The European Court of Human Rights (the ECtHR) has ruled that whole life sentences do not breach Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (the Convention), which prohibits inhuman or degrading treatment and punishment. The judgment is the latest in a long line of ECtHR case-law on the issue of whole life sentences, and the requirement that such sentences be reducible to be compatible with Article 3.
The applicant in this case, Arthur Hutchinson was convicted of murder, rape and aggravated burglary in 1984 and the UK Secretary of State imposed a whole life sentence. Under UK law, whole life prisoners can be released by the Secretary of State in exceptional circumstances. The Criminal Justice Act 2003 set out a comprehensive procedure for whole life orders and following its entry into force, Hutchinson challenged his detention in the UK High Court. This challenge failed, and Hutchinson subsequently brought an application to the ECtHR, arguing that his sentence was in breach of Article 3 as he was being imprisoned with no hope of release.
Previous ECtHR case law has taken the position that it is up to signatory States to provide for the punishment of crime once it does not violate human rights but in the Kafkaris case, it was emphasised that sentences must have a meaningful chance for review to be compatible with the Convention. The Grand Chamber of the ECtHR ruled in the 2013 Vinter case that UK law on life sentences violated Article 3 as it did not provide for a meaningful review. The UK Court of Appeal responded in R v McLoughlin by ruling that there was adequate protection, as the Secretary of State is obliged to take Article 3 into account when deciding on whole life sentences.
McLoughlin was the basis for the ECtHR Chamber ruling in 2015 that there had been no violation of Article 3 in Hutchinson’s situation. It was held that McLoughlin had addressed the Strasbourg Court’s doubts as to the potential for review of whole life sentences in line with the Convention, and such sentences could now be regarded as reducible. Hutchinson then requested that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber, arguing that the Court of Appeal was mistaken in its analysis of domestic law and that the vesting of a vague discretion in the executive provided no prospect of fairness and certainty to him as a prisoner serving a whole life sentence.
The Grand Chamber agreed with the Chamber’s view that the UK had sufficiently affirmed that the Secretary of State is obliged to exercise their power of release compatibly with Article 3. The Grand Chamber reaffirmed that Article 3 does not prohibit whole life sentences for serious crimes, but to be compatible with Article 3, such a sentence must entail the prospect of release and a possibility of review, with sufficiently clear and certain review criteria. As such, the applicant’s detention was compatible with the Convention.
Click here for the full judgment in Hutchinson v UK.
Click here for further commentary on the case.