Should life mean life?

A High Court judge has told Ian Huntley, the killer of Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman, that he will have to stay in jail for at least 40 years.

Mr Justice Moses ruled yesterday in the High Court in London that it would be at least that long before Huntley, who was taken into custody after the discovery of the girls' bodies in August 2002, could be considered for parole.

The judge said he had taken into account whether he could rule that Huntley should stay in jail for life, but had concluded that such an order would be legally unjustified - even though Huntley's "actions in pretending to exhibit innocent concern after the murders" demonstrated his lack of remorse.

Holly and Jessica, both ten, were murdered shortly after leaving their homes in Soham, Cambridgeshire, in August 2002.

Huntley, a caretaker at the local secondary school, and his then girlfriend Maxine Carr, a classroom assistant at Holly and Jessica's primary school, were arrested after the girls' bodies were found.

Carr, now 28, was jailed in December 2003 after being convicted of perverting the course of justice and has now left prison.

Following yesterday's High Court decision, Huntley will not be considered for release from prison by the parole board until he is nearly 70 - but that he could one day ultimately walk free.

Inevitably, the ruling has re-opened the debate about when a life sentence should mean life.

Holly's parents Kevin and Nicola were in court yesterday alongside Jessica's parents Leslie and Sharon Chapman and daughters Rebecca, 19, and Alison, 17.

Responding to the judge's ruling, they said they still hoped Huntley would spend the rest of his life in jail.

"As parents, we may or may not be around in 40 years' time, but our children will.

"They, like us, continue to feel the pain of their sisters' murders each and every day."

In the wake of the ruling, we asked Catherine Wilkins - daughter of murdered Strensall pensioners James and Joan Britton, whose killer Mark Hobson has appealed against his own 'life should man life' sentence - and York criminal defence solicitor Jackie Knights whether a sentence of life imprisonment really should mean just that.

Yes, says Catherine Wilkins, daughter of pensioners James and Joan Britton, who were murdered by Mark Hobson.

I DO feel that life should mean life. If somebody commits a crime that deserves a life sentence, that is what they should get and that is what it should mean. If people understand that life does mean life, then they know what they are up against when it comes to the sentence.

If a sentence is only going to mean 15 years, then let's say 15 years. But if someone is sentenced to life, it should be for the rest of their days.

It is not for me to say where the line should be drawn when it comes to sentencing, but certainly I feel that in the case of somebody such as Mark Hobson... what he did was so horrific that it is certainly worth him being in prison for life. There is the element of just punishment, and also the need to keep him locked away for the safety of the community.

Who can say if a person will ever change? That is a very difficult one to call. But my feeling is that you've done the crime, now you do the time. Just because you might change your way of thinking ten or 15 years later does not mean that you have not done the crime.

I think it is owed to the relatives that if a life sentence is given, it should mean life. That is the one thing that the relatives of victims want. They want to see that person punished for what they have done. When Mark Hobson was sentenced to life, it did make me feel better, because I felt he deserved it. Him getting a full life sentence was the best thing that we could have hoped for, and we were given that - until we learned he was going to appeal.

You think that you can get on with your life again, you think it is over once a sentence has been given, but it is not always the case. I suppose everybody is due their rights, but it would be nice if Hobson had not been able to appeal.

Nothing will bring my parents back, but if that appeal is overturned, so that Hobson's sentence really does mean that he will stay in prison for life, I will feel a sense of satisfaction, that at least the right thing has been done.

I don't really feel able to comment on the Huntley case. All I will say is that I hope the family get the answer that they are waiting for. I know what they will be wanting. They will want him locked up for the rest of his life. I hope they get that. Nothing can undo what Huntley has done, but at least they will feel justice has been done.

No, ...says Jackie Knights, a criminal defence solicitor with Harrowell Shaftoe in York.

FOR a number of years, life has not meant whole life. Originally, when life sentences were introduced in this country, the judge traditionally set a tariff. This is not the length of time that someone will serve: it is the minimum length of time that they must serve before becoming eligible for parole.

