Prison Disciplinary Proceedings—Right to a Fair Trial
| DOI | 10.1177/0032258X9506800205 |
| Published date | 01 April 1995 |
| Date | 01 April 1995 |
| Author | Alan Davenport |
| Subject Matter | European Court of Human Rights |
European
Court
of
Human
Rights
Prison Disciplinary
Proceedings-Right
to a Fair Trial
Ezeh
and
Connors vUnited Kingdom (App. Nos
39665/98;
40086/98,
9October 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
arange 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( I) 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(
I).
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.
HELD,
DISMISSING
THE
UK
GOVERNMENT'S
APPEAL
AND
UPHOLDING
THE
FINDING
THAT
ARTICLE
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