All by myself: segregation, prisons and Article 6

30 March 2012 by

Bourgass and others v Secretary of State for Justice [2012] EWCA Civ 376 Read decision

The ability to interact with other prisoners is a major part of prison life, and not one many prisoners would give up willingly. But there are circumstances where prisoners have to be segregated from the rest of the prison population, such as where they are posing a violent threat to another prisoner or planning an escape. The Court of Appeal has recently looked into the question of how decisions to segregate are made, including the initial decision, the review of the decision and ultimately judicial review, in a human rights context.

The Court of Appeal has found that internal decisions made by prison governors and segregation review boards as to whether to confine a prisoner to his or her cell are not determinations of civil rights (which would have meant that Article 6 protections applied –  Article 6 providing the right to a fair trial) and that the procedures for making such decisions are Article 6 compliant, when viewed in their entirety.

Several prisoners have appealed a finding that the decisions confining them to their cells for reasons such as refusing to obey orders or attacking another prisoner were unlawful because they were not made using a process compliant with Article 6, that is by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law.

Was Article 6 engaged?

The prisoners argued that they had a right to associate with fellow inmates and this right was of the sort to which Article 6 protections apply (a “civil right”).

Maurice Kay LJ, giving the majority view, considered the authorities and stated at paragraph 36-37,

…there is nothing in the Strasbourg authorities which requires Article 6 compliance at the stage of the administrative decision to segregate or to continue segregation. Nor does any domestic authority require anything amounting to it at that stage. The question whether there is a “civil right” of association with other prisoners is a difficult one … the Strasbourg cases do not unequivocally establish one as a matter of Convention law. They generally emphasise rights such as family visits. Nor do the [Young Offender Institution] Rules or the Prison Rules expressly confer a right to associate with other prisoners.

But could there be an implied right to associate with other inmates, sufficient to constitute a civil right? He preferred to see association with other prisoners as a “normal privilege”, not a right. This does not mean it can be withdrawn at will. Its withdrawal is subject to judicial review (review by the courts of administrative decisions).

He stressed that it was the factual rather than the conceptual circumstances which were particularly important in considering whether an Article 6 compliant procedure should be adopted. It was highlighted that decisions about preventing prisoners from associating with one another are often necessarily made on an urgent basis, for example where credible information comes to light that an escape is about to be attempted. The initial decision was not Article 6 compliant, not being made by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law, but the availability of Judicial Review meant that the process as a whole complied with Article 6.

Another route to Article 6?

The prisoners argued that, if there was no a civil right to associate with other prisoners, their Article 3 and 8 rights were engaged by decisions to suspend their interaction with other prisoners and therefore the decision making process had to be Article 6 compliant.

Maurice Kay LJ considered that in some of the cases, Article 8 may be engaged although he rejected the engagement of Article 3 in all the cases. However, this did not mean that the initial decision making process had to be Article 6 compliant: it was an administrative decision making process which engaged Convention rights, not a decision about whether such rights had in fact been  violated. It would be “absurd” if every time a public body took a decision which might engage Convention rights, the decision making process had to be Article 6 compliant.

The role of judicial review

The Court went on to consider the hypothetical situation where Article 6 was engaged by the decision making process and whether the lack of Article 6 compliance in the initial decision was cured by the availability of judicial review. The Court considered that this would be the case. It was influenced by matters such as that the prison governors involved were well-placed to take the initial decision, given their on-going knowledge of the prison environment and experience with the prisoners in question. Once the decision was reviewed by a segregation review board, a wide-range of different specialists had input which further enhanced the quality of the decision. The safeguard of judicial review also being available meant that the process, taken as a whole, would be Article 6 compliant.

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

Read more:

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: