Malta “has been warned” it is breaching the human rights of prison inmates serving a life sentence when it does not allow them the possibility of review, according to former European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) Judge Giovanni Bonello.
It is degrading in itself to assume that a person is bad for the rest of his days
In a judgment delivered yesterday – in a case filed by three prisoners against the UK Government – the Strasbourg court ruled that life sentences without possibility of review breached human rights.
“Such a judgment only applies directly to the country it was delivered to but it is a warning to other countries. It doesn’t bind legally, but morally and politically it has great weight. Malta has been warned that if someone challenges its law, it will get the same result,” Dr Bonello told Times of Malta.
The case before the European Court was instituted by murderer Jeremy Bamber and two other killers, Douglas Vinter and Peter Moore. They won an appeal in the Grand Chamber of the ECHR that their life sentences amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment.
The court found that for a life sentence to remain compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights there had to be both a possibility of release and of review.
“Imprisonment is about reform. If you assume that a person is ‘unreformable’ it is degrading. It is degrading in itself to assume that a person is bad for the rest of his days,” Dr Bonello said.
The issue was also raised last week in a report by the Council of Europe’s Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.
The report said Maltese prison authorities should draw up specific programmes for inmates serving life sentences and reconsider their policy so as to give them the chance to leave prison.
When asked if the Maltese Government considered amendments, in light of yesterday’s judgment and the report, a Home Affairs’ Ministry spokeswoman said: “The ECHR ruling will be studied by the Attorney General and the ministry will give its reactions in due course.”
Lawyer Joseph Giglio explained that under Maltese law a person sentenced to life imprisonment spent the rest of his days in jail.
However, the Criminal Code had a discretionary section that allowed a judge to recommend to the Prime Minister the minimum period “which in its view should elapse before the prisoner is released from prison”. This is often not put into practice, Dr Giglio said.
He added that a person sentenced to life was not eligible for parole which meant the only way of leaving jail early was essentially through a presidential pardon.
Rehabilitation is a principle accepted throughout Europe, including for prisoners with a life sentence
Lawyer Michael Camilleri, who specialises in human rights, said that a life sentence without review made all efforts of the prisoner to rehabilitate impossible.
Therefore, he added, according to the European Court the punishment became even greater with time.
“The court also considered the fact that rehabilitation for prisoners is a principle which is accepted throughout Europe, including rehabilitation for prisoners with a life sentence,” he said.
“Rehabilitation must necessarily include reviewing the progress of the prisoner held under a life sentence and could mean his release because the life sentence would be rendered unnecessary,” he said.
George Busuttil, from the NGO Mid-Dlam Għad Dawl, which works with inmates, welcomed the ECHR decision.
He has long been insisting that those sentenced to life should have the possibility of review after a certain number of years or access to parole.
“Not allowing this goes against the reformative aim of imprisonment,” he said.