TrustHLT/LaCour huggingface dataset:
Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque (Judge): And I quote from that page on the web, All life term means there is no minimum term set by the judge and the person is never considered for release.
Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque (Judge): This is the position of the UK government on the Internet.
Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque (Judge): The page was last updated on the 12th of November 2014.
Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque (Judge): I also looked at the official position of the Sentencing Council for England and Wales and the same statement is made there.
Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque (Judge): I also looked for the official position of the Law Commission and the same statement is there to be found.
Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque (Judge): In none of these sites is there reference to Bieber or Newell.
Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque (Judge): My question is what is the official position of the UK government?
Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque (Judge): Is this clear enough for the UK citizens and for the outside world?
Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque (Judge): How can the UK government clarify this discrepancy between what is on the Internet in these various sources and the position that was presented today to the court?
András Sajó (Judge): I would very much appreciate to learn about the legal nature of the LIFE First manual.
András Sajó (Judge): Is the manual a source of law?
András Sajó (Judge): Is it subject to judicial review?
András Sajó (Judge): It would be very helpful to learn about that.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Judge Mahoney.
Paul Mahoney (Judge): I have a question for the parties.
Paul Mahoney (Judge): It's quite long, but there's no need to worry about scribbling down the terms of the question, as a written copy will be given to them at the beginning of the pause.
Paul Mahoney (Judge): My question is as follows.
Paul Mahoney (Judge): What would be the scope of the judicial scrutiny carried out by the domestic courts in applications for judicial review of a negative decision by the Secretary of State in relation to release of a whole life prisoner under Section 30, paragraph 1 of the Crime Sentences Act 1997?
Paul Mahoney (Judge): In particular, would the scrutiny be as narrow as that suggested by the applicant?
Paul Mahoney (Judge): Paragraphs 42 to 43 of his observations.
Paul Mahoney (Judge): And then the second particularity, and I would say this is not part of the written text that you'll get.
Paul Mahoney (Judge): Here I'm thinking of the local authority housing cases, where people are rejected from their housing to failure to comply with the legal conditions, and where the nature of the judicial scrutiny of such administrative decisions under Article 8 of the Convention has been explained by the courts.
Paul Mahoney (Judge): And the question here is, would the domestic court have to verify that the Secretary of State had actually exercised his statutory power of release under Section 30, paragraph 1, compatibly with the whole life prisoner's rights under Article 3 of the Convention in the particular circumstances of the case?
Paul Mahoney (Judge): And would the domestic court order the Secretary of State to release the whole life prisoner if the latter could establish that on the facts and circumstances of his case, his continued imprisonment, despite his whole life sentence, is no longer justified on legitimate penological grounds?
Paul Mahoney (Judge): And the third and last indent is, would the domestic court examine such matters as the question, what would amount to a legitimate penological ground in this context, as the government suggests at paragraph 27 of their obligations?
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Yes, Judge Turković.
Ksenija Turković (Judge): We have heard that none of the prisoners was released, but what I would be interested to hear is whether any of the prisoners since winter has applied, regardless whether he was denied or was not denied.
Ksenija Turković (Judge): So whether he applied and how then, what was the procedure then, and how that was done, and whether any procedural safeguards in connection with that, whether any procedural safeguards are provided once the person, the prisoner, is applying for the review.
Ksenija Turković (Judge): Then you have told us then that the prisoner may come whenever.
Ksenija Turković (Judge): And as soon as the Article 3 standard for continuum detention has dropped away.
Ksenija Turković (Judge): So you have told us and you emphasized several times that a person can apply, but when actually there is obligation really to get a review, not just to apply, but to get a review in terms that you are saying as soon as the Article 3 standard for continuous detention has dropped away.
Ksenija Turković (Judge): So to what extent is that determinative to get a review?
Ksenija Turković (Judge): And then the question, third question, when the person is entering the prison, is the person getting any information on early release?
Ksenija Turković (Judge): In general, I'm asking.
Ksenija Turković (Judge): In general, not only for the whole life prisoners.
Ksenija Turković (Judge): And has McLaughlin or Winter changed anything in this respect for life prisoners?
Ksenija Turković (Judge): So are they told?
Ksenija Turković (Judge): Because European prison rules are requiring that, and I'm not quite sure how the domestic system is regulating that.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): So we'll have a short break now, and we will resume the hearing at half past ten.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): And I call Mr. Bennathan.
AP1 (Applicant): Mr. President, I deal first with the two questions of the four
AP1 (Applicant): that I believe are addressed to the applicant rather than the government, and I start with Judge Marnie, if I may.
AP1 (Applicant): Well, the very simple argument to whether our skeleton argument reflects the true position of the United Kingdom, we would say yes, but I will deal with it in slightly more detail, if I may.
AP1 (Applicant): A judicial review of a minister is not a judge taking the same decision the minister has taken.
AP1 (Applicant): It is a review of that decision.
AP1 (Applicant): Judicial fashions in the High Court come and go as to how close and anxious the scrutiny of a particular decision is.
AP1 (Applicant): It is true to say that where convention rights are concerned, the current trend is that the High Court will tend to take a very close look at the minister's decision.
AP1 (Applicant): But at no time will a High Court judge be saying, were I the person deciding this, I would decide X, and therefore that must be the decision.
AP1 (Applicant): It is but a review.
AP1 (Applicant): In theory, again, to deal directly with the Honourable Judge's question, in theory, the High Court could order a release, but we would suggest it is far more likely in the real world of the English High Court, it is far more likely the Court, if they disagreed with the minister's decision, would simply order a reappraisal of the application for the sentence to be reduced.
AP1 (Applicant): Two final comments arising from Judge Marney's question, if I may.
AP1 (Applicant): Firstly, if the United Kingdom win this case, then this case will be used, when my learned friend Mr Eadie appears before the High Court resisting review of a minister's refusal to release.
AP1 (Applicant): This judgment, if against us, will be used to say, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights has said this is a decision for the minister to take, so you, the High Court, should allow, in effect, a domestic version of the margin of appreciation and not take the decision unto yourself.
AP1 (Applicant): And finally on this point, to some extent with great respect, we've been here before.
AP1 (Applicant): In the case of the weeks in the United Kingdom, this was an imprisonment case.
AP1 (Applicant): It was a case in which this Court found that it was not proper for politicians to be setting the minimum term for underage life prisoners.
AP1 (Applicant): And one of the government's argues was, the politician may take this decision because they are supervised by judicial review, and at paragraph 69 of weeks, this Court made it clear that solution simply did not work.
AP1 (Applicant): Judge Sayo, to deal with that question, the prison service rules are not an act of Parliament.
AP1 (Applicant): They're not a statute.
AP1 (Applicant): They are, in effect, issued by a minister.
AP1 (Applicant): The weight they carry, therefore, is subservient to statutes.
AP1 (Applicant): If they are inconsistent with the statute, the statute takes precedent, the statute is the law.
AP1 (Applicant): They are, however, of use in the absence of such a conflict in interpreting what the statute means, how the statute will be brought into force.
AP1 (Applicant): The point we make, of course, is that such rules can be changed very easily and very quickly, and in this case, they haven't been.
AP1 (Applicant): Replying then more generally, if I may, to the United Kingdom's submissions by my learned friend, the Attorney General.
AP1 (Applicant): We say, in effect, this Court has been treated to the same arguments that the court in Vinter were treated, save for what appears to be a new policy announcement in the middle of my learned friend's submissions.
AP1 (Applicant): Once more in replying, if I may, I'll consider first the theoretical de jure situation, and then the de facto, the practical situation.
AP1 (Applicant): On de jure, we say there is no mechanism in place.
AP1 (Applicant): A judicial review simply does not proffer the help the government suggest.
AP1 (Applicant): But courtesy of Judge Marni's question, I've addressed that already.
AP1 (Applicant): On the letter to Mr. Vinter,
AP1 (Applicant): attached to the government's submissions, a suggestion is made to Mr. Vinter,
AP1 (Applicant): he may apply at any time.
AP1 (Applicant): My learned friend, the Attorney General, said that the statute says a prisoner may apply at any time.
AP1 (Applicant): In great respect, it doesn't.
AP1 (Applicant): It says the Secretary of State may at any time release a prisoner.
AP1 (Applicant): It is completely silent on the applications.
AP1 (Applicant): Well, if the letter to Mr. Vinter,
AP1 (Applicant): combined with the oral submissions of the government today, are the announcement of a new policy, then we are very grateful to receive it.
AP1 (Applicant): It's an odd way for a government to issue policy, not to change the Prison Service Order, making this clear, not to change the statute, not to make an announcement in Parliament, not to set it out clearly in their written submissions at two stages of the proceedings before this court today.
AP1 (Applicant): But if the Attorney General is today announcing that any one of the 50-plus whole life order lifers may apply at any time, and apparently as frequently as they like, and it's an extraordinarily liberal policy, we'd invite him to make that clear in his reply.
AP1 (Applicant): If that's not the real policy, then we revert to what Vinter said, which is we really do need a sensible periodic review after a sensible period in custody.
AP1 (Applicant): But if that is the new policy, we have learned something today with respect, and we'll be grateful for that to be made absolutely clear so it can be relied upon by lifers in subsequent litigation in the United Kingdom.
AP1 (Applicant): On the criteria point, the jury still, no help with respect whatsoever.
AP1 (Applicant): To say to someone who is starting a whole life order, and the court did find that was a time when the violation commenced, to say, well, in 30 years' time, when you get to the High Court to judicially review a minister having refused you a review of your sentence, then they'll tell you what the criteria are and are not.
AP1 (Applicant): Well, that simply cannot meet the most basic understanding of this court's judgment in Vinter.
AP1 (Applicant): It can be no use to someone who has to work for 30 years to reform themselves, to totally transform themselves to a different person from the one who committed the awful act, and then after 30 years of that, in litigation, which is the government and the court of appeals solution, they'll find out then what the criteria are.
AP1 (Applicant): Well, we say that is, with great respect, absurd, and Trabelsi sets out the proper position in terms of simple clarity.
AP1 (Applicant): Finally, Mr. President, we turn to the de facto position,
AP1 (Applicant): and we do say the only thing that's become clear is in the government's leading submissions, the submissions we heard just now, the numbers who have actually had their sentences reduced.
AP1 (Applicant): To take the points shortly, the prison service rules, why are they unchanged? Why are the websites unchanged?
AP1 (Applicant): Well, the government's replies, well, the prison service rules don't mean what they appear to mean.
AP1 (Applicant): In effect, they're misleading, so no one need worry about them.
AP1 (Applicant): Well, if that is really the position, why haven't they been withdrawn?
AP1 (Applicant): Why doesn't the website, if I may touch upon Judge Vinter's question, why doesn't the website say, ignore the prison service rules?
AP1 (Applicant): We are changing them.
AP1 (Applicant): The court asks, with great respect, a very sensible question, are you planning to rewrite them?
AP1 (Applicant): The answer appears to be no.
AP1 (Applicant): They will remain what they are.
AP1 (Applicant): What faith should that give this court, with respect, in the reality of the situation in the United Kingdom?
AP1 (Applicant): We quoted in terms, we did it in our written submission so it can come as no surprise to the government, we quoted in terms the government's public face on this topic in the United Kingdom, a welcome and timely decision, this is McLaughlin, of course, or Newell, same case, our courts should be able to send the most brutal murders to jail for the rest of their lives.
AP1 (Applicant): Well, if that is what the relevant minister is saying in public, at home, as it were, what is the reality of the position?
AP1 (Applicant): What should a whole lifetime lifer think when he hears the minister say that for domestic consumption, or should this court accept what the Court of Appeal says and what the Attorney General says when he comes here?
AP1 (Applicant): The government can, they still can, in their reply, disavow those comments by the Minister of Justice.
AP1 (Applicant): They have certainly not done so to date.
AP1 (Applicant): But we really do say that the acid test, the simple acid test of whether life sentences, whole life sentences are really reducible is has any of them ever been reduced?
AP1 (Applicant): And we say the answer, which was perfectly properly, and not dwelt upon, but touched upon by my learned friend, the Attorney General, is no.
AP1 (Applicant): No one has had their sentence reduced since winter as far as we are aware, and we invite correction if we are wrong, no one has ever had their sentence reduced save if they are terminally ill.
AP1 (Applicant): Well, we do say with great respect that is a simple and obvious test.
AP1 (Applicant): If everyone, everyone sentenced to whole life term has either died in prison or come out when terminally ill, how then, how then should this court understand whether a whole life term is or is not de facto reducible?
AP1 (Applicant): To again adopt with gratitude the words of Judge Pinto in his opinion in Otchelan, concurring with the majority on the point I cited earlier, prisons should not be like the gates of hell where the words Dante come true, abandon hope all ye who enter here.
AP1 (Applicant): In terms of the actual system in place in the United Kingdom, we say that is precisely what is faced by prisoners such as the one we represent today, and we invite this court's intervention to guarantee his rights to stop that happening.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Thank you, Mr.  Bennathan.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): I call the Attorney General.
GR1 (Government): Thank you Mr. President. Can I begin my submissions with the questions asked by Judge Pinto?
GR1 (Government): I should say first of all, as I'm sure the court will understand, I haven't had the opportunity yet to check the various references that the learned judge made to websites.
GR1 (Government): But can I say two things nonetheless initially.
GR1 (Government): The first of them is that it is of course right that in relation to life sentences no minimum term is specified.
GR1 (Government): And that is certainly the case.
GR1 (Government): The second point though in relation to whether release is never considered, we will have to go away and check precisely what is said.
GR1 (Government): It would be right to say that release is not considered by the parole board in these circumstances.
GR1 (Government): But that doesn't of course mean that release can't be considered elsewhere in the ways that I've set out.
GR1 (Government): But perhaps the most important submission I need to make clearly is that so far as the government's position as a matter of law, a matter of principle and a matter of practice is concerned, it is as I have set it out to the court today.
GR1 (Government): But I would return also to the submissions that I made about the practical scenarios here.
GR1 (Government): So if a prisoner wishes to take advantage of the procedure under section 30, it seems to us inconceivable that either that prisoner would not have legal advice, or that that prisoner would not make a request in a form which would find its way to the Secretary of State and be considered as a request under section 30.
GR1 (Government): Can I turn to the questions asked by Judge Sio about the legal nature of the LIFA manual?
GR1 (Government): The LIFA manual of course is an expression of policy as Melinda Trent has said.
GR1 (Government): It is neither statute nor judge made law.
GR1 (Government): And of course that means it is subordinate to the provisions of the primary legislation.
GR1 (Government): It may be of assistance if I quote from the Newell judgment in this respect, paragraph 32, where the court said, the manual cannot restrict the duty of the Secretary of State to consider all circumstances relevant to release on compassionate grounds.
GR1 (Government): He cannot fetter his discretion by taking into account only the matters set out in the LIFA manual.
GR1 (Government): So it is in our submission clear that that is entirely subordinate to the primary legislation and indeed to what the Court of Appeal has said in that judgment.
GR1 (Government): As to what itself is reviewable under judicial review process, that is the decision of the Secretary of State.
GR1 (Government): So far as the questions posed by Judge Meoney are concerned, I should say in relation to the first part of those questions, that we do not accept that the scope of judicial review in these cases is as narrow as the applicant suggests.
GR1 (Government): The position in principle is that the court would make its own mind up as to whether the Secretary of State's decision was compatible with Article 3 and that is because of the Secretary of State's positive obligation to act in accordance with the convention as set out in the Human Rights Act.
GR1 (Government): So the court will consider the merits of that decision, not merely its rationality.
GR1 (Government): And that we would submit is indeed reflected in the housing association cases that Judge Meoney referred to.
GR1 (Government): So the answer to his second question is yes.
GR1 (Government): In relation to the third question, if the court concludes under the judicial review process that no penological grounds exist for continued detention in accordance with Article 3, then it could indeed order release.
GR1 (Government): Turning finally to the questions asked by Judge Turkovich, the precise information given to prisoners when they arrive in prison we will have to check.
