The applicant sought judicial review of his cellular confinement after being found to have assaulted a prison guard.
Held: Weatherup J said: ‘the loss of association or loss of privileges as a consequence of a prison adjudication do not constitute a breach of Article 8. First of all there must be a ‘right’ which has a basis in domestic law. In the prison disciplinary context the matters to which the applicant refers are not rights but privileges that are removed for disciplinary reasons. Secondly the right must be ‘civil’ in nature as determined ‘by reference to the substantive contents and effects of the right’ (Konig v Germany [1980] 2EHRR 170 at paragraph 89). Again the matters to which the applicant refers are privileges. Thirdly there must be a ‘determination’ of the civil right in the proceedings. This requires a direct relationship between the dispute and the right. In prison adjudications the impact on privileges is indirectly engaged by the contest. In professional disciplinary proceedings the civil right to practice a profession is directly engaged in the dispute. That the loss of prison privileges may have repercussions on private life or family life would not involve a dispute as to civil rights for the purposes of Article 6. Nor would loss of earnings involve a dispute as to civil rights for the purposes of Article 6. ‘
Judges:
Weatherup J
Citations:
[2004] NIQB 24
Links:
Statutes:
Prison and Young Offenders Centre Rules (Northern Ireland) 1995, European Convention on Human Rights 8
Cited by:
Cited – King, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice CA 27-Mar-2012
In each case the prisoners challenged their transfer to cellular confinement or segregation within prison or YOI, saying that the transfers infringed their rights under Article 6, saying that domestic law, either in itself or in conjunction with . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Northern Ireland, Prisons, Human Rights
Updated: 10 June 2022; Ref: scu.195913
