The killers who will never go free
Courts criticise Howard 4/24point bold headlinehmhow17
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Michael Howard's decision not to comply with a Law Lords judgment governing life sentence prisoners was yesterday criticised by the courts - the third time in five weeks that judges have called into question the Home Secretary's actions.
Two judges said Mr Howard's decision-making process was fatally flawed when he decided two Kashmiri students jailed for murdering an Indian diplomat should serve 25 and 20 years before being considered for parole.
Lady Justice Butler Sloss, sitting with Mr Justice Latham, said Quayyum Raja and Mohammed Riaz were entitled to have the decision set aside, as the Home Secretary now admitted his decisions were "unsustainable" and had agreed to a fresh review of the cases.
A House of Lords ruling last year said when Home Secretaries set the tariff - the term murderers must serve before they are considered for parole - they should be given the reasons and a chance to make representations.
Lawyers for the Home Secretary admitted the two men had not seen the factual summary or the judicial advice on which Mr Howard had based his decision, or been given a chance to make their own representations. Lady Justice Butler Sloss said: " ... it is clear that the principles laid down by the House of Lords were not complied with ... "
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments