TWO CONVICTED murderers have taken a Supreme Court challenge to the mandatory life sentence for murder, claiming discretion over when a murderer should be released should not be left solely to the Minister for Justice.
Peter Whelan and Paul Lynch have brought an appeal to an earlier High Court ruling over Section 2 of the Criminal Justice Act 1990, which provides mandatory life sentences for murder or treason.
They claim the section is unconstitutional and that it also offends their rights under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The role of the Parole Board and the Minister for Justice in reviewing their sentences is incompatible with their rights under the ECHR, they claim.
Whelan pleaded guilty in 2002 to the murder of Nicola Sweeney (20), a student, at her home in Underwood House, Rochestown, Cork, in April 2002. He was also jailed for 15 years for the attempted murder of her friend, Sinead O’Leary, on the same evening. He appealed to the Court of Criminal Appeal, which decided the 15-year sentence should run consecutively to the life term.
Lynch pleaded guilty in 1997 to murdering Donegal pensioner William Campbell (77) at the victim’s home in September 1995. Mr Campbell died after he was repeatedly struck over the head with a saucepan during a robbery.
In 2004, Lynch’s detention was considered by the Parole Board and in July that year the minister for justice decided he would not be released and also directed that no further application for release should be made for a further three years.
Yesterday, a five-judge Supreme Court began hearing their appeal against a High Court decision three years ago rejecting their challenge to Section 2. The hearing continues today.
Roger Sweetman SC, with Desmond Murphy, for Lynch, argued that discretion on when a murderer should be released should not be left solely to the Minister for Justice, but should involve a sentencing judge recommending a minimum term after taking all the circumstances of each case into account. This would be similar to the system in Northern Ireland, it was stated.
In their appeal, the two men contend that mandatory sentencing offends the doctrine of separation of powers of the legislature and the judiciary because it amounts to a sentencing power on the part of the Oireachtas.
It is also argued that it offends the doctrine of proportionality enshrined in the Constitution, in that it leaves a trial judge with no discretion.
They also argue the Minister is exercising a judicial function by having the power to decide the duration of a prison term, representing a contravention of the doctrine of separation of powers.
The men claim they are being subjected to degrading and inhuman treatment, in contravention of Article 3 of the ECHR, by virtue of the fact that they have no way of assessing how or when their release will occur.