European Court of Human Rights Judgments - Research Paper Example

European Court of Human Rights Judgments Table of Contents Overview 3 A Summary of the Court’s Judgement 3 National and International Laws Relevant to the Subject 5 Literature Relevant to the Case in Focus 8 Reflections and Conclusions 9 References 11 Bibliography 14 Overview The discussion henceforth is intended to present a critical review of the case of James Patrick Bulger’s murder by T and V, when at their minor age. The review is therefore intended to commence with a brief summary of the judgment delivered with regard to the case and subsequently, proceed to the evaluation of the national and international laws applicable in the context with relevance to human rights. Correspondingly, inferences related to the case and the laws applicable will be drawn with the review of relevant literatures obtainable since the judgment delivered as on 1999. Based on the critical evaluation of the various factors related with the case, I shall also reflect upon my learning and opinions, as related to the case and in a broader realm of human rights legislations practiced in the current phenomenon. A Summary of the Court’s Judgement Until the post-modern era of the current 21st century, human civilization has witnessed various forms of hideous criminal offences, which often keeps one wondering if the humans have actually been successful in evolving completely from their animal-like ancestral relatives. No matter how long was the human behaviour studied, the subtle oddities can bring astonishing effects to their characters, keeping the entire world manifested, worried and astonished if not devastated. One such instance occurred when the facts related to the murder of a 2-years old boy, James Patrick Bulger, was released by the Crown Court in the year 1999. The case facts concerning the murder are thus. Criminalists studying the case have many-a-times exclaimed that the victim of the murder was not one but three, including both the minors, T and V tried in the courts at the age of 10 years. During the criminal conduct in 1993, James was only 2 years old, a toddler, while both T and V were recorded to be at the age of 10 years each. For a reason unknown, James was abducted from a shopping centre, when he was with his mother Denise, who had just shortly shifted her focus from the boy and saw him disappear within merely a few minutes (Crime and Investogation, 2014). The investigations continued for long two days in search of the missing child, and ultimately receives the fatal news of a child being found in pieces on the railway tracks of Walton Lane, who had many similarities with the description of James provided on televisions, radios and every other forms of mass media. The investigation consequently led to the conclusion that James was abducted by two 10 years old boys, T and V. Search again commenced to track down the two suspects. On being caught, and further interrogated, the duo was found guilty of abduction and killing of the most hideous nature imaginable at such an age. The trail in the court that continued for 6 years, and on 16th December 1999, final verdict was laid for the offence against the two convicts (Buckley, 2002). The trails were conducted at various courts and from different perspectives that led to the initial judgment of 8 years sentence for T and V. However, the judgement was challenged by Lord Taylor of Gosforth, the Lord Chief Justice, demanding for at least 10 years of sentence that would have made the convicts released at their age of 20 years in the year 2003 (Siddique, 2010). While critics to the case have lauded the criticality and the all-inclusive nature of the investigation procedures conducted in order to identify the real convicts, the trail processes followed were evaluated to possess many flaws and gaps from the perspective of human rights laws applicable both in the UK and internationally. Among the many gaps, the most criticised was the judgement being delivered under the influence of media reports and public reactions to the crime, especially when deciding upon T’s tariff at 15 years range. Besides, the true motivations behind the abduction and the killing by two minors were also somewhat overlooked by the jury (referred from Lecture Slides). It must also be noted that during the trail, the parents of the two convicts were suspected to have changed their identity and sheltered in a foreign county to save them from the fury of the public protesting against the offence. Hence, arguments and protests on behalf of the children were meagre that would have allowed a strong or at least justifiable perspective of sympathy towards the duo (Haydon & Scraton, 2000). It must be noted that the court indeed found violations on the grounds of s 53(1) of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 and Part II of the Criminal Justice Act 1991, which led to the ultimate decision