GR1 (Government): But it is of course the case that the effect of a life sentence would be explained to a prisoner at the point of sentence.
GR1 (Government): And it is worth confirming that no prisoners have applied under the Section 30 process.
GR1 (Government): But in doing so, can I return to the points I made about the way in which a prisoner would take advantage of that process.
GR1 (Government): And again it is worth perhaps confirming for the court that there are no formalities required.
GR1 (Government): A prisoner does not have to apply for consideration under that section in any fixed way.
GR1 (Government): And any prisoner writing to indicate that they wish to be considered for release would be considered as a Section 30 application by the Secretary of State.
GR1 (Government): And as I've said, that decision would then be judicially reviewable.
GR1 (Government): That we would submit is a system of greater benefit because that application can be made at any time to the prisoner than one involving a fixed point at which a review would take place.
GR1 (Government): Mr. President, I hope that's of assistance.
GR1 (Government): Those are my submissions on behalf of the Government of the United Kingdom.
Angelika Nußberger (JudgeP): I declare open the public hearing on the admissibility and the merits in the case of Zentrum for Red Visa versus Sweden.
Angelika Nußberger (JudgeP): The application was lodged with the court on 14th of July, 2008, under article 34 of the convention by Zentrum for Red Visa, a foundation which has its seat in Sweden.
Angelika Nußberger (JudgeP): The application was allocated to the third section of the court pursuant to rule 52, paragraph 1 of the rules of court.
Angelika Nußberger (JudgeP): The application was communicated to the government on 1st of November, 2011 and 14th of October, 2014.
Angelika Nußberger (JudgeP): On 19th June, 2018, a chain of the third section declared it admissible and adopted a judgment on the merits.
Angelika Nußberger (JudgeP): On 19th of September, 2018, the applicant requested that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber in accordance with article 43 of the convention.
Angelika Nußberger (JudgeP): On 9th of May, 2019, the president of the Grand Chamber granted leave to the governments of Estonia, France, the Netherlands, and Norway to submit written comments at third parties by virtue of rule 44, paragraph 3 of the rules of court.
Angelika Nußberger (JudgeP): The government are represented by their agent, Miss Elinor Hammarskjöld, Director General for Legal Affairs at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, as well as by the following persons as advisors.
Angelika Nußberger (JudgeP): Mrs. Gunilla Isaksson and Mrs. Jessica Sjöstrand
Angelika Nußberger (JudgeP): of Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Mr. Jan Garton and Mr. Mikael
Angelika Nußberger (JudgeP): Andersson of the Ministry of Defense, Mr. Håkan Sellman of the Ministry of Justice,
Angelika Nußberger (JudgeP): Mrs. Felisa Krzyzanski of the Ministry of Infrastructure,
Angelika Nußberger (JudgeP): Mrs. Michaela Dráb and Mr. Christer  Hellsten
Angelika Nußberger (JudgeP): of the National Defense Radio Establishment.
Angelika Nußberger (JudgeP): The applicant is represented by Mr. Fredrik Bergman
Angelika Nußberger (JudgeP): and Mrs. Angela Evans, counsel, and by Mr. Alexander Ottosson
Angelika Nußberger (JudgeP): and Mrs. Emilia Palm, advisors.
Angelika Nußberger (JudgeP): I welcome the representatives in the name of the court.
Angelika Nußberger (JudgeP): Having consulted the agent of the government and the representatives of the applicant, I have determined the order of addresses as follows.
Angelika Nußberger (JudgeP): Mrs. Evans will speak first for the applicant,
Angelika Nußberger (JudgeP): followed by Mr. Bergman, and then Mrs. Hammarskjöld
Angelika Nußberger (JudgeP): for the government.
Angelika Nußberger (JudgeP): I would explain that in addition to interpreting in the two official languages of the court, English and French, interpreting into Russian has been authorized for the benefit of a delegation from the Kyrgyz Republic attending this hearing.
Angelika Nußberger (JudgeP): I call on Mrs. Evans and Mr. Bergman for the applicant.
AP1 (Applicant): Madam President, members of the court, the Swedish National Defence Radio Establishment, or FRA, has been afforded extraordinary secret surveillance powers.