(Grand Chamber) The complainants were husband and wife. They had been married whilst the husband served a sentence of life imprisonment. They had been refused suport for artificial insemination treatment.
Held: The claim succeeded. The refusal infringed their human right to family and private life. The refusal had been on the basis that the couple’s relationship had not been tested under normal conditions, and that insufficient provision had been made for the care of any child born through a procedure. However a refusal of such treatment would effectively prevent the couple ever having children. No great security or administrative provisions were required. There is no place in human rights law for the refusal of humane treatment for any desire not to offend public opinion. The refusal also offended against the need for rehabilitation as the prisoner came toward the end of a long sentence.
If there is to be any restriction on Convention rights of prisoners or detainees, that has to be justified in each individual case. This justification can flow from the ‘necessary and inevitable consequences of imprisonment’ or from ‘an adequate link between the restriction and the circumstances of the prisoner in question’. But the justification cannot be based ‘solely on what would offend public opinion’.
Judges:
Rozakis P
Citations:
2008) 46 EHRR 41, [2007] ECHR 1050, Times 21-Dec-2007
Links:
Statutes:
European Convention on Human Rights 8 12
Citing:
See Also – Dickson and Another v United Kingdom ECHR 18-Apr-2006
The applicants were husband and wife who wanted infertility treatment by IVF. Mr Dickson as a prisoner, and they complained that the refusal of facilities was an interference in their right to family life as a refusal to fulfil a positive . .
Cited by:
Cited – Marper v United Kingdom; S v United Kingdom ECHR 4-Dec-2008
(Grand Chamber) The applicants complained that on being arrested on suspicion of offences, samples of their DNA had been taken, but then despite being released without conviction, the samples had retained on the Police database.
Held: . .
Cited – AB, Regina (On the Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice and Another Admn 4-Sep-2009
The claimant was serving a sentence of imprisonment. She was a pre-operative transgender woman, but held in a male prison. She sought review of a decision to refuse transfer to a women’s prison. The Gender Recognition Panel was satisfied that the . .
Cited – O’Dowd (Boy George) v National Probation Service London Admn 23-Dec-2009
Refusal of curfew relaxation was reasonable
The claimant had been released from prison early on licence subject to conditions including a home detention curfew. He was offered a place on a TV programme, Celebrity Big Brother, which would require relaxation or alteration of his place of . .
Cited – Bary and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice and Another Admn 19-Mar-2010
The applicants, incarcerated at Long Lartin pending extradition or deportation, challenged a decision further restricting their movements within the prison. All were unconvicted, and all but one were suspected of terrorist crimes. The changes were . .
Cited – City of London v Samede and Others QBD 18-Jan-2012
The claimant sought an order for possession of land outside St Paul’s cathedral occupied by the protestor defendants, consisting of ‘a large number of tents, between 150 and 200 at the time of the hearing, many of them used by protestors, either . .
Cited – T and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department and Another SC 18-Jun-2014
T and JB, asserted that the reference in certificates issued by the state to cautions given to them violated their right to respect for their private life under article 8 of the Convention. T further claims that the obligation cast upon him to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Human Rights, Prisons
Updated: 12 July 2022; Ref: scu.262978