Information Note on the Court’s case-law 52
April 2003
McGlinchey and Others v. the United Kingdom - 50390/99
Judgment 29.4.2003 [Section II]
Article 3
Degrading treatment
Inhuman treatment
Adequacy of medical care provided by prison authorities to heroin addict suffering withdrawal symptoms: violation
Facts: The applicants are the mother and children of Judith McGlinchey, a heroin addict who died while serving a prison sentence for theft. On arrival at prison, she complained about withdrawal symptoms and severe asthma and was consequently kept in the health centre pending examination by a doctor. She was given an inhaler during the night and was examined the following day by a doctor who prescribed medication to appease the symptoms of heroin withdrawal. On one occasion, the medication was not administered, due to a drop in her blood pressure. During the next few days, she vomited frequently and although on several occasions anti-nausea medication was given, its effects were only short-term. The prison medical officer considered, nevertheless, that her condition was stable and that there were no signs of dehydration. By the sixth day of detention, Ms McGlinchey had lost several kilos (although it later emerged that there were discrepancies between the different scales used). Two days later, she collapsed vomiting blood and was taken to hospital, where she had a cardiac arrest. She died a few days later. An inquest was held and a number of deficiencies were identified. However, the jury returned an open verdict. In the light of a medical opinion that there was insufficient evidence to establish the necessary causal link between the death and negligent care, the applicants did not pursue any civil claims.
Law: Article 3 – (i) With regard to the allegation that the prison authorities failed to adminster the medication for heroin withdrawal on one occasion as a punishment, the medical notes supported the Government's submission that it was in fact on the doctor's instructions and due to a drop in blood pressure that the medication was not administered. It had not been substantiated that relief for the withdrawal symptoms had been denied as a punishment. (ii) With regard to the allegation that Ms McGlinchey was left to lie in her vomit, the Court could not find that in the urgency of the transfer to hospital the failure to ensure that she was adequately cleaned disclosed any element of degrading treatment. Moreover, there was insufficient material to reach any finding on the allegation that she had had to clean up her own vomit in prison. (iii) With regard to the allegation that medication for her asthma was not administered, she was in fact given an inhaler. (iv) Finally, as to the complaint that not enough was done, or done quickly enough, to treat Ms McGlinchey's withdrawal symptoms, while it appeared that her condition was subject to regular monitoring during the first six days and steps were taken to respond to the symptoms, she was vomiting repeatedly during that period and lost considerable weight. Moreover, although her condition was still deteriorating, she was apparently not examined during the next two days, as the medical officer did not work at weekends. Serious weight loss and dehydration had occurred as a result of a week of largely uncontrolled vomiting and inability to eat or hold down liquids. In addition to causing her distress and suffering, this posed very serious risks to her health. Having regard to the responsibility of prison authorities to provide the requisite medical care for detainees, there had been a failure to meet the standards imposed by Article 3. The treatment of Ms McGlinchey had thus contravened the prohibition against inhuman and degrading treatment.
Conclusion: violation (6 votes to 1).
Article 13 – Internal prison remedies would not provide any right to compensation, and no action in negligence could be pursued in the civil courts where conduct fell short of causing physical or psychological injury. Moreover, it was not apparent that in an action for judicial review damages could be awarded on a different basis. Thus, no compensation was available under English law for the suffering and distress found to disclose a breach of Article 3. In the case of a breach of Articles 2 or 3, compensation for non-pecuniary damage should in principle be available as part of the range of possible remedies.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
Article 41 – The Court awarded 11,500 € to Ms McGlinchey's estate and 3,800 € to each of the applicants in respect of non-pecuniary damage. It also made an award in respect of costs and expenses.
© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights
This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.
Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy