Prisoner fails in £60,000 damages claim for hand-cuffing during hospital visits

Easdale Campbell, who was convicted of attempted murder in 1996, argued that his treatment by authorities before he was released in 2015 amounted to a violation of rights under articles 3 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, but a judge in the Court of Session dismissed his claims as “irrelevant”.

Lady Wise heard that the pursuer was sentenced to 20 years imprisonment following conviction at Glasgow High Court in February 1996.

He was later convicted of having attempted to defeat the ends of justice and sentenced to two months imprisonment in November 2004 after an attempted abscond from HMP Castle Huntly where he was noted to be absent from his cell and the window of that cell was noted to have been broken.

He was released on licence on 11 November 2005 but was recalled to custody in July 2007.

Prior to his release at his sentence end date of 11 December 2015, the present proceedings were initiated as a petition for judicial review in June 2013, challenging the alleged illegality of the Scottish Ministers’ (first defenders) policy of hand-cuffing all prisoners when they were escorted out of jail for medical appointments.

During the course of these proceedings and in about April 2014 a new policy was adopted which provides for the individual assessment of risk posed by a prisoner and the imposition of restraints when they are being escorted outside the prison estate in line with such an assessment.

In June 2015 the court ordered that the case be withdrawn from petition procedure and appointed it to proceed as an ordinary action.

Amendment of the pleadings took place thereafter and the case proceeded against the Scottish Ministers, prison operators Sedexo (second defenders) and Tasco (third defenders) and G4S (fourth defenders), who were involved escorting the pursuer to hospital for appointments.

The pleadings sought two declarators; first, that restraining the pursuer in handcuffs while he was in custody outwith prison at hospitals in Scotland was an “unlawful infringement” of his residual liberty and secondly, declarator that the defenders’ treatment of him was in breach of his rights in terms of Article 3 et separatim Article 8 of the ECHR. The third conclusion sought damages payable to the pursuer by the defenders jointly and severally of the sum of £60,000.

However, the judge ruled that the pursuer had not pled a relevant case against any of the defenders.

In a written opinion, Lady Wise said: “The undisputed facts and admissions referred to above are sufficient, in my view, to infer that this particular prisoner fell within the broad category of risk that would render it surprising had some restraints not been applied when he was escorted out of the prison for hospital treatment. His history of serious violent offending, the attempt to abscond and the admission that the pursuer posed a risk…are sufficient to support such an inference being drawn.

“The pursuer cannot and does not offer to prove that he did not present a risk such that the measures taken were unnecessary in relation to him. In these circumstances it can readily be inferred that his restraint was necessary.

“In conclusion, I do not consider that the pursuer has pled a relevant case under Article 3. The lack of specification in relation to what occurred during each hospital visit compounds the difficulties that the pursuer’s case as pled faces.

“Even had I allowed this claim to proceed to proof before answer on the basis that a relevant case in law had been pled, I would have concluded that the inadequate specification of each alleged incident gave insufficient notice to the relevant defenders of the case against them.”

She added: “As a general rule, it is not disputed in this case that hand-cuffing prisoners when they are attending medical appointments can engage Article 8. Accordingly, any interference with private life can only be justified if it was proportionate.

“On the basis of the facts outlined in relation to Article 3, it is difficult to see an argument that the requirements of Article 8 could be satisfied in this case. The admissions in relation to a history of absconding and of violence and the concession that the defenders or some of them require to guard against the risk of violence by the pursuer to their staff or to medical staff would appear to me to be sufficient to infer that hand-cuffing in the circumstances of this case was in accordance with law and necessary in a democratic society, in the interest of public safety and for the prevention of disorder or crime.

“In the absence of any averments of rough treatment, resulting physical injury or psychological sequelae of the handcuffing procedures, there is nothing to suggest that the actings of those escorting the pursuer to prison was anything other than reasonable and proportionate. Accordingly, I conclude that the pursuer’s Article 8 claim is also irrelevant.”

The judge also held that the pursuer’s common law case would have failed, and upheld the defenders’ preliminary plea of time-bar.