A v United Kingdom: ECHR 1 Oct 1998

The beating of a child aged 9, by his father, with a cane repeatedly, and so as to leave bruising, was inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, and was not capable of being reasonable chastisement. UK law failed properly to protect the child’s human rights. Articles 1 and 3 of the Convention, together, impose a positive obligation on the state to make provision through the criminal law for the protection of children and other vulnerable people against abuse that amounts to torture, inhuman or degrading treatment. Ill-treatment must attain a minimum level of severity if it is to fall within the scope of the expression ‘inhuman or degrading treatment’.
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 3; Not necessary to examine Art. 8; Not necessary to examine Art. 13; Not necessary to examine Art. 14; Non-pecuniary damage – financial award; Costs and expenses partial award – Convention proceedings
Times 01-Oct-1998, (1999) 27 EHRR 611, [1998] ECHR 85, 25599/94, [2009] ECHR 1690
Bailii, Bailii, Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights Art 3
Human Rights
Cited by:
CitedRegina v Ashworth Hospital Authority (Now Mersey Care National Health Service Trust) ex parte Munjaz HL 13-Oct-2005
The claimant was detained in a secure Mental Hospital. He complained at the seclusions policy applied by the hospital, saying that it departed from the Guidance issued for such policies by the Secretary of State under the Act.
Held: The House . .
CitedAdam, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department; Limbuela v Same; Tesema v Same HL 3-Nov-2005
The applicants had each entered the UK with a view to seeking asylum, but having failed to seek asylum immediately, they had been refused any assistance, were not allowed to work and so had been left destitute. Each had claimed asylum on the day . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 30 July 2021; Ref: scu.77589