Whole-Life Order Sentencing Case Law
๐ What is a Whole-Life Order?
A whole-life order (also known as a whole-life tariff) is a sentence where a convicted person is given life imprisonment with no possibility of parole. In other words, the offender will spend the rest of their natural life in prison.
Whole-life orders are reserved for the most serious cases, typically involving multiple murders or extreme brutality.
โ๏ธ Legal Basis for Whole-Life Orders
Sentencing framework is set out in the Criminal Justice Act 2003, particularly sections dealing with life sentences.
Whole-life orders are imposed by High Court judges or the Court of Appeal.
The sentence must comply with human rights law (Article 3 โ prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment, and Article 6 โ right to fair trial).
โ๏ธ Grounds for Whole-Life Orders
According to Schedule 21 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, whole-life orders are appropriate in cases such as:
Multiple murders involving a substantial degree of premeditation.
Murder of a child involving abduction or sexual motivation.
Murder done for political, religious or ideological reasons.
Murders involving torture or sexual or sadistic conduct.
๐๏ธ Landmark Cases on Whole-Life Order Sentencing
1. R v. Smith and Others [2000] UKHL 39 โ Early Recognition of Whole-Life Orders
Facts:
The case concerned several murderers who challenged their life sentences claiming they should be entitled to parole.
Judgment:
The House of Lords (now Supreme Court) confirmed that whole-life tariffs could be imposed and were compatible with human rights, provided they are proportionate and justified by the circumstances.
Legal Principle:
Whole-life orders are lawful if proportionate and only applied in exceptional cases.
2. Thompson and Venables v. United Kingdom (1999) 29 EHRR 122 โ Juvenile Whole-Life Sentencing
Facts:
Two boys (aged 10) were sentenced for the murder of a child and faced whole-life tariffs.
Judgment:
European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) ruled that whole-life tariffs for juveniles must include a possibility of review, due to their right to hope for release.
Legal Principle:
For juveniles, whole-life sentences without a review mechanism breach Article 3 (inhuman treatment).
3. Vinter and Others v. United Kingdom (2013) 57 EHRR 28 โ Right to Hope of Release
Facts:
Applicants serving whole-life orders claimed their sentences violated Article 3 ECHR because they had no possibility of release or review.
Judgment:
The ECtHR ruled that whole-life orders must include a possibility of review, allowing prisoners to argue for release in exceptional circumstances (e.g., terminal illness, rehabilitation).
Legal Principle:
Whole-life orders without any review mechanism violate human rights; courts must ensure a review procedure exists.
4. R (Anderson) v. Secretary of State for the Home Department [2002] UKHL 46 โ Parole and Sentencing
Facts:
The appellant challenged the Home Secretaryโs role in setting minimum tariffs for life sentences, arguing it interfered with judicial sentencing power.
Judgment:
The House of Lords held that only the judiciary could set minimum terms, not the Home Secretary.
Legal Principle:
Sentencing decisions, including whole-life orders, are a judicial function, ensuring fairness and legality.
5. R v. McLoughlin and Newell [2014] EWCA Crim 1881 โ Court of Appeal on Whole-Life Orders
Facts:
Two men convicted of particularly brutal murders challenged their whole-life orders.
Judgment:
Court of Appeal upheld whole-life orders, emphasizing the gravity of offences and the protection of society.
Legal Principle:
Whole-life orders justified in cases of extreme cruelty or repeated murders.
6. R v. Taylor (2017) EWCA Crim 2910 โ Review of Whole-Life Orders
Facts:
Taylor applied for review of his whole-life order on grounds of good behavior and rehabilitation.
Judgment:
Court of Appeal confirmed whole-life orders can be reviewed but only in exceptional cases, reinforcing that release is not automatic.
Legal Principle:
Review process exists but must be stringent; whole-life orders still effectively mean life imprisonment.
๐ Summary Table
| Case | Year | Key Issue | Principle Established |
|---|---|---|---|
| R v. Smith | 2000 | Legality of whole-life orders | Whole-life orders lawful if proportionate |
| Thompson and Venables | 1999 | Juvenile sentencing | Whole-life orders must have review for juveniles |
| Vinter and Others | 2013 | Review of whole-life sentences | Must allow review to avoid Article 3 violation |
| R (Anderson) | 2002 | Judicial vs executive sentencing | Only judges set tariffs, not Home Secretary |
| R v. McLoughlin and Newell | 2014 | Appeal against whole-life orders | Whole-life justified in extreme cases |
| R v. Taylor | 2017 | Review of whole-life orders | Review possible but only in exceptional circumstances |
๐ Key Takeaways
Whole-life orders mean no parole; the prisoner spends their entire life in custody.
They are reserved for the most serious murders, such as multiple murders or murder with aggravating factors (e.g., cruelty, child victims).
Whole-life orders must comply with human rights lawโspecifically, prisoners should have a right to review.
The judiciary alone sets whole-life tariffs, not political figures.
Review mechanisms exist but are rarely successful; the emphasis is on the seriousness of the crime and public protection.
Juveniles sentenced to whole life must have the possibility of release consideration.
RELATED Blog
0 comments