The failure to provide the claimant with any education or training during periods of segregation, amounted to a breach of the Young Offender Institution Rules 2000 SI 2000/3371, but on the facts, there was no evidence to suggest that the conditions under which P was segregated amounted to a breach of either Art.3 or Art.8 European Convention on Human Rights.Application for judicial review of the decision of the Governor of a Young Offenders Institution to segregate the claimant from other prisoners. The claimant ('P') was at the time of the present case detained at a Young Offender Institution ('YOI'), serving a sentence for burglary and breach of licence. He was segregated from other prisoners on two occasions. P was seventeen years old at the time of both periods of segregation. The first period lasted five days and the second period lasted four days. During the periods of segregation, P was provided with limited exercise and some leisure facilities but was denied access to education and training. P submitted that the segregation amounted to a breach of The Young Offender Institution Rules 2000 SI 2000/3371. P also submitted that his right under Art.3 and Art.8 of the European Convention on Human Rights had been breached. The defendant accepted that a breach of The Young Offender Institution Rules 2000 had occurred, but denied any breach of P's rights under the Convention.HELD: (1) It was not the segregation of P, but the failure to provide him with any education or training that amounted to a breach of The Young Offender Institution Rules 2000. In light of subsequent events, namely a reform of the system for segregating prisoners at the YOI in question, there was no need to determine the issue any further. (2) On the facts of the present case, there was no evidence to suggest that the conditions under which P was segregated were sufficient to have breached his rights under either Art.3, as defined in Munjaz v (1) Mersey Care National Health Service Trust (2) The Secretary Of State For Health : S v Airedale National Health Service Trust (2003) EWCA Civ 1036 or Art.8, as defined in Diane Pretty v United Kingdom (2002) 1 All ER 1.Application allowed, but relief refused.No order as to costs.

[2003] EWHC 1963 (Admin)

0 comments… add one

Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Skip to toolbar