The applicant had been sentenced to 50 years’ imprisonment for several offences. He had leukemia and was to receive chemotherapy in hospital. He complained of the conditions to which he was subjected during the hospital visits, including the behaviour of the guards, and the fact that he had been chained to the hospital bed. Medical reports recommended that he be transferred to a specialist clinic, but there was delay in acting on that recommendation. Subsequently, he was released on licence, subject to the condition of obtaining medical treatment. He made two main complaints of breach of Article 3. First, as to the failure to release him from custody in the face of the medical advice. Secondly, as to the circumstances in which he had been restrained and handcuffed.
Held: The court made general observations in relation to Article 3: ‘The Court reiterates that, according to its case-law, ill-treatment must attain a minimum level of severity if it is to fall within the scope of Article 3. The assessment of this minimum level is, in the nature of things, relative; it depends on all the circumstances of the case, such as the duration of the treatment, its physical and mental effects and, in some cases, the sex, age and state of health of the victim . . Although the purpose of such treatment is a factor to be taken into account, in particular whether it was intended to humiliate or debase the victim, the absence of any such purpose does not inevitably lead to a finding that there has been no violation of Article 3’
As to handcuffing, the court said: ‘The Court reiterates that handcuffing does not normally give rise to an issue under Article 3 of the Convention where the measure has been imposed in connection with a lawful detention and does not entail use of force, or public exposure, exceeding what is reasonably considered necessary. In this regard, it is important to consider, for instance, whether there is a danger that the person concerned might abscond or cause injury or damage . . In the instant case, having regard to the applicant’s health, to the fact that he was being taken to hospital, to the discomfort of undergoing a chemotherapy session and to his physical weakness, the Court considers that the use of handcuffs was disproportionate to the needs of security. As regards the danger presented by the applicant, and notwithstanding his criminal record, the Court notes the absence of any previous conduct or other evidence giving serious grounds to fear that there was a significant danger of his absconding or resorting to violence. Lastly, the Court notes the recommendations of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture concerning the conditions in which prisoners are transferred to hospital to undergo medical examinations – conditions which, in the Committee’s opinion, continue to raise problems in terms of medical ethics and respect for human dignity . . The applicant’s descriptions of the conditions in which he was escorted to and from hospital do not seem very far removed from the situations causing the Committee concern in this area.’
Citations:
67263/01, [2002] ECHR 734, [2002] ECHR 740, [2011] ECHR 2109
Links:
Statutes:
European Convention on Human Rights 3
Cited by:
Cited – Faizovas, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice Admn 9-May-2008
Challenge by elderly prisoner with cancer to be handcuffed whilst attending hospital. He was in prison for a violent sexual offence, and whilst in prison had not engaged in offending reducing programs. . .
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Human Rights, Prisons
Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.213250