European Court of Human Rights Application - Any thoughts?

[Hartley]

This is something which doesn't really seem to have been discussed very much and the decision is apparently due.

I just wondered how people felt about it, Jeremy was convicted and given a life sentence with a recommendation that he should serve a minimum of 25 years, then retrospectively he was given a "Whole life tariff" meaning that he would not ever be eligible for parole to be be released on life licence.

Forgetting about guilt or innocence of the crimes he was convicted for, what are peoples thoughts on the "Whole life tariff"?

When I say forgetting about guilt or innocence, I mean in the capacity that the application to the European Court does not take it into consideration, it is an appeal against the sentence rather than the conviction.

Another thing which I can't quite understand, is why Jeremy has been put together with two other applicants in a singular application, is it for financial reasons or are they just grouped together by the European court, as they all have different legal representatives? 

[Gemini]

Guilt or innocence as you say is irrelevant.  I personally think the practice of the Home Secretary being able to come in and retrospectively give him Jeremy (or anyone) a whole life tariff was very wrong and clearly unlawful, as that power was later removed.     I was interested today in watching the Vincent Tabak verdict come in, what kind of sentence the judge was going to pass down for this very reason.   I have no idea why he is doing it in conjunction with the two others though, possibly money and practical circumstances.  I think that Jeremy will still be up against getting parole though, even if the 25 years is put back in place.  A horrendous crime, involving children, no admission of guilt and relatives that will do their utmost to make sure he isn't freed.

[chochokeira]

Guilt or innocence as you say is irrelevant.  I personally think the practice of the Home Secretary being able to come in and retrospectively give him Jeremy (or anyone) a whole life tariff was very wrong and clearly unlawful, as that power was later removed.     I was interested today in watching the Vincent Tabak verdict come in, what kind of sentence the judge was going to pass down for this very reason.   I have no idea why he is doing it in conjunction with the two others though, possibly money and practical circumstances.  I think that Jeremy will still be up against getting parole though, even if the 25 years is put back in place.  A horrendous crime, involving children, no admission of guilt and relatives that will do their utmost to make sure he isn't freed.

I entirely agree with you about the injustice of the whole life tariff, Gemini. I think it's an inhuman sentence, a living death sentence and akin to a life long execution. It's particularly unjust for a young man to be sentenced in this way. A murderer who isn't caught until, say, his 60s is likely to serve around 15 to 30 years, whereas a man of 24 years old is likely to serve 60 to 70 years in prison. In circumstances where the man is clearly no threat to anyone, then that is appallingly unjust.

[jackiepreece]

I believe if Jeremy carried out the murders for money he should never be released but as I am now convinced that Jeremy is 100% innocent confirmed by latest evidence released over the last few weeks.

I was convinced before this of Jeremys innocence because of his good character
Ngb and Simon are as convinced as me that Jeremy is innocent

I am intrigued how the authorities are going to get out of this

[mertol22]

Jeremy is not in a soundproof room as i type im sure he is working, his will and determination have not been broken down, full life Hartley does not equal anything  we have no death penalty now i fail to see what a whole life tarrif does .

[jackiepreece]

Mertol I hope you meet Jeremy one day I would like to tell you lots but everytime I put something nice up here it ends up on the Facebook page.

Ngb and I and I and I am sure Mike really enjoy talking to Jeremy he is very easy to get on but if you had regular contact with Jeremy the thought of him killing his whole family really does not make sense

[mertol22]

I have the one letter still from Jeremy from Feb this year, should i meet him one day i will speak of the future not today or the past, if a member can only think of Jeremy as in the present i would hope the next member can look further than the present.

[Alias]

My thoughts are that it was a travesty that a single man, the home secretary, could change a minimum of 25 years verdict to a life tariff.
Not worthy of a democracy. What do you need judge and jury for when a man of power can change the verdict with a stroke of a pen?
Outrageous!

[Roch]

My thoughts are that it was a travesty that a single man, the home secretary, could change a minimum of 25 years verdict to a life tariff.
Not worthy of a democracy. What do you need judge and jury for when a man of power can change the verdict with a stroke of a pen?
Outrageous!

At the very least it should work both ways.  Where it comes to light that there are major concerns about the integrity of judicial processes as applied to a particular case, and that certain parties are shoring up a game of concealment in order to manipulate these processes, then a May or a Clark should be able to step in and act decisively, cutting through the lies, deceits and obstruction.  Some of Bamber's case documents have been to the Home Office for inspection.  Yet they are not exactly the same as other versions of the same documents in his possession, which have no Home Office stamp on them.  So what goes on there?  How can you have different versions of the same document?