Do prisoners have human rights in prison?![]() In 2015, Sebastian was convicted of being a member of an illegal terrorist organisation that attempted a bombing in London. He was 17 years old. At the time of his trial, Sebastian was diagnosed with depression and suicidal tendencies. He was put on specialist medication and recommended for juvenile detention with extra supervision and educational and recreational programmes. Due to a shortage of space, Sebastian was detained in an adult prison. He was not provided with any medical care for his psychological problems. He made repeated suicide attempts. After each attempt, he was forced to strip to his underwear and confined to his cell for seven days. He was often taunted by the prison guards that his suicide attempts were half hearted cries for attention. Sebastian and his Solicitor made several requests to meet with the prison governor to discuss his issues and be transferred to a juvenile prison. In July 2016, Sebastian was working in the prison garden when a disturbance broke out amongst the prisoners. Several prison guards were deployed to control the situation. During this disturbance, Sebastian was kicked repeatedly in the stomach and hit on the head with a prison officer baton. Sebastian was physically restrained and taken back to his cell. Sebastian was found dead in his cell five hours later. A post mortem showed he had several injuries to his body primarily located around his abdomen and head but that he had died from blood loss resulting from a severe head injury. Sebastian’s parents were informed of their son’s death 10 days after he died. They were informed that the prison had carried out an investigation. They were provided with a brief report indicating that Sebastian had taken his own life. Sebastian’s parents have discovered that the prison guards on duty at the time were not interviewed or required to give any evidence as to the events of the disturbance or events thereafter. Advise Sebastian’s parents regarding Articles 2 and 3 of the ECHR in relation to their son's death. Sebastian v UK This essay seeks to advise Sebastian’s parents regarding Articles 2 and 3 of the European Convention of Human Rights(ECHR), which states that every human has a right to life, and shall not be subjected to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, in relation to their son’s death; and will ultimately conclude whether the State is liable for not fulfilling their duty of care owed. S6 of the Human Rights Act(HRA) imposes a duty on all public authorities to act compatibly with all convention rights. Sebastian’s parents can bring the claim of his death similarly to the case of McCann and others v UK which was permitted to be brought by immediate family. Article 3 of the ECHR is to be discussed first since it questions whether Sebastian was subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment when he was alive. Article 3 is an absolute right and is not subject to any derogations or limitations under the ECHR (Ireland v UK). The negative and positive obligations of the state under article 3 are to be discussed. The negative obligation states that it is an absolute duty not to commit torture or cause inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. The positive duty by the state, which is not absolute, questions whether the state took reasonable steps to prevent individuals from being subject to proscribed treatment. To discuss whether negative and positive obligations stated in article 3 were undertaken by the state, the facts must be applied. The state failed in its negative obligation not to subject Sebastian to inhuman and degrading treatment; this is acknowledged by the facts stating that he was subjected to a strip search and confined to his cell after each suicide attempt, he was kicked repeatedly in the stomach and hit on the head with a police officer’s baton and he was physically restrained and taken back to his cell, where he consequently died for untreated injuries. It can be concluded that the state also failed in its positive obligation to take any reasonable steps to protect Sebastian from suffering inhuman or degrading treatment both in failing to provide him with specialist care and extra supervision, thus leading to his death. It can be seen in the case of (Napier v Scottish Ministries) that the state owes prisoners a duty of care. The prison authorities further ignored the suicide attempts made by Sebastian describing them as him merely seeking attention despite him being diagnosed with depression and suicidal tendencies. The state has therefore failed to safeguard the physical and psychological well-being of Sebastian. Article 2 of the ECHR which states that all individuals have a right to life is to be discussed. It can be questioned whether the state has failed in its substantive obligation on account of the death of Sebastian during detention or whether the state failed under its procedural obligations in regards to the investigation into the circumstances which led to Sebastian’s death. (Jordan v UK) is referenced regarding the criteria for the effectiveness of the state investigation, if the investigation meets the strict requirements of effectiveness and if the investigation was carried out with the requisite diligence and efficiency. The scope of Article 2 states that there is a duty not to take life, a duty to safeguard life and an obligation to investigate deaths. (R(Middleton) v HM Coroner West Somerset). Article 2(1) is an absolute right, it states that everyone’s right to life shall be protected by law. Regarding Article 2(2) it can be questioned whether the state failed in its obligation with respect to the force used and if it had been ‘no more than absolutely necessary’ and justified by the exceptions stated in Article 2(2). Force was used by the state to quell a riot is an exception permitted by statute under Article 2(2), and as such was used in the circumstances. Examining the situation, one must consider whether the force used was ‘no more than absolutely necessary’ given the conditions and must be strictly proportionate to it. In (Mc Cann and others v UK) the court stated that the test to use with regards to lethal force must be absolutely necessary, a term meaning that a stricter or more compelling test of necessity must be employed than that normally applicable when determining whether state action is ‘necessary in a democratic society’; in this case, Police officers had killed terrorists on the perception that there was an existence of danger to the public of an imminent attack, however they were unarmed at the time of their death. The examination of the substantive obligation by the state is satisfied. A procedural obligation is required by the state to initiate an effective public investigation by an independent official body into the death of the individual. ECHR case law has established that investigations must be undertaken promptly and expeditiously. (McCann and others v UK & Osman v UK) It is also seen in (Jordan v UK) that investigation must meet the requirements of effectiveness. State authorities have failed to carry out an effective and thorough investigation, furthermore, the family of Sebastian was neither informed nor involved in the investigation. The involvement of the family to a state investigation has been established as a key order to determine if the state has carried out an effective investigation and has therefore complied with its procedural obligation under Article 2 of the ECHR. It should be concluded that if an accurate and thorough investigation had taken place, certain key factors would have been brought to light leading to the state being liable for the death of Sebastian, including: the treatment of the prisoners on behalf of the prison officers, (Tali v Estonia) can be noted since similarly they were both treated inhumanely, and that Sebastian was a Juvenile, (Guvec v Turkey) where it should be emphasised the prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment given the age of the prisoner. It should also be noted that contrary to the post mortem, the brief document provided by the investigators had falsified and vague information regarding Sebastian’s death.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorKarina Samaroo Archives
September 2019
Categories
All
|