Ashton & Ors v The Ministry of Justice
2014
QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION
UK
CORAM
- MR JUSTICE HICKINBOTTOM
Areas of Law
- Human Rights Law
- Civil Procedure
2014
QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION
UK
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
In the judgment overseen by Justice Hickinbottom, five prisoners from HMP Albany or HMP Long Lartin claimed that the sanitation regime breached their human rights under Articles 3 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The court held that the conditions did not meet the threshold for violations, as determined in the lead cases Grant & Gleaves v The Ministry of Justice. The Court of Appeal upheld this, stating the minimal use of buckets did not qualify as degrading treatment. Applications for relief from sanction were also denied as the circumstances were not materially different from the lead cases.
Judgment
Mr Justice Hickinbottom :
Introduction
Each of the five Claimants in these applications is, or has been, a serving prisoner at HMP Albany or HMP Long Lartin; and each makes a claim that the sanitation regime in one of those prisons has subjected him to degrading treatment contrary to article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Some also claim the regime is contrary to their right to private life under article 8.
Over 550 such claims have been made. With a view to the effective case management of the claims, two claims were chosen as lead cases, i.e. cases deliberately selected to give guidance that would enable most if not all of the remaining cases to be resolved without a further trial. Those lead cases were tried by me in 2011, over about two weeks. As intended, a wide range of issues were ventilated, argued and ultimately determined.
The vast majority of cells in prisons have in-cell sanitation. However, in some older prisons (including HMP Albany and HMP Long Lartin), there are some cells without, because to restructure the accommodation to put in such facilities is impracticable. Those cells tend to be used for higher category (Category A or B) prisoners. All of the claims concerned cells without in-cell sanitation.
In the lead cases, there was no real complaint about the regime when the prisoners were out of their cells, when they had access to proper toilet facilities. The complaint was about the sanitation regime when they were confined to their cells, and in particular the confinement for about 13-15 hours every evening/night. Then, they had no free access to a toilet; although, during this period, each cell door had an electronic unlocking Night San system which, when working properly, enabled one prisoner per self-contained landing out of his cell at any time to use the facilities. That electronic system sometimes involved queuing; and, for one reason or another, the system sometimes failed.
I dismissed both claims. The judgment is reported as Grant & Gleaves v The Ministry of Justice [2011] EWHC 3379 (QB) .
Of course, conditions in prison may not be pleasant, or optimal. But the authorities establish, clearly and firmly, that a high level of suffering is required to trigger article 3, put in various ways in the cases, e.g. article 3 is engaged only where there has been resulting “… intense physical or mental suffering” ( Pretty v United Kingdom (2002) 35 EHRR 1 at [52]) or where the court has found the treatment