In July 2013, the Grand Chamber of the ECtHR in the case of Vinter and Others v United Kingdom [2013] ECHR 645 found for three applicants, who were all life sentence prisoners, in relation to their claims that the type of sentences they had been subject to amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment and therefore a violation of their rights under the ECHR, art 3. The applicants were all subject to 'whole life orders', meaning that they could not ever be released other than on compassionate grounds at the discretion of the Secretary of State, if for instance they were terminally ill or seriously incapacitated. The Grand Chamber accepted that [...]and held that for a life sentence to remain compatible with the ECHR there had to be ‘reducibility’ in the sentence– in other words there must be a clear system of review which allows domestic authorities to consider whether any changes in life prisoners are so significant (e.g. that such a degree of rehabilitation has been achieved) that continued detention can no longer be justified. It found that UK law concerning the Secretary of State's power to release a whole life prisoner was unclear and that there was no appropriate review mechanism for whole life orders. It also found that the circumstances for compassionate release were 'highly restrictive'.
Answer
being denied any prospect of release was a violation of the ECHR, art 3
Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
In July 2013, the Grand Chamber of the ECtHR in the case of Vinter and Others v United Kingdom [2013] ECHR 645 found for three applicants, who were all life sentence prisoners, in relation to their claims that the type of sentences they had been subject to amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment and therefore a violation of their rights under the ECHR, art 3. The applicants were all subject to 'whole life orders', meaning that they could not ever be released other than on compassionate grounds at the discretion of the Secretary of State, if for instance they were terminally ill or seriously incapacitated. The Grand Chamber accepted that [...]and held that for a life sentence to remain compatible with the ECHR there had to be ‘reducibility’ in the sentence– in other words there must be a clear system of review which allows domestic authorities to consider whether any changes in life prisoners are so significant (e.g. that such a degree of rehabilitation has been achieved) that continued detention can no longer be justified. It found that UK law concerning the Secretary of State's power to release a whole life prisoner was unclear and that there was no appropriate review mechanism for whole life orders. It also found that the circumstances for compassionate release were 'highly restrictive'.
Answer
?
Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
In July 2013, the Grand Chamber of the ECtHR in the case of Vinter and Others v United Kingdom [2013] ECHR 645 found for three applicants, who were all life sentence prisoners, in relation to their claims that the type of sentences they had been subject to amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment and therefore a violation of their rights under the ECHR, art 3. The applicants were all subject to 'whole life orders', meaning that they could not ever be released other than on compassionate grounds at the discretion of the Secretary of State, if for instance they were terminally ill or seriously incapacitated. The Grand Chamber accepted that [...]and held that for a life sentence to remain compatible with the ECHR there had to be ‘reducibility’ in the sentence– in other words there must be a clear system of review which allows domestic authorities to consider whether any changes in life prisoners are so significant (e.g. that such a degree of rehabilitation has been achieved) that continued detention can no longer be justified. It found that UK law concerning the Secretary of State's power to release a whole life prisoner was unclear and that there was no appropriate review mechanism for whole life orders. It also found that the circumstances for compassionate release were 'highly restrictive'.
Answer
being denied any prospect of release was a violation of the ECHR, art 3
If you want to change selection, open original toplevel document below and click on "Move attachment"
Parent (intermediate) annotation
Open it e life orders', meaning that they could not ever be released other than on compassionate grounds at the discretion of the Secretary of State, if for instance they were terminally ill or seriously incapacitated. The Grand Chamber accepted that <span>being denied any prospect of release was a violation of the ECHR, art 3 and held that for a life sentence to remain compatible with the ECHR there had to be ‘reducibility’ in the sentence– in other words there must be a clear system of review which allows do
Original toplevel document (pdf)
cannot see any pdfs
Summary
status
not learned
measured difficulty
37% [default]
last interval [days]
repetition number in this series
0
memorised on
scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval
last repetition or drill
Details
No repetitions
Discussion
Do you want to join discussion? Click here to log in or create user.