Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T13:25:31.115Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Vinter v. United Kingdom

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Marek Szydło
Marek Szydło*
Affiliation:
University of Wrocław, Poland
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'

Keywords

European Convention on Human RightsArticle 3inhuman and degrading punishmentlife sentencesgross disproportionality
Type
International Decisions
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 106 , Issue 3 , July 2012 , pp. 624 - 630
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Vinter v. United Kingdom, App. Nos. 66069/09, 130/10, & 3896/10 (Eur. Ct. H.R. Jan. 17, 2012) [hereinafter Judgment]. The Court’s judgments and decisions are available online at http://www.echr.coe.int.

2 Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Art. 3, Nov. 4, 1950, ETS No. 5, 213 UNTS 222 [hereinafter Convention]. Article 3 provides: “No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”

3 Section 30(1) of the Crime (Sentences) Act, 1997, c. 43 (Eng.), provides that the secretary of state may at any time release a life prisoner on license (conditionally on good behavior) if he is satisfied that exceptional circumstances justify the prisoner’s release on compassionate grounds. Before the Court of Human Rights the British government admitted that since 2000 no prisoner serving a whole-life tetm had been released on compassionate grounds. Judgment, pata. 37.

4 Article 5(4) of the Convention, supra note 2, provides: “Everyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings by which the lawfulness of his detention shall be decided speedily by a court and his release ordered if the detention is not lawful.”

5 See Légerv. France, App. No. 19324/02, para. 72 (Eur. Ct. H.R. Apr. 11, 2006); Sawoniuk v. United Kingdom, 2001-Vi Eur. Ct. H.R. 375, 394-95.

6 Quoting R v. Larimer, [2001] 1 S.C.R. 3, para. 76 (Can.).

7 Stafford v. United Kingdom, 2002-IV Eur. Ct. H.R. 115, 141-42, paras. 79-80.

8 In Norway and Spain, the maximum length of sentence is thirty years. In Portugal, the length of sentence cannot exceed twenty-five years.

9 Van Zyl Smit, Dirk, Outlawing Irreducible Life Sentences: Europe on the Brink?, 23 Fed. Sent’g Rep. 39 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Data from the Council of Europe show that in September 2009 England and Wales accounted for more than 60 percent of the total life sentence prison population in all the countries of the Council of Europe. Aebi, Marcelo F. & Delgrande, Natalia, Council of Europe Annual Penal Statistics—Space I—Survey 2009, tbl. 8, at 71–72 (Mar. 22, 2011)Google Scholar, at http://www.coe.int/t/DGHL/STANDARDSETTING/PRISONS/default_en.asp.

10 Criminal Justice Act, 2003, c. 44, §230; Appleton, Catherine, Life After Life Imprisonment 10 (2010)Google Scholar.

11 See supra note 10.

12 See Kafkaris v. Cyprus, App. No. 9644/09, Admissibility (Eur. Ct. H.R. June 21, 2011); Kafkaris v. Cyprus, App. No. 21906/04 (Feb. 12, 2008); Blackstock v. United Kingdom, App. No. 59512/00 (June 21, 2005); Wake v. United Kingdom, App. No. 53236/99 (Dec. 10, 2002); Stafford, 2002-Iveur. Ct. H.R. 115; Einhorn v. France, 2001-Xieur. Ct. H.R. 245; Hirst v. United Kingdom, App. No. 40787/98 (July 24, 2001); Sawoniukv. United Kingdom, 2001-VI Eur. Ct. H.R. 375; Oldham v. United Kingdom, 2000-X Eur. Ct. H.R. 1; Hussain v. United Kingdom, 1996-1 Eur. Ct. H.R. 252; Wynne v. United Kingdom, 294 Eur. Ct. H.R. (ser. A) 3 (1994); Thynne v. United Kingdom, 190 Eur. Ct. H.R. (ser. A) 3 (1990); Weeks v. United Kingdom (Article 50), 145 Eur. Ct. H.R. (ser. A) 3 (1988).

13 See, e.g, Graham v. Florida, 130 S.Ct. 2011, 2021 (2010); Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005); Coker v. Georgia, 433 U.S. 584 (1977). A close analysis of the U.S. Supreme Court’s case law supports the following conclusion: either that the Court categorically prejudges that a particular punishment, including life sentence without parole, is always grossly disproportionate to certain crimes or certain classes of offenders (for example, capital punishment is a grossly disproportionate penalty for rape or for juveniles under eighteen; life imprisonment without parole is grossly disproportionate for juveniles who did not commit homicide); or that it applies a case-by-case approach, considering all the circumstances of each case to determine whether the sentence is grossly disproportionate.

14 See, e.g., R v. Larimer, [2001] 1 S.C.R. (Can.); R v. Luxton, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 711 (Can.); State v. Philibert, [2007] Scj 274 (Mauritius); State v. Tcoeib, [1996] 1 Sacr 390, [1997] 1 Law Rep. Commonwealth [LRC] 90 (S. Ct. Namib.); State v. Likuwa, [2000] 1 LRC 600 (High Ct. Namib.); State v. Vries, [1997] 4 LRC 1 (High Ct. Namib.); Dodo v. State, [2001] ZACC 16 (Const. Ct. S. Afr.); Niemand v. State, [2001] ZACC 11 (Const. Ct. S. Afr.).

15 Léger v. France, App. No. 19324/02, para. 72 (Eur. Ct. H.R. Apr. 11, 2006); Sawoniuk, 2001-VI Eur. Ct. H.R. at 394-95.

16 V. v. United Kingdom, 1999-IX Eur. Ct. H.R. 111, 151, para. 100; T. v. United Kingdom, App. No. 24724/94, para. 99 (Eur. Ct. H.R. Dec. 16, 1999); see Partington v. United Kingdom, App. No. 58853/00, “The Law,” para. B(2) (June 26, 2003); Wynne v. United Kingdom, App. No. 67385/01, Admissibility, “The Law,” para. 4 (May 22,2003); Hill v. United Kingdom, App. No. 19365/02, Admissibility, “The Law,” para. 2 (Mar. 18,2003); Stanford v. United Kingdom, App. No. 73299/01, “The Law,” para. 1 (Dec. 12, 2002).

17 Partington, “The Law,” para. B(2); Wynne, Admissibility, “The Law,” para. 4; Einhorn, 2001-XI Eur. Ct. H.R. at 296, para. 27.

18 Citing Stafford v. United Kingdom, 2002-IV Eur. Ct. H.R. 115, 144, para. 87.

19 Robinson, Paul H., ‘Life Without Parole’ Under Modern Theories of Punishment 5-6 (U. of Penn. Law School Public Law Research Paper No. 10-34, 2010)Google Scholar, available at http://ssrn.com/abstract=1695542; see also Robinson, Paul H. & Darley, John M., Does Criminal Law Deter? A Behavioural Science Investigation, 24 Oxford J. Legal Stud. 173 (2004).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

20 For more on this phenomenon, see Robinson, supra note 19, at 13-15.

21 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, Arts. 77, 110, July 17, 1998, 2187 UNTS 3.

22 The committee was founded on the basis of the European Convention for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, opened for signature Dec. 10, 1984, S. Treaty Doc. No. 20, 100th Cong. (1988), 1465 UNTS 85.

23 Rasmussen, Jørgen Worsaae, Actual/Real Life Sentences, Doc. CPT (2007) 55 Google Scholar, at 10 (June 27, 2007), at http://www.cpt.coe.int/en/workingdocs.htm.

24 Kafkaris v. Cyprus, App. No. 21906/04, paras. 100-08 (Eut. Ct. H.R. Feb. 12, 2008).