Criminal

Mandatory life sentence - jurisdiction to hear appeal on ground of alleged incompatibility with convention rights - not incompatibleR v Lichniak, R v Pyrah: CA (Lord Justice Kennedy, Mr Justice Garland and Mr Justice Richards): 2 May 2001The defendants, who had each been convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment, sought leave to appeal against sentence, contending that a mandatory life sentence under section 1(1) of the Murder (Abolition of Death Penalty) Act 1965, was incompatible with articles 3 and 5 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights set out in part I of schedule 1 to the Human Rights Act 1998 and was a matter which required a ruling by the Court of Appeal despite the terms of section 9 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968.Edward Fitzgerald QC and Phillippa Kaufmann (instructed by Bhatt Murphy) for the defendants.

David Pannick QC and Mark Shaw (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) for the home secretary and the Crown.Held, granting leave but dismissing the appeals, that section 3(1) of the 1998 Act required that section 9(1) of the 1968 Act be read and given effect to in a way which was compatible with convention rights; that if a statutory provision requiring the imposition of a life sentence were incompatible with the convention then either the sentence was not fixed by law for the purposes of section 9(1) or the exclusion of sentences fixed by law was itself subject to an implied exception in those circumstances; that, accordingly, the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) had jurisdiction to entertain these matters as appeals against sentence since they raised arguable issues as to the compatibility of section 1(1) of the 1965 Act with the convention; but that a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment could not be labelled inhuman or degrading, nor arbitrary, and so the sentences imposed in these cases were not incompatible with the convention.

(WLR)