Confiscation of rape prisoner’s family photos not breach of right to family life

3 November 2010 by

Broom v Secretary of State for Justice [2010] EWHC 2695 (Admin) – Read Judgment

When he was transferred from Whitemoor prison to Wakefield Prison in May 2008, Mr. John Broom had 24 historical photos of his children and nieces confiscated. He had been in possession of those photographs for 18 years. He challenged the decision not to return the photos to him by way of judicial review, claiming that it breached his right to respect for his private or family life. Mr Justice Behrens concluded that there was no infringement of Article 8 of the ECHR in this case.

Mr. Broom is currently serving a discretionary life sentence following his conviction in 1992 for buggery and rape of a female. There were two females involved, one of whom was 16. The nature of this conviction was central to the decision to withhold Mr. Broom’s photographs. The Safeguarding Children Panel said that:

Evidence of your current conviction suggests you have a sexual interest in children, and so allowing you access to material, the photographs, which may fuel this interest, could be detrimental to public protection. Your OASys document dated May 2009 assesses you as posing a high risk of general reconviction. The risk matrix assessment indicates that you present a high risk of sexual reconviction. You are currently assessed as posing a high risk of serious harm to children, the public, a known adult in the community, and a medium of serious harm to children in custody.

The Panel also took into account:

[T]he risks that arise within the prison setting, in particular the fact that HMP Wakefield is part of the high security estate, houses a large number of sex offenders, many of whom have been convicted of offences of children. With a large number of child sex offenders located together, there is a risk of photographs of children being shared among offenders. Accordingly, the panel was concerned to ensure that individuals entrusted with such photographs would not become involved in such activities.

In regards to the human rights issues in the case, there was no real dispute on the law to be applied. When considering the question of an infringement of Article 8 of the ECHR, the Judge looked at the series of questions set out in the House of Lords case of Razgar [2004] UKHL 27. The Judge must firstly decide whether there has been an interference with Article 8 rights that is sufficiently serious so as to engage the protection of the article. On this point Mr. Broom emphasised that these cherished photos were all he had left of a family he once had. Although he possessed some up-to-date photographs, his family had now become like strangers to him because he had not seen them grow up for so long. Counsel for the Secretary of State noted the limited consequences of the decision: it did not prevent family visits or the possession of up-to-date photographs, and if the risk assessment changed, then the decision could be revisited.

The judge said this was a “marginal decision”, but ultimately decided that if there had been an interference with Article 8 rights, then it had not been sufficiently serious to engage the article. This removed the need to consider the remaining questions set out in Razgar, but to account for the possibility that he was wrong, he indicated his view on the proportionality of the decision. Although the risk of harm to children which Mr. Broom posed was not precisely specified, the Judge considered that:

…the removal of the photographs is proportionate in the light of the general risk to children, and also the possibility of networking.

When it comes to the rights of convicted criminals, the operation of the Human Rights Act has frequently been criticised. In 2004, then Shadow Home Secretary David Davis said the act had given rise to “too many spurious rights“, and that “all to often it seems to give criminals more rights than the victims”. In 2007, David Cameron (as opposition leader) called for the Act to be scrapped altogether. To those who use “rights culture” as a pejorative term, a decision such as this may be a source of relief.

Yet there is a real argument to be made that the judge was wrong in this case, both as to the gravity of the interference with Mr. Broom’s Article 8 rights and as to proportionality.

It might be said that the possession of historical photographs could not meaningfully contribute to any current family life Mr. Broom had with his family members, and therefore their confiscation could not be serious enough to engage Article 8. Yet one of the key joys of family life is the shared history and memories attendant upon it. In prison, such photographs may be the only way of revisiting such memories, and without them, an important part of one’s family life is significantly diminished. I would be devastated if my old family photographs were lost, and I am in the happier position of being able to reminisce with my loved ones as and when I choose. In this “marginal” case, the judge came down on the wrong side of the line.

