Government agrees that treatment of 15-year-old boy in solitary confinement breached Article 3 of European Convention on Human Rights

The government has agreed to pay compensation after accepting that a 15-year-old boy with serious mental health problems, who was kept in solitary confinement in a London prison for weeks on end, was subjected to “inhuman or degrading treatment”.

The boy, identified in court documents as ‘AB’ and represented by the Howard League for Penal Reform, was locked alone in his cell for more than 23 hours a day for at least the first 55 days of his detention in Feltham prison, from December 2016 to February 2017.

Throughout this period, the boy received no education and had no contact with any other child. He was allowed out of his cell for approximately half an hour each day, only to shower, use the phone or exercise.

Last week (Thursday 14 December), the European Court of Human Rights decided to strike out AB’s application after a friendly settlement was reached. As part of the agreement, the government acknowledges that, in the particular circumstances of this case, there has been a breach of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which states: “No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”

The government has agreed to pay AB £31,500 in respect of any and all non-pecuniary damage. This is understood to be one of the largest sums ever paid by the UK in a friendly settlement before the European Court of Human Rights.

The agreement ends a seven-year legal battle, during which the government fought AB’s claim of a breach of Article 3 at every stage.

Before the High Court, the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court the government denied it had breached AB’s Article 3 rights. It forced him to take his case all the way to Strasbourg before finally admitting that he had been subject to treatment that was inhuman or degrading.

The government has never explained why it forced AB, now in his early 20s, to go through that lengthy legal process rather than just admitting it had breached his rights at the outset.

Andrea Coomber KC (Hon.), Chief Executive of the Howard League for Penal Reform, said: “AB was only 15 years old when he was locked in a cell in Feltham prison, getting out for barely an hour a day, deprived of education and unable to see another child for weeks on end.

“In the seven years since, we have seen four prime ministers, seven justice secretaries and 10 prisons ministers, but the government has refused repeatedly to acknowledge that this shameful solitary confinement of a boy with complex needs amounted to inhuman or degrading treatment – until now.

“Settling at such a late stage, and on terms limited to the particular circumstances of one case, is particularly cynical when we know that there are other children in prison being forced to endure horrendous conditions of solitary confinement today. Indeed, prisons holding children are in a worse state now than they were when this legal battle began.

“Prison is no place for a child. Now that this case is over, and as AB begins the next chapter in his life, we urge ministers to come forward with a plan to ensure that no more children suffer in this way.”

AB said: “It shouldn’t have taken them that long, and for them to have changed their mind at the last minute, it is not fair.

“Separation is horrible. For rehabilitation and communication, people skills are a big thing. By them not letting me see children, taking that away, it is hindering your potential to stay out when you get out.”

In 2017, the High Court ruled that AB’s treatment in Feltham was unlawful because the prison had not followed the correct procedures, in breach of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights – the “right to respect for private and family life”. But the court also determined that there was not a breach of Article 3.

The case then went to the Court of Appeal, where lawyers for AB challenged the High Court’s decision on Article 3. At the same time, government lawyers cross-appealed the High Court’s decision on Article 8. Both the appeal and the cross-appeal were dismissed in 2019.

In 2021, lawyers for AB went to the Supreme Court to challenge the Court of Appeal’s decision. This appeal was also dismissed, and so the case proceeded to Strasbourg.

While AB’s case has progressed through the courts, concern about the solitary confinement of children in England and Wales has only grown, with medics, parliamentarians and children’s rights experts among those calling for change.

In 2018, the British Medical Association, the Royal College of Psychiatrists and the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health issued a joint position statement calling for the solitary confinement of children and young people to be abolished and prohibited.

The three medical bodies said: “In light of its potential to cause harm, and in the absence of compelling evidence for its use, we call for an end to the use of solitary confinement on children and young people detained in the youth justice system.”

Later that year, a report by the Children’s Commissioner for England raised serious concerns about the use of segregation and isolation of children in custody.

The report stated: “The potential long-term damage this could cause to an already vulnerable group of children is of deep concern to the Children’s Commissioner.”

In 2019, a report by the Joint Committee on Human Rights pointed to “evidence over several years” that children in detention can “end up in what amounts to solitary confinement (at least 22 hours per day without meaningful contact) which may be prolonged (at least 15 days’ duration)”.

The report added: “This breach of children’s rights is not a policy decision by the government, but it is within the power of government to prevent it.”

In 2020, HM Inspectorate of Prisons published a report on the separation of children in prisons, drawing on findings from 85 interviews with separated children and staff responsible for their care. The cases of 57 separated children were examined in detail.

Inspectors found children who were “unable to access the very basics of everyday life, including a daily shower and telephone call”. In the worst cases, children left their cells for only 15 minutes a day.

The report added: “The weaknesses of current practice and oversight are of such a magnitude that we recommend an entirely new approach, and that current practice be replaced.”

