be hard to think of any issue more likely to bring the present U.K. government on to a collision course with Strasbourg and there is little doubt that, for the very worst murder cases, the British public would side with the government in opposition to any decision to rule out the whole life tariff. Such a schism might well prove to be injurious to longer term human rights protection in the U.K.
Addendum: In 2002 the Criminal Cases Review Commission referred Jeremy Bamber's case to the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division). The trigger for the appeal was new scientific evidence but further grounds of appeal were added. The court's judgment may be read here.
Further article appears on UK Human Rights blog - "When does "life" mean life?"
I think the whole idea of the Executive setting the tariff to be repugnant. This used to be the case until Handscomb, then the trial judge set the tariff. For some unknown reason Sutcliffe/Coonan slipped through the net, and the trial judge did not set a whole life tariff in his case and I think it is wrong for the Executive to do so belatedly.
ReplyDeleteThe recent case of Scoppola v Italy may well have implications for the UK and its life sentence, natural life, and life licence scheme. The life sentence was ruled a breach of human rights when it also entailed being disenfranchised for life.