Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

THE LEGALITY OF THE MANDATORY LIFE SENTENCE

  • Nicola Padfield

Abstract

CHALLENGES to the mandatory life sentence by way of judicial review continue to hit the courts. Among the most dramatic are R. v. Lichniak and R. v. Pyrah [2001] EWHC Admin 294, [2001] 3 W.L.R. 933, where it was argued that the mandatory sentence violated Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (prohibition of torture or degrading treatment or punishment) because it was disproportionate, and that it violated Article 5 of the Convention (right to liberty and security) because it was arbitrary. When Scott Baker J. granted leave to apply for judicial review he ordered that the court should sit both as a Divisional Court and as the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division). Kennedy L.J., giving the judgment of the Court of Appeal, held that “the most attractive route” was for the Court to sit as a division of the Court of Appeal.

Copyright

Type Description Title
PDF

 PDF (269 KB)
269 KB

THE LEGALITY OF THE MANDATORY LIFE SENTENCE

  • Nicola Padfield

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed.