Talk:List of prisoners with whole life orders

Verification of some whole life tariff sentences

Oakes & Ors v R [2012] EWCA Crim 2435 (21 November 2012)

McLoughlin and Newell R v [2014] EWCA Crim 188 (18 February 2014)

Harry Roberts

If it is indeed accurate that Roberts was not "officially handed a whole-life tariff", then why is he in the table? It's not a table of "prisoners with a whole-life tariff plus a couple of others who probably won't ever get out so let's stick them in too"! Loganberry (Talk) 00:03, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

There are a handful of prisoners who are on whole life tariffs but have never been publicly confirmed as such - Roberts is believed to be one of them. Perhaps a further list is required of such prisoners, assuming we're prepared to dip our toes into the water of speculation and hearsay? Bentley Banana 14:06, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Right, I've embellished the list of "rumoured" with a new table. The page is starting to look complete. I've also put in requests for pages on Hall, Hilton and Green in the hope that we can add them to the top table and complete the job. Bentley Banana 11:37, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not British, but why don't they publicize all the people on the list? Thanos6 07:23, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Ongoing appeals, ill health, wishes of victims' families, all sorts I suspect. 83.100.150.94 18:01, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

It's at the discretion of the prisoners and their leagl teams, not the Home Office, to decide whether their status should be made public. Bentley Banana 19:28, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Reggie Kray

Ronald and Reginald Kray were given life sentences with a reccomendation they serve at least 30 years befoe being eligible for parole, whilst this is a long sentence it is not a whole life tariff. The Judge who passed sentence was Lord Melford Stevenson at the Central Criminal Court (Old Bailey)on the 4th March 1969, on passing sentence Melford Stevenson said "In my view, society has earned a rest from your activities."Spadeadam (talk) 12:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Myra Hindley

She's not on a whole life tariff any more; she's dead. Surely she shouldn't be in the table, but instead in the paragraph with Kray? Bentley Banana 14:06, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Harold Shipman

He too is not on a whole life tariff any more; he's dead. Therefore the reasoning for his removal from the table applies too? Bentley Banana 14:19, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

International content

How does the British concept of "whole life tariff" relate to the American concept of "life imprisonment without parole"? --GCarty 14:51, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

The British version is not an alternative to the death sentence, unlike many federal versions in the USA. Also, our political system is legally barred from entering the debate on a prisoner's parole possibilities - this used to the the case with whole life tariffs but is now illegal, as explained on some of the whole life tariff entiries on the main article. In the States, government officials can allow amnesties or pardons through the President, can they not? This means politics can play a role. In the UK, the judiciary hands down the sentence and only through an apolitical legal system can the tariffs be changed or challenged. Bentley Banana 19:34, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Question

What is a "whole life tariff"? I'm not sure I understand even after reading the article. The two critical sentences are "The intention of a whole life tariff..." and "The whole life tariff came into force...", rather than "A whole life tariff is...". Can anyone help? Stevage 13:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Some comments

First of all, with respect to Myra Hindley and Harold Shipman, their inclusion in the table is valid, because the entries in that table are defined as persons upon whom a whole life tariff was imposed at some point in their penal careers. The death of these individuals does not alter that basic fact. If the table were to be redefined in terms of living prisoners currently serving a sentence subject to a whole life tariff, then the removal of Hindley and Shipman to a separate table would be appropriate. However, the current arrangement is sufficient to be informative, and needs no revision (at least in my view).

Second, with respect to the defintion of a whole life tariff, while the sentences opening the page are perhaps less than ideal, they do in fact reflect the nature by which the entity came into being. English law is a peculiar animal at times, as this document should illustrate quite well, the document in question being the House of Lords judgement on an appeal by Hindley against her whole life tariif.

The whole life tariff is, in effect, a piece of legal machinery which allows the criminal justice system to categorise a prisoner as [1] too great a danger to public safety ever to be released, or [2] for want of a better phrase, 'too irredeemably evil' to be released. it is also a means by which the criminal justice system can enforce the principle that some offences are so heinous that the only suitable punishment, in the absence of the death penalty, is incarceration of the convicted person until death. At its onset, it was wielded by the Home Secretary, who at that time numbered among the duties of that office the setting of suitable time spans for prisoners whose sentence was that of 'mandatory life'. Under the English system, a mandatory life sentence automatically follows a conviction for murder: this sentence was created directly to address issues arising from the abolition of the death penalty. It is apposite, though possibly unencyclopedic from Wikipedia's standpoint, to speculate that without it, opposition to the death penalty might have been considerably less strong. However, the mandatory life sentence suffered from absence of adequate definition in terms of time: all other sentences are fixed in time, and thus the prisoner knows in advance the duration of imprisonment that must be served. For those interested in rehabilitative issues, the prospect of a reduction of sentence in exchange for expression of remorse and contrition on the part of the convicted person, and other indications that the convicted person has undergone a reformation of character, is considered to be of utility value, while for those interested in deterrence and retribution, defined time scales allow offences to be categorised by severity, and thus the degree of revulsion evoked by an offence can be made manifest in this manner. Consequently, the notion of a minimum term to be applied to a mandatory life sentence came into being. However, for certain extreme cases (and several of the individuals in the table are certainly notorious in British criminal history), the need to express social revulsion at crimes of extreme depravity and savagery remained. There is also the issue of whether a particular offence is considered to be so revolting as to be the product of a person who is uniquely dangerous and/or evil. Hindley's case has provoked much debate in this arena for reasons that are readily apparent either to British readers or to anyone outside the UK who has studied the details of the crimes she committed.

Of course, it was argued that having the power to apply whole life tariffs in the hands of a minister of government was a somewhat less than optimal arrangement. Not least because certain notorious figures might conceivably be handed such a tariff at least partly on the basis that failure to do so would be political suicide for the minister. Hence the move to transfer that power to the judiciary. This carries with it, however, the potential for much discontent if a judge allows a notorious figure to be released. It is fair to say that one issue contributing to Hindley's whole life tariff was a degree of protection of the prisoner: the family of Lesley Ann Downey, one of Hindley's victims, repeatedly stated that if ever Hindley were released, they would track her down and kill her. In the case of other notorious figures, such as Dennis Nilsen, it is fairly safe to say that the whole life tariff is more completely a reflection of the notion that such persons are considered irredeemably evil. A brief perusal of the particulars of Nilsen's offences, for example, tend to favour such a view, and not only in lay circles. From the lay standpoint, a whole life tariff is, in effect, a statement to the effect that a person is considered, after conviction for murder, to be so dangerous to the public and so wicked that the only recourse left open to society is incarceration until death. The legal picture is, of course, a good deal more complex, but aspects of severe retribution and societal need to express revulsion for truly heinous crimes is doubltess a part of the intellectual matrix underlying the whole life tariff.

While I am no legal expert, I believe the above is a fair summary. Anyone who is a legal expert is, of course, invited to provide a superior explanation!

I hope these comments prove to be of use and value. Calilasseia 15:41, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

There has to be some limit to a whole life tariff?

Humans can live for anything up to over 100 years, and if a killer lived to be over 100 they would surely have long deteriorated enough physically to ensure that they were no longer a danger to the public. And some countries have a maximum age for prison. So if a whole life sentence prisoner lived well into their 100s and had long gone blind, deaf and wheelchair bound, would they stand much chance of release?

Each case would be treated on its own individual merits. Bentley Banana 19:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, you have to remember that prison is not employed solely as a public protection measure. It has a retributive function. An aged prisoner such as you mention might be thought to deserve continued incarceration because of the heinousness of their crime, even though they had long since ceased to pose a threat to the public. 86.136.92.2 13:58, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Language of this article

Is it just me or does anyone else find the language this article is written in a bit odd? For instance, the repeated phrase he could be released any time now is an odd expression to find in an encyclopedic work. Some of the descriptions of the crimes are boardering on the lurid as well.

You could have signed your comment. Initially, each individual's piece stated that they would not be released; however, the judgment came into force during this period and we had to revert back to the original tariffs imposed by trial judges. In the case of Donald Neilson, for example, his tariff of 30 years expired this year (technically it expired in December last year if you count his period on remand), so the expression he could be released any time now is apt, as his tariff has expired suddenly and there is absolutely no indication as to when, if ever, he will walk free. For what it has in vagueness it maintains in absolute accuracy.I don't think the tone is lurid, just factual. Try using examples to make your point - it's a long article! Bentley Banana 10:10, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Updated list under FOIA

I intend to give this article the total overhaul it now requires after the UK Government were forced to reveal the names of all 30 prisoners on whole life tariffs following a request under the Freedom of Information Act. There are new names to add - which means some extensive research into their crimes - and one or two to move or remove. I'll add a final list of 'prisoners unlikely to be released' for the likes of Sutcliffe, who somehow aren't on the refreshed whole life tariff list (for technicality reasons) but will undoubtedly never see freedom again. Bear with me. Bentley Banana 11:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

• So, how's that going? Since there's still a "The Others" section? Thanos6 23:25, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Rahan Arshad

Should Cheadle Hulme murderer Rahan Arshad be on the list? As I recall, and the link also mentions, the judge said he should never be released. 130.88.117.117 11:06, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

European Court review

It was reported in February 2007 (at the time that David Bieber's sentence appeal was delayed) that whole life sentencing was under review by the European Court of Justice, who were trying to determine whether such sentences amounted to a violation of human rights legislation. Do any Wikipedia contributors know whether or not this review has being completed, and if so what the outcome was? Tripod86 11.09, 22 August 2007 —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 22:09, August 22, 2007 (UTC).