The proportionality point is also finely balanced. On the one hand, as Mr. Broom’s 1992 conviction involved a girl of 16, it seems unfair to cast him as a paedophile, and the offences did not involve his own children. In these circumstances, it might seem difficult to see how having his photographs, which were entirely appropriate in nature, could fuel a sexual interest in children, or understand why he would choose to expose his children’s photos to other child sex offenders in Wakefield prison. No specific evidence was advanced on these matters. On the other hand, as the Judge noted, upon his transfer to Wakefield in May 2008, Mr. Broom was assessed by the Safeguarding Children Panel as posing a high risk of serious harm to children. This general risk is serious in nature, and Mr. Broom had not undertaken any relevant prison courses to mitigate this risk.

The Judge considered that the general risk was sufficiently serious to warrant the action taken. But his decision could be argued to have taken insufficient account of the fact that the risk being assessed in this case is in respect of people who are already in prison. Any risk posed to children by someone who had sight of the photographs may be significantly diminished by that fact alone, although clearly there were concerns about “trade” in photographs of children among child sex offenders in certain prisons. The decision of the Panel seems to have proceeded on the basis that Mr. Broom (or some other person who might see the photographs) is likely to be imminently released. The judgment does not show that any evidence was heard on this matter, and indeed in Mr. Broom’s case (although perhaps not that of at least some of his fellow prisoners) the very risk assessments which informed the Panel’s decision suggest that release is unlikely.

Although the legal approach to the alleged breach of Article 8, based on the test in Razgar, may be unimpeachable, the outcome nevertheless could be suggested to be rather harsh.  Mr. Broom has spent a very long time in prison for committing a heinous crime. Consequently, his family life has largely evaporated. In the absence of more solid evidence that his possession of the photographs gave rise to a specific risk of harm to children, or a risk of illicit photo-sharing, it may be thought to be unnecessarily severe to deny him his family photos.

Sign up to free human rights updates by email, Facebook, Twitter or RSS

Related posts

Welcome to the UKHRB

This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.




Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption AI air pollution air travel ALBA Allergy Al Qaeda Amnesty International animal rights Animals Anne Sacoolas anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 article 263 TFEU Artificial Intelligence Asbestos Assange assisted suicide asylum asylum seekers Australia autism badgers benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery British Waterways Board care homes Catholic Church Catholicism Chagos Islanders Charter of Fundamental Rights child protection Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners civil partnerships climate change clinical negligence closed material procedure Coercion Commission on a Bill of Rights common law communications competition confidentiality consent conservation constitution contact order contact tracing contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus coronavirus act 2020 costs costs budgets Court of Protection covid crime criminal law Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation DEFRA deportation deprivation of liberty derogations Detention Dignitas diplomacy diplomatic relations disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Equality Act 2010 Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Facebook Facial Recognition Family Fatal Accidents Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office foreign policy France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage gay rights Gaza Gender genetics Germany Google Grenfell Gun Control hague convention Harry Dunn Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Human Rights Watch Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests insurance international law internet inuit Iran Iraq Ireland islam Israel Italy IVF ivory ban Japan joint enterprise judaism judicial review Judicial Review reform Julian Assange jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid legal aid cuts Leveson Inquiry lgbtq liability Libel Liberty Libya lisbon treaty Lithuania local authorities marriage Media and Censorship mental capacity Mental Capacity Act Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery morocco murder music Muslim nationality national security naturism neuroscience NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges nuisance Obituary ouster clauses parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury physician assisted death Piracy Plagiarism planning planning system Poland Police Politics Pope press prison Prisoners prisoner votes Prisons privacy procurement Professional Discipline Property proportionality prosecutions prostituton Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries quarantine Radicalisation refugee rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania round-up Round Up Royals Russia saudi arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Secret trials sexual offence shamima begum Sikhism Smoking social media social workers South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing starvation statelessness stem cells stop and search Strasbourg super injunctions Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance sweatshops Syria Tax technology Terrorism The Round Up tort Torture travel treason treaty accession trial by jury TTIP Turkey Twitter UK Ukraine universal credit universal jurisdiction unlawful detention USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Weekly Round-up Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wildlife wind farms WomenInLaw Worboys wrongful birth YearInReview Zimbabwe


This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.

%d bloggers like this: