Mr Clift had been sentenced in England to a term of imprisonment of 18 years for crimes including attempted murder. The Parole Board recommended his release on licence once he had served half of his sentence. The Secretary of State rejected its recommendation. Had the recommendation been made in relation to a prisoner serving a sentence of a term of less than 15 years or a life sentence, the Secretary of State would have had no power to reject it. Mr Clift alleged that in such circumstances the Secretary of State’s rejection of the Board’s recommendation discriminated against him, contrary to article 14, in the enjoyment of his right to liberty under article 5 of the Convention. He contended that the discrimination was on the ground of his ‘status’ as a person sentenced to a term of at least 15 years.
Held: A prisoner serving a determinate sentence of 15 years or more acquired a ‘status’ within Article 14.

[2010] ECHR 1106, 7205/07
Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights 5 14
Citing:
See Also – Clift v The United Kingdom ECHR 30-Apr-2009
Mr Clift was serving a sentence of 18 years’ imprisonment for very serious crimes, including attempted murder, and complained that the early release provisions in respect of his sentence gave rise to a violation of article 14. The House of Lords . .
See Also – Clift, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 13-Dec-2006
The claimants were former serving prisoners who complained that the early release provisions discriminated against them unjustifiably. Each was subject to a deportation requirement, and said that in their cases the control on the time for their . .

Cited by:
Cited – Haney and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v The Secretary of State for Justice SC 10-Dec-2014
The four claimants, each serving indeterminate prison sentences, said that as they approached the times when thy might apply for parol, they had been given insufficient support and training to meet the requirements for release. The courts below had . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Prisons

Updated: 05 January 2022; Ref: scu.554274

The appellant convicted of a racially-aggravated vicious murder. Since conviction he had spent almost five years in segregation from other prisoners. The appellant now alleged that some very substantial periods of segregation had been in breach of the prison rules and of his Human Rights. Time limits for authorisation had not been complied with.
Held: The appeal was allowed, and a declaror granted as to unlwful periods of segregation, and breaches of the appellants Article 8 rights.
The courts below had adopted a purposive interpretation of the rules, but ‘No amount of purposive interpretation can however entitle the court to disregard the plain and unambiguous terms of the legislation. The consequence of the failure to obtain authority for continued segregation prior to the expiry of the 72 hour period is ineluctably spelled out by the legislation itself: the prisoner ‘shall not be subject to . . removal for a period in excess of 72 hours from the time of the order’. It might be possible for more than one order to be made, Though the plain words of the Rules might be overridden by a pressing need to protect the prisoner’s human rights, the respndent had not sought to make that point.
As to the alleged breach of Article 3: ‘Considering the facts of this case against the criteria applied in the case law of the European Court, the treatment of the appellant did not attain the minimum level of severity required for a violation of article 3. It is important to bear in mind that the isolation which he experienced was partial and relative. The fact that his segregation was imposed in the interests of his own safety is also relevant. There is no doubt that the duration of his segregation was undesirable, and indeed exceptional by the standards of prisons in the United Kingdom. There are also respects in which his conditions might have been improved, in particular by making greater provision for the pursuit of purposeful activities.’
As to Article 8: ‘no meaningful plan was devised until a very late stage. It is for the Ministers to establish that the appellant’s segregation for 56 months was proportionate. In my judgment, in the absence of any evidence that serious steps were taken by the SPS management to address the issues arising from his segregation until four and a half years after it had begun, they have failed to do so.’

Lord Neuberger, President, Lady Hale, Deputy President, Lord Sumption, Lord Reed, Lord Hodge
[2015] UKSC 58, [2015] WLR(D) 409, [2015] 3 WLR 1003, 2015 SLT 707, [2016] AC 429, UKSC 2014/0273
Bailii, Bailii Summary, WLRD, SC, SC Summary
European Convention on Human Rights 3 8, Prisons and Young Offenders Institutions (Scotland) Rules 1994, Prison and Young Offenders Institutions (Scotland) Rules 2011
Scotland
Citing:
Appeal from – Shahid v The Scottish Ministers SCS 31-Jan-2014
The appellant was serving a long term of imprsonment, and now complained that he had been held in segregation for over 4 years, saying that this was ahgainst the Prison Rules and against his human rights.
Held: The Extra Division refused the . .
At Outer House – Shahid v Scottish Ministers SCS 18-Nov-2011
(Outer House Court of Session) The petitioner complaine dthat whilst serving a very long term of imprisonment, he had been held in segregation for almost five years, and that this contravened the Prison Rules and his human rights.
Held: The . .
Cited – Somerville v Scottish Ministers HL 24-Oct-2007
The claimants complained of their segregation while in prison. Several preliminary questions were to be decided: whether damages might be payable for breach of a Convention Right; wheher the act of a prison governor was the act of the executive; . .
Cited – Bourgass and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice SC 29-Jul-2015
The Court considered the procedures when a prisoner is kept in solitary confinement, otherwise described as ‘segregation’ or ‘removal from association’, and principally whether decisions to keep the appellants in segregation for substantial periods . .
Cited – Inland Revenue v Hinchy HL 18-Feb-1960
HL Income Tax – Incorrect return – Amount of penalty – Income Tax Act, 1952 (15 and 16 Geo. VI and 1 Eliz. II, c. 10), Section 25 (3).
A court’s search for parliamentary intention is not an enquiry as to . .
Cited – Federal Steam Navigation Co Ltd v Department of Trade and Industry HL 1974
The normal meaning of the word ‘or’ is disjunctive, although in a suitable context it can be read as equivalent to ‘and’, or as expressing a non-exclusionary alternative equivalent to ‘and/or’ . .
Cited – Inco Europe Ltd and Others v First Choice Distributors (A Firm) and Others HL 10-Mar-2000
Although the plain words of the Act would not allow an appeal to the Court of Appeal under the circumstances presently applying, it was clear that the parliamentary draftsman had failed to achieve what he had wanted to, that the omission was in . .
Cited – Regina v Central Valuation Officer and another ex parte Edison First Power Limited HL 10-Apr-2003
Powergen sold a property to Edison. Powergen had paid rates under a separate statutory rating regime, and paid an additional thirteen million pounds under an apportionment. Edison later complained that in being rated itself, the authorities had . .
Cited – Regina v Soneji and Bullen HL 21-Jul-2005
The defendants had had confiscation orders made against them. They had appealed on the basis that the orders were made more than six months after sentence. The prosecutor now appealed saying that the fact that the order were not timely did not . .
Cited – Somerville v Scottish Ministers HL 24-Oct-2007
The claimants complained of their segregation while in prison. Several preliminary questions were to be decided: whether damages might be payable for breach of a Convention Right; wheher the act of a prison governor was the act of the executive; . .
Cited – Regina v Deputy Governor of Parkhurst Prison, Ex parte Hague, Weldon v Home Office HL 24-Jul-1991
The prisoner challenged the decision to place him in segregation under Prison Rule 43. Under rule 43(1) the initial power to segregate was given to ‘the governor’. The case arose from the fact that the governor of one prison had purported to . .
Cited – Babar Ahmad And Aswat v United Kingdom ECHR 10-Apr-2012
The applicants said that if extradited to the USA to face charges related to terrorism, they would risk facing either imprisonment by Presidential decree, or full life terms.
Held: Detention conditions and length of sentences of five alleged . .
Cited – Ramirez Sanchez v France ECHR 27-Jan-2005
The applicant complained that he had been held in solitary confinement for a period of nearly 8 years whilst in prison, and had not been given a remedy.
Held: There had been no breach of article 3 by the confinement, but article 13 had been . .
Cited – Greenfield, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 16-Feb-2005
The appellant had been charged with and disciplined for a prison offence. He was refused legal assistance at his hearing, and it was accepted that the proceedings involved the determination of a criminal charge within the meaning of article 6 of the . .
Cited – Razvyazkin v Russia ECHR 3-Jul-2012
The Court discussed proportionality in respect of the solitary confinement of a prisoner under Article 8: ‘Given that solitary confinement is a serious restriction of a prisoner’s rights which involves inherent risks to the prisoner, the level of . .
Cited – Faulkner, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice and Another SC 1-May-2013
The applicants had each been given a life sentence, but having served the minimum term had been due to have the continued detention reviewed to establish whether or not continued detention was necessary for the protection of the pblic. It had not . .
Cited – Willcox and Hurford v The United Kingdom ECHR 8-Jan-2013
ECHR Article 3
Degrading treatment
Inhuman treatment
Continued enforcement in United Kingdom pursuant to prisoner transfer agreement of lengthy sentence imposed by Thai courts: inadmissible
Cited by:
Cited – Lord Advocate (Representing The Taiwanese Judicial Authorities) v Dean SC 28-Jun-2017
(Scotland) The respondent was to be extradited to Taiwan to serve the balance of a prison term. His appeal succeeded and the order quashed on the basis that his treatment in the Taiwanese prison system would infringe his human rights. The Lord . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Prisons, Human Rights

Updated: 04 January 2022; Ref: scu.553309

The claimant had been sentenced to a term greater than allowed by law, and served more time than the maximum allowed. He now sought damages.

