I must post briefly on something that’s annoyed me: George Alagiah just said, summarising the day’s headlines on BBC News, that the murderers Sonnex and Farmer were sentenced to 40 and 35 years respectively. They weren’t. They were sentenced to serve a minimum of 40 and of 35 years respectively. They could serve longer. I can understand the parents feeling even that’s not enough, but it’d be great, wouldn’t it, if broadcasters at least reported the sentences accurately.
UPDATE: I’m glad to say he got it right just before half past, saying they’d got “at least” 40 and 35 years.
Quite right Head of Legal – they are sentenced to mandatory life imprisonment with tariffs of 40 years and 35 years. Makes one wonder what is necessary to get a whole life tariff however. So-called "irreducible sentences" were addressed by the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) in Bieber [2008] EWCA Crim 1601.
The British Parliament must pass retrospective criminal legislation to sanction the death penalty in these cases.
at least metro got it right this morning! they should have a law reports section (possibly just after the bit with funny stories about animals).
i haven't read much (apart from metro obviously) on this but were there no sentences for pp? they sound fairly dangerous to me.
Agree with the comment by anonymous posted above, there ought to be a referendum on the reintroduction of the death penalty. The ECHR issue could be overcome by withdrawing the ratification of Protocol 6.
from another anoymous: wouldn't there also be an Article 7 problem though … (thankfully)
Given that the death penalty was repealed under the pretence that "life would mean life", tariffs should not apply to life sentences.
If you google "Sonnex and Farmer" as I just did, there's a rather right-wing bias to the search results…
Anonymous II: The British Parliament is not bound by its own legislation (The Human Rights Act 1998) nor by international conventions (Article 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights, concerning retrospective criminal offences and penalties).
In any event, consider also the European Court of Human Rights case SW v UK (ECt HR 22 Nov 1995). The Court decided that Article 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights did not apply to a conviction for forcible intercourse with a spouse. Why? The essentially evil (my word) character of the rape was so obvious that it could not qualify for protection under Article 7, as an arbitrary conviction. The convicted ought to have foreseen that the common law immunity had lapsed.
Apply that principle to the punishment of a crime of torturing to death two innocent men. Can the public's demand for the death penalty be regarded as arbitrary? Or was it perhaps utterly foreseeable?
I may regret getting involved in this discussion but the above analysis does not work. SW was about a change to the common law in which the presumption is that the law has always been the way that is decided in the case. There had not been a case about marital rape for some time and everybody could predict which way it was likely to go. Passing legislation raises much more serious Article 7 issues because it actually brings about a change in the law. It also seriously interferes with the sovereignty of parliaments elected in previous years.
I agree, James. The point about SW in the ECtHR was that the change was not strictly retrospective, was foreseeable, and so foreseeably applied at the time he did it. To pull the same trick with legislation, it would have to be retrospective, and couldn't be foreseeable. So an article 7 problem indeed. Of course, ultimately we could denounce the ECHR…
Anything like that though calls our EU membership into question of course. Even if we can withdraw from the relevant protocol – I've not researched whether that's possible – it'd cause a political crisis. French opinion is especially hard against the death penalty, perhaps because they only got rid of it I think under Mitterand, so it'd make a great opportunity to undermine the UK's membership. This could be the dream of some French foreign policy plotters….
Death penalty in France was abolished in 1977 under Giscard d'Estaing (President 1974-1981). The last man guillotined was Djandoubi for "torture murder."
European Convention on Human Rights Protocol 13 completed the abolition of the death penalty in Council of Europe states. No derogation from or reservations to Protocol 13 are permitted.
I think it was the Maastricht Treaty on European Union which placed greater emphasis on human rights. What was then Art. F required member states to respect the European Convention on Human Rights. The Treaty of Amsterdam took matters further by bringing in a procedure for suspending certain rights of members found to be in breach of human right. This was further amended by the Nice Treaty.
I believe that we have certainly reached the point where adherence to human rights is fundamental to membership.
James, Carl – you may well be right. However I think (as indeed you suggest) the distinction rests heavily on the declaratory theory of common law decision-making. There is an interesting discussion of that theory in a the 2005 Macabbean Lecture of Lord Bingham "The Judges: Active or Passive?". However, I concede that there is a difference of degree between judges and legislators and that is probably how the decision in this case will continue to be limited.
It is of course distasteful to have to contemplate retrospective legislation of this nature. The rule of law is vulnerable enough. We already inhabit an era in which the Speaker ushers investigating policemen through the doors of Parliament.
However, I believe the shocking nature of this crime is forcing many to reconsider attitudes to punishment. Those who are not advocating the return of capital punishment are aghast at the sentencing decision imposing tariffs. That is likely to be the case in France as well as Britain. I refer to an article in the Times dated June 5th "French anger over mistakes that led to killings". One online comment at the foot of the article perhaps sums up the attitude of many:
"The ferocity and pure evil of these murders outweighs any obligation for society to try to rehabilitate the perpetrators. Therefore they should remain in prison for all of their days…Londoners are as shocked and appalled at this barbaric crime as our neighbours in France."