Why has no release date been set?

[Justice2011]

What does a 'life sentence' mean?

Especiqally when you're innocent.  Even an idiot can see Jeremy didn't do it. It took years for people to work out Barry George didn't kill Jill Dando. Yet that was so obvious he didn't.

It's a mad world...

[Hartley]

What does a 'life sentence' mean?

I'm not sure if that is a rhetorical question?

In the United Kingdom it does not mean, as one might expect, "imprisonment for life", but a prison sentence of indeterminate length. In many cases the Home Secretary sets the "tariff", or length of term, for prisoners sentenced to life imprisonment. The average sentence is about 15 years before the first parole hearing, although those convicted for heinous offenses serve their sentences significantly longer, and some receive "whole life tariffs" and die in prison, such as Myra Hindley and Harold Shipman; there are currently around 25 people serving whole life tarrifs in the UK. Prisoners jailed for life are released on a life licence if the parole board authorises their release.

[Justice2011]

And it looks like Jeremy could be 1 of the 25?

Or maybe the 26th?

[Hartley]

And it looks like Jeremy could be 1 of the 25?

Or maybe the 26th?

He already was.

[Pete0001]

Home Secretary Michael Howard upgraded the life tarrif to whole life in early/mid 00's

[Tricksy]

Home Secretary Michael Howard upgraded the life tarrif to whole life in early/mid 00's

It was in the 90's I think.

Is this decision appealable? I thought at the trial he was told he had to serve a minimum of 25 years.

[bb2010]

From Wikipedia

The trial judge recommended a minimum term of 25 years, but on 15 December 1994 Home Secretary Michael Howard decided Bamber should remain in prison for the rest of his life.[81] In May 2008, he lost a High Court appeal against the whole-life tariff in front of Mr. Justice Tugendhat (Sir Michael Tugendhat), and in May 2009 the Appeal Court upheld Tugendhat's decision.[82] He is one of 38 prisoners in the UK to have been told they will never be released,[83] a list that includes Rosemary West, Dennis Nilsen, and Donald Neilson.[84] David James Smith writes that Bamber is the only one of the 38 known to protest his innocence.[1]

[Tricksy]

From Wikipedia

The trial judge recommended a minimum term of 25 years, but on 15 December 1994 Home Secretary Michael Howard decided Bamber should remain in prison for the rest of his life.[81] In May 2008, he lost a High Court appeal against the whole-life tariff in front of Mr. Justice Tugendhat (Sir Michael Tugendhat), and in May 2009 the Appeal Court upheld Tugendhat's decision.[82] He is one of 38 prisoners in the UK to have been told they will never be released,[83] a list that includes Rosemary West, Dennis Nilsen, and Donald Neilson.[84] David James Smith writes that Bamber is the only one of the 38 known to protest his innocence.[1]

Thanks for the information.

So I wonder if that means he can't appeal against that again?

I have a bit of a problem with this. If he wasn't originally sentenced to a full life tariff, then I don't like the idea of the goal posts being shifted at a later date.

I also have a problem with the Home Secretary  making the decision too.

[bb2010]

He is currently awaiting a verdict on an appeal against the life-meaning-life tariff from the European Court of Human Rights.

[Tricksy]

He is currently awaiting a verdict on an appeal against the life-meaning-life tariff from the European Court of Human Rights.

Thanks for the information BB2010. 

Where do you stand on this, if I may ask?
 
Personally, I don't think the life meaning life tariff is fair, if that was not what was originally given at trial.
I also have a prioblem with it being a decision made by a Home Secretary.

[bb2010]

He is currently awaiting a verdict on an appeal against the life-meaning-life tariff from the European Court of Human Rights.

Thanks for the information BB2010. 

Where do you stand on this, if I may ask?
 
Personally, I don't think the life meaning life tariff is fair, if that was not what was originally given at trial.
I also have a prioblem with it being a decision made by a Home Secretary.

I think that domestic judges supported the Home Secretary so his actions were lawful. The advantage of being in the EU is that there is room to take an appeal that way. We can only await the outcome of that appeal, I am unsure therefore, if it were to be successful, whether he will be released having already done 25 years.

[Pete0001]

Personally, I don't think the life meaning life tariff is fair, if that was not what was originally given at trial.
I also have a prioblem with it being a decision made by a Home Secretary.

Out of interest do you think its not fair in general to change tariff because that's not what's given at trial or just in this case you think its not fair?

[Tricksy]

He is currently awaiting a verdict on an appeal against the life-meaning-life tariff from the European Court of Human Rights.

Thanks for the information BB2010. 

Where do you stand on this, if I may ask?
 
Personally, I don't think the life meaning life tariff is fair, if that was not what was originally given at trial.
I also have a problem with it being a decision made by a Home Secretary.

I think that domestic judges supported the Home Secretary so his actions were lawful. The advantage of being in the EU is that there is room to take an appeal that way. We can only await the outcome of that appeal, I am unsure therefore, if it were to be successful, whether he will be released having already done 25 years.

Thanks for coming back to me.

It was a minimum of 25 years IIRR, so I suppose he would come up for parole and they could either reject parole, or grant him it. TB, I can't see them giving him parole. It is a high profile case and (whether you agree with his guilt or innocence aside) I can imagine that certain parts of the media would have a field day with that decision. They would be unhappy that he had served the equivalent of 5 years per life, if you like.

Have you any idea when the outcome of that appeal is likely?

[Janet (Formerly known as Takeshi)]

Thankfully, since 2002 the Home Secretary no longer has the final say on how long a life sentence prisoner must serve before parole can be considered - as well as the right to decide that certain prisoners should never be released. However, I don't know how this helps prisoners who have already received whole life tarriffs. I fear that their only recourse may lie in the hands of the European Courts.

[Tricksy]

Personally, I don't think the life meaning life tariff is fair, if that was not what was originally given at trial.
I also have a problem with it being a decision made by a Home Secretary.

Out of interest do you think its not fair in general to change tariff because that's not what's given at trial or just in this case you think its not fair?

In general, I am against it.

Unless there is any grounds to suggest that a Judge made an error in the original sentencing, I feel it is a little like changing the goal posts. Of course there could be exceptions, eg if a prisoner commits an offence whilst in prison, then quite rightly they should receive more time. Or, if they are charged and convicted of offences other than the one they are serving time for.

In this case, he was told that he must serve a minimum of 25 years, to me, that suggests that it was intended that he would be released at some point, whether it be 25, 35, or 40 years.

I have never been happy with Home Secretary's being able to set whole life tariffs and as Takeshi quite rightly says, they are no longer able to do this.

Will try and explain why later, have got to go off now.