ABSTRACT
In the last two chapters we looked first at how Discretionary Lifer Panels of the Parole Board have developed in practice, and then at other processes followed in England and Wales for deciding the question of whether those compulsorily detained should be released. Now the time has come to return to the reasoning of the European Court of Human Rights in order to consider whether the practice developed in DLPs lives up to that reasoning. Were the expectations generated in the minds of discretionary life sentence prisoners and their advisers exaggerated? The first point which must be stressed is that the Court's role is to set a minimum standard of fairness and it leaves to domestic courts the duty of developing the detail. The principles established in Convention case law have to accommodate hugely different legal systems
… as diverse as those of the former soviet legal systems of Central and Eastern Europe, continental legal systems and common law systems, with an emphasis on jury trial. It is inevitable that any constitutional standards which are applicable to so many different legal traditions will be insufficiently detailed to afford a comprehensive guide to the application of the Convention in the United Kingdom criminal law. 1
