(Commission) The claimants had been convicted of terrorist-type offences in Northern Ireland and were serving prisoners in HMP The Maze. They protested at a change of regime imposed in 1976, resulting in them not being permitted association with the rest of the prison community. Prisoners complained at ‘close body’ searches, including anal inspections, which were carried out routinely on occasions where dangerous objects had in the past been found concealed in the recta of protesting prisoners.
Held: In assessing whether security measures in a prison may fall within the ambit of Article 3 in a given case, regard must be had to the particular conditions, the stringency of the measure, its duration, the objective pursued and its effects on the person concerned. ‘The Commission has taken into consideration the exceptional circumstances in the Maze Prison, in particular the dangerous objects that have been found concealed in the recta of protesting prisoners (such as razor blades, flints, matches, cigarette lighters); the fact that, in the past, protesting prisoners have used such objects for disruptive purposes (e.g., to burn the perspex shields used for window coverings); the serious risk that concealed letters might identify prison officers as potential assassination targets.’ and ‘While there can be no doubt that many prisoners find such procedures humiliating, the Commission is of the opinion that in the circumstances the level of mental or physical suffering is not such as to amount to inhuman treatment. Similarly, it does not consider that the degree of debasement or humiliation involved, particularly in respect of prisoners who must be aware by reason of their campaign of the substantial security threat posed, reaches the level of severity required for it to amount to degrading treatment.’
Citations:
8317/78, [1981] 3 EHRR 161, [1984] ECHR 23
Links:
Statutes:
European Convention on Human Rights 3
Jurisdiction:
Human Rights
Cited by:
Cited – Lorse and Others v The Netherlands ECHR 4-Feb-2003
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 3 with regard to the first applicant ; No violation of Art. 3 with regard to the other applicants ; No violation of Art. 8 ; No violation of Art. 13 . .
Cited – Regina v Carroll and Al-Hasan and Secretary of State for Home Department Admn 16-Feb-2001
The claimants challenged the instruction that they must squat whilst undergoing a strip search in prison. A dog search had given cause to supect the presence of explosives in the wing, and the officers understood that such explosives might be hidden . .
Cited – Clingham (formerly C (a minor)) v Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea; Regina v Crown Court at Manchester Ex parte McCann and Others HL 17-Oct-2002
The applicants had been made subject of anti-social behaviour orders. They challenged the basis upon which the orders had been made.
Held: The orders had no identifiable consequences which would make the process a criminal one. Civil standards . .
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 – 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.
Human Rights, Prisons
Updated: 03 August 2022; Ref: scu.186479
