Friday 4 March 2011

Oh Look, Another ‘Human Right’…

Lawyers for PA, from the Brighton area, said prison was ''the worst possible environment'', given his debilitating mental health problems.

He suffered anxiety and panic attacks at the prospect of having to come into contact with other people.
Given where he is, and his crime, I think we can safely consider 'other people' to be code for 'other inmates who take a dim view of child beaters':
The inmate is in his mid-twenties and is currently serving a three-year sentence at Lewes Prison, East Sussex, for attacking his own child in 2009.
Yes, if I were him, the thought of mixing with Jimmy 'The Bull' McGuire and Jack 'The Screwdriver' Jones in the queue for the showers would definitely give me a bit of anxiety...

But in order to gain early release, he's taking it a bit further.
He had deteriorated to the extent that he could no longer manage eye contact with his mother, said his barrister Elizabeth Prochaska.

She accused the Lewes governor of unlawfully refusing to exercise his discretion to release PA on home detention curfew.
That's the thing with 'discretion', sweetie. It's not automatic. That's the point...
Ms Prochaska said the sentencing judge had found it was unlikely that he had deliberately set out to harm the child.

It was more likely there had been ''a momentary loss of control, a feeling of frustration when he was feeling unwell''.
We all get those. We don't all lash out at the nearest vulnerable target. My sympathy dial isn't registering much of a flicker, I'm afraid.
His Article 8 right to respect for his private life was being violated.
Oh, of course.
Ms Prochaska said: "The incarceration of the claimant in circumstances where his mental instability renders him unable to leave his cell, let alone to progress normally to open conditions, is an unjustifiable interference with his Article 8 rights."
*checks sympathy meter dial*

Blimey! Didn't know these things could register a negative reading...
at

11 comments:

  1. Woman on a Raft4 March 2011 at 12:13

    He is serving a three year sentence at Lewes Prison, East Sussex. His jail term was imposed in October 2009 for two offences, one of inflicting grievous bodily harm on one of his children and one of cruelty to the same child.

    My calendar says this is Feb 2011 so this is a half-time rule and he's actually only done 18 months.

    He is due to be released on 7 April, on licence, which is lenient considering everything. Presumably they've asked for reporting restrictions to prevent direct action.

    The application was on 25 Feb and Mr Justice Burnett responded on 1 March

    Giving his decision on the case on Monday, the judge announced: "My conclusion is that the decision of the governor to refuse early release on home detention curfew was lawful."

    "Despite the debilitating nature of his mental illness, in my judgment the governor was fully entitled to conclude that the claimant is not infirm as a result".

    Unfortunately, what he couldn't say was "Don't waste the court's time and public money by appealing for what is only a matter of about 4 weeks or I'm taking it out of your fee, Ms Prochaska."

    Elizabeth Prochaska specializes in human rights at Matrix Chambers.

    But not your rights as a taxpayer or those of the victims. This is what happens if you pass stupid acts like the HRA. I've not seen it being much good in cases of real human rights abuses by the state, such as Mark and Nicky Webster.

    ReplyDelete
  2. PJH4 March 2011 at 12:30

    FTA:
    "He had self-harmed when a transfer to open conditions was suggested. "

    I do believe I see a solution...

    ReplyDelete
  3. Woman on a Raft4 March 2011 at 12:34

    Just to clarify the time-line:

    Conviction Oct 2009 (conviction not disputed).
    Eligible for 'curfew' ending of sentence Nov 24 2010
    Offered chance to complete final 6 months in an open prison - refused it, self-harmed.
    Will be released on licence April 7 having served half the 3 year sentence.

    Ruled lawfully refused own choice of where to complete the sentence so will not be able to apply for compo for having had his human rights infringed (because they were not infringed).

    ReplyDelete
  4. PJH4 March 2011 at 12:41

    WoaR:
    "Ruled lawfully refused own choice of where to complete the sentence so will not be able to apply for compo for having had his human rights infringed (because they were not infringed)."

    Oh, but they were infringed.

    "At home" wasn't among the choices he was offered, thus the mention of Article 8.

    At least I'm sure that's what the landsharks are trying for.

    Strangely no mention, in relation to the child, of Article 3 (right to [...] security of person,) or Article 5 (not subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.)

    Victimhood Poker anyone?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Anonymous4 March 2011 at 13:08

    "Strangely no mention, in relation to the child, of Article 3 (right to [...] security of person,) or Article 5 (not subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.) "

    Yup...because the HRA act only applies as to how a government or its authorities treat the general population. NOT how the general population treat each other.

    I believe this to be the fundamental and absolute failing of the HRA. It should apply to every single one of us and how we treat each other or what's the point ??

    ReplyDelete
  6. Anonymous4 March 2011 at 13:10

    ..........that said...may the gods help us all if/when the day dawns that every single teeny weeny aspect of how treat each other HAS to be enshrined in acts of law .

    ReplyDelete
  7. PJH4 March 2011 at 13:11

    "I believe this to be the fundamental and absolute failing of the HRA."

    Erm - quite!

    It didn't even occur to me that it wasn't the case that it'd be taken into account!!

    ReplyDelete
  8. JuliaM5 March 2011 at 06:42

    "He is due to be released on 7 April, on licence, which is lenient considering everything."

    Indeed.

    "I do believe I see a solution..."

    :D

    "I believe this to be the fundamental and absolute failing of the HRA. It should apply to every single one of us and how we treat each other or what's the point ??"

    To do that would be to usher in a disaster of biblical proportions, and further enrich lawyers of the type WoaR mentions. Who could possibly believe it would...

    Ms Prochaska, that isn't you, is it?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Anonymous7 March 2011 at 00:25

    "To do that would be to usher in a disaster of biblical proportions, and further enrich lawyers of the type WoaR mentions. Who could possibly believe it would..."

    Hence my second post immediately afterwards ;)

    "Ms Prochaska, that isn't you, is it?"

    No idea who that is sorry.

    ReplyDelete
  10. PJH7 March 2011 at 00:37

    "Ms Prochaska, that isn't you, is it?"

    No idea who that is sorry.    "


    Um:

    "He had deteriorated to the extent that he could no longer manage eye contact with his mother, said his barrister Elizabeth Prochaska.

    She accused the Lewes governor of unlawfully refusing to exercise his discretion to release PA on home detention curfew.     "

    ReplyDelete
  11. Anonymous7 March 2011 at 01:34

    PJH - gimme a break...it's been a long weekend for me since I last commented. The finer details of this post eluded me...but ta for the reminder :)

    ReplyDelete