Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.
[ ] I N T R O D U C T I O N During the period May – June , the European Court of Human Rights made a number of decisions clarifying the law. Article – Right to liberty and security It may now be regarded as established in UK domestic law that there is no distinc- tion between mandatory life prisoners, discretionary life prisoners and juvenile murderers as regards the nature of tariff-fixing. It is a sentencing exercise. The mandatory life sentence does not impose imprisonment for life as a punishment. The tariff, which reflects the individual circumstances of the offence and the of- fender, represents the element of punishment. Once the punishment element of the sentence (as reflected in the tariff ) has been satisfied, the grounds for the con- tinued detention, as in discretionary life and juvenile murderer cases, must be considerations of risk and dangerousness. ( Stafford v. the United Kingdom ) The Court cannot accept that a decision-making power by the executive to detain an applicant on the basis of perceived fears of future non-violent criminal conduct unrelated to his original murder conviction accords with the
Human Rights Case Digest – Brill
Published: Jan 1, 2002
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.