Whether the Court of Appeal erred (i) in its approach to international materials and (ii) by failing to apply a ‘strict necessity’ test when determining whether the Respondent’s treatment of the Appellant during the first 55 days of his detention at Feltham Young Offenders’ Institution breached Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights?
‘it is not the function of our domestic courts to establish new principles of Convention law. But that is not to say that they are unable to develop the law in relation to Convention rights beyond the limits of the Strasbourg case law. In situations which have not yet come before the European court, they can and should aim to anticipate, where possible, how the European court might be expected to decide the case, on the basis of the principles established in its case law. Indeed, that is the exercise which the High Court and the Court of Appeal undertook in the present case. The application of the Convention by our domestic courts, in such circumstances, will be based on the principles established by the European court, even if some incremental development may be involved. ‘
Judges:
Lord Reed, President, Lord Lloyd-Jones, Lord Sales, Lord Hamblen, Lord Stephens
Citations:
[2021] UKSC 28
Links:
Bailii, Bailii Press Summary, Bailii Issues and Facts
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Prisons, Human Rights
Updated: 28 April 2022; Ref: scu.665999