The Supreme Court has dismissed appeals by Paul Lynch and Peter Whelan challenging the mandatory life sentence for murder, upholding the High Court’s decision that the law was compatible with the Constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights.
The two cases were heard together because both challenged section 2 of the Criminal Justice Act 1990. The section requires a court to impose life imprisonment on anyone convicted of murder. Lynch was convicted at the Central Criminal Court on 10 February 1997; Whelan was convicted there on 2 December 2002. Both received life sentences.
The appellants argued that the mandatory sentence prevented trial judges from tailoring punishment to the circumstances of each case. They also contended that the Minister for Justice’s power to grant temporary release meant the executive effectively determined how long a person sentenced to life would remain in prison, intruding on the judicial role. They sought a declaration that the law was incompatible with the Convention’s protections for liberty.
The court rejected those arguments. It held that the Oireachtas could prescribe a fixed penalty for murder, which it described as an exceptionally grave crime. The court also found that the life sentence remained punitive for the prisoner’s lifetime and that temporary release was a discretionary executive privilege, not a decision setting or ending the judicial sentence. A prisoner released temporarily remained liable to return to prison under the life sentence.
The judgment distinguished Irish law from the United Kingdom sentencing arrangements considered in European human rights cases cited by the appellants. It said those arrangements involved a punitive period followed by detention based on public risk, whereas Irish life sentences remained tied to punishment for the offence.
The court further rejected the request to interpret the law as requiring sentencing judges to recommend a minimum period before temporary release could be considered. It said the section’s terms were clear and did not require such a recommendation; any recommendation would not bind the Minister.
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s finding that section 2 was constitutional and dismissed the constitutional appeal. It also dismissed the appeal seeking a declaration of incompatibility under section 5(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights Act 2003. The judgment did not decide any individual application for temporary release.