Life sentence.

endakenny

I believe that a life sentence prisoner has the right to apply for parole after seven years. The Justice Minister makes the decision on whether or not to greant parole. In the UK, the right of politicians to decide on the issue of parole was abolished after a judgement by the European Court of Human Rights. Presumably, this judgement applies to all signatories to the European Convention on Human Rights. Why has this government not obeyed this judgement?

You have a link to the judgment? I tried a quick search but couldn't find any decision on that point.

Also, are you sure the parole issue was not about members of the House interfering with parole matters that are properly left to the Executive? Parole is an Executive power if I remember my Constitutional law and thus is properly administered by the Executive.

endakenny

In 2002, in a case taken to the ECHR by convicted murderer Dennis Stafford, the ECHR ruled that the British Home Secretary breached the human rights of convicted murderer Dennis Stafford by keeping him in jail longer than recommended by the Parole Board. This means that politicians no longer have the right to decide whether or not to grant parole. Read the following article:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/3006169.stm

everyday taxi

endakenny wrote: »

I believe that a life sentence prisoner has the right to apply for parole after seven years. The Justice Minister makes the decision on whether or not to greant parole. In the UK, the right of politicians to decide on the issue of parole was abolished after a judgement by the European Court of Human Rights. Presumably, this judgement applies to all signatories to the European Convention on Human Rights. Why has this government not obeyed this judgement?

Well i believe life should mean life. Sentencing here is a joke, far too leniant. Parole after 7 years, are you nuts?

doz

endakenny wrote: »

I believe that a life sentence prisoner has the right to apply for parole after seven years. The Justice Minister makes the decision on whether or not to greant parole. In the UK, the right of politicians to decide on the issue of parole was abolished after a judgement by the European Court of Human Rights. Presumably, this judgement applies to all signatories to the European Convention on Human Rights. Why has this government not obeyed this judgement?

This is exactly the sort of liberal thought that has brought such shame and disgrace to sentencing in this country. A term of life imprisonment should mean life imprisonment full stop. Such leniency is the very reason that average citizens treat our justice system with such contempt.

I don't recall the name of the case from Constitutional Law, but I think that the issue of parole is a function vested in the Minister for Justice and thus the executive.

In relation to the Government 'obeying' the judgment, the decisions of the ECHR are not binding on Irish courts and are of 'persuasive' value only. Personally I disagree with a lot of the ECHR jurisprudence and am in favour of the Government not simply 'hopping to' any decision which it makes.

FreudianSlippers

The case is Stafford v The United Kingdom [2002] 35 EHRR 112 and it the ECHR essentially held that any member of the executive branch shouldn't be a part of deciding on prisoners' release and recall because of their role in fixing the penalty for the crime. Thus it was in breach of separation of powers

They evaluated under Article 9 and held that reviews must be conducted by an independent and impartial body that could be considered a court under Article 5. Essentially it required a full recall of the facts of the original case.
Essentially I believe the crux of the decision was that it was ok for a member of the executive to opine when a parole hearing should take place, but shouldn't be involved in the actual hearing of the matter.

endakenny

everyday taxi wrote: »

Well i believe life should mean life. Sentencing here is a joke, far too leniant. Parole after 7 years, are you nuts?

Absolutely not. Follow this link:
http://www.citizensinformation.ie/categories/justice/prison-system/parole_board_of_ireland

dermot_sheehan

Lynch v. Minister for Justice [2010] IESC 34
http://www.courts.ie/Judgments.nsf/bce24a8184816f1580256ef30048ca50/8a6820a231335f3d80257723002f7682?OpenDocument

Irish system is constitutional and compliant with the convention so holds the Supreme Court

endakenny

doz wrote: »

This is exactly the sort of liberal thought that has brought such shame and disgrace to sentencing in this country. A term of life imprisonment should mean life imprisonment full stop....
....In relation to the Government 'obeying' the judgment, the decisions of the ECHR are not binding on Irish courts and are of 'persuasive' value only. Personally I disagree with a lot of the ECHR jurisprudence and am in favour of the Government not simply 'hopping to' any decision which it makes.

I'm not a bleeding-heart liberal. I'm just explaining how it works. Check the link that I've posted above. I believe that it would be better if the Government brought in legislation laying down minimum tariffs that life sentence prisoners would have to serve before even being considered for parole and tariffs for different types of murder e.g. whole life, or at least 40 years, for murders with a sexual motive or where the victim is a child and a lower tariff for a murderer who is highly unlikely to re-offend if paroled e.g. Ruth Murphy, who was convicted of murdering her son but who took her own life yesterday and who, if she was still alive, would not pose a danger to the public.

doz

endakenny wrote: »

I'm not a bleeding-heart liberal. I'm just explaining how it works. Check the link that I've posted above. I believe that it would be better if the Government brought in legislation laying down minimum tariffs that life sentence prisoners would have to serve before even being considered for parole and tariffs for different types of murder e.g. whole life, or at least 40 years, for murders with a sexual motive or where the victim is a child and a lower tariff for a murderer who is highly unlikely to re-offend if paroled e.g. Ruth Murphy, who was convicted of murdering her son but who took her own life yesterday and who, if she was still alive, would not pose a danger to the public.

I apologise for the confusion which could have resulted from my earlier post. I did not intend to suggest that you were a liberal, I was merely expressing frustration at the leniency with which parole is applied to sentencing in the country in general (and bail i might add too, although that is a separate issue). Just because an offence which carries life imprisonment does not happen to fall within the exceptions (ie) murder, capital murder etc should not leave it susceptible to automatic review after 7 years. That is truly an insult to the victims of the crime. One would hope that in most cases such parole would be refused but all it will take is one early release and re-offence to throw this issue wide open.
I note that you seem to be pretty much in agreement with my sentiments and I think your suggestion in relation to tariffs is interesting.

endakenny

doz wrote: »

I apologise for the confusion which could have resulted from my earlier post...

No problem.

legal eagle 1

Why do people think it is wrong for the Justice Minister to decide upon the issue of parole for life sentence prisoners?
Or do people have any issue with the Minister having this role?

endakenny

legal eagle 1 wrote: »

Why do people think it is wrong for the Justice Minister to decide upon the issue of parole for life sentence prisoners?
Or do people have any issue with the Minister having this role?

Politics should not come into the process of deciding on the issue of life sentence parole. Malcolm McArthur still has not been granted parole, 28 years after he murdered Bridie Gargan and Donal Dunne (nolle prosequi on the second murder charge). However, other murderers have been granted parole much sooner. McArthur has been denied parole not because of the nature of his crime but because of the controversy it caused at the time i.e. GUBU. This is not fair on the relatives of other murder victims whose cases were not as prominent in public memory, thus leading to parole being granted in those cases. If judges had the power to determine life sentence tariffs, it would be fairer on victims' relatives as well as the convicts.