25.11.2014 Views

Human Rights and Prisons - Rethinking Crime and Punishment

Human Rights and Prisons - Rethinking Crime and Punishment

Human Rights and Prisons - Rethinking Crime and Punishment

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

inspecting his correspondence would inhibit what he conveyed to the<br />

specialist, thereby harming the quality of advice that he received.<br />

Health services<br />

Right To Privacy In Medical Correspondence (UK)<br />

Szuluk v United Kingdom [2009] ECHR 36936/05 (2 June 2009)<br />

See above.<br />

<strong>Rights</strong> Will Be Said To Be Violated When Conditions Of Detention Are<br />

Not Tailored To A Prisoner’s Health (Italy)<br />

Scoppola v Italy [2008] ECHR 50550/06 (10 June 2008)<br />

See above.<br />

Suicide Of A Prisoner Can Be Blamed On Authorities’ Failure To Provide<br />

Medical Care (France)<br />

Renolde v France [2008] ECHR 5608/05 (16 October 2008)<br />

On 16 October 2008, the European Court of <strong>Human</strong> <strong>Rights</strong> held that the<br />

suicide of a prisoner suffering from mental illness in France was attributable to<br />

the authorities‟ failure to provide adequate medical care. This failure was a<br />

breach of the deceased‟s right to life <strong>and</strong> right to be free from inhuman or<br />

degrading treatment.<br />

The House of Lords has recently unanimously held that the right to life<br />

established by art 2 of the European Convention on <strong>Human</strong> <strong>Rights</strong> requires<br />

the state to carry out an independent investigation whenever a person is left<br />

incapacitated by a suicide attempt in custody.<br />

Prisoners Should Have <strong>Rights</strong> To Artificial Insemination Procedures<br />

(UK)<br />

Dickson v United Kingdom [2007] ECHR 44362/04 (Gr<strong>and</strong> Chamber, 4<br />

December 2007)<br />

This case concerns prisoners‟ access to artificial insemination facilities. The<br />

applicants complained that the refusal by the Secretary of State to allow the<br />

first applicant access to artificial insemination facilities while in prison<br />

constituted a breach of the applicants‟ rights under art 8 (right to private <strong>and</strong><br />

family life) <strong>and</strong> art 12 (right to marry <strong>and</strong> found a family) of the European<br />

Convention on <strong>Human</strong> <strong>Rights</strong>.<br />

The Gr<strong>and</strong> Chamber of the European Court of <strong>Human</strong> <strong>Rights</strong> held (by a 12:5<br />

majority) that there had been a violation of art 8, but that it was not necessary<br />

to examine the complaint under art 12.<br />

139

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!