US Extradition Briefing - BSQ instructed in third ECHR Life Without Parole Challenge
Following the Grand Chamber case of Sanchez Sanchez BSQ Partner Roger Sahota has been instructed in another US extradition appeal to the ECHR. Horne v United Kingdom is the third BSQ case in recent years raising the same issue - whether life without parole (“LWOP”) sentences imposed in the US for serious offenders are “irreducible” and compliant with Article 3 of the European Convention of Human Rights.
By way of background, ECHR caselaw requires some form of review mechanism for prisoners serving life sentences to be considered for release after having served 25 years of a life sentence. There is fierce debate about the adequacy of the mechanisms available in the US such as for example the possibility of presidential pardons and compassionate release. See our previous briefings on this area for a more detailed discussion of the relevant legal framework.
Horne is topical because in a series of recent decisions on this topic the ECHR has not had to actually rule on whether the US life sentencing regime is irreducible for the purposes of Article 3. In Sanchez Sanchez the Grand Chamber found that there was no “real risk” that the US would impose a life sentence for the kind of offence – drug related crimes – he was charged with. It was not therefore obliged to provide a direct answer to this question.
The “real risk” test is unlikely to present an obstacle in Horne. Mr. Horne is charged with second degree murder. His extradition is sought by the state of Florida. There is little dispute that he faces a life sentence of at least 25 years or more if he is returned and convicted.
Horne is one of at least 10 outstanding US LWOP cases on the ECHR’s docket where the “irreducibility” issue remains live. BSQ is also instructed in another of these cases, Balahan v UK (see our earlier BSQ briefing here.) Mr Balahan is potentially liable for a LWOP sentence under the “three strikes” provisions in California. Both Balahan and Horne have been granted Rule 39 relief, meaning any attempt at their removal is suspended pending the court’s review. Both await decisions from a “Section” of the court as to the “admissibility” of their claims.
A comprehensive and definitive answer to the ECHR’s position on US LWOP cases which has been long-awaited therefore appears imminent. In Sanchez Sanchez the Grand Chamber did lay down a new set of criteria to be addressed when deciding if a LWOP sentence was irreducible. While this has been described as a “welcome development, bringing a degree of clarity to an otherwise messy area of law” by the legal scholar Lewis Graham, he concludes:-
“Unfortunately, the judgment nonetheless gives rise to significant uncertainty… the legitimacy of some of the justifications the court provides for its decision can be questioned), its application remains unclear.. Further, the applicability of the relevant criteria to US life sentences also remains completely unknown.. Given these outstanding issues.. it is not at all unlikely that we will see the Grand Chamber come to take up this issue yet again in due course.”
Roger Sahota is one of London’s leading international criminal lawyers with a specialisation in all aspects of Extradition, Interpol, and sanctions related work.
You can read more information about our extradition solicitors work and our expertise in representing individuals who are sought for extradition outside the UK here.
If you require advice and assistance in relation to an extradition case please contact our London office on 0203 858 0851.