To return to reality for a few moments, those calling for whole-life sentences should not hold their breath.
Interestingly Mr Justice Sweeney has said that he will delay sentencing until January “…after a key appeal court ruling on the use of whole life terms..."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25450555
This is interesting for a couple of reasons. Firstly the Appeal Court hearing to which he refers has been raised because the European Court of Human Rights has made it clear that it considers that “whole life” tariffs breach a prisoner's human rights.
To show just how much this is influencing UK judges consider the remarks made by Mr Justice Flaux, at Northampton Crown Court in November. The judge was sentencing Mr Anxiang Du for the cold blooded murder, in their home, of a husband and wife and their two daughters aged 18 and 12. This because he was unhappy with the outcome of a business disagreement:
http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgments/du-sentencing-remarks-28112013.pdf
The remarks are lengthy (and I’ve chopped a few bits out) but the salient points are this:
“…I have decided that [a whole life order] is not the appropriate order for two separate reasons. First, although it could be said with some force that the gravity of this offence is exceptionally high, given that it involved the murder of four people and was premeditated with a degree of planning…the whole life order…is reserved for the few exceptionally serious offences in which, after reflecting on all the features of aggravation and mitigation, the judge is satisfied that the element of just punishment and retribution requires the imposition of a whole life order. If that conclusion is justified, the whole life order is appropriate: but only then. It is not a mandatory or automatic or minimum sentence. Having reflected on all the features of this case and without in any way underestimating its gravity, it does seem to me that this is not a case in which a whole life order is appropriate, although for reasons I will come to a lengthy minimum term clearly is appropriate.”
Second..I consider that, in the light of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Vinter and others on 9 July 2013...the passing of a whole life sentence within the current legislative framework, which gives no right of review of such a sentence, is in breach of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
So, as horrific as the murder of Lee Rigsby was, I cannot see it being any more horrific than the slaying of an entire family in their own home. Further, even if it is considered so, the “Human Rights” angle may well scupper Judge Sweeney's attempts to impose what many people will consider the only appropriate sentence.