Orzeczenie: Edwards v United Kingdom
Komentarz (w j. angielskim) autorstwa Joela Tweddell do wyroku ETPCz w sprawie Paul and Audrey Edwards v United Kingdom dot. złamania przez państwo pozytywnego obowiązku ochrony życia. Sprawa dotyczyła syna skarżących, Christophera Edwards, który został zamordowany przez współwięźnia odbywającego karę pozbawienia wolności i osadzonego w tej samej celi co syn skarżących.
Edwards v United Kingdom: Fatal Consequences, the Importance of Upholding Positive Obligations
The case of Edwards, involves a breach of a positive obligation of national authorities to protect the life of the applicant’s son during his detention in prison. The applicants were the parents of diagnosed schizophrenic Christopher Edwards who was killed by his cell mate Richard Linford in HMP Chelmsford. Linford, also a schizophrenic was a dangerous convict, with a history of violent outbursts and assaults. On the night of the murder a defect had occurred with the cells security and as a result the distress alarm in the cell was de-activated. Consequently it was not until a guard on watch entered the cell and found Edwards lying dead as a result of being kicked and stamped to death by his cell mate. Linford pleaded and was prosecuted with manslaughter on the grounds of Diminished Responsibility. An inquiry was held into the death of Edwards where it was held that, given the cellmate's psychiatric history and the failure of the prison authorities to screen and deal with his dangerousness, he should not have been placed in the same cell with the applicant's son. In consequence, the applicants brought a claim against the authorities under Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights, with respect to the failure of the positive obligation of the state to protect Edward’s life. Further actions were also brought with respect to Articles 6, 8 and 13 due to the lack of ability to bring the case to court, inadequate investigation into their son’s death and finally on the grounds of inadequate remedies available as a result of the breach.
In the European Court of Human Rights it was held; unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 2. This is because at the time of his death, Edwards cell mate’s, ‘State of mental illness, his violent record and his behaviour at the time of and after his arrest showed that he had posed a real and serious risk to any cell mate.’ As a result such a predictable attack was caused by a failure of the relevant agencies, namely the medical profession, the police, the prosecution and the court, to pass on information to the prison authorities about the nature of the defendant,’ thus amounting to a breach of Article 2. With respect to Articles 6 and 8 these were unanimously dismissed in the case. In relation to Article 13, there was held unanimously to be a breach, such a breach arose as no awarding of damages or compensation was available on the grounds of negligence under the Fatal Accidents Act (1976). Also as there was a continuing breach under the Human Rights Act (1998) the applicants were able to claim compensation. As a result the applicants were awarded £20,000 compensation in the case.
The case may be argued to be of grave importance, as it confirms the importance of positive obligations with particular reference to the protection of life as a highly significant and fundamental obligation. It illustrates the severity of proceedings when the obligations of the sate fall below the standards required of them. As a result of the clear breach of human rights within the case, a number of measures such as an enforcement action under Article 46 have been issued under the convention rules in order to ensure the U.K. rectify their policies and ensure that such a breach will never transpire again. The effect of such an action may be argued to be of significant importance with respect to prisoner’s rights as a result of the legal, political and social consequences of the action.
The Committee of Ministers has supervised the action taken within the U.K. to ensure better methods of protection of individuals in custody from a legal perspective. In consequence this has led to the creation of a number of individual and general measures to be enforced. Such individual measures include a further investigation being carried out by the Prison Service in order to tackle several issues which arose during the preliminary investigation with particular focus on mentally ill offenders. The inquiry investigated among other issues the procedure of undertaking mentally ill offenders and found such procedures to be ineffective and incompliant with the authority’s obligation under the convention. As a result, this led to a number of reform proposals and action which were resolved by the general measures taken by the authorities. General measures which have been adopted include; a ‘Violence Reduction Strategy’ in prisons, launched in 2004, this policy has led to the introduction of enhanced screening processes for new prisoners to improve detection rates for serious and immediate health problems to help identify, ‘at-risk prisoners.’ In addition to this, Suicide/Self Harm warning forms have also been created and implemented in order to raise potential concerns over inmates to protect the individuals form one another or themselves. This has also been supported by the, ‘Cell-sharing risk assessment scheme,’ whereby each inmate is assessed in depth on their arrival to prison in order to test their compatibility to increase and ensure safety between cell mates. Such schemes have been justified to advance health and safety within prisons in order to protect the lives of each inmate. Such action is said to prevent cases such as Edwards from ever occurring again and as a result ensuring that the United Kingdom uphold their positive obligation to protect life under Article 2 of the convention.
The Edwards case can also be argued to have had a major impact from a political and social perspective. As a result of the case a new approach has been taken to improve the conditions of treatment of prisoners and to work towards better respect for the fundamental rights of inmates. Such action has arisen as a response to cases such as Edwards and a number of reports which followed the case. For example the 2005 report on the United Kingdom the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment which made reference to procedures in U.K. prisons. The report raised a number of issues such as; “… prisoners were being allocated according to space available, rather than based on the most appropriate allocation for the inmates in question, having regard to their status or circumstances…” As a result it was held that the prison system was unsatisfactory and that procedural safeguards for example health and safety were not being accounted for which could help lead to potential dangers such as in Edwards. These findings have helped lead to reform with the whole prison system as from now on, “…The Government aims to ensure that prisoners are held in establishments that provide the degree of security they require; are suitable to their gender, age and legal status; provide special facilities appropriate to prisoner needs.” Therefore it may be argued that, political attitudes towards the prison system have been greatly enhanced as a result of Edwards. The case has helped to identify the faults and failures of the authorities in their positive obligations to protect fundamental rights of prisoners. This in turn has resulted in a number of investigations and reports which have identified such problems and even further issues such as prison overcrowding. Consequently the government have altered their policy initiatives from a political and social context in order to uphold their duty to protect and respect the fundamental human rights of prisoners in detention.
The case in question may be argued to have had a significant impact on domestic law and practices within the U.K. However it may also be said that the case also had a major impact from a European context. This is because the European Court of Human Rights has appeared to tighten the rules relating to investigations into deaths in police custody. The courts have reiterated the importance of consistently enforcing positive obligations under Articles 2 and 3, as a result have taken a more stringent and harsh approach when applying these Articles in cases involving positive obligations of the state. Such an approach may be seen in decisions such as in Popov and Amin. In either case the courts found violations of the states positive obligations to protect the rights of individuals and recognised once again the need for a more strict and rigorous approach to ensuring states fulfil their positive obligations.
On the whole the case may be argued to have a significant impact on the responsibilities of the states positive obligations to uphold individual’s rights. The case is a perfect illustration of a states breach of their fundamental duties and the need for reform as a result. Such changes in the law resulted from an enforcement action by the courts which was then imposed by the Committee of Ministers. This inevitably led to significant reforms in the law and a change in the approach of the government from a social and political perspective in ensuring the full respect and protection of prisoner’s human rights. As a result the case is a great example of the work and success of the European Courts enforcing a judgment. Furthermore the work of the courts has also been applied in a number of cases such as Amin in order to ensure that states are doing all that they can to fulfil their positive obligations and prevent cases like Edwards from ever arising again.
Bibliography:
Cases:
Edwards v United Kingdom (2002) 35 E.H.R.R. 19
Paul and Audrey Edwards v the United Kingdom Application Number: 46477/99
R (on the application of Amin) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2003] UKHL 51
Popov v Russia (App. No.26853/04), judgment of July 13, 2006
Journals:
BATTJES, H. 2009. In search of a fair balance: the absolute character of the prohibition of refoulement under article 3 ECHR reassessed. Leiden Journal of International Law. Volume 22(3).
POWELL, R. 2007. The right to security of person in European Court of Human Rights jurisprudence. European Human Rights Law Review. Volume 6.
E.H.R.L.R. 2002. Prisons: fatal attack on man suffering from mental health problems held on remand in prison. European Human Rights Law Review. Volume 5.
DE THAN, C. 2003. Positive Obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights: Towards the Human Rights of Victims and Vulnerable Witnesses? Journal of Criminal Law. Volume 67 (165)
FOSTER, S. 2003. Prisons, Drug Addicts and Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Justice of the Peace. Volume 368
Legislation:
European Convention on Human Rights (1950)
Human Rights Act (1998)
Fatal Accidents Act (1976)
Websites:
Westlaw. 2010.[online].[Accessed 2010]. Available from World Wide Web: http://login.westlaw.co.uk/wluk/app/main?sp=ukwarwick255&vr=1.0&rs=WLUK1.0&ndd=2&isSib=true
Lexis Nexis Butterworths. 2010.[online].[Accessed 2010]. Available from World Wide Web:
http://0www.lexisnexis.com.pugwash.lib.warwick.ac.uk/uk/legal/auth/bridge.do?rand=0.04821372267615165
COE. 2010.[online].[Accessed 2010]. Available from World Wide Web:
http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/execution/Reports/Cases6.1-2009_en.pdf
The case of Edwards, involves a breach of a positive obligation of national authorities to protect the life of the applicant’s son during his detention in prison. The applicants were the parents of diagnosed schizophrenic Christopher Edwards who was killed by his cell mate Richard Linford in HMP Chelmsford. Linford, also a schizophrenic was a dangerous convict, with a history of violent outbursts and assaults. On the night of the murder a defect had occurred with the cells security and as a result the distress alarm in the cell was de-activated. Consequently it was not until a guard on watch entered the cell and found Edwards lying dead as a result of being kicked and stamped to death by his cell mate. Linford pleaded and was prosecuted with manslaughter on the grounds of Diminished Responsibility. An inquiry was held into the death of Edwards where it was held that, given the cellmate's psychiatric history and the failure of the prison authorities to screen and deal with his dangerousness, he should not have been placed in the same cell with the applicant's son. In consequence, the applicants brought a claim against the authorities under Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights, with respect to the failure of the positive obligation of the state to protect Edward’s life. Further actions were also brought with respect to Articles 6, 8 and 13 due to the lack of ability to bring the case to court, inadequate investigation into their son’s death and finally on the grounds of inadequate remedies available as a result of the breach.
In the European Court of Human Rights it was held; unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 2. This is because at the time of his death, Edwards cell mate’s, ‘State of mental illness, his violent record and his behaviour at the time of and after his arrest showed that he had posed a real and serious risk to any cell mate.’ As a result such a predictable attack was caused by a failure of the relevant agencies, namely the medical profession, the police, the prosecution and the court, to pass on information to the prison authorities about the nature of the defendant,’ thus amounting to a breach of Article 2. With respect to Articles 6 and 8 these were unanimously dismissed in the case. In relation to Article 13, there was held unanimously to be a breach, such a breach arose as no awarding of damages or compensation was available on the grounds of negligence under the Fatal Accidents Act (1976). Also as there was a continuing breach under the Human Rights Act (1998) the applicants were able to claim compensation. As a result the applicants were awarded £20,000 compensation in the case.
The case may be argued to be of grave importance, as it confirms the importance of positive obligations with particular reference to the protection of life as a highly significant and fundamental obligation. It illustrates the severity of proceedings when the obligations of the sate fall below the standards required of them. As a result of the clear breach of human rights within the case, a number of measures such as an enforcement action under Article 46 have been issued under the convention rules in order to ensure the U.K. rectify their policies and ensure that such a breach will never transpire again. The effect of such an action may be argued to be of significant importance with respect to prisoner’s rights as a result of the legal, political and social consequences of the action.
The Committee of Ministers has supervised the action taken within the U.K. to ensure better methods of protection of individuals in custody from a legal perspective. In consequence this has led to the creation of a number of individual and general measures to be enforced. Such individual measures include a further investigation being carried out by the Prison Service in order to tackle several issues which arose during the preliminary investigation with particular focus on mentally ill offenders. The inquiry investigated among other issues the procedure of undertaking mentally ill offenders and found such procedures to be ineffective and incompliant with the authority’s obligation under the convention. As a result, this led to a number of reform proposals and action which were resolved by the general measures taken by the authorities. General measures which have been adopted include; a ‘Violence Reduction Strategy’ in prisons, launched in 2004, this policy has led to the introduction of enhanced screening processes for new prisoners to improve detection rates for serious and immediate health problems to help identify, ‘at-risk prisoners.’ In addition to this, Suicide/Self Harm warning forms have also been created and implemented in order to raise potential concerns over inmates to protect the individuals form one another or themselves. This has also been supported by the, ‘Cell-sharing risk assessment scheme,’ whereby each inmate is assessed in depth on their arrival to prison in order to test their compatibility to increase and ensure safety between cell mates. Such schemes have been justified to advance health and safety within prisons in order to protect the lives of each inmate. Such action is said to prevent cases such as Edwards from ever occurring again and as a result ensuring that the United Kingdom uphold their positive obligation to protect life under Article 2 of the convention.