by the court (House of Lords, 1998). National and International Laws Relevant to the Subject The case was tried in three phases – first in the Divisional Court of Liverpool, then in the Court of Appeal and finally in the House of Lords. Principally, two legislative sections were applied in the decision-making process of the case, dealing with s 53(1) of the Act of 1933 and Part II of the Criminal Justice Act 1991. Stating precisely, s 53(1) of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 asserts that a felony act or a murder committed by a minor, i.e. an individual under the age of 18 years, will not be sentence to death. Rather shall be detained as per the Secretary of State may deem fit and direct thereupon on His Majesty’s pleasure (FYLDE, n.d.). Apparently, this particular policy had substantial relevance to the case involving T and V, which justifies the judgement under the then legal circumstances. This act was however later reformed as s 90 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000, wherein the rights to detain a juvenile convicted for murder resides with the court during Her Majesty’s pleasure confirming the decision “notwithstanding anything in this or any other Act” (Legislation.giv.uk, 2000). Another statute applied in the decision making of the case was Part II of the Criminal Justice Act 1991, which mandates the inclusion of the Parole Board to advise the Home Secretary on the decision of detention to a juvenile for murder charges during Her Majesty’s Pleasure (HMSO, 1992). However, when concerning the case involving T and V, the proceedings for the judicial review can be observed to have restricted the advice from the Board until the period of 12 years of custody for both the convicts. Hence, the ruling mandated a minimum of 12 years of detention for T and V, restricting power to the Board (House of Lords, 1998). This ruling was again challenged by the respective counsels of the two defendants in the Divisional Court, which although led to a sentence of 15 years of tariff. In subsequence, when the case was referred to the Court of Appeal, view of the justice stressed more on the rehabilitation possibilities of the juveniles during their detention in agreement to the sentence given by the Home Secretary. In the House of Lords, many loopholes to the previous judgements to the case were identified on taking public reaction to the sentence of 8 years of detention during Her Majesty’s pleasure for both T and V. In addition, under the statement by the judge that “It may justly be said that 8 years is a very long time for a boy of that age; but I doubt very much if ordinary people would think that 8 years was “very, very many years”” (House of Lords, 1998; Lecture Slides). A critical view to the case judgments and its proceedings in the House of Lords exhibit that the rule had been followed in accordance with sections 103 to 105 of the Children Act 1908, which restrained any death penalty to be pronounced against children for felony acts committed at their age when below 18 years. In the case referred as well, T and V both were observed as aged 10 years each. In addition, although the judges had withdrawn possibilities of lifetime detention or death to the children, their tariff period was subjected to public reactions rather than on the development and other cognitive progress of T and V (House of Lords, 1998; Lecture Slides). Besides these nationally applicable rules, the evaluation of the case ruling on the grounds of internationally applicable rules, such as those as per Articles 3, 5 and 6 of the ECHR indicates various other loopholes those prove the ruling to be inappropriate. Arguably, the trail procedure and the considerations of the judgment were observed as against paragraphs 61, 62, 63 and 73 of article 3 of the ECHR being in the presence of heavy media and unfamiliar adults in the courtroom imposing strong mental pressure on the two children. Taking into account, the age of T and V when the crime was committed also stated the judgment as inappropriate as per paragraph 92 of the article 3. However, paragraphs 71 and 72 of article 3 of ECHR ruled the judges disregarding T’s claim of ‘the minimum age of criminal responsibility’ as appropriate. It is also notable that paragraphs 97 and 98 of article 3 of ECHR also did not reflect violation of the rights bestowed with T and V during their prosecution, being free from any harming or unfair treatment during their 6 years of imprisonment during the judgement process. The inability of T and V to challenge the lawfulness of the trails made the ruling of the case more vulnerable with regard to the norms of article 6(1) of the ECHR (referred from Lecture Slides). It is thus observable that while a few aspects of the national and the international laws applicable to the case were affirmative to the ruling, many of those norms indicated that the judgment was faulty and consisted major