McGowan J
[2015] EWHC 1477 (QB)
Bailii
Human Rights Act 1998 6(1) 7(1)(a), European Convention on Human Rights 5(1)(a)
England and Wales

Prisons, Human Rights

Updated: 30 December 2021; Ref: scu.547058

Nona Tsotsoria, P
22853/09 – Committee Judgment, [2015] ECHR 358
Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights

Human Rights, Prisons

Updated: 29 December 2021; Ref: scu.545394

ECHR Article 34
Locus standi
Standing of non-governmental organisation to lodge an application on behalf of deceased mentally-ill detainee
Article 2
Article 2-1
Effective investigation
Failure to conduct effective investigation into the death of mentally-ill detainee: violation
Facts – The application was lodged by an NGO named the Association for the Defence of Human Rights in Romania-Helsinki Committee, on behalf of a prisoner Mr Garcea, who died in 2007.
While serving a seven-year sentence, Mr Garcea was diagnosed with a mental illness and other health problems and was under regular supervision of the prison medical service. He had been in contact with the applicant association since the beginning of his prison term. In August 2004 he inserted a nail into his forehead and in early 2005 attempted suicide. Mr Garcea alleged that he was beaten up on several occasions and handcuffed and chained to a hospital bed. The applicant association lodged complaints with the domestic authorities after visiting him, stating that the lack of medical treatment amounted to torture and urging the prison authorities to stop using force against him. In June 2007 Mr Garcea inserted another nail into his forehead and was operated on in a civilian hospital. After his final return to the prison hospital he died there in July 2007.
The applicant association lodged an administrative complaint with the prison administration requesting an investigation into Mr Garcea’s medical treatment. The prosecutor’s office decided not to prosecute the prison doctors. Concerning the allegations of ill-treatment through improper medical care a court of appeal ordered that the investigation be continued in February 2011 after finding that the conditions that had precipitated Mr Garcea’s death had to be established.
Law – Article 34: The Government submitted that the applicant association did not have locus standi as it did not fulfil the ratione personae criteria and was not able to show a strong link with Mr Garcea. The Court recalled its recent judgment in the case of Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Campeanu v. Romania in which it had established that in exceptional circumstances and in cases of allegations of a serious nature, it should be open to associations to represent victims, in the absence of a power of attorney and notwithstanding that the victim may have died before the application was lodged under the Convention. As in that case, serious allegations of violations of Articles 2, 3 and 13 of the Convention had been made in respect of a person with no known relatives and suffering from mental illness. Even though, unlike Mr Campeanu, Mr Garcea could have lodged a complaint during his lifetime and had a relatively close connection with the association that represented him, the Court nevertheless considered that the applicant association had standing as his de facto representative.
Conclusion: preliminary objection dismissed (unanimously).
Article 2 (procedural aspect): The Court was called upon to determine whether the national authorities had fulfilled their obligation to conduct an effective investigation into Mr Garcea’s death. The pending domestic proceedings had already lasted for more than seven years. Furthermore, the court of appeal had found that the investigation had not been thorough since essential questions had not been answered by the prosecutor. The prosecutor’s office itself had failed to deal with the complaint of ill-treatment in detention lodged by the applicant association. The ineffectiveness of the investigation and the time it had taken the authorities to establish the circumstances of Mr Garcea’s death thus amounted to a procedural breach of Article 2.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
The Court found no violation under the substantive aspect of Article 2 owing to a lack of medical evidence establishing the responsibility of the State ‘beyond reasonable doubt’.
Article 41: no claim made in respect of damage.

2959/11 – Legal Summary, [2015] ECHR 394
Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights

Human Rights, Prisons

Updated: 29 December 2021; Ref: scu.545375

14097/12 45135/12 73712/12 34001/13 44055/13 64586/13 – Chamber Judgment, [2015] ECHR 256
Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights

