R (BP) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 17 July 2003 |
| Date | 17 July 2003 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
Court and Reference:Administrative Court ; CO/1243/03
: Moses J
Appearances:I Wise (instructed by the Howard League) for BP; J Richards (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) for the Defendant
: Whether conditions in the segregation unit of a Young Offender Institution breached the YOI Rules and Arts 3 and 8 European Convention.
: BP, who was 17 at the relevant time, was detained at HMYOI Warren Hill. He had a history of self-harm, and had been made the subject of suicide-watch procedures in July/August 2002 (following the discovery of a noose in his room) and in September 2002 (after he claimed to have taken an overdose); he was also reported to have said that he had taken 40 paracetamol tablets in late December as he was being bullied (though there was no medical evidence to support the claim).
He was detained twice in the segregation unit as a disciplinary punishment. On 30 January 2003 he was ordered to spend 5 days there for possession of an unauthorised article (and given various other punishments); on 10 February 2003 he was ordered to serve 4 days there for failing to turn up to a roll check. He indicated that the cell was 10ft by 8ft and dirty; he alleged that it was unheated and cold, that he was not allowed reading materials, puzzles, books or a radio; and that that he was allowed only a short period in the exercise yard, when he was told to walk around in circles; and that he became paranoid because there was nothing else to do and so spent his time thinking. Officials at the YOI alleged that the cells were heated and had only a small draught, were clean and tidy, that possessions were allowed unless removed as part of the disciplinary punishment, and books and books and jigsaw puzzles were provided; it was also said that BP had been taken to the library, and that he had been visited by various officers and officials, including medical staff and the Chair of the Board of Visitors.
BP alleged that the punishments breached the Young Offender Institution Rules 2000, which allow punishments to be imposed including "removal from his wing or living unit" for up to 21 days and removal from activities (other than education, training course work and physical education) for 21 days; only inmates over 18 and not serving under a detention and training order may be punished by being confined to a cell or room for a period of up to 10 days. He also alleged that the conditions of his detention on the segregation unit breached his rights under Art 3 European Convention (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment), and Art 8 (right to respect for a private and family life).
BP also alleged that he had been raped by 3 inmates of HMYOI Hunterscombe in October/November 2001; he made the allegation on 21 June 2002, after he had been moved to HMP Warren Hill. Governors are required to establish arrangements with the local Area Child Protection Committee (ACPC) to deal with incidents in which a young person has or may have suffered significant harm. BP alleged that no arrangements had been established and that the action taken in respect of his allegation was below that required. It was submitted that this breached Art 3. The Child Protection Coordinator at HMYOI Warren Hill indicated in a written statement what steps had been taken on receipt of the complaint.
Introduction
1. This claimant was 17 at the relevant time and is now 18. He was born on 21 March 1985. He is currently detained at the Young Offender Institution at Onley, where he is serving a 12 months' sentence for burglary and a further 11 months' detention for breach of licence conditions in relation to a previous sentence. He is due to be released on 14 November 2003.
2. During his period at Warren Hill he has served 2 periods in the segregation unit. On 30 January 2003 he was ordered to spend 5 days on removal from his unit for possession of an unauthorised article (that was a dead mobile telephone). Following a suspended order on 10 February 2003 he received a similar punishment for failing to turn up to a roll check the day before; in respect of that offence he was sentenced by the Governor to 4 days' removal from unit.
3. It is contended that the circumstances in which he was detained during those 2 periods amounted to a breach of the Young Offender Institution Rules 2000 ("the 2000 Rules") and breach of his rights enshrined either in Art 3 or Art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. It is contended that those circumstances were aggravated in their effect by reason of the claimant's mental condition.
4. A third issue is raised in relation to allegations of rape he had earlier made in respect of his detention at another establishment, namely the YOI at Hunterscombe.
History of Self Harm and Suicide
The relevance of this history is as to the appropriateness of his being placed on a segregation unit and, in particular, as to the effect on him of the conditions in which he was detained there. There were 3 occasions when the procedures designed to care for those who posed a risk of self-harm or suicide were put into place. The procedure is described by William Styles, the Custody Governor, at Warren Hill. At para 38 he describes the procedure known by the name of the relevant self-harm risk form, F2052SH. Such a form can be opened by any member of staff who has concerns about a trainee. The consequences are that a close watch will be kept on the trainee with regular reviews of his progress.
5. The first period when he was placed on an F2052SH was between 20 July 2002 and 11 August 2002. On that first occasion a member of the staff went to his cell and found a makeshift noose. The member of the staff recorded that he felt that this was an attempt on the claimant's life, although a poor one. The suggestion of that officer was that there should be a chat with a member of the chaplaincy on the Sunday. Thereafter, he was monitored at regular intervals. There was a detailed record kept virtually at hourly intervals over that period until the claimant became happier. By the end of the period on 11 August it was recorded that he seemed "a lot happier in himself" with no thoughts of self-harming. He was taken off that procedure.
6. The medical records show that he was seen by a medical officer. He was waiting to see a psychiatrist. He denied any suicide intent, but did not know how he would feel the next night. Two days later, the records show a diagnosis of depression, possible psychosis and it was recommended that he should be in a cell with a "listener" and see a psychiatrist.
7. The second occasion on which he was placed on this procedure took place between 4 and 21 September 2002. On that occasion he is recorded as claiming to have taken 10 tablets which he had been saving up. He said it was because he no longer wanted to be there, but he said that he "no way wanted to kill himself but rather just wanted to move." It was recommended that he should be monitored by staff and seen outside hospital "for a possible stomach pump," although none was administered. He was to be observed at regular but frequent intervals. Later on the review on 21 September, when it was recorded that he was more settled, he apologised for wasting staff time when he was taken to hospital. He had not taken those tablets, according to him. Again, the medical records record an investigation by medical officers, and it was recorded, certainly by 23 September, that he was in a stable condition.
8. In July 2002 it was recorded that the claimant presented a significant risk of self-harm and para-suicidal behaviour. Dr Huges saw him in November 2002. He recorded on 27 November that the claimant denied any thoughts of actual plans to self-harm, and in his opinion said he wondered whether the investigation had been referred to. He recorded that the claimant had said he was not currently suicidal, although history suggests that he was still at risk. He was not at that stage placed on any self-harm procedure.
9. It was recorded on 27 December that the claimant had said he had taken some 40 paracetamol because he said he was being bullied. There is no medical evidence to support that. The medical reports say that on 27 December he was frightened to leave his cell and he was being bullied. It was said that the officers were fully aware of this.
10. Those are the incidents relating to his mental health in the period before the adjudications which led to him being removed from the unit. But under this heading I should...
To continue reading
Request your trial