R (Wright) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | MR. JUSTICE JACKSON |
| Judgment Date | 20 June 2001 |
| Neutral Citation | [2001] EWHC 520 (Admin) |
| Docket Number | CO/4031/2000 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Date | 20 June 2001 |
[2001] EWHC 520 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
(ADMINISTRATIVE COURT)
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London WC2
Mr. Justice Jackson
CO/4031/2000
MISS JESSICA SIMOR and MR. DANNY FRIEDMAN (instructed by Messrs. Liberty, London SE1 4LA) appeared on behalf of the Claimants.
MR. RHODRI THOMPSON (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared on behalf of the Defendant.
( )
Thursday, 21 March 2001
1. This judgment is in nine parts, namely:
Part 1: Introduction
Part 2: The facts
Part 3: The present proceedings
Part 4: The nature of the obligation to investigate which arises under articles 2 and 3 of the Convention
Part 5: Is it arguable that the treatment of Mr. Wright by the Prison Service constituted a breach of article 2 or article 3?
Part 6: Has there been an effective official investigation into Mr. Wright's death?
Part 7: The appropriate remedy
Part 8: The claimants' other claims
Part 9: Conclusion
Part 1: Introduction
2. These proceedings concern the death in prison of a young man called Paul Wright. The claimants are his mother and his aunt. The defendant has been variously described as “the Home Office” and “the Secretary of State for the Home Department.” At all material times the defendant has acted through the Prison Service.
3. Mr. Wright died in prison on 7th November 1996 as a result of a severe asthma attack. Amongst other matters, the claimants contend (i) that the treatment of Mr. Wright in the period leading up to his death constituted a breach of articles 2 and 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (“the Convention”); (ii) that the defendant's failure since 7th November 1996 properly to investigate Mr. Wright's death is a continuing breach of the procedural obligation arising under articles 2 and 3 to enquire into possible breaches of those articles.
4. The Human Rights Act 1998 came into force on 2nd October 2000. Amongst other remedies, the claimants contend that they are entitled to redress under the Human Rights Act in respect of the defendant's continuing failure to investigate since 2nd October 2000.
5. Article 13 of the Convention, which at first sight is relevant to the issues in this case, has no direct application. This is because article 13 is not one of the articles listed in schedule 1 to the Human Rights Act 1998.
6. Before I turn in any detail to the issues arising in this case it is first necessary to outline the facts.
Part 2: The facts
7. Mr. Wright was born on 18th May 1963. Mr. Wright had a long history of serious asthma, starting at the age of three years. Between 1967 and January 1996 he received regular and emergency medical treatment from Airedale General Hospital and his general practitioner, who monitored his condition and adjusted his treatment as necessary. He was regularly prescribed inhaled corticosteroids, such as Becloforte, Becotide, Flixotide and Pulmicor, and courses of oral steroids as necessary. He was also loaned an electronic nebuliser on several occasions for the administration of bronchodilators at home. He was admitted to Airedale General Hospital following severe asthma attacks on single occasions in March, April and August 1995 and on two occasions in July 1995.
8. In November 1995 Mr. Wright was arrested for a number of offences. He was detained on remand at Leeds Prison on 29th January 1996. He was released on bail from 8th March to 22nd April 1996, during which period he returned to live with the first and second claimants. On 22nd April 1996 he returned to Leeds Prison on remand. On 25th July 1996 he was sentenced to three years and six months' imprisonment, which he continued to serve at Leeds Prison.
9. Because of Mr. Wright's asthmatic condition, he had regular contact with the health care centre at Leeds Prison from January 1996 onwards. The chief medical officer, who had overall responsibility for the health care centre and for the medical treatment of prisoners, was Dr. Evans. On 1st July 1996 Dr. Evans retired as senior medical officer and Dr. Carroll was appointed in his place. It appears from the records that Mr. Wright had occasional contact with the senior medical officer. However, the member of staff who dealt primarily with the treatment of Mr. Wright was Dr. Singh.
10. The medication which was given to Mr. Wright whilst in prison included the following:
1. Prednisolone tablets were prescribed on a regular basis. Prednisolone is an oral steroid.
2. Mr. Wright had a Ventolin inhaler and later an Atrovent inhaler, which he kept in his cell.
3. A nebuliser was kept at the prison health care centre. On occasions this nebuliser was used to administer Ventolin to Mr. Wright following a serious asthmatic attack.
11. On the evening of 7th November 1996 Mr. Wright suffered a severe asthmatic attack, whilst he was locked in his cell. Mr. Wright told his cell mate, Vincent Moughton, that he needed a nebuliser. Mr. Moughton pressed an alarm button, which activated a light outside the cell. After a period of time which is in dispute, a prison officer came. After a further period of time, a nurse, Ms. Susan Carlisle, arrived. She found that Mr. Wright was not breathing. She summoned an ambulance. Attempts at resuscitation failed. Mr. Wright was taken to Leeds General Infirmary, where he was certified as dead.
12. An inquest into the death of Mr. Wright opened on 19th November 1996. It was then adjourned to enable further enquiries to be carried out. The adjourned hearing of the inquest took place on 29th April 1997 before Mr. Hinchliffe, one of the coroners for West Yorkshire, sitting with a jury. At this hearing the Prison Service was represented by counsel. Members of Mr. Wright's family attended but, in the absence of legal aid, they had no advocate to represent them. Mr. Wright's aunt, the second claimant, acted as spokesperson for the family. She addressed the Coroner from time to time and questioned some of the witnesses.