Human Rights

Updated: 28 December 2021; Ref: scu.544182

ECHR Article 3
Degrading treatment
violation
In fact – since 2006 the applicant suffering from paraplegia of the lower limbs and urinary incontinence and anal currently serving a sentence of thirty years’ imprisonment. In August 2010, he asked for a suspended sentence for medical reasons the judge to sentence enforcement. He alleged that the premises were unsuitable for her disability that required him to use a wheelchair, he had to be assisted by an inmate made ??available to shower and that physiotherapy that were lavished on him were insufficient. In February 2011, the court in the execution of sentences dismissed the application and held that the applicant’s health was compatible with his imprisonment following on corroborating medical evaluations of two experts. The court, however, clarified that the detention center was not suitable to the applicant and there were better equipped institutions to welcome him. The applicant’s appeal against this decision were unsuccessful.
Law – Article 3: The applicant with a disability that forces him to move mainly in a wheelchair even if it may sometimes seem to move with canes or a walker, his complaints are examined in the light of the principles governing state care obligations to persons with disabilities, in view of their vulnerability to challenges of detention.
Quality of care provided to the applicant in detention, including the question of whether the national authorities have done what could reasonably be required of them to provide him with rehabilitation he needed and offer him a chance seeing her condition improve, no physiotherapist has occurred within the detention center for three years. No specific measures have been taken during that period of time and no solution has been sought for the applicant to benefit from physiotherapy sessions tailored to his condition, despite repeated recommendations by doctors to take care of in a specialized environment. The only behavior of the applicant, who seems to have been reluctant to any transfer, mainly because of family separation, can not justify the inertia of prison and health authorities.
Regarding the conditions of detention, and in access to health, and more specifically to the showers, they are not located in the cell, the applicant can not get there alone and they are not equipped to be accessible to disabled persons in wheelchairs. In addition, given the applicant’s condition, the inmate in charge of the day to attend must help him realize his toilet. This was deemed unacceptable by the Comptroller General of places of deprivation of liberty. Moreover, if the legislature opened in 2009 the possibility to all detainees who are in a disability to designate a caregiver of their choice, such a measure, assuming that this choice conditions were met in this case , is not sufficient to meet the needs of the applicant who saw the difficult time of the shower, given his incontinence, lack of privacy and support role given to fellow inmate. Indeed, this aid does not constitute a supplement to support the applicant by health professionals and the prisoner designated to assist it did not receive the training necessary for the practice of gestures required for a disabled person. In this regard, the Court has repeatedly held that the assistance of a fellow inmate, even voluntary, does not mean that the applicant’s special needs are met and that the State has complied in this respect its obligations under Article 3 of the Convention.
Ultimately, the applicant’s continued detention is not in itself incompatible with Article 3 of the Convention but national authorities have not ensured proper care to spare him his treatment contrary to this provision. Given its severe disabilities, and the fact that he suffers from urinary and anal incontinence, the detention period he lived without the benefit of any rehabilitation treatment, and in an institution where he can take showers that with the help of a fellow inmate, submitted the applicant hardship of an intensity that exceeded the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention. These circumstances constitute degrading treatment prohibited by Article 3. The absence of evidence suggesting that the authorities acted with the aim of humiliating or debasing the applicant does not affect this conclusion.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
Article 41: 7 000 EUR for moral damage.

10401/12 – Legal Summary, [2015] ECHR 269
Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights

Human Rights

Updated: 28 December 2021; Ref: scu.544175

The applicant was a prisoner serving time of sex offences. His release would be delayed unless he could undertake an appropriate rehabilitation course. He complained of the long delay in his transfer to a prison providing such a course, resulting in spending time in prison after expiry of his tarriff.

Nona Tsotsoria, P
2963/12 – Committee Judgment, [2015] ECHR 251
Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights

Human Rights, Prisons

Updated: 28 December 2021; Ref: scu.543789

The applicant alleged, in particular have been placed in solitary confinement in the center for foreign Otopeni in violation of Article 3 of the Convention and have been declared undesirable and deprived of liberty in violation of Article 5-1 and 4 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 7 to the Convention.

Josep Casadevall, P
75325/11 – Chamber Judgment, [2015] ECHR 147
Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights

Human Rights, Prisons

Updated: 27 December 2021; Ref: scu.542457

ECHR The applicant alleged, in particular, that his detention in a security cell amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment within the meaning of Article 3 of the Convention.

Dean Spielmann, P
20999/05 – HEJUD, [2011] ECHR 2419, (2012) 55 EHRR 3
Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights 3

Human Rights, Prisons

Updated: 27 December 2021; Ref: scu.541947

ECHR Article 34
Hinder the exercise of the right of petition
Failure to comply with interim measure indicated by the Court: violation
Article 3
Degrading treatment
Inhuman treatment
Lack of adequate medical care of seriously ill detainee: violation
Article 46
Article 46-2
Execution of judgment
Individual measures
Respondent State required to transfer disabled applicant to specialised medical facility and provide him with adequate medical care
Facts – The applicant was a former deputy Prime Minister of the Dagestan Republic and Mayor of the Republic’s capital city. In 1993 he became paralysed following an assassination attempt and he also suffered from other serious health problems. In 2013 he was charged with a number of serious offences. He was subsequently arrested and placed in detention. Under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, on 16 August 2013 the Court indicated to the Government that the applicant should be immediately examined by independent medical experts to determine whether the medical treatment he was receiving in the detention facility was adequate and whether his condition was compatible with detention or required his admission to hospital. The domestic authorities did not, however, comply with the measure. In 2014 the applicant was found guilty of conspiring to organise a terrorist attack and sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment. The criminal proceedings on the remaining charges against him were still pending at the time of the Court’s judgment.
Law – Article 34: In reply to the interim measure indicated by the Court, the Government had submitted two reports by civilian doctors, but these had not provided any answers to the Court’s questions. Instead, the Government had answered the questions themselves and had refused to allow the applicant’s defence team to organise a medical expert examination. By replacing expert medical opinion with their own assessment of the applicant’s situation, the Government had frustrated the purpose of the interim measure, which had sought to enable the Court, on the basis of relevant independent medical opinion, to effectively respond to and prevent the possible continuous exposure of the applicant to physical and mental suffering in violation of Article 3 of the Convention.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
Article 3: The applicant was a paraplegic wheelchair-bound inmate suffering from a long list of illnesses. The parties disagreed as to the seriousness and gravity of his condition and its compatibility with detention. It was true that the expert evidence produced by the applicant had been drawn by experts who had not examined him in person. However, this argument could not be considered valid as the Government had failed to organise an expert medical examination in disregard of the interim measure indicated by the Court and the authorities had denied the applicant access to medical experts of his choice. The Government had failed to demonstrate that the applicant had been receiving effective medical treatment for his illnesses while in detention. As a result of the lack of comprehensive and adequate medical treatment, the applicant was exposed to prolonged mental and physical suffering diminishing his human dignity. The authorities’ failure to provide him with the medical care he needed had thus amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment within the meaning of Article 3.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
Article 5 – 3: The applicant had been kept in detention on remand for more than a year. The Court accepted the existence of a reasonable suspicion that he had committed the offences with which he was charged, as well as the particularly serious nature of those offences. As regards the danger of the applicant’s absconding, the domestic courts had taken into consideration the sentence the applicant would face if found guilty as charged, his personality, his connections and his powers stemming from his position as mayor and his political and social stance, as well as the likelihood that he would influence witnesses. Considering these factors cumulatively, the domestic courts could have validly presumed that a risk existed that, if released, the applicant could abscond, reoffend or interfere with the proceedings. Moreover, the risk of absconding or perverting the course of justice had persisted throughout the entire period of the applicant’s detention. Although his state of health considerably reduced the risk of his absconding, it nevertheless could not entirely mitigate that risk. Considering also the considerable complexity of the proceedings, the Court found that the national authorities had put forward relevant and sufficient reasons to justify the applicant’s detention and had not displayed a lack of special diligence in handling his case.
Conclusion: no violation (unanimously).
Article 46: The authorities were required to admit the applicant to a specialised medical facility where he would remain under constant medical supervision and be provided with adequate medical services. They were also required to regularly re-examine the applicant’s situation, including with the assistance of independent medical experts.
Article 41: EUR 15,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.

51857/13 – Chamber Judgment, [2014] ECHR 1330, 51857/13 – Legal Summary, [2014] ECHR 1418
Bailii, Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights

Human Rights, Prisons

Updated: 25 December 2021; Ref: scu.541470

The applicant alleged a breach of his rights guaranteed by Article 3 of the Convention on account of his detention in inhuman and degrading conditions: ‘the applicant was detained in Prison no. 13 in Chisinau where, according to him, the conditions of detention were very poor. In particular, the applicant alleges that the cells were overcrowded and dirty, that the food was of very poor quality, and that he was not provided with appropriate medical care.’

Josep Casadevall, P
28173/10 – Chamber Judgment, [2015] ECHR 13
Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights 3

Human Rights, Prisons

Updated: 25 December 2021; Ref: scu.541384

The claimant had been imprisoned for sexual offences. Whilst in prison as an IPP prisoner, and after completion of his tariff, he completed courses required to assist his treatment and demonstrate his improvement, there was an undue delay in his release.
Held: The ECtHR was therefore prepared to look at the matter overall, and to accept that no system is likely to be able to avoid some periods of waiting and delay, especially for a highly intensive course such as the ESOTP. Similarly, a delay from 1 March 2012 when transfer to open conditions was recommended by the Parole Board (or from 20 March 2012 when the Secretary of State accepted the recommendation, saying that such a transfer was envisaged in about three months) until July 2012, when transfer actually occurred was not regarded as unreasonable.

Ineta Ziemele, P
24712/12, [2013] ECHR 1369
Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights
Cited by:
Cited – Haney and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v The Secretary of State for Justice SC 10-Dec-2014
The four claimants, each serving indeterminate prison sentences, said that as they approached the times when thy might apply for parol, they had been given insufficient support and training to meet the requirements for release. The courts below had . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Prisons

Updated: 24 December 2021; Ref: scu.539936

The applicant alleged, in particular, that the conditions of his detention in Ljubljana prison amounted to a violation of Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention, and that he had no effective remedy in this regard as required by Article 13 of the Convention.

Angelika Nussberger, P
6000/10 – Committee Judgment, [2014] ECHR 1203
Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights 3 8

Human Rights, Prisons

Updated: 23 December 2021; Ref: scu.538735

The applicant alleged, in particular, that his detention following the expiry of his tariff was unlawful in light of the failure of the authorities to put in place the necessary resources to enable him to demonstrate to the Parole Board that his risk had reduced, and that his Parole Board Review was a meaningless exercise.

Ineta Ziemele, P
32621/11 – Chamber Judgment, [2014] ECHR 1190
Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights

Human Rights, Prisons

Updated: 23 December 2021; Ref: scu.538282

The applicant alleged, in particular, that his detention following the expiry of his tariff was unlawful in light of the failure of the authorities to put in place the necessary resources to enable him to demonstrate to the Parole Board that his risk had reduced, and that his Parole Board Review was a meaningless exercise.

Ineta Ziemele, P
55863/11 – Chamber Judgment, [2014] ECHR 1195
Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights

Human Rights, Prisons

Updated: 23 December 2021; Ref: scu.538281

ECHR The applicant alleged a breach of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the imposition of the so-called ‘dangerous detainee’ regime on him and inadequate conditions of his detention. He further submitted that the length of his pre-trial detention was excessive, in breach of Article 5-3. Invoking Article 6-1 the applicant complained that criminal proceedings in his case lasted excessively long. The applicant also alleged a breach of Article 8 in that his correspondence had been censored.

Ineta Ziemele, P
23463/04 – Chamber Judgment, [2014] ECHR 1159
Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights

Human Rights, Prisons

Updated: 23 December 2021; Ref: scu.538227

The applicant alleged, in particular, that the physical conditions of his detention, including the lack of separation between smokers and non-smokers in Aiud, Gherla, Rahova, Jilava, Slobozia, Dej and Miercurea-Ciuc Prisons and the transport conditions between those facilities, had been inappropriate. He further complained that he had been subjected to ill-treatment by the police during the criminal investigation opened against him, and that the medical treatment during his pre-trial detention had been inadequate.

Josep Casadevall, P
47603/10 – Chamber Judgment, [2014] ECHR 1157
Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights

Human Rights, Prisons

Updated: 23 December 2021; Ref: scu.538229

The applicant complained that the conditions of his pre-trial detention in remand prison IZ-50/3 between 30 June 2011 and 13 June 2012 had been inhuman and degrading in violation of Article 3

Khanlar Hajiyev, P
57502/12 – Committee Judgment, [2014] ECHR 1172
Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights 3

Human Rights, Prisons

Updated: 23 December 2021; Ref: scu.538212

ECHR Article 5-1
Lawful arrest or detention
Continued imprisonment without review under ‘wholly punitive’ life sentence: inadmissible
Facts – The applicants were serving mandatory life sentences for murder. Mr Lynch was convicted of murder in 1997 and given the sentence of life imprisonment that is mandatory in Irish law. His detention was reviewed on a number of occasions by the Parole Board and in September 2012 it recommended his placement on a temporary release programme, which has since commenced. Mr Whelan was convicted of murder and attempted murder in 2002 and given consecutive 15 year and life sentences.
In their applications to the European Court both applicants complained that their continuing imprisonment violated Article 5-1 of the Convention as no there was no form of review available to them to test whether their continuing detention was still justified by their original convictions. They further argued under Article 6-1 of the Convention that the power of the Minister to grant temporary release meant that the executive was effectively determining the duration of their sentence, contrary to their right to be tried by an independent and impartial tribunal.
Mr Whelan’s application was declared inadmissible as being out of time.
Law
Article 5-1: The Court noted that Mr Lynch’s trial and detention had been in full conformity with Irish law.
The Court next considered his argument that his sentence was not wholly punitive as in most cases such prisoners were in practice granted temporary release. In its view, this did not belie what the Supreme Court also termed the ‘exclusively punitive’ nature of the applicant’s sentence. In Ireland a mandatory life sentence for the crime of murder had as its sole purpose the punishment of the offender. There was no ‘tariff period’ which a prisoner must serve. Temporary release did not as a matter of domestic law terminate the sentence imposed upon the prisoner following conviction.
Mr Lynch’s situation was clearly distinguishable from that in Stafford v. the United Kingdom in which a life prisoner who had been released on licence complained to the Court that 30 years after his conviction, and because of more recent, lesser offences, he had been recalled and remained in prison by decision of the executive to maintain the revocation of his licence. In Mr Lynch’s case, however, there had been no interruption in incarceration that could be viewed as rupturing the link between the original conviction and present detention and the detention was not based on any administrative withdrawal of the privilege of temporary release.
The discretionary power of the executive to grant temporary release to a life prisoner was not inconsistent with the solely punitive character of a mandatory life sentence, as expounded by the Irish courts. Nor could it be said to give rise to any uncertainty as regards Mr Lynch’s legal status such as would raise an issue of quality of law or respect for the rule of law.
Accordingly, the causal connection between Mr Lynch’s conviction of murder in 1997 and his imprisonment from that point on was both clear and sufficient. His detention remained in conformity with the original life sentence imposed on him. Finding no sign of any arbitrariness, the Court was satisfied that the applicant’s detention was justified under Article 5-1.
Conclusion: inadmissible (manifestly ill-founded).
Article 5-4: Preventative considerations were not part of Irish criminal law generally, a fortiori when it came to the imposition of a mandatory life sentence. The existence of an executive power of temporary release, which took account of factors of security and risk and which was routinely exercised, did not entitle Mr Lynch to a judicial procedure to test the ongoing legality of his current imprisonment. In any event, the power of the Minister was subject to legal safeguards. The Convention did not require any further review of the lawfulness of the detention.
Conclusion: inadmissible (manifestly ill-founded).
Article 6-1: Mr Lynch also complained that, in view of the executive power of temporary release, the criminal proceedings against him had not been conducted in accordance with his right to be tried by an independent and impartial tribunal. The Court rejected Mr Lynch’s argument that it was the Minister who determined the duration of his imprisonment. It found that the criminal charges against him were determined on the day his appeal against conviction was dismissed in 1998. The involvement of the Minister did not come until many years after the trial and it was artificial to suggest that the mandatory life sentence given to the first applicant for the crime of murder remained ‘unfixed’ until he was eventually released by ministerial decision.
Conclusion: inadmissible (manifestly ill-founded).

70495/10 – Legal Summary, [2014] ECHR 901, [2014] ECHR 902
Bailii, Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights

Human Rights, Prisons

Updated: 20 December 2021; Ref: scu.536426

ECHR Article 5-4
Speediness of review
Sixteen days’ delay in judicial review of lawfulness of order for detention pending extradition made by non-judicial authority: violation
Facts – On 28 February 2011 the applicant was detained in Russia pursuant to an order made by a prosecutor following a request for his extradition from the Kazakh authorities. On 30 March 2011 the applicant lodged an application for release with a court of first instance, which quashed the detention order 16 days later, on 15 April 2011.
Law – Article 5 – 4: The case did not concern detention under Article 5 – 1 (c) but detention for the purposes of extradition governed by Article 5 – 1 (f). Consequently, the authorities did not have an obligation to bring the applicant promptly before a judge. However, the applicant had a right to ‘take proceedings’ before the court and actively seek his release under Article 5 – 4 of the Convention. Once an application for release had been lodged, judicial review of the lawfulness of detention had to follow speedily.
Nevertheless, the ‘speediness’ requirement of Article 5 – 4 was not necessarily the same as the ‘promptness’ requirement of Article 5 – 3. Thus where the original detention order was imposed by a court (that is, an independent and impartial judicial body in a procedure offering appropriate guarantees of due process), the Court had in a series of cases against Russia* been prepared to tolerate longer periods of review in the proceedings before the second-instance court. In such cases, a period of 16 days might not raise an issue under Article 5 – 4**. However, unlike the position in those cases, the original detention order in the applicant’s case was made by a prosecutor, not by a judge or other judicial officer.
Furthermore, the decision-making process which had resulted in the detention order had not offered the guarantees of due process: the decision was taken in camera and without any involvement of the applicant. In addition, as established by the reviewing court, the prosecutor had acted ultra vires and had no powers to order the applicant’s detention.
In these circumstances, the standard of ‘speediness’ of judicial review under Article 5 – 4 of the Convention came closer to the standard of ‘promptness’ under Article 5 – 3. Therefore, the 16 days’ delay in the judicial review of the detention order of 28 February 2011 was excessive.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
The Court also found a violation of Article 5 – 1 in conjunction with Article 5 – 5 of the Convention.
Article 41: EUR 6,500 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
* Mamedova v. Russia, 7064/05, 1 June 2006, Information Note 87; Ignatov v. Russia, 27193/02, 24 May 2007; and Lamazhyk v. Russia, 20571/04, 30 July 2009.
** Yudayev v. Russia, 40258/03, 15 January 2009; and Khodorkovskiy v. Russia, 5829/04, 31 May 2011, Information Note 141.

41970/11 – Legal Summary, [2014] ECHR 800
Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights

Human Rights, Prisons

Updated: 17 December 2021; Ref: scu.535179

The applicant complained in particular that the surgery he suffered Dec. 21, 2000 has violated his rights under Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention.

Josep Casadevall, P
14092/06 – Chamber Judgment, [2014] ECHR 727
Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights

Human Rights, Prisons

Updated: 16 December 2021; Ref: scu.533849

The applicant complained, in particular, of poor prison conditions he suffered in prison at Colibasi and lack of adequate medical treatment in detention for his disease.

Josep Casadevall, P
47040/11 – Chamber Judgment, [2014] ECHR 726
Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights

Human Rights, Prisons

Updated: 16 December 2021; Ref: scu.533851

The applicants said that if extradited to the USA to face charges related to terrorism, they would risk facing either imprisonment by Presidential decree, or full life terms.
Held: Detention conditions and length of sentences of five alleged terrorists would not amount to ill-treatment if they were extradited to the USA. There would be no violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment) as a result of conditions of detention at ADX Florence (a ‘supermax’ prison in the United States).
The court distinguished between a mandatory whole life sentence, and a discretionary sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. A whole life mandatory sentence was not, of itself, incompatible with the Convention, although the trend in Europe militated against the imposition of such sentences. Such a sentence ‘would be much more likely to be disproportionate than any other type of life sentence, especially if it required the sentencing court to disregard mitigating factors which are generally understood as indicating a significantly lower level of culpability on the part of the defendant such as youth or severe mental health problems’.
As to the discretionary whole life order (ii) the court observed: ‘normally such sentences are imposed for offences of the utmost severity, such as murder or manslaughter. In any legal system, such offences, if they do not attract a life sentence normally attract a substantial sentence of imprisonment, perhaps of several decades. Therefore, any defendant who is convicted of such an offence must expect to serve a significant number of years in prison before he can realistically have any hope of release, irrespective of whether he is given a life sentence or a determinate sentence. It follows, therefore, that, if a discretionary life sentence is imposed by a court after due consideration of all relevant mitigating and aggravating factors, an Article 3 issue cannot arise at the moment when it is imposed. Instead, the court agrees with the Court of Appeal in Bieber and the House of Lords in Wellington that an Article 3 issue will only arise when it can be shown:
(i) that the applicant’s continued imprisonment can no longer be justified on any legitimate penological grounds (such as punishment, deterrence, public protection or rehabilitation); and
(ii) as the Grand Chamber stated in Kafkaris . . the sentence is reducible de facto and de jure’.
The circumstances in which the solitary confinement of prisoners will violate article 3 are well established in ECHR case law: ‘Solitary confinement is one of the most serious measures which can be imposed within a prison and, as the Committee for the Prevention of Torture has stated, all forms of solitary confinement without appropriate mental and physical stimulation are likely, in the long term, to have damaging effects, resulting in deterioration of mental faculties and social abilities. Indeed, as the Committee’s most recent report makes clear, the damaging effect of solitary confinement can be immediate and increases the longer the measure lasts and the more indeterminate it is.
At the same time, however, the court has found that the prohibition of contact with other prisoners for security, disciplinary or protective reasons does not in itself amount to inhuman treatment or punishment. In many states parties to the Convention more stringent security measures, which are intended to prevent the risk of escape, attack or disturbance of the prison community, exist for dangerous prisoners.
Thus, whilst prolonged removal from association with others is undesirable, whether such a measure falls within the ambit of article 3 of the Convention depends on the particular conditions, the stringency of the measure, its duration, the objective pursued and its effects on the person concerned.
In applying these criteria, the court has never laid down precise rules governing the operation of solitary confinement. For example, it has never specified a period of time, beyond which solitary confinement will attain the minimum level of severity required for article 3. The court has, however, emphasised that solitary confinement, even in cases entailing relative isolation, cannot be imposed on a prisoner indefinitely’

Lech Garlicki, P
[2012] ECHR 609, 24027/07, (2013) 56 EHRR 1, 11949/08, 36742/08, 66911/09
Bailii, Bailii Summary
European Convention on Human Rights 8
Human Rights
Citing:
See Also – Ahmad and Aswat v United Kingdom ECHR 10-Jun-2007
(Statement of Facts) The applicants resisted extradition from the respondent country to the USA to face allegations of terrorist related crime. . .
See Also – Ahmad And Aswat v United Kingdom ECHR 10-Jul-2007
(Statement of Facts) To resist an extradition application to America to stand trial on various federal charges, the appellants claimed that if they were extradited there was a real prospect that they would be made subject to a determination by the . .
See Also – Ahmad and Aswat v United Kingdom ECHR 6-Jul-2010
It will only be in exceptional circumstances that an applicant’s private or family life in a contracting state will outweigh the legitimate aim pursued by his or her extradition. Recalling that there is no right in the Convention not to be . .
Cited – Harkins And Edwards v The United Kingdom ECHR 17-Jan-2012
Each defendant objected to their proposed extradition to the US, saying that if extradited and convicted they would face the possibility of a death sentence or of a life sentence without the possibility of parole, each being incompatible with . .

Cited by:
Cited – Oakes and Others v Regina CACD 21-Nov-2012
A specially constituted CACD heard sentencing appeals for defendants serving life terms for very grave crimes, and in particular, the judicial assessment of the minimum term to be served by the appellants for the purposes of punishment and . .
Cited – Shahid v Scottish Ministers (Scotland) SC 14-Oct-2015
The appellant convicted of a racially-aggravated vicious murder. Since conviction he had spent almost five years in segregation from other prisoners. The appellant now alleged that some very substantial periods of segregation had been in breach of . .
Cited – Lord Advocate (Representing The Taiwanese Judicial Authorities) v Dean SC 28-Jun-2017
(Scotland) The respondent was to be extradited to Taiwan to serve the balance of a prison term. His appeal succeeded and the order quashed on the basis that his treatment in the Taiwanese prison system would infringe his human rights. The Lord . .
Cited – United States of America v Assange Admn 10-Dec-2021
The USA sought A’s extradition. It had been previously refused on the grounds of expected suicide of A if subjected to US prison conditions.
Held: The order refusing extradition was quashed, and the matter referred to the Magistrates’ Court . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Prisons

Updated: 15 December 2021; Ref: scu.463499