Internal related links - Leading article: This verdict makes perfect legal and political sense
David Blunkett, the Home Secretary, said yesterday that he was prepared to change the law to protect his right to prevent the release from prison of Britain's most notorious murderers, after a European court stripped him of powers to keep killers locked up.
A unanimous ruling by judges at the European Court of Human Rights found that British home secretaries acted unlawfully when they over-ruled decisions by the Parole Board that convicted killers were safe for release.
The landmark finding means that some 1,300 murderers, including prisoners such as Winston Silcott, Harry Roberts and Satpal Ram, who have served more than their minimum sentences will have the right to have their cases reviewed in new court-style hearings by the Parole Board. The far-reaching judgment will provide powerful ammunition for a separate legal action at the House of Lords later this year that will challenge Mr Blunkett's right to impose a minimum sentence or tariff on a murderer.
The Home Secretary reacted angrily yesterday to the prospect that campaigners for the release of "whole life" prisoners, such as Myra Hindley, the Moors Murderer, would seek to exploit yesterday's ruling. Mr Blunkett said: "If this judgment were to be used to support a legal process to achieve this, I would seek to use domestic legislation to enshrine the power of Parliament to provide adequate punishment for the guilty, including life meaning life."
The Home Secretary admitted he was "disappointed" by the finding of the Strasbourg court and showed he was anxious about the impending attack on his powers to decide a tariff. "I am concerned that this judgment may serve as encouragement for those who would like to remove the Home Secretary's powers to set tariffs for adult murderers."
But civil liberties campaigners were delighted at what they claimed was a "victory in spades" for Dennis Stafford, the convicted killer who brought the challenge before the European Court of Human Rights. Mark Littlewood, of the civil rights group Liberty, said the court's finding was "a welcome and significant step in depoliticising the criminal justice system".
He added: "If the Parole Board's verdicts can be out-trumped by a politician, this is a recipe for arbitrary and ill-considered decisions."
Stafford, 69, from Co Durham, successfully argued that the former home secretary, Jack Straw, had breached his human rights by an "arbitrary" decision to keep him in jail longer than recommended by the Parole Board. He was released on licence in 1979 from a life sentence passed in 1967 for the gangland murder of a gaming machine collector. In 1994, he was sentenced to a further six years for cheque fraud. The Parole Board recommended his release in 1997, but Mr Straw rejected the finding.
The Strasbourg judges ruled that Stafford's "continued detention under the mandatory life sentence could not be regarded as justified by his punishment for the original murder" and awarded him £10,500 in damages and £17,865 in legal costs and expenses.
Stafford, who denies he committed murder, said yesterday: "The Parole Board, with psychologists and judges, is far more qualified to evaluate if a person is a danger to the public than any politician who will pander to public opinion. This is the biggest overturn of a judicial decision in a decade and I'm a very happy man."
A crucial element in yesterday's ruling was the decision to overturn a previous European Court of Human Rights decision that upheld the right of executives of the state to overrule the Parole Board. If Anderson and Taylor are successful, all tariffs imposed by politicians would have to be reconsidered by the judiciary.
This process has already happened in respect of juvenile killers because of a successful challenge by James Bulger's murderers, Jon Venables and Robert Thompson, in 1999. Lord Chief Justice Woolf has in many cases since reduced tariffs set by home secretaries.
John Dickinson, the Sheffield-based solicitor representing Anderson and Taylor, said yesterday that the Stafford judgment would "produce a profound change in the theory of the mandatory life sentence".
Mr Dickinson is hoping to bring a simultaneous case before the law lords on behalf of Glyn Pyrah and Daniella Lichniak, both jailed killers, that will challenge the notion of automatic life sentence for murder.
The shadow Home Secretary, Oliver Letwin, said: "We believe that the Home Secretary should retain the ability to overrule the Parole Board in specific cases involving murderers, and we think it would be wrong for the European Court to prevent the Home Secretary from making such a judgment."
Nacro, a charity for ex-offenders, welcomed yesterday's ruling and said the European court had "simply upheld the rules of natural justice". Its chief executive, Paul Cavadino, said: "The Government should legislate without delay to take the Home Secretary out of the life sentence process. This would remove the risk that decisions could be influenced by electoral popularity or newspaper headlines rather than the merits of the case."
SATPAL RAM
Ram has served 15 years for the murder of Clarke Pearce in a fight at a Bengali restaurant in Lozells, Birmingham, in 1986. His supporters, who include the band Asian Dub Foundation, claim Ram was the victim of an unprovoked racial attack by Pearce, who was white. Ram was stabbed twice with broken glass during an altercation and alleges he killed Pearce in self-defence. The Parole Board ruled in 1999 that Ram should be released on licence but Jack Straw refused.
WINSTON SILCOTT
Silcott, 42, was cleared on appeal of the murder of PC Keith Blakelock during the Broadwater Farm riots in Tottenham, north London, in 1985. But many police officers maintain the evidence against Silcott was compelling and are hostile to the idea of him being released. Silcott remains in prison for the fatal stabbing of boxer Anthony Smith at a party in 1984. He claims the killing was in self-defence. He is widely regarded as a model prisoner and has been moved to open conditions.
HARRY ROBERTS
Roberts, 65, was jailed for the murder of three unarmed police officers in Shepherd's Bush, west London, in 1966. The case, which led to a national outcry over the rise of the use of firearms by criminals, inspired Jake Arnott's recent best-selling novel He Kills Coppers. Roberts was given a tariff of 30 years but the case has become highly political and his release is fiercely opposed by police organisations. The case is due to be reconsidered by the Parole Board.
- 29 May 2002 Internal related links Defiant Blunkett will change law to keep killers in jail
One of the key principles of Anglo-Saxon law is the separation of powers among the legislature, the executive and the judiciary. In theory, Parliament makes the laws, the Home Secretary enforces them and the judiciary decides whether they have been violated and, if so, what the punishment should be. Unfortunately, real life is never so neat, and for some time the Home Secretary has had the power to refuse to release convicted murderers after their recommended minimum sentence (the "tariff") has been served and parole boards have advised they are no longer a threat to the community.
The justification for this exception has been that the public needs to have confidence that it is being protected from people whom it perceives to be dangerous or whom it just wishes to see punished longer. Myra Hindley is the usual example given, but her case is not covered by this judgement, as she has a "whole-life tariff". The alternative (and rather wiser) argument is that since politicians crave popularity, prisoners demonised by the media will struggle to win release.
The latter point was accepted yesterday by the European Court of Human Rights in its decision to overrule Jack Straw's refusal to release Dennis Stafford in 1997, despite a Parole Board recommendation to do so. The main objective, the court pointed out, is to protect citizens from arbitrary detention outside the rule of law.
There will be the usual explosions of irrational anger that this decision puts a foreign court above the heads of elected government ministers. It should be remembered, however, that the European Convention on Human Rights, on which this judgment was unanimously based, was put into British law by a British Parliament. There is nothing extra-constitutional or extra-territorial about it.
In fact, although they won't admit it, the judgment relieves politicians from facing orchestrated campaigns to use their powers to interfere in the administration of justice. David Blunkett, the current Home Secretary, should be quietly celebrating this sensible removal of a power he neither needs, nor should wish to exercise.