If there is a tariff of 12 years, for example, it means that it is only after 12 years that the probation service, the parole board and the prison governor will look at the individual circumstances to see whether or not that person can safely be released.

Even when a life prisoner is released on parole, he or she is subject to a 'life licence'. This can be revoked at any time, for example if they are felt to be a danger or if they breach the terms of their life licence. They are under relatively close supervision for the rest of their life.

When a life licence is revoked, this means a return to prison. Although there can be further application for parole, the person could remain in prison for the rest of their life.

For a period in the 1990s, the then Home Secretary began to alter the tariff that had been set by judges and the Government assumed the power to set the tariff. After a challenge at the European Court of Human Rights, this was held to be inappropriate and we have reverted to the situation where the judge sets the tariff.

It is right that the judge who hears the case should set the tariff. He (or she) is the person who has heard all the evidence, has seen any mitigating issues, and is best-placed to make a decision.

The three elements on which a custodial sentence is based are punishment, rehabilitation and containment. I suppose there is an argument which says that if you have done something so bad, so far beyond what is acceptable, there should not be any attempt to rehabilitate you, merely to punish and contain you.

I think it is better to try to be positive and allow for the possibility that everybody has the capacity for change. Of course people who have committed a terrible crime should be punished. But should a punishment go on for 50 years?

I think in all cases of a life sentence there should be a risk assessment. If the risk to the community is not there, and a person has been in prison for decades and has been involved in a process of rehabilitation, if they have fully accepted their guilt and expressed remorse, I think they should be eligible for parole.

If there is a risk assessment and they are still considered to be a risk to society, for example because they have not been able to express remorse, or because they are still full of hate to the extent that they may be dangerous, it would be different.

So there are cases where life should end up meaning whole life. But circumstances change, and I believe that in a civilised society it would be wrong for us to deny the possibility that somebody can change and become a useful member of society.

Sentence announcement delayed by legal process

Grimsby-born killer Ian Huntley's minimum sentence was not announced until yesterday because he fell in a transitional period when the power to set tariffs was transferred to judges.

He was convicted and sentenced to life on December 17 2003 - the day before the new Criminal Justice Act came into force.

Up to this time it was the Home Secretary who had the final say in setting any tariffs but this power was transferred to the judiciary following a House of Lords ruling.

Because the Home Secretary had not notified Huntley of his minimum tariff or whether he would stay in jail for life, he referred the case to the High Court, where it was heard by the original sentencing judge, Mr Justice Moses. The judge said the 2003 statute cannot be used to impose a longer sentence than that which would have been notified before it came into force - no defendant may receive a harsher penalty than that for which the law provided at the time he committed the offence.

He said he had reached the conclusion that the starting point should be a 30-year tariff rather than whole life.

Does Huntley ruling have any bearing on Hobson?

Mr Justice Moses' ruling yesterday on Ian Huntley may not have any implications for Mark Hobson's appeal against his life sentence for the murders of twins Claire and Diane Sanderson and of Strensall pensioners James and John Britton.

York criminal defence solicitor Jackie Knights said today it was "impossible to speculate and compare" the cases of Huntley and Hobson.

But she said the fact that Hobson had pleaded guilty to the four murders was something that he should be given credit for at his appeal hearing.

"The law is quite clear, the Government have made it quite clear, that people should be given credit for pleading guilty," she said.

Hobson was given four life sentences for the murders and was told by the judge: "On each count, life means exactly that."

But his solicitors confirmed in June that Hobson would be appealing against that ruling.

They did not at the time set out the grounds for appeal, but it is thought Hobson's defence team will seek to repeat arguments it made at Leeds Crown Court during the killer's trial that credit should be given for Hobson's guilty plea.

The judge's decision to lock him up and throw away the key set a precedent. Never before in legal history had a whole-life sentence been imposed on someone who had pleaded guilty.

Other people serving "life means life" sentences have all pleaded not guilty and had a trial.

Updated: 09:31 Friday, September 30, 2005