- 18-
9787/82
H.R., Van Droogenbroeck case, judgment of 24 June 1982, Series A no. 50, p. 20, para. 38). The fact that the applicant has been sentenced to a period of life imprisonment and thus could lawfully be deprived of his liberty for the rest of his life, is not necessarily decisive of the issue under the Convention.
66. The Commission recalls the remarks made by Mr Justice Thesiger in passing sentence to the effect that an indeterminate life sentence was called for in the case of such a dangerous young man:
67.
"That leaves the matter with the Secretary of State who can release him if and when those who have been watching him and examining him believe that with the passage of years he has become responsible". (see para. 28).
The reasons underlying the trial judge's decision to pass a life sentence are elucidated In the judgment of Lord Justice Salmon in the Court of Appeal (see para. 29 above).
68. The Commission concludes from the above description of the factors underlying the applicant's sentence that he was considered to be a danger to the public; that there was no evidence of mental disorder which would have justified the court in ordering his detention in a hospital for mental treatment; that he was given a life sentence so that the Home Secretary could monitor his progress and authorise his release when it would be safe to do so. Alternatively, if his behavioural problems got worse, the Home Secretary could authorise his transfer to a mental hospital.
69.
In the Commission's view it is clear that the applicant's case falls to be distinguished from that of a person who has received a life sentence because of the gravity of the offence he has committed. The essential difference lies in the fact that it was not the intention of the sentencing judge that the applicant should necessarily serve a long term of imprisonment, rather that he should only remain in prison as long as he was a danger to the public. For this reason he was not given a determinate sentence, since by the end of a fixed term he might still remain a danger to the public. With the stress on the security element of the sentence, the trial judge had decided that the length of imprisonment was dependent on the improvement made by the applicant as assessed by the Home Secretary.
70. In these circumstances the Commission considers that the present case is analagous to cases concerning habitual or recidivist offenders who are placed by order of a court at the Government's disposal and released when the authorities consider that they no longer pose a danger to society. It is against the background of the principles developed in such cases that the Commission must examine the present application (see e.g. Van Droogenbroeck case, loc. cit., Christinet v. Switzerland, D.R. 17 pp. 36-57 and cases cited
therein).
:
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.