The essay sets out to discuss the Vinter and others v the United Kingdom. In particular, the essay focuses on facts that lead to the European Court of Human rights to hear the case. In addition, the paper discusses the Court’s decision and analysis of the decision using cases that have been heard after the Vinter and others v the United Kingdom.
Summary of the facts that led to the European Court of Human Rights hearing
The facts that led the European Court of Human Rights in the Vinter and others v the United Kingdom is that all the applicants were sentenced to life imprisonment over the murder. Life imprisonment for the first applicant was made by a trial judge, whose judgment …show more content…
For instance, detention without the possibilities of release or review meant that the prisoner cannot redress the offense regardless of the conduct or exceptional changes. In addition, the life imprisonment was not compatible with human dignity as the prisoners were not given an opportunity to regain freedom after some time. Based on this fact, the whole order imposed on the applicants was a violation of their human rights, an aspect that led the European Court of Human Rights to hear the case.
The decision of the European Court of Human Rights
In Vinter and others v the United Kingdom case, the decision of the European Court of Human Rights was that the UK breached the Convention’s article 3 by enforcing whole life orders without the possibility of review for murder. Much as states are free to impose life imprisonments on adult offenders who engage in criminal activities, enforcing irreducible whole life orders brings into perspective that issues of article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The court’s decision means that the UK should initiate a review procedure for reconsidering the whole life. Due to the fact that whole life orders are extraordinary, it is highly impossible that these prisoners would secure a release and if they …show more content…
However, in the R v McLouglin (2014), the UK Court of Appeal differed with the life imprisonment taking into consideration protection of fenders as the Secretary of State makes the decisions compatible with article 3. Nonetheless, in the Hutchinson’s case, the European Court of Human Rights rules that there was no breach of article 3. The 6 judges against 1 decided that the decision of Court of Appeal in the R v McLaughlin addressed the doubts in the European Court in the Vinter and others v the United Kingdom. In another case, Öcalan v. Turkey in 2014, the court determined that there was a breach of article 3 in relation to applicant’s life imprisonment without the prospect of release, which amounts to inhuman treatment. In any case, the European Court of Human Rights referred to a wide range of information from the United Nations and Council of Europe to support the decision that prisoners on whole life orders should be offered not only the rehabilitation but also the possibility of release when they realize rehabilitation. In Europe, the rehabilitative approach must be applied to all offenders to gain their freedom at some point. Moreover, in the Vinter and others v the United Kingdom case, the Court