Delays in prisoner rehabilitation did not breach Convention – Strasbourg Court

7 November 2014 by

man_in_prisonDillon v United Kingdom  (no. 32621/11)  – read judgment  and David Thomas v United Kingdom (no. 55863/11) – read judgment 

Two prisoners have failed in their human rights protest against prison rehabilitation courses in the United Kingdom.

Dillon

The applicant Dillon, currently detained in HMP Whatton, had been given an indeterminate sentence following his conviction for sexual assault. He was given a tariff period of four years. His release after the expiry of this tariff period was subject to the approval of the Parole Board.

He completed the core Sex Offenders Treatment Programme (“SOTP”) in March 2009 and had been assessed as suitable for the extended SOTP in 2010. But then the  prison authorities concluded that he was insufficiently motivated to undertake the extended course.  He complained that the only way that he could address the risk he presented to the public was by completing the extended SOTP, but his access to this course had been delayed.  

The Court said in James, Wells and Lee v United Kingdom that in cases concerning indeterminate sentences of imprisonment for the protection of the public,

 a real opportunity for rehabilitation was a necessary element of any part of the detention which was to be justified solely by reference to public protection. This required reasonable opportunities to undertake courses aimed at helping prisoners to address their offending behaviour and the risks they posed.

Dillon’s case differed from the circumstance in Wells in that prompt steps had been taken to begin the applicant’s progression through the prison system, even before the expiry of his tariff. The nine-month delay between the expiry of his tariff and his reassessment for the SOTP was not unreasonable having regard to the access to other rehabilitation courses which he had enjoyed by that date, the continued efforts to ensure further progress through the prison system and his overall progression throughout the period of his detention.

The Court was therefore satisfied that a “real opportunity” for rehabilitation had been provided to the applicant and that there was no unreasonable delay in providing him access to assessments and courses. There had accordingly been no violation of  Article 5(1) of the Convention.

David Thomas

David Thomas, serving at HMP North Sea Camp, had been convicted of attempted kidnapping. He had also been given an indeterminate sentence with a tariff period of one year and 19 days. Relying in particular on Article 5(1), the applicant complained about the authorities’ failure to put in place the necessary resources to ensure his access to appropriate courses in prison to address his offending behaviour and the impact of this failure on his ability to show the Parole Board that he had been rehabilitated and could safely be released.

The Court found no violation of Article 5(1) in this case as well. Prior to the expiry of his short tariff in late January 2009, the CALM anger management programme had been identified as an appropriate course for him and a prison transfer took place in order to enable the course to be undertaken. The applicant commenced the course less than two months after his tariff had expired and completed it in May 2009. He also completed an Alcohol Awareness course as well as a course in assertiveness and decision-making. He was therefore in a position at his review in February 2010 to present the Parole Board with evidence of his risk reduction work. The Parole Board concluded, as it was entitled to do, that further risk reduction work was required.

While Article 5 (1) did not impose any absolute requirement for prisoners to have immediate access to all courses they might require, any restrictions or delays encountered as a result of resource considerations had to be reasonable in all the circumstances of the case, bearing in mind that whether a particular course was made available to a particular prisoner depended entirely on the actions of the authorities.

But, as the Court concluded, no unreasonable restrictions or delays had been encountered in the Thomas case; throughout the tariff period his case had been under active examination by the relevant professionals and relevant assessments were being identified and carried out. As with Dillon, a real opportunity for rehabilitation had been provided to the applicant and there had been no unreasonable delay in providing him access to assessments and courses. 

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

 

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: