Vinter, Bamber And Moore v The United Kingdom: ECHR 17 Jan 2012

The prisoners appealed saying that the whole life terms set on the imposition of a life sentence for murder were a breach of their human rights.
Held: The continued detention of three defendants who had been made subject to a whole life tariff did not violate Article 3 because the ‘requirements of punishment and deterrence could only be satisfied by a whole life order’. This was a legitimate penological purpose. The dissenting justices expressed concern about the ‘hopelessness inherent in a sentence of life imprisonment from which, independently of the circumstances, there is no possibility whatsoever of release while the prisoner is still well enough to have any sort of life outside prison’.

Citations:

[2012] ECHR 61, 66069/09, (2012) 55 EHRR 34

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 30(1), European Convention on Human Rights 3, Criminal Justice Act 2003

Citing:

Statement of factsVinter, Bamber And Moore v The United Kingdom ECHR 9-Feb-2011
(Statement of Facts) Prisoners appealed saying that the imposition of a whole life tariff on their life term by the judge, so that they could only be released at the discretion of the Home Secretary, and that this was inhuman treatment. . .

Cited by:

CitedOakes and Others v Regina CACD 21-Nov-2012
A specially constituted CACD heard sentencing appeals for defendants serving life terms for very grave crimes, and in particular, the judicial assessment of the minimum term to be served by the appellants for the purposes of punishment and . .
Appeal fromVinter And Others v The United Kingdom ECHR 9-Jul-2013
(Grand Chamber) The three appellants had each been convicted of exceptionally serious murders, and been sentenced to mandatory life sentences, but with provision that they could not be eligible for early release, making them whole life terms. They . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Sentencing, Human Rights

Updated: 14 November 2022; Ref: scu.471220