“Whole life” sentences for murder not in breach of Convention, says Strasbourg

17 January 2012 by

Vinter and others v United Kingdom (application nos. 66069/09, 130/10 and 3896/10) – read judgment 

The Strasbourg Court has found three British murderers’ imprisonment for life is not inhuman or degrading and therefore not in violation of Article 3The following summary is based on the Strasbourg Court’s press release:

The applicants, Douglas Gary Vinter, Jeremy Neville Bamber and Peter Howard Moore, are British nationals who were born in 1969, 1961 and 1946 respectively. All three men are currently serving mandatory sentences of life imprisonment for murder.


Mr Vinter was convicted of stabbing his wife in February 2008. While still on parole for a first murder offence (he killed a work colleague), he followed his wife – from whom he was estranged – to a public house, forced her into his car and drove off. When the police telephoned her, Mr Vinter forced her to tell them that she was fine. He also later called the police to tell them that she was alive and well. However, some hours later he gave himself up and confessed that he had killed her. The post-mortem revealed that his wife had a broken nose, strangulation marks around her neck and four stab wounds.

Mr Bamber was convicted of shooting and killing his adoptive sister and her two young children in August 1985. It was alleged that he had committed the murders for financial gain and had tried to make it look as if his adoptive sister had carried out the crime, then killed herself.

Mr Moore was convicted of stabbing four men with a large combat knife between September and December 1995. The four victims were all homosexuals and Mr Moore allegedly killed them for his own sexual gratification.

When convicted the applicants were given whole life orders, meaning they cannot be released other than at the discretion of the Secretary of State on compassionate grounds (for example, if they are terminally ill or seriously incapacitated). The power of the Secretary of State to release a prisoner is provided for in section 30(1) of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997. Under this Act it was practice for the mandatory life sentence to be passed by the trial judge, who – along with the Lord Chief of Justice – then gave recommendations to the Secretary of State to decide the minimum term of imprisonment (the “tariff” part of the sentence) which the prisoner would have to serve to satisfy the requirements of retribution and deterrence and be eligible for early release on licence. In general, the Secretary of State reviewed a whole life tariff after 25 years’ imprisonment. With the entry into force of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, all prisoners whose tariffs were set by the Secretary of State are now able to apply to the High Court for review of that tariff.

Mr Vinter’s  whole life order was made by the trial judge under the current practice. His appeal against his conviction was dismissed in June 2009. The Court of Appeal found that there was no reason to depart from the normal principle under schedule 21 to the 2003 Act that, where a murder was committed by someone who was already a convicted murderer, a whole life order was appropriate for punishment and deterrence.

Mr Bamber and Mr Moore, convicted and sentenced prior to the entry into force of the 2003 Act, both applied to the High Court for review of their whole life tariffs.

In the case of Mr Bamber, the High Court concluded that, given the number of murders involved, the presence of premeditation, the submissions by the victims’ next-of-kin as well as reports on the behaviour and progress he had made in prison, there was no reason to depart from the view held in 1988 by the Lord Chief of Justice and the Secretary of State that he should never be released.

In the case of Mr Moore, the High Court found that the case involved the murder of two or more people, sexual or sadistic conduct and a substantial degree of premeditation and that there were no mitigating circumstances.

The High Court therefore considered that whole life orders were justified in respect of both men. The applicants’ appeals were dismissed in 2009 and, shortly after, their applications to certify whether their cases ought to be considered by the House of Lords were also refused.

Relying in particular on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), all three applicants complained that their imprisonment without hope of release was cruel and amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment.

The Strasbourg Court’s judgment

The Court held that in each case the High Court had decided that an all-life tariff was required, relatively recently and following a fair and detailed consideration. All three applicants had committed particularly brutal and callous murders. To date, Mr Vinter had only served three years of imprisonment, Mr Bamber 26 years and Mr Moore 16 years. The Court did not consider that these sentences were grossly disproportionate or amounted to inhuman or degrading treatment.

There had therefore been no violation of Article 3 in the case of any of the applicants.

Sign up to free human rights updates by email, Facebook, Twitter or RSS


  1. […] Req. n° 66069/09, 130/10 et 3896/10 – lire le communiqué de presse et Rosalind English « “Whole life” sentences for murder not in breach of Convention, says Strasbourg », in UK Human Rights Blog, 17 janvier 2012 ; sur la question des peines perpétuelles, v. Cour […]

  2. […] Full story […]

Comments are closed.

Welcome to the UKHRB

This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.




Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption AI air pollution air travel ALBA Allergy Al Qaeda Amnesty International animal rights Animals Anne Sacoolas anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 article 263 TFEU Artificial Intelligence Asbestos Assange assisted suicide asylum asylum seekers Australia autism badgers benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery British Waterways Board care homes Catholic Church Catholicism Chagos Islanders Charter of Fundamental Rights child protection Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners civil partnerships climate change clinical negligence closed material procedure Coercion Commission on a Bill of Rights common law communications competition confidentiality consent conservation constitution contact order contact tracing contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus costs costs budgets Court of Protection crime criminal law Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation DEFRA deportation deprivation of liberty derogations Detention Dignitas diplomacy diplomatic relations disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Equality Act 2010 Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Facebook Facial Recognition Family Fatal Accidents Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office foreign policy France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage gay rights Gaza Gender genetics Germany Google Grenfell Gun Control hague convention Harry Dunn Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Human Rights Watch Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests insurance international law internet inuit Iran Iraq Ireland islam Israel Italy IVF ivory ban Japan joint enterprise judaism judicial review Judicial Review reform Julian Assange jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid legal aid cuts Leveson Inquiry lgbtq liability Libel Liberty Libya lisbon treaty Lithuania local authorities marriage Media and Censorship mental capacity Mental Capacity Act Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery morocco murder music Muslim nationality national security naturism neuroscience NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges nuisance Obituary ouster clauses parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury physician assisted death Piracy Plagiarism planning planning system Poland Police Politics Pope press prison Prisoners prisoner votes Prisons privacy procurement Professional Discipline Property proportionality prosecutions prostituton Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries quarantine Radicalisation refugee rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania round-up Round Up Royals Russia saudi arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Secret trials sexual offence shamima begum Sikhism Smoking social media social workers South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing starvation statelessness stem cells stop and search Strasbourg super injunctions Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance sweatshops Syria Tax technology Terrorism The Round Up tort Torture travel treason treaty accession trial by jury TTIP Turkey Twitter UK Ukraine universal credit universal jurisdiction unlawful detention USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Weekly Round-up Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wildlife wind farms WomenInLaw Worboys wrongful birth YearInReview Zimbabwe


This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.

%d bloggers like this: