A Critical Evaluation of the Grand Chamber Judgment in Hutchinson v. the United Kingdom

The Grand Chamber judgment in Hutchinson v. the United Kingdom (2017) concerning whole life sentences sparked debate about life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. Here’s a critical evaluation of the case:

Arguments of Arthur Hutchinson (Applicant):

• Inhuman and Degrading Treatment: Hutchinson argued that a whole life sentence, with no prospect of release, violated Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), prohibiting inhuman or degrading treatment.
• Lack of Hope: He claimed the absence of any review mechanism to assess potential rehabilitation and release infringed upon his right to life and hope for the future.

Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR):

• Compatibility with Article 3: The Court, by a 14-3 majority, ruled that whole life sentences in the UK, as interpreted by domestic courts, did not violate Article 3.
• Clarity of Domestic Law: The Court emphasized the importance of clear domestic law regarding the possibility of release for whole lifers. It acknowledged the UK’s revised guidance for the Secretary of State on reviewing minimum terms, which provided a framework for exceptional release in cases of “compelling mercy.”

Critique of the Judgment:

• Limited Scope of Review: Critics argue that the Court focused heavily on the theoretical possibility of release rather than the practical realities. The exceptional circumstances justifying release might be so narrow as to render the possibility meaningless.
• Focus on Procedural Fairness: The emphasis on clear domestic law and procedural mechanisms for review may overshadow the human element of the sentence. The psychological impact of a life sentence without hope remains a concern.

Alternative Approaches:

• Mandatory Review Mechanisms: Some advocate for mandatory reviews after a set period, allowing a chance for parole based on demonstrable rehabilitation.
• Minimum Term Setting: Another approach involves setting a clear minimum term with a presumption of release after serving that time, contingent on good behavior and risk assessment.

Conclusion:

The Hutchinson case represents a significant judgment on whole life sentences. While acknowledging the Court’s focus on legal clarity, concerns remain regarding the human cost of such sentences and the limited possibility of release. The debate on balancing retribution, justice, and the potential for rehabilitation in life imprisonment continues.