Bieber (Aka Coleman) v R.

Bieber (Aka Coleman) v R.

The imposition of a whole life order does not violate Article 3 ECHR as English law provides a mechanism for release in exceptional circumstances, and any challenge should be made when further detention becomes inhuman, not at the time of sentencing. However, the facts of this case, though grave, did not justify a whole life order; a minimum term of 37 years is appropriate.

Parties
Appellant: David Francis Bieber (aka Coleman); Respondent: R
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 July 2008
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence
Outcome
appeal allowed in part
Legal Topics
Murder, Life Imprisonment, Whole Life Order, Article 3 ECHR, Sentencing Guidelines

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

David Francis Bieber (aka Coleman)

Appellant

R

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence

  1. 1 Whether the imposition of a whole life order infringes Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights
  2. 2 Whether the facts of the case justified the imposition of a whole life order

Ratio Decidendi

The imposition of a whole life order does not violate Article 3 ECHR as English law provides a mechanism for release in exceptional circumstances, and any challenge should be made when further detention becomes inhuman, not at the time of sentencing. However, the facts of this case, though grave, did not justify a whole life order; a minimum term of 37 years is appropriate.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed in part

Orders

  • The order that early release provisions should not apply is quashed.
  • A minimum term of 37 years imprisonment is specified before consideration for release on licence.