Anderson J1, Williams H1, Matas D1
1University of Newcastle
Biography:
John Anderson PhD is a Professor at the Newcastle Law School, University of Newcastle, Australia. He has extensive practical and academic experience in criminal law and evidence. He has published widely on criminal law and justice issues, including sentencing and procedure. His research focuses on matters relating to equity and fairness in sentencing, which extends to sentencing options, restorative practices, life imprisonment, parole and recidivism. He is also involved in multi-disciplinary research on elder abuse and advance personal planning. He currently teaches in various courses, including Criminal Law and Procedure, Advanced Criminal Law, Evidence and Sports Law.
Phuong Ngo is serving imprisonment for life with no prospect of release. He was convicted in 2001 of the only political assassination in Australia. The sentencing judge commented that if power to affix a non-parole period to the life sentence existed, he would have done so in this case.
In this presentation the natural life sentence will be examined through the focus case study of Phuong Ngo in the context of Australia’s contemporary human rights obligations. Important human rights themes have emerged in relation to the individual right to hope and a consideration of the penological objectives of long term imprisonment. A particular problem that has arisen is whether this sentence in NSW violates Articles 7 & 10 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights as a form of inhumane or degrading punishment because it is irreducible and there is no mechanism for review. The Royal prerogative of mercy does not offer a reasonable prospect of release as it has been interpreted in the contemporary political context to only be exercised in extraordinary circumstances – a threshold requirement too vague to be meaningful. Final potential relief is through a communication to the United Nations Human Rights Committee for a remedy requesting legislative repeal or amendment to bring the sentence into line with Australia’s obligations.
The ongoing journey in Ngo’s case highlights that the life sentence precludes the attainment of important sentencing principles of proportionality and human dignity, and that an international benchmark should be determined to ensure human rights obligations are fulfilled.