CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 18 juillet 1994

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s6863D229 { width:26pt; display:inline-block } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law July 1994 Wynne v. United Kingdom - 15484/89 Judgment 18.7.1994 Article 5 Article 5-4 Take proceedings Inability of life prisoner to challenge the continued lawfulness of his detention: no violation [This summary is extracted from the Court’s official reports (Series A or Reports of Judgments and Decisions). Its formatting and structure may therefore differ from the Case-Law Information Note summaries.] A.   THE LEGAL BASIS FOR THE APPLICANT'S DETENTION The applicant's detention after his conviction in 1982 was based on both the mandatory sentence, which remained in force, and the new discretionary life sentence.   The new conviction did not affect the continued validity of the original sentence or its reactivation on his recall. B.   ENTITLEMENT TO REVIEW OF THE LAWFULNESS OF DETENTION UNDER THE MANDATORY LIFE SENTENCE Although the mandatory life sentence also contains a punitive and a preventive element, it belongs to a different category from the discretionary sentence since it is imposed automatically as the punishment for the offence of murder irrespective of considerations of dangerousness.   While the two types of life sentence may now be converging there is still a substantial gap between them.   Thus in mandatory life sentences the release of the prisoner is entirely a matter within the discretion of the Secretary of State who is not bound by the judicial recommendation as to the length of the tariff and who can have regard to other criteria than dangerousness in deciding on release. Against this background, there are no cogent reasons to depart from the finding in the Thynne, Wilson and Gunnell case that the guarantee of Article 5 § 4 was satisfied by the original trial and appeal proceedings and confers no additional right to challenge the lawfulness of continuing detention or re-detention following revocation of the life licence.   In the present case there are thus no new issues of lawfulness which entitle the applicant to a review. C.   ENTITLEMENT TO REVIEW OF THE LAWFULNESS OF DETENTION UNDER THE DISCRETIONARY LIFE SENTENCE A review of the lawfulness of the applicant's detention on this ground would be devoid of purpose since he is also serving a mandatory life sentence for murder at the same time and enjoys no possibility of release until the Secretary of State considers that it is in the public interest to do so. Conclusion : no violation (unanimously).   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes