Prison Disciplinary Proceedings—Right to a Fair Trial
| Published date | 01 March 2004 |
| DOI | 10.1350/jcla.68.2.122.29122 |
| Date | 01 March 2004 |
| Subject Matter | European Court of Human Rights |
European Court of Human Rights
Prison Disciplinary Proceedings—Right to a Fair Trial
Ezeh and Connors v United Kingdom (App. Nos 39665/98; 40086/98,
9 October 2003)
The applicants were at the material time serving prison sentences for
separate unrelated offences. In October 1996, the first applicant had
been charged with an offence against prison discipline, such offence
being part of the Prison Rules in force at the time. At the time, hearings
for this type of offence were conducted by the prison governor who
could decide on guilt and award a range of penalties. The disciplinary
hearing had been adjourned to permit him time to obtain legal advice,
but he was not represented at the actual hearing. As a result of being
found guilty of the offence, he was awarded additional days in custody,
cellular confinement and loss of privileges. His petition to the Home
Secretary in relation to this finding was unsuccessful.
In April 1997, the second applicant had suffered the award of addi-
tional days, cellular confinement and a fine as a result of a finding that
he had offended against the Prison Rules. The second applicant’s hearing
had also been adjourned for him to obtain legal advice, but he had not
been represented at the hearing itself. Applications to obtain leave for
judicial review of the decisions failed.
Having exhausted available domestic remedies, the applicants sought
to challenge the findings by reference to alleged breaches of the Euro-
pean Convention on Human Rights. They alleged that the disciplinary
proceedings were of such a nature as to amount to a criminal charge and
thus attract the protection afforded by Article 6(1) of the Convention.
Accordingly, the refusal to allow them to be legally represented at their
hearings amounted to a breach of Article 6(3)(c).
The UK government disputed the contention that prison disciplinary
hearings involved criminal charges within the meaning of Article 6(1).
They were of an administrative nature. The need to maintain good order
in prisons was of crucial importance and as such these hearings were to
be classified as disciplinary rather than criminal and thus outwith the
scope of Article 6. Accordingly, no issue under Article 6(3) could arise.
The European Court of Human Rights found in favour of the applicants
((2002) 35 EHRR 28). The UK government exercised the right under
Article 43 of the European Convention on Human Rights to have this
decision referred to a Grand Chamber of the European Court.
H
ELD
,
DISMISSING THE
UK
GOVERNMENT
’
S APPEAL AND UPHOLDING
THE FINDING THAT
A
RTICLE
6
HAD BEEN BREACHED
,the Grand Chamber
confirmed that the proceedings should have attracted the safeguards of
a fair trial guaranteed by Article 6. Whilst domestic governments were
entitled to classify hearings as criminal or disciplinary, such classification
was not determinative of their status under the European Convention
on Human Rights. The court applied the criteria laid down in Engel v
122
To continue reading
Request your trial