Article 3 Key Cases

Question 1

Askoy v Turkey: facts

Answer 1

• man stripped and repeatedly electrocuted by authorities

Question 2

Askoy v Turkey: principle

Answer 2

• torture is intentionally cruel and violent
• high threshold required to prove it
• this treatment was torture

Question 3

Ireland v UK: facts

Answer 3

• IRA terrorists detained in UK and subjected to “five methods” used by security services: wall-standing,hooding, subjection to noise, sleep deprivation and deprivation of food whilst being interrogated

Question 4

Ireland v UK: principle

Answer 4

• in 2018 case referred back to ECtHR following fresh evidence
• court reconsidered the issue but kept to its original decision, that actions amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment and not torture
• Ireland is now considering whether to refer to Grand Chamber

Question 5

R (Q) v SoS for Home Dep: facts

Answer 5

• decision to refuse asylum to number of applicants because of their delay in applying subject to successful judicial review application
• Home Sec unsuccssfully appealed that judicial review decision

Question 6

R (Q) v SoS for Home Dep: principle

Answer 6

• state has positive duty under Article 3 to prevent inhuman and degrading treatment or torture being carried out in another state
• article 3 is breached if state does not deal fairly with asylum seekers and provide them with means of support

Question 7

Aydin v Turkey: facts

Answer 7

• Kurdish Turk raped, beaten, stripped and sprayed with high pressure water by authorities

Question 8

Aydin v Turkey: principle

Answer 8

• conduct amounted to torutre

Question 9

Chahal v UK: facts

Answer 9

• Sikh Indian man appealed against deportation order made against him, on grounds of his political activities and criminal investigations against him
• he had previously been arrested, but not convicted, for attempting to kill the Indian PM

Question 10

Chahal v UK: principle

Answer 10

• when UK authorities gave notice to applicant of intended deportation he immediately applied for asylum
• he claimed that he faced risk of torture if he returned to India
• this was rejected, and he eventually applied to ECtHR
• held that despite conduct of individual and any threat to national security Article 3 is absolute
• deportation could not proceed

Question 11

Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis v DSD and another: facts

Answer 11

• two respondents were victims of black cab rapist, Worboys, and had reported the crimes in 2003 and 2007
• however, police had not investigated systematically until 2008, after which Worboys convicted of 19 counts of sexual assault
• both women brought proceedings against the police, alleging failure to conduct effective investigations which constituted violation of rights under article 3
• Supreme Court agreed with lower courts that positive duty to investigate existed and had been breached here

Question 12

Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis v DSD and another: principle

Answer 12

1. article 3 imposes positive obligation on states to effectively investigate reported crimes perpetrated by private individuals.
   - errors must be serious to give rise to breach, as occurred here
2. basis for this duty is different from that in tort where there is no common law duty of care on police
   - note: the justices differed over whether duty should be limited to operational or systematic failures

Question 13

N v SoS for Home Dep: facts

Answer 13

• asylum claim of Ugandan asylum seeker with AIDS was rejected
• she appealed on grounds she would not be able to receive effective treatment if she were sent back to Uganda, so deportation would be a breach of Article 3

Question 14

N v SoS for Home Dep: principle

Answer 14

• not a breach of Article 3 to deport her to Uganda
• her illness did not allow her to demonstrate “exceptional circumstances”
• Article 3 does not require signatory states to provide medical treatment

Question 15

Napier v Scottish Ministers: facts

Answer 15

• prisoner who suffered from eczema was held in prison where cells had no running water or sanitary provision
• necessitated “slopping out”

Question 16

Napier v Scottish Ministers: principle

Answer 16

• circumstances and attendant stress exacerbated the applicant’s eczema
• for him this constituted inhuman and degrading treatment

Question 17

Peers v Greece: facts

Answer 17

• British prisoner held in Greece subject to long periods in his cell in very hot temperatures
• cell had no window or ventilation
• had to share open toilet facilities with cell mate, depriving him of privacy

Question 18

Peers v Greece: principle

Answer 18

• court considered these conditions to be inhuman and degrading and held them to be in breach of Article 3 and Article 8

Question 19

R (Bagdanavicius) v SoS for Home Dep: facts

Answer 19

• a Roma man married to a Lithuanian was subject to harassment in Lithuania
• he claimed asylum in UK
• this was refused, he sought to rely on state’s positive duty under Article 3 to avoid deportation

Question 20

R (Bagdanavicius) v SoS for Home Dep: principle

Answer 20

• positive duty in Article 3 is not absolute and in this case was not engaged
• in these circumstances any risk to him came from criminal gangs and not by state activity

Question 21

R (Spinks) v SoS for Home Dep: facts

Answer 21

• Spinks complained about being held in prison conditions whilst receiving cancer treatment

Question 22

R (Spinks) v SoS for Home Dep: principle

Answer 22

• this did not amount to inhuman or degrading treatment

- there was no necessity to release prisoner on compassionate grounds

Question 23

SH v UK: facts

Answer 23

• Bhutanese national from ethnic minority denied asylum
• he appealed on grounds that UK would be in breach of its positive duty under Article 3 if he were deported
• in his home country he would be subject to inhuman or degrading treatment

Question 24

SH v UK: principle

Answer 24

• positive duty on state arises where high degree of probability that an individual will be subject to inhuman or degrading treatment or torture
• this was case here

Question 25

Soering v UK: facts

Answer 25

• German national was imprisoned in UK
• US sought to extradite him following a US conviction in absentia for murder
• applicant argued extradition would breach his Article 3 rights
• no guarantee that he would not be executed and he risked exposure to psychological torment of waiting on death row

Question 26

Soering v UK: principle

Answer 26

• court held it would amount to inhuman and degrading treatment under Article 3 to send him to US

Question 27

Torreggiani v Italy: facts

Answer 27

• substantial overcrowding in Italian prison held to be violation of Article 3

Question 28

Torreggiani v Italy: principle

Answer 28

• overcrowding was breach

- it was exacerbated by other poor conditions, including lack of hot water and poor ventilation

Question 29

Vinter and others v UK: facts

Answer 29

• three men convicted of particularly serious murders given “whole life orders”
• they appealed on grounds that having absolutely no hope of release constituted inhuman treatment

Question 30

Vinter and others v UK: principle

Answer 30

• “Whole life orders” for imprisonment which have no mechanism for review were incompatible with Article 3
• ECtHR found prisoners subject to these sentences had no clarity about possible release
• because SoS had discretionary power to reduce sentences

Note:

• following CoA ruling: AG ref No 69 which disagreed with ECtHR interpretation of English law in Vinter, ECtHR accepted it had misinterpreted English law and that processes for review of whole life sentences under English law
• clarity for prisoners of circumstances when they might be released did provide sufficient protection for human rights (Hutchinson v UK)