Share this on Facebook
download .zip with all pictures
I think you’re incorrect. It seems the recent court of appeal ruling **upheld** the right of judges to award life sentences without parole. Judges have been able to award life sentences without parole since a law passed in 1983 (and presumably life sentences with the possibility of parole existed before that).
Here’s a long list of people who have served or are currently serving life sentences without parole (including one of the Moors Murderers & Dale Cregan):
And the issue with the recent ruling doesn’t seem to be whether or not life sentences could be awarded, but whether prisoners could be sentenced to life imprisonment without review.
>[The appeal court judges](http://www.theguardian.com/law/2014/feb/18/whole-life-sentences-can-continue-appeal-court-rules), led by the lord chief justice, said the European human rights judges had been wrong to say British law did not clearly provide whole life inmates with any possibility of release and said that such a power clearly existed in exceptional circumstances.
>The need to clarify the legal status of whole life sentences followed the sentencing of McLoughlin last October at the Old Bailey when Mr Justice Sweeney imposed a minimum sentence of 40 years. The Old Bailey judge said he had to take account of the European court of human rights ruling last July that the whole life sentences passed on three killers, Douglas Vintner, Jeremy Bamber and Peter Moore, amounted to inhumane and degrading treatment because it lacked any formal review mechanism that would give any prospect of release. They said such sentences had to be reviewed at some stage, and suggested 25 years, but said that it was up to national authorities to decide.