CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 29 avril 2003

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s5FFF0A77 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:1pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s94935B0F { width:389.85pt; display:inline-block } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s583D00FA { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sA3022B31 { margin-left:10.52pt; padding-left:17.83pt; font-family:serif } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s3964C3A3 { width:1.36pt; display:inline-block } .s901C2590 { width:56.7pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s3133A7C8 { font-family:Arial; color:#0069d6 }   EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS     227   29.4.2003   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF McGLINCHEY AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing a judgment [1] in the case of McGlinchey and Others v. the United Kingdom (application no. 50390/99). The Court held:   by six votes to one, that there had been a violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment) of the European Convention on Human Rights; and   unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded the applicants 22,900 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 7,500 for costs and expenses.   (The judgment is available only in English.)   1.     Principal facts   The applicants, all British nationals, are Andrew George McGlinchey, Natalie Jane Best and Hilary Davenport. They were born in 1985, 1990 and 1945 respectively and live in Leeds. They are the children and mother of Judith McGlinchey, who died in hospital on 3 January 1999, aged 31.   Ms McGlinchey, who had a long history of heroin addiction and was asthmatic, was convicted of theft and sentenced to four months’ imprisonment on 7   December 1998. While in prison (between 7 and 14 December 1998) she manifested heroin-withdrawal symptoms, had frequent vomiting fits and lost a lot of weight. The day after her admission she was seen by a doctor who prescribed treatment for her various problems, including medication for her heroin-withdrawal symptoms. The nursing notes showed that one dose of the prescribed drug was omitted at midday on 8 December 1998 and refer to Ms McGlinchey being “locked in for education” . The doctor saw her again on 10   December 1998, prescribed an injection for the continuing withdrawal symptoms and gave instructions for her weight to be monitored. When he saw her the next day he found her general condition stable. She was not seen by a doctor over the following two days. On 14 December 1998 she was admitted to hospital. The next day she was moved to intensive care where she was kept on a life-support machine and heavily sedated. She died on 3   January 1999. The autopsy report noted that the cause of her vomiting had not been established. An inquest was held before a jury on 6 December 1999. The jury unanimously returned an open verdict.   The applicants consulted a doctor with a view to bringing a claim in negligence. In the light of the doctor’s opinion, counsel advised them that there was insufficient evidence to establish the necessary causal link between Ms McGlinchey’s death and negligent care in custody. They did not pursue their claims.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 17   June 1999. It was transmitted to the Court on 1 November 1998 and declared admissible on 28 May 2002   Judgment was given by a Chamber of 7 judges, composed as follows:   Jean-Paul Costa (French), President , András Baka (Hungarian), Nicolas Bratza (British), Loukis Loucaides (Cypriot), Corneliu Bîrsan (Romanian), Mindia Ugrekhelidze (Georgian), Antonella Mularoni (San Marinese), judges , and also Lawrence Early , Deputy Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaints   The applicants complained, under Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, that Ms McGlinchey had suffered inhuman and degrading treatment in prison prior to her death and that there had been no effective remedy available to them to bring a complaint. They alleged, among other things, that the prison authorities had deliberately withheld her medication and locked her in her cell as a punishment for her difficult behaviour; that they had administered her medication irregularly; and that she had been left lying in her own vomit.   Decision of the Court   Article 3   The Court reiterated that ill-treatment had to attain a minimum level of severity to fall within the scope of Article 3. The State had a duty to ensure that a person was detained in conditions which were compatible with respect for human dignity, including proper provision for their health and well-being in the form of the requisite medical assistance.   The applicants’ allegations that the prison authorities had failed to provide Ms   McGlinchey with medication for her heroin-withdrawal symptoms and locked her in her cell as a punishment were unsubstantiated. The medical records showed that she was not given the prescribed drug on one occasion on 8   December 1998 on the doctor’s instructions following a drop in her blood pressure and the reference to her having been “locked in for education” had been explained at the inquest: it was normal procedure for prisoners who were not attending classes to be detained in their cells during that period. The Court also found that in the urgency of Ms   McGlinchey’s immediate transfer to hospital, the failure to clean up her vomit adequately could not be regarded as degrading treatment. While the omissions in administering her medication indicated a regrettable lapse in the procedure, the Court did not find any evidence that this failure had adversely affected Ms McGlinchey’s condition or caused her any discomfort.   However, with regard to the complaints that not enough had been done, or done quickly enough, to treat Ms McGlinchey for her heroin-withdrawal symptoms, the Court found that, while it appeared that her condition had been regularly monitored from 7 to 12 December 1998, she had been vomiting repeatedly during that period and losing a lot of weight. By 11   December 1998 there was little evidence that her condition had improved. Over the following two days she was not seen by a doctor and continued to vomit and lose weight. The nursing staff did not find any cause for alarm, however, or consider it necessary to call a doctor. The doctor at the inquest had considered that there had been strong indications that she was dehydrated at the time of her admission to hospital.   Despite some signs of improvement in her condition on 12 and 13 December 1998, the Court concluded from the evidence before it that by 14   December 1998 Ms McGlinchey had lost a lot of weight and become dehydrated. In addition to causing her distress and suffering, this had posed very serious risks to her health. The Court found that the prison authorities had failed to comply with their duty to provide her with the requisite medical care and concluded that the prison authorities’ treatment of her had violated the prohibition against inhuman and degrading treatment contained in Article 3.   Article 13   The effect of Article 13 was to require the provision of a domestic remedy to deal with the substance of an arguable complaint under the Convention and to grant appropriate relief.   Although the Government had referred to internal prison remedies as being available to Ms   McGlinchey to complain about any ill-treatment prior to her death, the Court observed that they would not have provided any right to compensation for any suffering already experienced. No compensation was available under English law for the suffering and distress that the Court had found to amount to a violation of Article 3. The Court concluded that Ms   McGlinchey, or the applicants acting on her behalf, should have been able to apply for compensation for the non-pecuniary damage she had suffered. As there had been no remedy by which to examine the standard of care given to her in prison and the possibility of obtaining damages, there had been a breach of Article 13.     Judges Costa and Bratza expressed a concurring opinion and a partly dissenting opinion respectively, both of which are annexed to the judgment.   ***   The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Registry of the European Court of Human Rights F – 67075 Strasbourg Cedex Contacts:   Roderick Liddell (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 24 92)   Joanna Reynell (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 15)   Stéphanie Klein (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 21 54) Fax: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 27 91   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. On 1 November 1998 a full-time Court was established, replacing the original two-tier system of a part-time Commission and Court. [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.