CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 26 septembre 2006

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sD711EC90 { margin-left:31.52pt; padding-left:7.48pt; font-family:serif } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   529 26.9.2006   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT WAINWRIGHT v. THE UNITED KINGDOM   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Wainwright v. the United Kingdom (application no. 12350/04).   The Court held unanimously that there had been: no violation of Article 3   (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the European Convention on Human Rights; a violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the Convention; a violation of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction), the Court awarded the applicants 6,000   euros (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 17,500 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   1.     Principal facts   The applicants, Mary Wainwright and her son, Alan Wainwright, are British nationals who were born in 1953 and 1975 respectively and live in Leeds (United Kingdom). Mr Wainwright has cerebral palsy and severe arrested social and intellectual development.   In August 1996, Patrick O’Neill (Ms Wainwright’s son and Mr Wainwright’s half brother) was arrested on suspicion of murder and detained on remand at HMP Armley, Leeds. Since Mr O’Neill was suspected of being involved in the supply and use of drugs within the prison, the Governor ordered that all his visitors be strip-searched before visits.   Unaware of the Governor’s orders, on 2 January 1997, the applicants went to the prison to visit Mr O’Neill. After passing through the initial security checks, they were informed that they would be strip-searched, as there was reason to believe that they were carrying drugs. They were told that, if they refused, they would not be allowed to visit Mr O’Neill. Mr Wainwright became distressed and his mother tried to calm him down.   Ms Wainwright was taken by two female officers into a small room overlooking offices. There were roller blinds on the windows, but they were not pulled down. While she was being searched, she explained that, because of his learning difficulties, her son would not be able to sign any consent form without someone explaining to him what was about to happen. By that time she was standing naked apart from her underwear and crying. She was permitted to put her jumper and vest back on and was then told to pull down her underwear and bend forward. Her sexual organs and anus were visually examined. She was then asked to pull her vest up above her breasts. The first applicant asked why that was necessary since they had already inspected her top half. The officer ignored her and continued walking around her body. By the end of the search, Ms Wainwright was shaking and visibly distressed. She believed that anyone outside the prison looking at the windows in the room where she was being searched could have seen her in a state of undress. She was worried that if she protested too much she would not be allowed to visit Mr O’Neill. She was also worried about what was happening to Alan. Although none of the officers touched her, she felt threatened by their actions and felt obliged to comply with their instructions.   After she had been told to put her clothes back on, one of the officers asked her to sign the form to consent to a strip-search. Attached to the consent form was a summary of the procedure to be carried out. She signed the form without reading it.   Mr Wainwright was taken to a separate room by two male officers. Once in the room, one of the officers put on a pair of rubber gloves, which frightened Mr Wainwright, who feared that there would be a search of his rectum. As requested, he removed the clothes from the upper half of his body and they were searched. He was subjected to a finger search, which included poking a finger into his armpits. The prison officers then told Mr Wainwright to remove the clothes from the lower half of his body. He was by this stage crying and shaking. He reluctantly removed his boxer shorts and was told to spread his legs. Because of his physical disability, he had to balance with one hand on the wall to do so. One of the prison officers looked all around his naked body, lifted up his penis and pulled back the foreskin.   Mr Wainwright was then given a consent form to sign. He explained that he could not read and that he wanted his mother to read it to him. The officers ignored this request and said that if he did not sign the form he would not be allowed in to visit his brother. He signed the form.   During the visit Ms Wainwright went into the toilet where she cried and vomited about four times. Mr Wainwright felt shaken and nervous and was upset. The applicants did not stay for the full length of their visit.   Because of her experience, Ms Wainwright did not visit Mr O’Neill for a further four months. In October 1998, she was examined by a psychiatrist. The doctor considered that the severe upset that she had experienced in the prison had made her existing depression worse.   Mr Wainwright was also examined by the same doctor in October 1998 and April 2000. The doctor concluded that he was suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder and had a depressive illness. He found the strip-search to be the main cause of both illnesses.   