The UK Supreme Court has held that the continuation of a prisoner’s solitary confinement for safety reasons was not authorised under domestic law and incompatible with the right to private life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
The challenge was brought by Imran Shahid, who was first placed in solitary confinement in 2005. Following his conviction for a racially motivated murder of a 15 year old boy, Mr. Shahid remained in solitary confinement until his eventual reintegration into the general prison population in August 2010. The decision for Mr. Shahid to remain in solitary confinement during that time was based on threats made against him.
The Scottish Court of Session determined that the confinement had not breached either domestic or European law. However, the Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision delivered by Lord Reed, held that not only was the continued segregation invalid according to domestic law, but it also amounted to a violation of Article 8.
The relevant domestic rules at the time were contained in the Prisons and Young Offenders Institutions (Scotland) Rules 1994 and 2006. Rule 94(5) states “A prisoner who has been removed from association … shall not be subject to such removal for a period in excess of 72 hours from the time of the order, except where the Scottish Ministers have granted written authority … prior to the expiry of the said period of 72 hours.” Three of the orders made authorising the continuation of Mr. Shahid’s segregation were made after the expiration of this 72-hour limit. The lower courts held that such delays did not impact upon the validity of the orders and therefore of the segregation. Lord Reed in the Supreme Court, however, adopted a more literal interpretation of the rules, holding that as the orders were made after the 72-hour period they were automatically invalid.
The Scottish Ministers accepted that the appellant’s continued segregation was an interference with his right to respect for private life under Article 8. They therefore had to show that the measure was in accordance with the law, in pursuance of a legitimate aim, and a proportionate interference in light of the pursued aim.
As for the lawfulness of the detention, Lord Reed’s previous finding in relation to the invalidity of the orders meant that the segregation was not “in accordance with the law.” In assessing the proportionality of the action, the Supreme Court listed a number of alternative, less intrusive measures which could have been taken, including relocating the appellant to another UK prison. Furthermore, the Court decided that earlier steps could have been taken in order to reintegrate Mr. Shahid. Failure to take such steps resulted in the segregation being disproportionate and a violation of Article 8.
The Supreme Court was also asked to consider whether the segregation of Mr. Shahid was in contravention of Article 3 of the ECHR. In assessing whether the measure was compatible with Article 3, the Court considered the conditions and duration of the detention as well as the motivation for such a measure and its impact on the appellant. The Court concluded that the measure did not attain the minimum level of severity to engage Article 3.
The Court of Appeal in Ireland recently ruled on a similar case of solitary confinement, finding that the constitutional rights of a prisoner were not breached as the confinement was justified in the circumstances given the “grave threat” to the man in question.
Click here to read our Bulletin article on the Court of Appeal’s decision.
Click here to read a copy of the judgement..