Whole life tariff

The whole life tariff is a mechanism in British law whereby a prisoner is sentenced to remain in prison until his or her death. It came into force in 1983 when the British Home Secretary began to set minimum terms that convicted killers had to serve before being considered for release on life licence. The intention of a whole life tariff was for a prisoner to spend an entire lifetime behind bars without ever being released, unless there were exceptional circumstances for a prisoner to go free.

Only the Home Secretary can grant a release to a prisoner sentenced to a whole life tariff, if the prisoner make good progress in prison after a minimum of 25 years (never used) or on compassionate grounds, due to great age or infirmity (used only once, but there is uncertainty that the sentence was a whole life tariff).

Overview

When life imprisonment gradually replaced the death penalty as punishment for murderers, firstly for those whose sentences were commuted and later for those whose crimes were not aggravated in the terms of the Homicide Act 1957, it was fairly common for those sentenced to life to be released in around ten to fifteen years. [ [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/5086978.stm BBC NEWS | Magazine | The history of life ] ] After the death penalty was abolished, it came to be seen as necessary for longer sentences to be imposed, especially in cases such as the Moors Murders and the Massacre of Braybrook Street. An additional factor leading to longer incarceration was that the average natural lifespan of the British population has grown at the same time as very long sentences have been implemented in the absence of the death penalty.

In November 2002, new human rights legislation and a Law Lords ruling stripped the Home Secretary of his powers to set tariffs. Since then, the trial judge has been obliged to recommend a minimum term for anyone who receives a life sentence. The Attorney General can appeal to the High Court if he thinks that a sentence is unduly lenient, and the Lord Chief Justice can increase the sentence. A prisoner can also appeal to the Lord Chief Justice to have a lesser minimum term set than the one recommended by the trial judge.

This change in the law followed a successful legal challenge by convicted double murderer Anthony Anderson, who was jailed for life in 1988 on two murder charges and was told by the trial judge that he should serve at least 15 years before being considered for parole. But the Home Secretary later increased this to 20 years. Anderson claimed that his human rights were being breached and the High Court and European Court of Human Rights both agreed.

Since whole life tariffs were introduced, the law has stated that murderers aged under 21 years cannot be subjected to such a recommendation.

Around 50 prisoners have been issued with whole life tariffs since the mechanism was first introduced in 1983, although some of them were convicted of their crimes before that date.

Crimes where whole life tariff are recommended by the law

*murder of two or more persons, where each murder involves any of the following :
**a substantial degree of premeditation or planning,
**the abduction of the victim, or
**sexual or sadistic conduct,
*child murder if involving the abduction of the child or sexual or sadistic motivation,
*murder done for the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause,
*murder by an offender previously convicted of murder,
*other offense if the court considers that the seriousness of the offence (or the combination of the offence and one or more offences associated with it) is exceptionally high.

Successive Conservative and Labour Home Secretaries set whole life sentences for the following convicted murderers (note, this list is incomplete):

'Whole life' prisoners who have been freed

A whole life tariff was imposed on all four members of the Provisional Irish Republican Army's Balcombe Street ASU in 1977, but they were all freed in 1999 as part of the Good Friday Agreement.

European Court review on lifelong sentences

In February 2007, the European Court of Human Rights announced that it was considering whether it is a contravention of human rights for someone to be sentenced to lifelong imprisonment. This news was made public just after David Bieber was due to lodge an appeal against the trial judge's recommendation that he should never be released from prison. His appeal was due to have been heard at this time, but was delayed due to this uncertainty as to whether lifelong imprisonment will remain lawful. If the European judges rule that lifelong imprisonment is a violation of human rights, all prisoners serving whole life tariffs will have their cases recalled to the courts for a new minimum term to be set. Such a ruling would be highly controversial in many other European countries where the option for whole-life sentences exists, as some European states have whole-life sentences, whereas others do not. For instance in the Netherlands, when a life sentence is passed, it is always intended to mean "life". So far, just two Dutch life sentence prisoners have been freed, and even then it was due to terminal illness in both cases. In Spain, for instance, the maximum time anyone can serve in prison is 40 years [http://www.yorkshiretoday.co.uk/ViewArticle.aspx?sectionid=55&articleid=2066396] .

References