gaps that must have been considered by the justices during trail. Literature Relevant to the Case in Focus As apparently observable from the case of T and V, the context of the judgment was based on murder committed by juveniles of 10 years age victimising a toddler approximately the age of 3 years during the killing. It is also evident from the above discussion that owing to the high degree of significance attained by the case with regard to prisoner’s rights when convicting children, debates became surmounting in the academic and authoritative literature, making the case a landmark in the history of EC legislations. A noteworthy cause to such wide ranging debate concerning the James Bulger murder was particularly the moral responsibilities shared within the community and the entire justice system. As Buckley (2002) argued, the media portrayal of the case, the way of conducting trails and the little importance given to the then psychology of the two convicts, T and V affirms against moral responsibilities that those children were rightly in demand for. Certainly indeed, media replication of the murder played a vital role, both nationally as well as internationally to raise bewilderment and fury within the public, suppressing concerns about the effect the trail proceedings were imposing on the cognitive development of T and V (Haydon & Scraton, 2000). In another literature, Levine (1997) related the issue of bystander-nonintervention with the case, which further reflects the importance of the issue irrespective of geographic barriers but applies to all of the human civilization and the way child psychology works at stressful conditions as this. Hence, it is not only concerned with the UK or the EU societies. Observable from the above discussion, the ruling in the case considered the age of T and V and withdrew the possibilities of death charges on the convicts owing to their being juveniles. Similar to the UK and the EC, other countries can also be identified to deliver sympathetic views when involving children of under, 18 years age. For instance, the laws applicable within the US and by the UN as well, define children as ‘quasi-property and economic assets’, which delivers due significance to their moral development and well-being. Notably, this particular notion pertains as grounds to the civil laws such as child labor as well as criminal laws as in the case of James Bulger murder (Library of Congress, 2015; Human Rights Advocates, 2010). The considerations drawn by the UN, herewith reflects considerable similarities to the national and international laws applicable to the case wherein treatment of children during detention and concessions to their trails unlike that of the adults are delivered with special emphasis (UNODC, 2013). It is worth mentioning that concerns regarding children having conflict with laws and the justice system, as mostly reflected by nations around the world, emphasize their cognitive development needs and their future prospects with grave significance. Reflections and Conclusions In my opinion, the judgment was just in its own terms, considering the then scenario and the applicable laws and statutes. However, I must assert, as the above discussion also reflects, that not every ground of human rights was considered when affirming the trails and during the proceedings. For instance, the elaborated case scenario replicates that adult audiences and heavy media were allowed within the courtroom during the trails of T and V, who were at the age of 10 years when convicted. Certainly, it had a strong impression on the mental stability of the duo, hypothetically unaware of the grave conflict they had put themselves. In addition, the trails continued for long 6 years that rather added to the sufferings of the two juveniles keeping them away from the mainstream society. However, from a contradictory perspective, I also believe that the mental growth of T and V at the age of 10 must have drawn considerable attention towards their home environment and parental guidance emphasizing more on the drivers to such a fatal turn of events. Although, the implications of such attention, as I could observe, were not apparent in the judgment delivered. The other aspects that have come to my notice after going through the case is that – while changes were demanded in the legislative framework involving children as criminals, only negligible importance was delivered to the implementation of legal norms that would prevent the potential drivers of such an event, victimizing three lives. Based on these learning, my perception that quality upbringing and a morally responsible surrounding is necessary for the well-being of children gets confirmed. The most absorbing fact of the case, which motivated me to study it in depth, was the involvement of two juveniles in the crime and the way the entire act was performed that kept me wondering about the societal circumstances