Notes to editors

1. There are strict reporting restrictions in this case. The Supreme Court ordered that “no one shall publish or reveal the name of the Appellant who is the subject of these proceedings or publish or reveal any information which would be likely to lead to the identification of the Appellant or of any member of her family in connection with these proceedings”. The wording of the order can be found on the Supreme Court website.
2. The Howard League for Penal Reform is the oldest penal reform charity in the world. It is a national charity working for less crime, safer communities and fewer people in prison.
3. AB is represented by Dan Squires KC and Rosalind Comyn of Matrix Chambers, instructed by the Howard League. Ayesha Christie, who is currently on parental leave, was also instructed on the Strasbourg challenge.
4. The Equality and Human Rights Commission intervened in the case.
5. The friendly settlement before the European Court of Human Rights can be found here.
6. The judgment of the High Court, handed down in 2017, can be found here.
7. The judgment of the Court of Appeal, handed down in 2019, can be found here.
8. The judgment of the Supreme Court, handed down in 2021, can be found here.
9. A thematic report by HM Inspectorate of Prisons, Separation of children in young offender institutions, published in 2020, can be read online.
10. A report by the Joint Committee on Human Rights, Youth detention: solitary confinement and restraint, published in 2019, can be read online.
11. A report on the use of segregation in youth custody in England, published by the Children’s Commissioner for England in 2018, can be read online.
12. The joint position statement published by the British Medical Association, the Royal College of Psychiatrists and the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, which calls for the solitary confinement of children and young people to be abolished and prohibited, can be read online.

+++

Timeline

June 2015

AB, aged 14, receives a detention and training order and is placed in Medway secure training centre, in Kent, where he suffers abuse at the hands of staff. He later spends time in Cookham Wood prison, also in Kent.

December 2016

AB is sent to Feltham prison, in west London. He is locked alone in his cell for more than 23 hours per day, for at least the first 55 days of his detention.

Throughout this period, he receives no education and has no contact with any other child. He is allowed out of his cell for approximately half an hour each day, only to shower, use the phone or exercise.

February 2017

In the US, the District Court for New York grants an injunction requiring the immediate cessation of 23-hour solitary confinement of children.

Hearing the case of VW and others v Eugene Conway, US District Judge David N Hurd considers expert evidence that “solitary confinement perpetuates, worsens, or even in some cases precipitates mental health concerns that can lead to long-term and often permanent changes in adolescent brain development”.

The case indicates a growing international consensus that children should never be placed in solitary confinement.

April 2017

The European Committee for the Prevention of Torture publishes a report to the government on its findings from a visit to the UK in March and April 2016.

The report states that children in Cookham Wood prison, in Kent, were “regularly held in conditions akin to solitary confinement for periods of 30 days and some for as long as 60 days or even, on occasion, up to 80 days for reasons of discipline and good order”.

July 2017

The High Court rules that AB’s treatment in Feltham was unlawful because the prison did not follow the correct procedures, in breach of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which states:

(1) Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.

(2) There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health and morals, or for the protection of rights and freedoms of others.

The High Court also rules, however, that the boy’s treatment did not breach Article 3, which states:

No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

April 2018

The British Medical Association, the Royal College of Psychiatrists and the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health issue a joint position statement calling for the solitary confinement of children and young people to be abolished and prohibited.

The three medical bodies state: “In light of its potential to cause harm, and in the absence of compelling evidence for its use, we call for an end to the use of solitary confinement on children and young people detained in the youth justice system.”

October 2018

A report by the Children’s Commissioner for England raises serious concerns about the use of segregation and isolation of children in custody.

The report states: “The potential long-term damage this could cause to an already vulnerable group of children is of deep concern to the Children’s Commissioner.

“Additionally we are very concerned that the structures in place around external governance mean that a child can be separated for 21 days before there is any external oversight. The Commissioner is therefore calling for strengthened transparency and accountability around the use of segregation across the youth justice system.”

January 2019

The Court of Appeal hands down judgment after hearing an appeal from AB, challenging the High Court’s decision on Article 3, and a cross-appeal from the government, challenging the High Court’s decision on Article 8.

Both AB’s appeal and the government’s cross-appeal are dismissed.

April 2019

The Joint Committee on Human Rights publishes a report pointing to “evidence over several years” that children in detention can “end up in what amounts to solitary confinement (at least 22 hours per day without meaningful contact) which may be prolonged (at least 15 days’ duration)”.

The report adds: “This breach of children’s rights is not a policy decision by the Government, but it is within the power of Government to prevent it.”

January 2020

HM Inspectorate of Prisons publishes a report on the separation of children in prisons, drawing on findings from 85 interviews with separated children and staff responsible for their care. The cases of 57 separated children are examined in detail.

Inspectors find children who are “unable to access the very basics of everyday life, including a daily shower and telephone call”. In the worst cases, children leave their cells for only 15 minutes a day.

The report adds: “The weaknesses of current practice and oversight are of such a magnitude that we recommend an entirely new approach, and that current practice be replaced.”

July 2021

The Supreme Court hands down judgment after hearing an appeal from AB, challenging the Court of Appeal’s decision on Article 3.

Two arguments were made on AB’s behalf: first, that the solitary confinement of any person under 18 automatically violates Article 3; or, alternatively, that such treatment can only be regarded as compatible with Article 3 if there are exceptional circumstances which render the treatment strictly necessary.

The Supreme Court dismisses AB’s appeal.

December 2023

AB and the government agree to a friendly settlement of the case before the European Court of Human Rights. As part of the agreement, the government acknowledges that, in the particular circumstances of this case, there has been a breach of Article 3.

+++

Contact

Rob Preece
Communications Manager
Mobile: +44 (0)7714 604955
Email: robert.preece@howardleague.org