AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application No. 21447/93
by N.H.
against the United Kingdom
The European Commission of Human Rights (Second Chamber) sitting
in private on 30 June 1993, the following members being present:
MM. S. TRECHSEL, President of the Second Chamber
G. JÖRUNDSSON
A. WEITZEL
J.-C. SOYER
H.G. SCHERMERS
H. DANELIUS
Mrs. G.H. THUNE
MM. F. MARTINEZ
L. LOUCAIDES
J.-C. GEUS
M.A. NOWICKI
I. CABRAL BARRETO
Mr. K. ROGGE, Secretary to the Second Chamber
Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection
of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;
Having regard to the application introduced on 20 June 1992 by
N.H. against the United Kingdom and registered on 1 March 1993 under
file No. 21447/93;
Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules
of Procedure of the Commission;
Having deliberated;
Decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant is a British citizen born in 1958 and resident in
D. The facts as submitted by the applicant may be summarised as
follows.
From 1981 to 1987, the applicant was serving a prison sentence
for robbery. On 19 March 1986, the applicant was transferred to
Wandsworth prison for a 28 day period. During this period he was
detained in the punishment block.
For the first seven days, the applicant was kept in a "normal"
punishment cell. He was then moved to a "punishment cell" because he
had been talking out of the window. In this cell, the window had been
blocked in with bricks of thick opaque glass. It was virtually
soundproof. It contained no toilet or running water and the applicant
had to "slop out" three times a day at which time he also had to clean
his cleaning utensils and collect drinking and washing water, which the
applicant describes as a humiliating and unhygienic procedure. He
received his entitlement of one hour's exercise per day and apart from
that was removed from normal association with other prisoners.
During the 21 day period the applicant suffered recurrent nausea
and headaches which he believes was caused by the lack of natural light
and fresh air.
The applicant instituted proceedings against the Home Secretary
for false imprisonment in relation to his detention in the punishment
cell. He was granted legal aid but the case was stayed pending the
decision of the House of Lords in the Hague and Weldon cases. Following
the House of Lords judgment which found that no action lay for false
imprisonment on the ground of unlawful deprivation of residual liberty
or on the ground of subjection to intolerable conditions, the
applicant's case was struck out on 10 June 1992 as disclosing no
reasonable cause of action.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complains that he was subject to treatment contrary
to Article 3 of the Convention while in the punishment cell. He
submits that the cells inflict sensory deprivation and torture the
inmates. Further the process of slopping out is inhuman and degrading.
THE LAW
The applicant complains that the conditions of his detention in
the punishment cell were in violation of Article 3 (Art. 3) of the
Convention which provides:
"No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or
degrading treatment or punishment."
The Commission recalls that "ill-treatment must attain a minimum
level of severity if it is to fall within the scope of Article 3"
(Art. 3), and that the "assessment of this minimum is, in the nature
of things, relative ..." (Eur. Court H.R., Ireland v. the United
Kingdom judgment of 18 January 1978, Series A no. 25, p. 65, para.
162). As regards degrading treatment the Court was of the view that
"in order for a punishment to be 'degrading' and in breach of Article
3 (Art. 3), the humiliation or debasement involved must attain a
particular level and must in any event be other than the usual element
of humiliation" associated with imprisonment after a criminal
conviction. An examination of such matters, being relative, "depends
on all the circumstances of the case and, in particular, on the nature
and context of the punishment itself and the manner and method of its
execution" (Eur. Court H.R., Tyrer judgment of 25 April 1978, Series
A no. 26, p. 15, para. 30).
The Commission also recalls in this context that the segregation
of a prisoner from the prison community does not in itself constitute
a form of inhuman or degrading treatment. Whilst prolonged removal
from association with others is undesirable, whether such a measure
falls within the ambit of Article 3 (Art. 3) of the Convention depends
on the particular conditions, the stringency of the measure, its
duration, the objective pursued and its effects on the person
concerned. Complete sensory isolation coupled with complete social
isolation can ultimately undermine the personality and could in certain
circumstances amount to inhuman treatment which could not be justified
by the requirements of security (No. 10263/83, R. v. Denmark, Dec.
11.3.85, D.R. 41 p. 149, at p. 153 with further references).
The Commission recalls that the applicant complains of his
detention in a punishment cell for a period of 21 days. During this
period while segregated he continued to receive his exercise
entitlement. Moreover though he alleges that he suffered headaches and
nausea, the Commission finds no indication that his segregation
amounted to complete sensory and social isolation which could have
undermined his personality.
The Commission further recalls that the general conditions of
detention in Wandsworth Prison were considered in the previous case of
Delazarus (No. 17525/90, Dec. 16.2.93, to be published in D.R.) where
it was noted that they had come under strong criticism by the
Government's own Chief Inspector of Prisons and by the European
Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading
Treatment or Punishment. The Commission commented as follows :
"The Commission does not doubt that the conditions in
Wandsworth Prison, involving overcrowding, a lack of
activity, a lack of integral sanitation and poor hygiene,
were extremely unsatisfactory and that they were in urgent
need of improvement. The Government recognise this and
informed the Commission of a rebuilding scheme to include
in-cell sanitation. This is to be welcomed. However, the
Commission is only competent to deal with the case it has
before it, not the general situation of prisoners at
Wandsworth. The applicant in the present case cannot
complain of overcrowding because throughout his stay at
Wandsworth he was in a single cell. This fact must have
reduced the difficulties created by the lack of integral
sanitation in the cell."
The Commission went on to find that the applicant's complaints
under Article 3 (Art. 3) of the Convention in the Delazarus case
concerning his isolation in the Segregation Block for a period of 14
weeks were manifestly ill-founded.
Consequently, having regard to the circumstances of the present
case as a whole, the Commission finds that the treatment the applicant
received during the 21 days in which he was detained in the punishment
cell did not amount to the inhuman or degrading treatment proscribed
by Article 3 (Art. 3) of the Convention.
It follows that the application is manifestly ill-founded within
the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Commission unanimously
DECIDES TO DECLARE THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.
Secretary to the Second Chamber President of the Second Chamber
(K. ROGGE) (S. TRECHSEL)
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy