Case law

We are looking to build a case law database on the issue of inhuman sentencing of children that lawyers, children's rights activists and others can use as a free resource. Below is a small snapshot of significant legal challenges on this issue.

Details of further court cases as well as relevant laws can be found in our country reports on States which still authorise the inhuman sentencing of children, and our reports on life imprisonment of children in the European Union and in the Commonwealth, as well as the global report on life imprisonment of children.

We will continue to update this page with links to case summaries in our legal database, so please email us with suggested cases.

If you are a lawyer who has worked on similar cases, or would like to, please email us so that we can include your name and contact details in our network of legal professionals.

  • Montgomery v. Louisiana (2016) (ruling that the prohibition of mandatory life without parole sentences for juveniles applies retroactively in the United States)
  • Kansas v. Dull (2015) (mandatory lifetime postrelease supervision is unconstitutional when applied to juvenile nonhomicide offenders in the United States)
  • Yong Vui Kong v. Public Prosecutor (2015) (corporal punishment as a criminal sentence is not unconstitutional in Singapore)
  • Hutchinson v. UK (2015) (whole life orders in the UK are consistent with Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights)
  • The State v. C (a Juvenile) (2014) (judicial sentences of corporal punishment are unconstitutional for male juvenile offenders in Zimbabwe)
  • Maimuna Abdulmumini v. Nigeria (2014) (death sentence imposed on girl in Nigeria for an offence committed while aged 13 violated her rights under the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights and African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child)
  • R v. McLoughlin, R v. Newell (2014) (whole life orders in the UK are consistent with Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights as the law does offer an offender the possibility of release in exceptional circumstances)
  • Vinter and others v. UK (2013) (whole life orders in the UK - where there is no possibility of release or review - are incompatible with Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights)
  • Mendoza et al v. Argentina (2013) (life sentences for children in Argentina amount to arbitrary imprisonment and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment under the American Convention on Human Rights)
  • R v. Skeete (2013) (discussing the circumstances under which a juvenile offender can be sentenced as an adult and the relevance of remand credit in Canada)
  • Diatchenko v. District Attorney for the Suffolk District, et al. (2013) (retroactive application of the prohibition of mandatory life sentences without possibility of parole for children in the state of Massachusetts in the United States)
  • Commonwealth v. Brown (2013) (deciding what sentences should replace life without possibility of parole for juveniles in Massachusetts in the United States)
  • Miller v. Alabama (2012) (sentencing schemes that mandate life in prison without possibility of parole for children in the United States were declared unconstitutional)
  • César Alberto Mendoza, et al. (judicial review) (2012) (life sentences for children in Argentina are unconstitutional and violate the Convention on the Rights of the Child)
  • The State v. Nicholas, Tan and Lewis (2012) (death penalty and life imprisonment sentences in Trinidad and Tobago may only be imposed at court's discretion)
  • Harkins and Edwards v. UK (2012) (life imprisonment without parole and proportionality of sentencing in the UK)
  • Groupe de Travail sur les Dossiers Judiciares Strategiques v. DRC (2011) (death sentences for seven child soldiers violate the right to life under the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights)
  • S v. Morrison Ncube and Others (2011) (procedural rights of children in criminal proceedings in Zimbabwe)
  • The Queen v. Everton Welch (2011) (life imprisonment sentences in Antigua and Barbuda must take into account the age of the defendant)
  • R. v. Wellwood and Moffat (2011) (imposing adult sentences of life imprisonment on juvenile offenders in Canada)
  • BLAST and another v. Bangladesh (2010) (ruling that any law prescribing a mandatory death penalty is unconstitutional in Bangladesh)
  • HKSAR v. Hui Chi Wai and others (2010) (judge failed to perform statutory obligation to set minimum term to be served as part of a life sentence)
