Wainwright v. the United Kingdom (dec.)

Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 81

December 2005

Wainwright v. the United Kingdom (dec.) - 12350/04

Decision 13.12.2005 [Section IV]

Article 8

Article 8-1

Respect for private life

Persons who were strip-searched prior to visiting their relative in prison: admissible

The first applicant is a mother. Her son, who suffers from mental impairment, is the second applicant. When visiting their relative in prison they were informed that they would be strip-searched, and that if they refused they would be denied their visit to their relative. Prior to their visit, the prison Governor had ordered that all persons who visited their relative were to be strip-searched as there were suspicions that he was involved in the supply and use of drugs within the prison. The search of the first applicant took place when it was dark outside and made her believe that she could be seen by outside people. At the end of the search she was effectively naked and her sexual organs and anus were visually examined, which left her shaking and visibly distressed. The second applicant had also been left entirely naked at the end of his search, and one of the officers had looked all around his naked body, lifted up his penis and pulled back the foreskin. He too was left shaking and upset. The applicants were asked to sign a consent form after the searches had taken place. A Professor of Psychiatry who subsequently examined the applicants considered that the searches had had negative effects on the applicants. The first applicant’s depression was made worse and she would apparently become more vulnerable to future traumatic events. The second applicant was suffering post-traumatic stress disorder and a depressive illness, and had experienced his strip-search experience as a threat to his physical integrity. The applicants brought a civil claim against the Home Office arguing that the searches had constituted a trespass to the person. The trial judge held that their strip-searching had been an invasion of their privacy and awarded them damages. The judgment was nevertheless set aside in appeal proceedings. The House of Lords found that the prison officers had acted in good faith and that there had been no more than “sloppiness” in the failures to comply with the rules.

Admissible under Articles 3, 8 and 13.

© 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