The claimant said that whilst he had been being taken from an immigration detention centre to hospital, he had been restrained by various forms of handcuffs. He said that had been unlawful.
Held: The claim failed: ‘ the recommendation that there should only be handcuffing in exceptional circumstances is to apply too high a test. Those making the risk assessment have to decide whether handcuffing is reasonably necessary and so proportionate having regard to all relevant circumstances, which will include the insecure nature of the hospital. The claimant had criminal convictions and the most recent for affray indicated that there had been violence or a threat of violence to others. In addition, he had a history which indicated that he was liable to react to pressure in a disruptive fashion and there was also the possibility of self harm. It was known that he was most anxious to avoid return to Algeria. One of the main reasons for his detention was concern that if not detained he would abscond.
In my judgment, what was known of the claimant justified the assessment that he should be restrained during the hospital visit. Having seen and heard the two witnesses who gave evidence, I am satisfied that they did consider in a proper fashion whether restraint was needed.’
 EWHC 1804 (Admin)
Home Office Detention Services Order 1/2002, European Convention on Human Rights
England and Wales
Cited – Faizovas, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice CA 13-May-2009
Cited – C, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice CA 28-Jul-2008
The court was asked as to what methods of physical restraint were proper in institutions accommodating youths in custody.
Held: The Court had been wrong not to quash the amended rules on the grounds of procedural breaches. The amended rules . .
These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 14 April 2021; Ref: scu.461953