Whole life tariff ruled not contrary to European Law article 3

Judgment July 23, 2008

The Crown submitted that the Strasbourg court had not held that an irreducible whole life order necessarily violated article 3 and that, in any event, a whole life order was not irreducible because there was always the possibility that a prisoner subject to such an order might nonetheless be released under section 30 of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997. Therefore the imposition of a whole life sentence did not result in inhuman or degrading treatment, contrary to Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights.[1] --90.205.89.125 (talk) 01:23, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

As for Bieber he faces extradition to Florida should he ever be released from British Custody. The US Authorities want Bieber to faces charges in connection to a murder and an attempted murder, so Bieber is unlikely to ever be released. --90.205.89.125 (talk) 01:23, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Home Office list

Looks like the Home Office list [2] makes most of this page nonsense. I wonder if the list applies to Scotland, as Robert Black isn't on it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ML5 (talk • contribs) 17:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

List of prisoners

The list of prisoners have no sources. Is everything sourced in their individual articles? --Apoc2400 (talk) 22:11, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

John Sweeney - 2011

I don't understand why this page is protected, as I've never seen vandalism on it- so was surprised to be unable to edit it today.

John Sweeney needs to be added. He was sentenced to a whole-life tariff today for murdering two women while already serving four life sentences for attempted murder and other offences. It appears he refused to leave his cell at Wakefield prison, delaying the sentencing until this morning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.41.228.80 (talk) 10:31, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Another IP user has added Sweeney. I'm not sure why you couldn't edit the page, as it doesn't seem to be protected. Admittedly my eyesight lets me down on long, boring lists (aka previous edits heh) but I couldn't see an entry for it being protected, either. I hope that it was just a temporary glitch and the page is back to normal for you now, and that you carry on editing WP :) Keristrasza (talk) 11:46, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Links removed

I have removed the links to those names which had an article which has been deleted. If there is a consensus that someone is not notable, their name should not be linked, as it encourages people to recreate the article. If you want to create an article on one of these people, please go through WP:DRV first. Robofish (talk) 11:28, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Criminals sentenced after the whole life tariff was declared illegal by the European court

According to the list, 3 prisoners have been issued with whole life tariffs since the sentence was declared unlawful by the European Court of Human Rights in July 2013; 2 of these were sentenced in September 2013 and the third in December 2013. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.105.227.128 (talk) 19:09, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Confirming some whole life sentences

Is there currently any list that definitely confirms the sentences of certain people? The reason I ask is because I keep finding conflicting articles on several people, namely Michael Lupo, the three members of the IRA unit involved in the Balcombe Street Siege, William Moore and Robert Bates of the Shankill Butchers and Patrick Mackay. I would normally add them since I can find an article or two or a book confirms, but then I find something that definitely it.

If I can't find such a list, how should I go about deciding to add them to the list of prisoners with whole life tariffs?

Thanks. Tongera (talk) 23:29, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Stephen Port - no intention to kill

The Stephen Port case is interesting because the trial judge accepted that he had no intention to kill his victims (see Sentencing Remarks). I believe he is the only whole lifer that did not intend to kill anyone. However, I cannot find a reliable source saying this so I have not added this to his entry, per WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH. If someone can find a reliable source for this it, would be a useful addition. --MrStoofer (talk) 10:21, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

That's a very pertient point. I think most people would assume that mens rea was an essential component of murder? Perhaps there are secondary WP:RS sources that examine this question. I wonder what Port himself had to say, in this regard, in his own defence? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:27, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Mens rea is always an essential component of murder. But in English law, the mens rea for murder is (1) an intention to kill or (2) an intention to cause really serious harm. Port was convicted on the basis of (2), as noted in the Sentencing Remarks. So there is no issue about his conviction. Many people are convicted of murder in England & Wales where they intended to cause really serious harm but not kill. However, Port is unusual (unique, I think) in that he got a whole life order for it.--MrStoofer (talk) 10:47, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