In the ensuing proceeding, brought by the applicants against the Home Office, the Court of Appeal found that trespass to the person could not be extended to fit the applicants’ circumstances and found that no wrongful act had been committed (except battery against Mr Wainwright). Mr Wainwright was awarded damages. 2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 2 April 2004 and declared partly admissible on 13 December 2005.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Josep Casadevall (Andorran), President , Nicolas Bratza (British), Giovanni Bonello (Maltese), Matti Pellonpää (Finnish), Rait Maruste (Estonian), Ljiljana Mijović (citizen of Bosnia and Herzegovina), Ján Šikuta (Slovakian), judges , and also Lawrence Early , Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaints   The applicants complained about the strip-search to which they had been subjected, relying on   Articles 3, 8 and 13.   Decision of the Court   Articles 3 and 8 Given the endemic drugs problem in the prison and the prison authorities’ suspicion that Mr O’Neill had been taking drugs, the Court considered that the searching of visitors might be considered a legitimate preventive measure. It emphasised nonetheless that the application of such a highly invasive and potentially debasing procedure to people who were not convicted prisoners or under reasonable suspicion of having committed a criminal offence had to be conducted with rigorous adherence to procedures and all due respect to their human dignity.   The Court noted that the domestic courts had found that the prison officers who carried out the searches had failed to comply with their own regulations and had demonstrated “sloppiness”. In particular, it appeared that the prison officers did not provide the applicants with a copy of the form which set out the applicable procedure to be followed before the search was carried out, and which would have put them on notice of what to expect and permitted informed consent. They also overlooked the rule that the person to be searched should be no more than half-naked at any time. It further appeared that Ms Wainwright was visible through a window in breach of the relevant procedures. The Government had said that   she should have asked for the blinds to be drawn. The Court stressed, however, that it was for the authorities, not the visitor, to ensure the proper procedure was followed.   The Court noted that, although there was a regrettable lack of courtesy, there was no verbal abuse by the prison officers and, importantly, there was no touching of the applicants, except in the case of Mr Wainwright, who had received damages for battery. The Court therefore excluded that element from its assessment. The treatment undoubtedly caused the applicants distress but did not, in the Court’s view, reach the minimum level of severity prohibited by Article 3. Rather the Court found that the case fell within the scope of Article 8.   The Court accepted that the search pursued the legitimate aim of fighting the drugs problem in the prison. On the other hand, it was not satisfied that the searches were proportionate to that aim in the manner in which they were carried out. Where procedures were laid down for the proper conduct of searches on outsiders to the prison who might very well be innocent of any wrongdoing, the prison authorities were required to comply strictly with those safeguards and by rigorous precautions protect the dignity of those being searched as far as possible. The Court found that they did not do so in the applicants’ case. Considering that the searches carried out on the applicants could not be regarded as "necessary in a democratic society", the Court found that there had been a breach of Article 8.   Article 13 The Court observed that, while it was true that the applicants took domestic proceedings seeking damages for the searches and their effects they had had on them, they were unsuccessful, save as regards the instance of battery on Mr Wainwright. As regards the other elements of the strip-searches, the Court observed that the House of Lords found that the negligent action disclosed by the prison officers did not give grounds for any civil liability, in particular as there was no general tort of invasion of privacy. In those circumstances, the Court found that the applicants did not have available to them a means of obtaining redress for the interference with their rights under Article 8. There had therefore been a violation of Article 13. ***   The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Press contacts Emma Hellyer (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 15) Stéphanie Klein (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 21 54) Beverley Jacobs (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 54 21)   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights.     [1] Under Article 43 of the European Convention on Human Rights, within three months from the date of a Chamber judgment, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the 17 ‑ member Grand Chamber of the Court. In that event, a panel of five judges considers whether the case raises a serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or its protocols, or a serious issue of general importance, in which case the Grand Chamber will deliver a final judgment. If no such question or issue arises, the panel will reject the request, at which point the judgment becomes final. Otherwise Chamber judgments become final on the expiry of the three-month period or earlier if the parties declare that they do not intend to make a request to refer. [2] This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.