Kelly v Ministry Of Justice
2014
QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION
United Kingdom
CORAM
- MR JUSTICE HICKINBOTTOM
Areas of Law
- Human Rights Law
- Criminal Law and Procedure
2014
QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION
United Kingdom
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The Claimant, a prisoner at HMP Long Lartin, claimed that his detention conditions violated Articles 3 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights due to him having to urinate and defecate in a bucket. The Defendant denied any breach of rights. The Claimant cited frequent lockdowns and arthritis as distinguishing factors from the already dismissed Grant & Gleaves case. The court found no material difference between the regimes at HMP Long Lartin and HMP Albany, ruling against the Claimant on all grounds and dismissing the claim.
Judgment
Mr Justice Hickinbottom :
Introduction
The Claimant is a serving prisoner at HMP Wakefield, but he was in custody at HMP Long Lartin between May 2008 and 30 September 2014. In this action, he claims that at HMP Long Lartin he was detained in degrading conditions, in that the sanitation system required him at times to urinate and defecate in a bucket in his cell. That treatment, he says, was in breach of article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Claimant specifically relies upon Napier v The Scottish Ministers [2004] Scot CS 100 in which the Outer House of the Court of Session in Scotland found that a prisoner’s article 3 rights were violated by the prison conditions in HMP Barlinnie Prison. Insofar as the conditions at HMP Long Lartin did not reach the requisite threshold for a claim under article 3, the Claimant contends that his rights to private life under article 8 were breached. He seeks a declaration that his Convention rights were infringed, and damages.
Article 3 provides:
“No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”
In this case, the Claimant does not suggest that his treatment in prison was either torture or inhuman; but he does say that it was “degrading” within article 3.
Article 8 provides:
“1. Everyone has the right to his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.
2. There should be no interference by public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals or for the protection of the rights or freedoms of others.”
The Claimant contends that the sanitation arrangements at HMP Long Lartin breached his right to respect for his private life.
The Defendant denies any breach of any human or other right, and denies the claim.
History of the Claim
In claiming that the sanitation regime in prison subjected him to treatment contrary to his human rights, the Claimant is not unique. Over 550 such claims have been made, mainly in respect of conditions at HMP Albany and HMP Long Lartin.
The vast majority of prison cells in the United Kingdom 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 accommod