Three claimant female prisoners asserted that strip searches conducted against them under Regulation 41 had been unlawful. The defendant admitted the unlawfulness, but the claimants now sought declarations accordingly, saying that the Guidance issued by the respondent gave insufficient weight to the degradation imposed by searches.
Held: The searches had not complied with the procedures imposed which differentiated two stages of search and set out the requirements for proper explanations being given. A to the Article 3 complaint: ‘strip-searches can result in degrading treatment, which can breach Article 3. No doubt, if carried out in a thoroughly abusive fashion contrary to the instruction or if, for example, in the presence of an officer of another sex then, indeed, it would be a breach of Article 3. But there is nothing in this instruction which, in our judgment, could lead to a real risk that that breach might occur, provided that searches are carried out in conformity with it. ‘
As to article 8: ‘ there is a risk that a strip-search looked at in isolation can breach Article 8. But the purpose of it is a proper one, namely to ensure that contraband does not come into prisons and, again, provided that it is carried out in a manner which is in conformity with the policy there is, in our view, no possible breach of Article 8.’
Rafferty LJ, Collins J
[2014] EWHC 3517 (Admin), [2014] WLR(D) 333
Bailii, WLRD
Prison Rules 1991 41, European Convention on Human Rights 3 8
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Gillan, Regina (on the Application of) v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis and Another HL 8-Mar-2006
The defendants said that the stop and search powers granted under the 2000 Act were too wide, and infringed their human rights. Each had been stopped when innocently attending demonstrations in London, and had been effectively detained for about . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Prisons, Torts – Other, Human Rights
Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.538310