The Edwards case can also be argued to have had a major impact from a political and social perspective. As a result of the case a new approach has been taken to improve the conditions of treatment of prisoners and to work towards better respect for the fundamental rights of inmates. Such action has arisen as a response to cases such as Edwards and a number of reports which followed the case. For example the 2005 report on the United Kingdom the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment which made reference to procedures in U.K. prisons. The report raised a number of issues such as; “… prisoners were being allocated according to space available, rather than based on the most appropriate allocation for the inmates in question, having regard to their status or circumstances…” As a result it was held that the prison system was unsatisfactory and that procedural safeguards for example health and safety were not being accounted for which could help lead to potential dangers such as in Edwards. These findings have helped lead to reform with the whole prison system as from now on, “…The Government aims to ensure that prisoners are held in establishments that provide the degree of security they require; are suitable to their gender, age and legal status; provide special facilities appropriate to prisoner needs.” Therefore it may be argued that, political attitudes towards the prison system have been greatly enhanced as a result of Edwards. The case has helped to identify the faults and failures of the authorities in their positive obligations to protect fundamental rights of prisoners. This in turn has resulted in a number of investigations and reports which have identified such problems and even further issues such as prison overcrowding. Consequently the government have altered their policy initiatives from a political and social context in order to uphold their duty to protect and respect the fundamental human rights of prisoners in detention.
The case in question may be argued to have had a significant impact on domestic law and practices within the U.K. However it may also be said that the case also had a major impact from a European context. This is because the European Court of Human Rights has appeared to tighten the rules relating to investigations into deaths in police custody. The courts have reiterated the importance of consistently enforcing positive obligations under Articles 2 and 3, as a result have taken a more stringent and harsh approach when applying these Articles in cases involving positive obligations of the state. Such an approach may be seen in decisions such as in Popov and Amin. In either case the courts found violations of the states positive obligations to protect the rights of individuals and recognised once again the need for a more strict and rigorous approach to ensuring states fulfil their positive obligations.
On the whole the case may be argued to have a significant impact on the responsibilities of the states positive obligations to uphold individual’s rights. The case is a perfect illustration of a states breach of their fundamental duties and the need for reform as a result. Such changes in the law resulted from an enforcement action by the courts which was then imposed by the Committee of Ministers. This inevitably led to significant reforms in the law and a change in the approach of the government from a social and political perspective in ensuring the full respect and protection of prisoner’s human rights. As a result the case is a great example of the work and success of the European Courts enforcing a judgment. Furthermore the work of the courts has also been applied in a number of cases such as Amin in order to ensure that states are doing all that they can to fulfil their positive obligations and prevent cases like Edwards from ever arising again.
Bibliography:
Cases:
Edwards v United Kingdom (2002) 35 E.H.R.R. 19
Paul and Audrey Edwards v the United Kingdom Application Number: 46477/99
R (on the application of Amin) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2003] UKHL 51
Popov v Russia (App. No.26853/04), judgment of July 13, 2006
Journals:
BATTJES, H. 2009. In search of a fair balance: the absolute character of the prohibition of refoulement under article 3 ECHR reassessed. Leiden Journal of International Law. Volume 22(3).
POWELL, R. 2007. The right to security of person in European Court of Human Rights jurisprudence. European Human Rights Law Review. Volume 6.
E.H.R.L.R. 2002. Prisons: fatal attack on man suffering from mental health problems held on remand in prison. European Human Rights Law Review. Volume 5.
DE THAN, C. 2003. Positive Obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights: Towards the Human Rights of Victims and Vulnerable Witnesses? Journal of Criminal Law. Volume 67 (165)
FOSTER, S. 2003. Prisons, Drug Addicts and Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Justice of the Peace. Volume 368
Legislation:
European Convention on Human Rights (1950)
Human Rights Act (1998)
Fatal Accidents Act (1976)
Websites:
Westlaw. 2010.[online].[Accessed 2010]. Available from World Wide Web: http://login.westlaw.co.uk/wluk/app/main?sp=ukwarwick255&vr=1.0&rs=WLUK1.0&ndd=2&isSib=true
Lexis Nexis Butterworths. 2010.[online].[Accessed 2010]. Available from World Wide Web:
http://0www.lexisnexis.com.pugwash.lib.warwick.ac.uk/uk/legal/auth/bridge.do?rand=0.04821372267615165
COE. 2010.[online].[Accessed 2010]. Available from World Wide Web:
http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/execution/Reports/Cases6.1-2009_en.pdf
Pliki do pobrania:
Dodaj komentarz
Dodano: 2011-01-21 13:08:41
Modyfikowano: 2011-01-21 13:09:12
©2008 Wydział Prawa i Administracji UW. Wszelkie prawa zastrzeżone :: system CMS: MG
