[Z]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23230419

Killers' life terms 'breach their human rights'
Jeremy Bamber's appeal was heard with that of two other men Continue reading the main story
Related Stories
Bamber appeals against life term
1986: Bamber jailed for 'at least 25 years'
Watch
1996: Peter Moore sentenced to life
Watch
The European Court of Human Rights has ruled the whole life tariffs given to murderer Jeremy Bamber and two other killers breached their human rights.

The judges ruled by 16 to 1 that there had to be a possibility of release and review of the sentence.

But they said this did not mean there was "any prospect of imminent release".

On a website, Bamber, who murdered five members of his family, said the verdict was "hollow" as he was still serving a sentence for a crime he did not commit.

Bamber brought the case to the court's upper chamber, along with serial killer Peter Moore and double murderer Douglas Vinter, after losing a previous appeal.

BBC legal affairs correspondent Clive Coleman said the ruling, which applies in England and Wales, was significant both legally and politically, and it would now have to be considered by the UK government.

'Dangerous alienation'

The three men are among a group of 49 people in England and Wales who are serving whole life tariffs.

This means they cannot be released other than at the discretion of the justice secretary on compassionate grounds - for example, if they are terminally ill or seriously incapacitated.

Continue reading the main story
Analysis
Dominic Casciani

Home affairs correspondent

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This judgement is very important legally - and politically. Legally, the court ruled years ago that states can lock up dangerous killers forever.

The problem, it now says, arises if the prisoner doesn't get a chance to prove at some point that they are reformed.

The effect of the judgement is similar to one from our own supreme court, which said that sex offenders should be allowed to show that they are reformed and be removed from the national register.

Ministers used to have the power to review "whole lifers" after 25 years but that was abolished in 2003.

Parliament could theoretically give it to the Parole Board. But politically the judgement puts the court on a head-to-head collision course with ministers yet again and this time the row is arguably even more serious than Abu Qatada or Votes for Prisoners.

Read more from Dominic
Up until 2003, all terms could be reviewed, including whole life tariffs.

The men argued their sentences were "inhuman and degrading" and that being denied any prospect of release was a violation of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights - which protects people from inhuman or degrading treatment.

The court 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.

The judges said the UK law concerning the justice secretary's power to release a whole life prisoner was "unclear".

In their ruling they said: "Given this lack of clarity and the absence of a dedicated review mechanism for whole life orders, the Court was not persuaded that, at the present time, the applicants' life sentences were compatible with Article 3."

The judges said it was up to the national authorities to decide when such a review should take place, and referred to the situation in the UK prior to 2003 when reviews were carried out after 25 years of a life sentence.

Former Labour home secretary David Blunkett said his government changed the law "so that life really meant life when sentencing those who had committed the most heinous crimes".

"Whatever the technical justification the Strasbourg court may have, it is the right of the British Parliament to determine the sentence of those who have committed such crimes..." he said

"To do otherwise can only lead to disillusionment, mistrust of, and a dangerous alienation from, our democracy itself."

'Get out of jail free'

Bamber was jailed for murdering five members of his family in Essex in 1985.

He has always protested his innocence and claims his schizophrenic sister Sheila Caffell shot her family before turning the gun on herself.

In a statement which appeared on his blog, which is part of the Jeremy Bamber Campaign website, he said: "Reviews and parole hearings are subject to a risk assessment to gauge dangerousness and this is influenced by the inmate's confession, remorse and rehabilitation for reintegration back into the community.

Continue reading the main story
What is a whole life tariff?
Offenders who receive a whole life tariff cannot be released other than at the discretion of the justice secretary on compassionate grounds - for example, if they are terminally ill or seriously incapacitated
They are not eligible for a parole review or release
However, prisoners can have their sentence reduced on appeal
The sentence is reserved for offenders judged to be the most dangerous to society
49 people are currently serving whole life tariffs
These include the Yorkshire Ripper Peter Sutcliffe and Moors Murderer Ian Brady
Serial killer Rosemary West is the only woman currently serving a whole life sentence
The most recent murderers to receive the sentence are Mark Bridger, who killed five-year-old April Jones, and Dale Cregan, who murdered two police officers
"In my case I do not fit the criteria for parole on this basis."

Moore killed four gay men for his sexual gratification in north Wales in 1995.

In 2008, Vinter, from Middlesbrough, admitted killing his wife Anne White. He had been released from prison in 2005 after serving nine years for murdering a colleague.

Vinter's solicitor, Simon Creighton, said the ruling could not be used as a "get out of jail free" excuse for life-term prisoners.

"It's very important that the court has recognised that no sentence should be once and for all and there should always be some right to look at some sentences again in the future," he said.

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

Mr Creighton said the court was telling the government to return to what it was doing before the change in the law in 2003.

Last year, the Court of Appeal in London upheld the principle of whole life sentences for the most dangerous of offenders, saying it did not breach human rights.

At the time, the Lord Chief Justice said jail without the possibility of release should be "reserved for the few exceptionally serious offences".

This is pretty important, and I think is very worrying too. Obviously mistakes can be made and it would be a miscarriage of justice if an innocent person was convicted with a life sentence with no possibility of parole - but those sorts of sentences are not taken lightly and from what I can tell have only been doled out to some of the most heinous murderers. I'm disappointed in this decision, but I suppose it's only fair............

[Z]

I don't believe many prisoners can truly be reformed, especially those who have committed multiple murders - you could argue that crime of passion one off murderers might have acted out in the heat of the moment and with some therapy for their anger might have a chance at reintegrating into society, but not someone who committed a mass murder or serial killings!

[Nedusa]

This decision is fair as prior to this only a small proportion of convicted murderers are given a whole life tariff which means NO release ever and more importantly NO hope of release regardless of how reformed or rehabilitated a prisoner becomes.

The decision to impose a whole life tariff is usually only done for crimes that are particularly nasty like child rape/killing or mass killing involving torture etc... These crimes prick the public conscience and usually given the media exposure and public disgust a Judge can and will impose this type of tariff.

The problem with this however is that currently our prison system exists to punish,rehabilitate and reform prisoners where possible, so to impose this "whole life" tariff removes any possibility of rehabilitation or reform and is just Punishment pure and simple. The arguement in this case is that ALL prisoners should have in theory the same possibility of reform and rehab even though clearly some prisoners like Ian Brady eg will NEVER be released.

So I think this decision changes nothing other than to give in theory some possibility to our worst offenders even though in practice they will never be released....!!!!

[Z]

I think there's just that huge "what if" hanging over this ruling, what if a notorious murderer is somehow paroled and let back into society? Would they be given a new identity? Probably... and as shown by Jon Venables, rehabilitation is a subjective thing - if a prisoner can convince a panel they're reformed, they get let out. I'm not suggesting that this panel is made up of idiots, but many criminals are intelligent and I think any criminal would do their best to hide any untoward intentions for the sake of getting parole... who knows, this is all conjecture, but it is very worrying.

[Kate!]

Life should mean life, till the bastards take their last dying breath.

[Kazanne]

People who deliberately set out to kill someone else deserve NOTHING imo,no human rights just a 6 by 6 room with a bucket and mattress,I can see how crimes of passion could be different,but anything premeditated should mean life and a hard one!

[CaudleHalbard]

The ECHR has not said whole life sentences are wrong. Just that they should be reviewed from time to time. In the UK, up to 2003, we used to do just that after 25 years had been served.

But we stopped doing that and that's what the ECHR is saying we should not have stopped.

[Livia]

Another reason to opt out of Europe. An unelected body making decisions about our law? It disgusts me.

[Mrluvaluva]

Life hasn't meant "life" as in a life sentence for a long time. Sentences in general don't mean anything anymore either. I think I have read about 2 cases today where sentences have been reduced after being reviewed and prisoners are often released early due to good behaviour.

I quote from the above article: "...being denied any prospect of release was a violation of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights - which protects people from inhuman or degrading treatment."

I wonder if these "lifers" protected their victims from inhuman or degrading treatment? No, I didn't think so.

[Kizzy]

People getting hysterical again.... there is no mention of a release, just a case review

[RichardG]

In regards to 'life not meaning life' anymore...

Cleland pleaded guilty to attempted murder and was jailed for life with a minimum sentence of seven years by Judge Jonathan Durham Hall QC as his parents watched from the public gallery.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-advances.html

This guy attempted to "rape and gut a 12 year old girl like a pig". From the story, it sounds like he would have gone through with it had he not have been caught.

He was given a life sentence, but could potentially be back on the streets in 7 years time? (I know nothing about law but assume that's what the above quote means?)

Life sentence? Hmm...

Maybe i'm overreacting but I personally see no benefit in allowing him back into society after such a short period of time. He clearly has a lot of problems, the story is horrendous.

[smudgie]

Complete waste of tax payers money.
Where it's proven BEYOND doubt then just dispatch them by lethal injection.
If there is any doubt then lock them up until they prove they are either innocent or reformed characters.

[Vicky.]

Has life ever meant life in this country? I know it does for a very select few high profile cases..but generally life seems to mean 10-15 years

[Kizzy]

Life meant death for a while?...