And to address your final question: Port said nothing at all in his defence. --MrStoofer (talk) 10:49, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying all of that so neatly, MrStoofer. Maybe a note at Talk:Stephen Port might be beneficial? Meanwhile, I'll also try and find a source. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:04, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Murder of Hannah Williams

The judge did not set a minimum term for the killer of Hannah Williams. Is that the same as a whole life tariff?86.156.57.7 (talk) 15:00, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of prisoners with whole-life orders. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120314064125/http://www.24dash.com/news/Communities/2010-05-14-Camden-Ripper-should-never-be-released-from-prison to http://www.24dash.com/news/Communities/2010-05-14-Camden-Ripper-should-never-be-released-from-prison
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/cms/144_10870.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:27, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on List of prisoners with whole-life orders. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110723033909/http://www.rhyljournal.co.uk/news/101906/life-for-habesch-killer.aspx to http://www.rhyljournal.co.uk/news/101906/life-for-habesch-killer.aspx
• Added archive http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20110218200720/http:/www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/cms/144_7554.htm to http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/cms/144_7554.htm
• Added archive http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20110218200720/http:/www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/cms/144_7534.htm to http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/cms/144_7534.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:01, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Kiernan Kelly

Should Kiernan Kelly really be on this list at all let alone under "Imposed by Home Secretaries"? Is there any evidence he had a whole life sentence imposed by any Home Secretary? Or that he was even issued with one? The descriptions of him and his crimes seem quite vague, and the allegations that he confessed to 16 murders are highly speculative. That and there being very little media information about him unlike the majority of the other whole life cases makes me very much doubt he was issued a whole life order, even if he was found guilty of the two described murders. 99.251.227.253 (talk) 21:05, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

The sources given appear to be media reports about the book (The London Underground Serial Killer) written by Geoff Platt about Kiernan Kelly. None of the sources confirm he was issued with a whole life order by either a home secretary or by a judge. The speculation about the 16 London Underground murders appears largely based on the book by Platt which has received mainly negative reviews on Amazon. 99.251.227.253 (talk) 05:54, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

John Duffy?

My understanding is that John Duffy is not subject to a whole-life order, and so should not be on this list. Although his 30-year minimum sentence was later upgraded to a whole-life order, the ECHR rescinded this, and I see no other evidence that shows he is still subject to a whole-life order. There are no references for it on this article and I propose Duffy should be taken off this list. Idontlikecrwicket (talk) 13:01, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Wayne Couzens

I've noticed the nickname "The Rapist" has been added, but I'm not sure inclusion is appropriate, given the context...in the context of this page, nickname refers to "what they were called in common parlance", not "what they were allegedly once nicknamed by someone". That said, don't feel particularly strongly either way.

Crimsoneer (talk) 16:42, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

It might be that he wasn't called "the rapist" at all, see [3]. I'm going to go ahead and remove the nickname.--Phil of rel (talk) 16:48, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

The year imposed in the 'Imposed by Home Secretaries' section should be the actual year the whole-life tariff was imposed

This may sound obvious but let me explain. The 'tariff system' was only introduced in 1983: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/5086978.stm, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/mobile/magazine/7268647.stm. That's why Myra Hindley was only issued with a whole-life tariff in 1990, and Dennis Nilsen in 1994 (previously his trial judge recommended 25 years minimum). Therefore, it's wrong and misleading to give the years such people were given their whole life tariffs as 1966 and 1983 respectively, which is when they were first imprisoned. That's not when they were issued whole life tariffs. This should be changed for all the entries where people's whole life tariffs are inaccurately said to have been imposed before 1983. Snugglewasp (talk) 14:09, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Any objections to the dates for the first few entries being altered? Snugglewasp (talk) 18:45, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree with altering the dates, they should reflect when the tariff was given.Skycloud86 (talk) 09:09, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

The information for Lucy Letby seems wrong

The judge said each of the counts of 7 murders and 6 attempted murders were to be given a whole life order. That works out at 13 whole life orders, not 14. Phil of rel (talk) 08:19, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

It does seem wrong on the surface, but if you look at the reference it makes clear that not only is 14 correct, but the reason is: "She faced seven murder charges and seven counts of attempted murder because she tried to kill one of the babies twice." If you want to try and clarify that in the article, go right ahead. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 08:26, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

"Nickname" column?

Do we really need to include a column for the killer's nicknames? Most of the defendants listed don't even have nicknames, so it seems like an unnecessary addition to the page. Truecrimefan22 (talk) 12:47, 1 September 2023 (UTC)