  • Bowen and Jones v. Belize (2010) (abolished mandatory life without parole sentences for children in Belize)
  • Graham v. Florida (2010) (abolished life without parole sentences for children for non-homicide offences in the United States)
  • Centre for Child Law v. Minister for Justice and others (2009) (declaring unconstitutional provisions on minimum sentences for children in South Africa)
  • Nkosi & Ors v. State (2009) (substituting long term sentences with sentences of life imprisonment for adult defendants in South Africa)
  • R v. Haigh (2009) (court in Victoria, Australia held that judges may refuse to set a non-parole term in exceptional circumstances such as multiple murders)
  • Kafkaris v. Cyprus (2008) (holds that the imposition of whole life orders is not a human rights violation where there is sufficient prospect for a release at some point in time)
  • Boucherville v. the State of Mauritius (2008) (mandatory life imprisonment without prospect of release is unconstitutional in Mauritius)
  • R (on the application of Wellington) v. Secretary of State for the Home Department (2007) (applicant’s extradition from the UK to the US to face mandatory life imprisonment without parole did not constitute inhuman or degrading punishment)
  • R v. Maygar; R v. WT (2007) (sentencing of multiple defendants, some of whom juveniles, in Australia)
  • State of Israel v. Anonymous (2007) (boy sentenced to life imprisonment with the possibility of release in Israel for an offence committed while aged 15)
  • Williams v. The Queen (2006) (boy sentenced to life imprisonment in Jamaica on the basis of a confession made under unfair conditions)
  • R v. Elliot & Blessington (2006) (concerning the legality of sentences of life with very limited possibility of parole for juvenile offenders in Australia)
  • Roper v. Simmons (2005) (abolished death penalty for children in the United States)
  • Scantlebury v. The Queen (2005) (DHMP sentence for child in Barbados was unconstitutional in requiring the executive to determine the sentence duration)
  • Regina v. Debs and Roberts (2005) (examining whether the sentencing judge accorded sufficient consideration to the youth of a juvenile offender in Australia)
  • Griffith & Ors v. The Queen (2004) (life imprisonment of children at Her Majesty’s pleasure violates separation of powers in Barbados)
  • Director of Public Prosecutions v. Mollison (2003) (life imprisonment of children at Governor-General’s pleasure violates Constitution of Jamaica)
  • Anderson v. R (2003) (boy sentenced to life imprisonment in Tuvalu for an offence committed while aged 16)
  • R v. Lichniak; R v. Pyrah (2002) (mandatory life sentences in the UK are compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights)
  • F (A child) v. The Queen (2001) (seeking review of the judge's reasoning in imposing a sentence of life imprisonment on a juvenile offender in Western Australia)
  • T and V v. UK (1999) (DHMP sentences in the UK violated child applicants' rights to fair hearing and to have lawfulness of detention examined by court under European Convention on Human Rights)
  • Browne v. The Queen (1999) (detention of children at Govenor General's pleasure unlawful in St. Kitts and Nevis)
  • State v. Likuwa (1999) (confirmed that mandatory minimum sentences which are not proportionate to the crime are unconstitutional in Namibia)
  • Shevon Gay v. The Queen (1998) (life imprisonment of a child at Her Majesty's pleasure in Grenada unlawful due to wrongful conviction)
  • R v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte V and T (1997) (UK Home Secretary’s policy of setting a tariff for children sentenced to DHMP was unlawful)
  • Abdul Nasir bin Amer Hansah v. Public Prosecutor (1997) (clarifying that 'life imprisonment' in Singapore means imprisonment for the duration of a person's natural life rather than 20 years)
  • Singh and Hussain v. UK (1996) (child applicants' inability to challenge continued DHMP before a court in the UK violated European Convention on Human Rights)
  • State v. Tcoeib (1996) (life imprisonment in Namibia constitutional as statutory mechanisms governing sentences of life imprisonment account for hope of release from prison)
  • State v. Vries (1996) (mandatory minimum sentences which are not proportionate to the crime ruled unconstitutional in Namibia)
  • Melendez v. The Queen (1994) (detention of children at Her Majesty’s pleasure unconstitutional in Belize)
  • Puloka v R (1992) (sentencing of a boy to life imprisonment unlawful in Tonga)
  • Lim Hang Seoh v. Public Prosecutor (1977) (confirming the imposition of the death sentence on a 14 year old boy in Malaysia)