Control and restraint techniques used on people being removed from UK are lawful, says Court of Appeal

7 November 2014 by

UK Border Agency officerR (on the application of FI) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2014] EWCA Civ 1272 – read judgment

The Court of Appeal has held that the physical restraint of persons being removed from the UK by aircraft is subject to a sufficient framework of safeguards to fulfil the state’s obligations under Articles 2 and 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Further, the decision of the Home Secretary not to publish aspects of the applicable policy on the use of such control and restraint is lawful.

FI was restrained by detainee custody officers during an attempt to remove her from the UK in 2011, though the issues on this appeal did not turn on the specific circumstances of her case. In issue was the sufficiency of the framework of safeguards on the use of such restraint as contained predominantly within the Use of Force Training Manual (the “Manual”).

The Manual describes control and restraint techniques (“C&R”) which have been approved by the Prison Service and are used on planes during the removal of individuals from the UK. FI argued that C&R is often unsuitable for use in aircraft cabins, leaving officers to apply ad hoc and unapproved techniques and thereby significantly increasing the risk of injury and/or death to detainees.

In July 2008 a report by the National Offender Management Service (“NOMS”) had recommended that specific control techniques be developed for use in relation to seated detainees and that staff be given training specific to the aircraft environment. No action was taken in this respect, and in October 2010 a detainee, Jimmy Mubenga, died of asphyxiation while being subjected to C&R on board an aircraft. NOMS reviewed C&R, and in November 2010 concluded that “in its purest form” C&R was a “safe system of restraint, provided it is not stretched outside its design specifications.” That report recommended the development of a bespoke system for the restraint of detainees on aircraft. A timetable of two to three years for the introduction of a bespoke training package was laid out in December 2010. That package was approved in March 2014 for implementation later that year.

FI asserted that by failing to develop and approve techniques for the use of force in an aircraft environment and to train officers in such techniques as at February 2011, the Home Secretary had failed to regulate the use of force in that environment so as to minimise the risk of harm to the greatest extent possible. It was said that this failure both breached the UK’s obligations under Articles 2 and 3 ECHR and was unlawful under domestic law (R(Munjaz) v Mersey Care NHS Trust [2005] UKHL 58) as it created an unacceptable risk of treatment contrary to Article 3.

FI separately argued that the redaction from public view of certain parts of the Manual pertaining to methods of gaining control of a violent or recalcitrant prisoner was unlawful.

Appeal dismissed

The court analysed the judgment of the Grand Chamber the European Court of Human Rights (“ECtHR”) in Makaratzis v Greece (2005) 41 EHRR 49. It noted that while the state’s obligation is to minimise the risk of harm to the greatest extent possible insofar as the planning and carrying out of a particular operation involving the use of force (e.g. an arrest) is concerned, its systemic duty in relation to the implementation of a framework of safeguards applicable to such operations is to do all that can reasonably expected of it to afford safeguards against harm (paras. 41, 61).

Applying the latter test, the court held that, as at February 2011, the Home Secretary had done all that could reasonably have been expected of him to safeguard the use of force against those being removed from the UK by aircraft. It was attracted to the view that the framework of safeguards existing then and subsequently in the Manual was ECHR-compliant. However, as the need for a bespoke package of techniques and training had been identified, it would have been unacceptable had that not been acted upon. The recommendations in the NOMS November 2010 report had been consistently progressed and in the circumstances the timetable had not been unreasonably long. The delay between 2008 and 2010 in reacting to the identified need for such a package was not sufficient to justify a finding that Articles 2 and 3 had been breached.

The court further held that the Manual did not give rise to an unacceptable risk of harm. It also accepted the Home Secretary’s justification for redacting certain parts of the Manual, namely that to reveal the material detailing specific restraint techniques would prejudice security in prisons.

Comment – minimising harm to the greatest extent possible

On one view, the two distinct tests that the Court of Appeal derived from Makaratzis may overlap to a significant extent. If the state is to do all that is reasonably expected of it through the framework of safeguards it implements to avoid harm arising from its use of force, it might be said (as Articles 2 and 3 are the most fundamental of rights) that it should accordingly minimise the risk of harm to the greatest extent possible, in the circumstances, through those safeguards. Such a conclusion seems attractive, as the systemic duty of the state would be as exacting as the duty on its individual agents, most commonly police officers, who are left to plan and execute individual operations.

It may be that the derivation of two separate tests from Makaratzis has arisen as a result of the difficulties identified by the Supreme Court (S v L [2012] UKSC 30, para. 76) in ascribing formulaic significance to the inevitably general statements of principle expounded by the ECtHR. In any event, putting the test on the footing suggested above, it might be argued that the Home Secretary, as at February 2011 and indeed subsequently, had not done all that could reasonably expected of him to safeguard against harm where force is used on board aircraft in the course of removing individuals from the UK, having regard to both the inaction in the face of the 2008 NOMS Report and the somewhat lengthy implementation of the recommendations contained in the 2010 NOMS Report.

Michael Deacon is a pupil barrister at 1 Crown Office Row

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

Related posts:

3 comments


  1. […] Read full article > […]

  2. daveyone1 says:

    Reblogged this on World4Justice : NOW! Lobby Forum..

  3. cidermaker says:

    Very sensible decision.

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 costs costs budgets Court of Protection 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 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 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 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 Royals Russia saudi arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Secret trials sexual offence 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 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: