003-5004329-6141008

issued by the Registrar of the Court   ECHR 041 (2015)   03.02.2015   Whole life orders under UK law open to review and thus compatible with   European Convention on Human Rights   In today’s Chamber judgment1 in the case of Hutchinson v. the United Kingdom (application   no. 57592/08) the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) held, by a majority, that there had been:   no violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment)of the European   Convention on Human Rights.   The case concerned the complaint of a man serving a whole life sentence for murder that his   sentence amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment as he had no hope of release.   In a previous judgment, in the case of Vinter and Others v. the United Kingdom, of 9 July 2013, the   ECtHR had found that the domestic law concerning the Justice Secretary’s power to release a whole   life prisoner was unclear.   However, in its judgment in R v. Newell; R v. McLoughlin, of 18 February 2014 the Court of Appeal   had explicitly addressed those doubts and held that the Secretary of State for Justice was obliged   under national law to release a person detained on a whole life order where “exceptional grounds”   for release could be shown to exist, and that this power of release was reviewable by the national   courts. Having regard to this clarification, in today’s judgment, the ECtHR concluded that whole life   orders were open to review under national law and therefore compatible with Article 3 of the   Convention.   Principal facts   The applicant, Arthur Hutchinson, is a British national who was born in 1941 and is detained in Her   Majesty’s Prison Durham (the United Kingdom).   In September 1984 Mr Hutchinson was convicted of aggravated burglary, rape and three counts of   murder, the trial judge sentencing him to a term of life imprisonment with a recommended   minimum tariff of 18 years. In December 1994 the Secretary of State informed Mr Hutchinson that   he had decided to impose a whole life term and, in May 2008, the High Court found that there was   no reason for deviating from this decision given the seriousness of Mr Hutchinson’s offences. Mr   Hutchinson’s appeal was dismissed by the Court of Appeal in October 2008.   Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court   Relying on Article 3, Mr Hutchinson alleged that his whole life sentence amounted to inhuman and   degrading treatment as he had no hope of release.   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 10 November 2008.   1. Under Articles 43 and 44 of the Convention, this Chamber judgment is not final. During the three-month period following its delivery,   any party may request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber of the Court. If such a request is made, a panel of five judges   considers whether the case deserves further examination. In that event, the Grand Chamber will hear the case and deliver a final   judgment. If the referral request is refused, the Chamber judgment will become final on that day.   Once a judgment becomes final, it is transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe for supervision of its execution.   Further information about the execution process can be found here: www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/execution.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Guido Raimondi (Italy), President,   George Nicolaou (Cyprus),   Ledi Bianku (Albania),   Nona Tsotsoria (Georgia),   Zdravka Kalaydjieva (Bulgaria),   Paul Mahoney (the United Kingdom),   Krzysztof Wojtyczek (Poland),   and also Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar.   Decision of the Court   Article 3   In its Grand Chamber judgment in the case of Vinter and Others v. the United Kingdom (application   nos. 66069/09, 130/10 and 3896/10) of 9 July 2013, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR)   had found that the domestic law concerning the Justice Secretary’s power to release a person   subject to a whole life order was unclear. In addition, prior to the entry into force of the Criminal   Justice Act 2003 a review of the need for a whole life order had automatically been carried out by a   Minister 25 years into the sentence. This had been eliminated in 2003 and no alternative review   mechanism put in place. In those circumstances, the ECtHR had not been persuaded that the whole   life sentences of the applicants in the case of Vinter and Others were compatible with the   Convention.   Mr Hutchinson submitted that his case was indistinguishable from Vinter and Others, in which the   ECtHR had found a violation of Article 3. However, the United Kingdom Government pointed out   that on 18 February 2014 the Court of Appeal had delivered its judgment in another case, R v.   Newell; R v. McLoughlin, in which it had held that whole life orders were open to review under   national law and therefore compatible with Article 3 of the Convention.   The ECtHR observed that the dispute between the parties centred on whether the Justice Secretary’s   discretion to release a whole life prisoner under the 2003 Act was sufficient to make the whole life   sentence legally and effectively reducible.   The ECtHR found that the Court of Appeal’s judgment in R v. Newell; R v. McLoughlin had indeed   expressly responded to the ECtHR’s concerns detailed in the Vinter and Others case. In particular,   the Court of Appeal had underlined that if a whole life prisoner could establish that “exceptional   circumstances” had arisen subsequent to the imposition of the sentence, the Justice Secretary had   to consider – in a manner compatible with Article 3 of the Convention – whether such circumstances   justified release. A decision by the Justice Secretary would have to be reasoned by reference to the   circumstances of each case and would be subject to judicial review. Following the judgment in R v.   Newell; R v. McLoughlin domestic law thus provided a whole life prisoner hope and the possibility of   release in the event of circumstances in which the punishment was no longer justified.   The ECtHR underlined that it was primarily for the national courts to resolve problems of   interpretation of domestic law. Having regard to the fact that the national court had specifically   addressed the ECtHR’s doubts and had set out a clear statement of the legal position, the ECtHR was   satisfied that the Justice Secretary’s power to release a whole life prisoner was sufficient to comply   with Article 3. There had therefore been no violation of Article 3.   Separate opinion   Judge Kalaydjieva expressed a dissenting opinion, which is annexed to the judgment.   The judgment is available only in English.   This press release is a document produced by the Registry. It does not bind the Court. Decisions,   judgments and further information about the Court can be found on www.echr.coe.int. To receive   the Court’s press releases, please subscribe here: www.echr.coe.int/RSS/en or follow us on Twitter   @ECHRpress.   Press contacts   [email protected] | tel.: +33 3 90 21 42 08   Nina Salomon (tel: + 33 3 90 21 49 79)   Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel: + 33 3 88 41 35 30)   Céline Menu-Lange (tel: + 33 3 90 21 58 77)   Denis Lambert (tel: + 33 3 90 21 41 09)   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member   States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights.   3