Religious freedom does not stop at the prison gates – Part 2

21 July 2011 by

Jakobski v Poland (December 2010) – read judgment

Mahayana Buddhists have profound moral objections to eating meat. According to the rules, a Mahayana Buddhist should avoid eating meat to cultivate compassion for all living beings.

Even peaceable Buddhists commit crimes sometimes and go to prison. Meat free diets however are not available in all European penitentiaries. Should committed vegetarians be made to forfeit their beliefs once their offences against society have committed them to penal servitude?

In Poland, apparently, the answer is yes. The refusal to provide a Buddhist prisoner with a meat-free diet was not unlawful under local law which provided only that prisoners should receive meals taking into consideration their employment, age and where possible religious and cultural beliefs. That let-out clause allowed the Polish government to issue an ordinance requiring the provision of special meals for diabetics and a “light diet”. Both contain meat products.

Attempts by prisoners to avoid normal aspects of prison routine by invoking Convention rights have sparked a certain amount of criticism and debate – see Alasdair Henderson’s post on the refusal of a Muslim prisoner to undergo a urine test for suspected drug use because he was undergoing a voluntary fast at the time (R(Imran Bashir) v Secretary of State for Justice). It was argued with some force in that case that Mr Bashir had by committing a serious crime voluntarily accepted the restrictions of being in prison. The Secretary of State also contended that requiring Mr Bashir to give a urine sample was a proportionate interference. It was clear that preventing drug abuse in prisons was a legitimate aim. Nevertheless, his arguments prevailed albeit on a somewhat narrow basis and the disciplinary decision was quashed.

This prisoner case however is in a different category altogether. The following summary is based on the Court’s press release:

The applicant, a Polish national, is currently serving an eight-year prison sentence in for rape, of which he was convicted in 2003.

A Buddhist, he repeatedly requested to be served meat-free meals, stating that he adhered strictly to the Mahayana Buddhist dietary rules which required refraining from eating meat. His requests were refused. For some time he was granted a diet which did not include pork, but other meats and fish.

In April 2006, Mr Jakóbski brought criminal proceedings against the prison employees, complaining that, despite his requests, he was receiving meals containing meat products and that he could not refuse them as this would have been regarded as a decision to start a hunger strike and would have entailed disciplinary punishment. The criminal proceedings were discontinued. Subsequently, the Buddhist Mission in Poland sent a letter to the prison authorities in support of Mr Jakóbski, and he made another unsuccessful request, addressed to the prison director, noting that the pork-free diet contained meat and thus did not satisfy his needs. Further requests fell on deaf ears and Mr Jakóbski’s subsequent complaint to the Regional Court concerning the matter was dismissed by the regional court December 2007. The court held in particular that in view of the technical conditions and understaffing in prison kitchens it was not possible to provide each prisoner individually with food in conformity with his or her religious dietary requirements.

In 2009, Mr Jakóbski was transferred to another prison, where his requests for meat-free meals were also refused. He complained that the prison authorities had infringed his right to manifest his religion through observance of the rules of the Buddhist religion, as protected by Article 9 of the Convention.

Decision of the Court

Article 9

While the Court was prepared to accept that a decision to make special arrangements for one prisoner within the system could have financial implications for the custodial institution, it had to consider whether the State had struck a fair balance between the different interests involved. The Court noted that Mr Jakóbski only asked to be granted a diet without meat products; his meals did not have to be prepared, cooked and served in a prescribed manner, nor did he require any special products. The Court was not convinced that the provision of a vegetarian diet would have entailed any disruption to the management of the prison or a decline in the standards of meals served to other prisoners.

The Court concluded that the authorities failed to strike a fair balance between the interests of the prison authorities and those of Mr Jakóbski, in violation of his rights under Article 9 and awarded him 3,000 Euros in respect of non-pecuniary damage.

Comment

Strasbourg case law leaves us in no doubt that prisoners have not forfeited their rights under Article 9 to respect for their freedom to practice their religion. Any limitations could be set only in the interest of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. Whilst testing for illegal use of drugs (as in the Bashir case) is a legitimate aim under this category,  it cannot be said, by any stretch of the imagination, that observing vegetarianism presents a threat to public safety, health, morals or the rights and freedoms of others.

The respondent government did try to run the argument that vegetarianism could not be considered an essential aspect of the practice of the applicant’s religion, since the strict Mahayana school to which the applicant claimed to adhere only encouraged vegetarianism but did not prescribe it. However, in  Cha’are Shalom Ve Tsedek v. France [GC], no. 27417/95, the Strasbourg Court has established that observing dietary rules can be considered a direct expression of beliefs in practice in the sense of Article 9 (although in that case the state’s restrictions on ritual slaughter of animals according to kosher rules was considered a legitimate aim in the interests of public health). In the present case the Court considered that the applicant’s decision to adhere to a vegetarian diet could be regarded as motivated or inspired by a religion and was not unreasonable. Consequently, the refusal of the prison authorities to provide him with a vegetarian diet fell within the scope of Article 9 of the Convention.

Poland will therefore have to review its regulations under which it is not obligatory  for the prison authorities to serve a special diet in accordance with the inmates’ religious beliefs. To this extent, the non-binding Recommendation (Rec 92006)2) on the European Prison Rules, which recommend that prisoners should be provided with food that takes into account their religion, is being gradually rendered binding by the Court’s judgments on this issue.

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

Related posts:

3 comments


  1. David Drew says:

    The wise Bhuddist will trade his meat for vegetables with the carnivorous inmates. There is you see a pracical solution to many ethical dilemmas. It takes wisdom.

  2. John Hirst says:

    Sociologists have compared the institutions of the army and prison. Religion does not stop in the army either…
    http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentId=887947&portal=hbkm&source=externalbydocnumber&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649

  3. Stephen says:

    One would have thought the Authorities would encourage religious observance for convicted prisoners given the reasons for conviction.

Comments are closed.

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.

Subscribe

Categories


Tags


Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption AI air pollution air travel ALBA Allergy Al Qaeda Amnesty International animal rights Animals 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 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 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 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 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 Professional Discipline Property proportionality prosecutions Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries quarantine Radicalisation 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 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 Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wildlife wind farms WomenInLaw Worboys wrongful birth YearInReview Zimbabwe

Disclaimer


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: