(Mauritius) The board was asked to consider the constitutionality of the term of imprisonment being served by the prisoner.
Held: The Board accepted that mandatory life sentences are by their nature distinct from mandatory death sentences, but concluded that a sentence whereby a convicted murdered forfeited his liberty for the rest of his days until (if ever) the Home Secretary concluded that the public interest would be better served by his release, would amount to a violation of Articles 3 and 5.
Judges:
Lord Bingham of Cornhill, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, Lord Cars well, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, Lord Mance
Citations:
[2008] UKPC 37
Links:
Jurisdiction:
Commonwealth
Citing:
Approved – Wellington, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department Admn 18-May-2007
In extradition proceedings the accused has no right to disclosure of evidence to the same extent and of the same kind which would be available in domestic proceedings.
Laws LJ said that a prison sentence without chance for parole might . .
See Also – De Boucherville v The State of Mauritius PC 18-Apr-1984
The defendant appealed against his conviction for murder. . .
Cited by:
Cited – The Government of Ghana v Gambrah and Another Admn 16-May-2014
Ghana appealed from refusal of extradition of the respondent to face a charge of murder. The only sentence for murder in Ghana was death, but the government had undertaken not to impose that sentence. The district judge accepted the undertaking, but . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Constitutional, Criminal Sentencing
Updated: 24 October 2022; Ref: scu.270798