it might impose if considered on a larger margin. Certainly, the court’s consideration of public views in delivering the decision was inappropriate, but the concern that a more sympathetic judgment to the convicts might have disregarded the graveness of the entire issue and would have imposed a more negative impact on the society. Considering the case example, it was likely that awareness regarding the importance of a child’s upbringing and proper care became more crucial, giving the society a righteous direction over the long-term. Implementation of human rights considerations undoubtedly strive towards protecting these juveniles from further deterioration, but simultaneously I feel that significance must have been delivered to the implications this particular case draws upon the well-being and the future of the entire society. References Buckley, F., 2002. One Murder, Three Victims: James Bulger, Robert Thompson and Jon Venables. Cork Online Law Review. [Online] Available at: http://corkonlinelawreview.com/editions/2002/2002-10.pdf [Accessed April 30, 2015]. Crime and Investigation, 2014. The James Bulger Case. Crime Files. [Online] Available at: http://www.crimeandinvestigation.co.uk/crime-files/james-bulger [Accessed April 30, 2015]. FYLDE, No Date. Children and Young Persons Act, 1933. Arrangement of Sections. [Online] Available at: https://www.google.co.in/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&ved=0CDMQFjAC&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.fylde.gov.uk%2Fassets%2Ffiles%2F242%2FChildren-and-Young-Persons-Act-1933.pdf&ei=C8xEVbyIHcvhuQSkjYDwCw&usg=AFQjCNGHteSUYESCZFyCkiaBJwkERXoz0g&sig2=MpQBaJUpwDqMVD7O5JeMIA&bvm=bv.92291466,d.c2E&cad=rja [Accessed April 30, 2015]. Haydon, D. & Scraton, P., 2000. ‘Condemn a Little More, Understand a Little Less’: The Political Context and Rights’ Implications of the Domestic and European Rulings in the Venables-Thompson Case. Journal of Law and Society, Vol. 27, No. 3, pp. 416-448. HMSO, 1992. Criminal Justice Act 1991. Chapter 53. [Online] Available at: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1991/53/pdfs/ukpga_19910053_en.pdf [Accessed April 30, 2015]. House of Lords, 1998. Judgments - Reg. v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex parte V. and Reg. v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex parte T. Publications on the Internet Judgments. [Online] Available at: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199798/ldjudgmt/jd970612/vandt01.htm [Accessed April 30, 2015]. Human Rights Advocates, 2010. Juvenile Sentencing Schemes. International Human Rights Clinic. [Online] Available at: http://www.humanrightsadvocates.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/Juvenile-Sentencing-Schemes.pdf [Accessed April 30, 2015]. Legislation.gov.uk, 2000. Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000. Chapter 6. [Online] Available at: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/6/pdfs/ukpga_20000006_en.pdf [Accessed April 30, 2015]. Levine, M., 1997. Rethinking Bystander Non-Intervention: Social Categorization and the Evidence of Witnesses at the James Bulger Murder Trial. Department of Psychology. [Online] Available at: http://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/70731.pdf [Accessed April 30, 2015]. Library of Congress, 2010. Children’s Rights: International Laws. Law.Gov. [Online] Available at: http://www.loc.gov/law/help/child-rights/international-law.php [Accessed April 30, 2015]. Siddique, H., 2010. James Bulger Killing: The Case History of Jon Venables and Robert Thompson. The Guardian. [Online] Available at: http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2010/mar/03/james-bulger-case-venables-thompson [Accessed April 30, 2015]. UNODC, 2013. Justice in Matters Involving Children in Conflict with the Law: Model Law on Juvenile Justice and Related Commentary. Documents. [Online] Available at: http://www.unodc.org/documents/justice-and-prison-reform/Justice_Matters_Involving-Web_version.pdf [Accessed April 30, 2015]. Bibliography Dunbabin, H., 2011. ‘Child Criminals’ In the Media: An Analysis of Media Constructions of ‘Child Criminals’ and a Critical Analysis of the Consequences. Internet Journal of Criminology, pp. 1-24. ECHR, No Date. Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. European Court of Human Rights. [Online] Available at: http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Convention_ENG.pdf [Accessed April 30, 2015]. Smith, D. & Sueda, K., 2008. The Killing of Children by Children as a Symptom of National Crisis: Reactions in Britain and Japan. Criminology and Criminal Justice, Vol. 8, No. 5, pp. 5-25. The Guardian, 2013. James Bulger Killer Reportedly Freed From Prison Again. James Bulger Murder. [Online] Available at: http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/sep/03/james-bulger-killer-freed-prison-jon-venables [Accessed April 30, 2015]. Read More