Campbell and others had been involved in conduct within the prison leading to charges against them of mutiny and of striking an officer with a broom handle. The nature of the conduct in question was plainly susceptible of giving rise to criminal charges. Referring to the Engel Case, the court said: ‘The court was careful in the Engel and others judgment to state that, as regards the dividing line between the ‘criminal’ and the ‘disciplinary’, it was confining its attention to the sphere with which the case was concerned, namely military service. It is well aware that in the prison context there are practical reasons and reasons of policy for establishing a special disciplinary regime, for example, security considerations and the interests of public order, the need to deal with misconduct by inmates as expeditiously as possible, the availability of tailor made sanctions which may not be at the disposal of the ordinary courts and the desire of prison authorities to retain ultimate responsibility for discipline within their establishments.’ and continued ‘In any event, the indications so afforded by the national law have only a relative value; the very nature of the offence is a fact of greater import. In this respect, it has to be borne in mind that misconduct by a prisoner may take different forms; certain acts are clearly no more than a question of internal discipline, whereas others cannot be seen in the same light. Firstly, some matters may be more serious than others; in fact, the Rules grade offences, classifying those committed by Mr Campbell as especially grave. Secondly the illegality of some acts may not turn on the fact that they were committed in prison: certain conduct which constitutes an offence under the Rules may also amount to an offence under the criminal law. Thus, doing gross personal violence to a prison officer may correspond to the crime of assault occasioning actual bodily harm and, although mutiny and incitement to mutiny are not as such offences under the general criminal law, the underlying facts may found a criminal charge of conspiracy. It also has to be remembered that, theoretically at least, there is nothing to prevent conduct of this kind being the subject of both criminal and disciplinary proceedings.’
Whilst there had been no breach of Article 6 in holding the hearing in private, there had been a breach in not making the decision public: ‘The Court has said in other cases that it does not feel bound to adopt a literal interpretation of the words ‘pronounced publicly’: in each case the form of publication given to the ‘judgment’ under the domestic law of the respondent State must be assessed in the light of special features of the proceedings in question and by reference to the object pursued by Article 6 in this context, namely to ensure scrutiny of the judiciary by the public with a view to safeguarding the right to a fair trial.’
Judges:
Mr. G. Wiarda, President
Citations:
7878/77, [1984] ECHR 8, (1984) 7 EHRR 165, 7819/77
Links:
Statutes:
European Convention on Human Rights
Jurisdiction:
Human Rights
Citing:
Cited – Engel And Others v The Netherlands (1) ECHR 8-Jun-1976
The court was asked whether proceedings in a military court against soldiers for disciplinary offences involved criminal charges within the meaning of Article 6(1): ‘In this connection, it is first necessary to know whether the provision(s) defining . .
Cited by:
Cited – Regina v Carroll and Al-Hasan and Secretary of State for Home Department Admn 16-Feb-2001
The claimants challenged the instruction that they must squat whilst undergoing a strip search in prison. A dog search had given cause to supect the presence of explosives in the wing, and the officers understood that such explosives might be hidden . .
Cited – Regina v Parole Board ex parte Smith, Regina v Parole Board ex parte West (Conjoined Appeals) HL 27-Jan-2005
Each defendant challenged the way he had been treated on revocation of his parole licence, saying he should have been given the opportunity to make oral representations.
Held: The prisoners’ appeals were allowed.
Lord Bingham stated: . .
Cited – Tangney v The Governor of HMP Elmley and Another CA 29-Jul-2005
The claimant was a serving a life sentence. During prison disciplinary proceedings he was refused legal and other assistance, and an outside tribunal on the basis that since any finding would not lead to any loss of remission or extra time, his . .
Cited – Mohamed, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (No 4) Admn 4-Feb-2009
In an earlier judgment, redactions had been made relating to reports by the US government of its treatment of the claimant when held by them at Guantanamo bay. The claimant said he had been tortured and sought the documents to support his defence of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Prisons, Human Rights, Prisons
Updated: 07 April 2022; Ref: scu.164938