13. The witnesses at the inquest included Dr. Clark, the pathologist who had carried out a post-mortem examination; Dr. Carroll, senior medical officer at Leeds Prison; certain prison officers; and Staff Nurse Carlisle. Dr. Singh did not give evidence, but his written statement was read out. Mr. Vincent Moughton, who was Mr. Wright's cell mate on the fateful evening, did not give evidence. It appears that Mr. Moughton was willing to give evidence and capable of being contacted, but no one asked him to attend. Mr. Moughton's witness statement was read aloud during the inquest, immediately after the oral evidence of Dr. Carroll. However, counsel for the Prison Service objected to the admissibility of that evidence. The Coroner upheld the objection and directed the jury to disregard Mr. Moughton's statement.
14. During the inquest there was no suggestion that the medical treatment given to Mr. Wright, whilst he was in prison, might have been inadequate. There was no suggestion that the medical staff treating Mr. Wright might have lacked the necessary competence. At the conclusion of the one-day inquest the jury returned a verdict of death by natural causes.
15. The inquest verdict did not allay the claimants' concerns about the circumstances in which Mr. Wright had died. The claimants sought legal aid to bring a claim under the Fatal Accidents Act 1976. The application for legal aid was initially unsuccessful.
16. In May 1999 the claimants read an article in the Yorkshire Evening Post concerning Dr. Singh. This article stated that Dr. Singh had been suspended from his employment at Leeds Prison following the death of an inmate. The article gave the following information about Dr. Singh's past history:
“While previously working in the Derby area, Dr. Singh was found guilty of serious professional misconduct in September 1994 by the General Medical Council and was fined £1,500.
“Since then he has been banned from working in general practice as a locum and ordered not to engage in any form of single handed general practice.
“The Council made their initial ruling in 1994 after hearing that the doctor had neglected two elderly patients in Derbyshire who later died.”
17. This article reinforced the claimants' concerns about the medical treatment which Mr. Wright had received in prison.
18. During 1999, the claimants succeeded in obtaining legal aid. On 5th November 1999 the claimants commenced proceedings under the Fatal Accidents Act 1976, claiming damages against the defendant in respect of Mr. Wright's death. The basis of the claim was negligent treatment of Mr. Wright's asthmatic condition. On 27th January 2000 the defendant served a defence, in which negligence was denied.
19. On 18th April 2000 the defendant admitted liability. Thereafter, the action continued for the purpose of assessing damages, and in due course damages were agreed between the parties.
20. One consequence of the defendant's admission of liability was that there would not be any court hearing to determine which specific allegations of negligence were well founded. In these circumstances, the claimants' solicitor, who is a legal officer of Liberty, pressed the defendant to set up a full, independent and open investigation into the causes of Mr. Wright's death. The defendant declined to do so.
21. On 25th August 2000 the claimants issued an application to amend their claim form and particulars of claim in the Fatal Accidents Act proceedings by adding two further claims:
1. A claim for bereavement damages based on the defendant's breach of articles 2, 3...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R (Spinks) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
...into alleged breaches of these Articles. Mr Southey referred to the decision of this court in R (on the application of Wright) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2001] UKHRR 1399; [2001] EWHC Admin 520. In that case, Jackson J after a detailed review of various decisions of the ......
-
R (Jean Middleton) v HM Coroner for Western Somersetshire and Secretary of State for the Home Department
...what I have stated above. English Authorities post-2 October 2000 46. In R (Wright) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2001] Inquest Law Reports 66, the deceased was a young man called Paul Wright who had died in prison in 1996 as a result of a severe asthma attack. The claimants......
-
R (D) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
...At para 25 Lord Bingham of Cornhill approved what Jackson J had said in R (Wright) v Secretary of State for the Home Department[2001] Inquest Law Reports 66, [2001] UKHRR 1399, at para 41: "In a succinct and accurate judgment Jackson J reviewed the domestic and Strasbourg case law, deriving......
-
Murray v Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse
...Kennedy Crowley [1996] 2 I.R. 459. Procola v. Luxembourg [1995] E.C.H.R. 33; (1995) 22 E.H.R.R. 193. R. (Wright) v. Home Office [2001] EWHC Admin. 520, [2001] 1 P.L.R. 337; (2001) 62 B.M.L.R. 16. Scariff v. Taylor [1996] 1 I.R. 242; [1996] 2 I.L.R.M. 278. Somers v. Erskine (No. 2) [1944] I.......
-
10 Tips To Remember When Doing An Inquest
...p Jamieson [1995] QB 1, R v Coroner for Inner London South ex p Douglas-Williams [1999] 1 All ER 344, , R (Wright) v Secretary of State (2001) 62 BMLR 16, R (application Touche) v Inner North London Coroner [2001] QB 1206, R v Adomako [1995] 1 AC 171, R (application Scott) v HM Coroner for ......
-
Table of Cases
...UKHL 46, [2003] 1 AC 837, [2002] 3 WLR 1800, [2002] 4 All ER 1089 7 R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Wright [2001] EWHC Admin 520, [2001] Lloyd’s Rep Med 478, 62 BMLR 16, [2001] UKHRR 1399 84-85, [1990 R v Secretary of State for Transport, ex parte Factortame (No 2) ......
-
Writing Judgments, Decisions and Awards
...being the typical judgment of the then Mr Justice Jackson in R v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Wright : 13 13 [2001] EWHC Admin 520, [2001] Lloyd’s Rep Med 478. 1. MR JUSTICE JACKSON: This judgment is in nine parts, namely: Part 1: Introduction Part 2: The facts Part 3......
-
What Has the ECHR Done for Victims? A United Kingdom Perspective
...E.H.R.R. 29.62 (2003) UKHL 51, at paragraph 20.63 For example: R (on the applicationofWright) vSecretaryofStateforthe Home Department[2001] EWHC Admin 520; The Queen on the ApplicationofBrenda Rowley vDPP[2003]EWHC 693; The Queen on the ApplicationofJane Challender, Paulette Morris vThe Leg......