Stephen Yaxley-Lennon challenges solitary confinement

Introduction

The High Court recently addressed a judicial review application filed by Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, who is currently detained at HMP Woodhill. The claimant challenged his ongoing solitary confinement, asserting that it violated his rights under Articles 3, 8, and 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and was contrary to section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998. The case was heard by Mr Justice Chamberlain.

Background

Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, known for his controversial political views, was imprisoned following a series of contempt of court findings related to libelous allegations made against a Syrian refugee. His imprisonment was marked by concerns about his safety due to his notoriety and the potential for conflict with other inmates, particularly those of Muslim faith.

Judicial Review Application

Yaxley-Lennon's application for judicial review focused on the conditions of his detention, specifically his segregation from other prisoners. He claimed that his treatment amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment under Article 3, interfered with his private life under Article 8, and constituted discrimination under Article 14 of the ECHR.

Grounds of Challenge

Yaxley-Lennon argued that his solitary confinement was arbitrary and punitive, lacking sufficient justification and causing significant distress and hardship. He also contended that his segregation was a disproportionate interference with his right to respect for private and family life and was discriminatory based on his political views.

Evidence and Justification

The court reviewed evidence from prison officials and healthcare staff, which indicated that Yaxley-Lennon's segregation was necessary for his own safety and the safety of others. The decision to segregate him was regularly reviewed, and alternatives were considered but deemed inappropriate due to various risks.

Court's Analysis

Mr Justice Chamberlain concluded that the segregation did not meet the threshold for inhuman or degrading treatment under Article 3. The regime allowed for significant out-of-cell time, social visits, and regular contact with staff, mitigating the effects of segregation. The court also found that the interference with Yaxley-Lennon's Article 8 rights was proportionate given the circumstances.

Discrimination Claim

The court rejected the claim of discrimination under Article 14, determining that the segregation decision was based on risk assessments rather than Yaxley-Lennon's political views. The court noted that similar measures would be applied to any prisoner posing comparable risks.

Conclusion

Ultimately, the court refused permission for the judicial review, finding no arguable grounds for the claims presented. The decision highlighted the careful consideration given to Yaxley-Lennon's safety and the procedural compliance with prison regulations.

Learn More

For more information on human rights in detention, see BeCivil's guide to UK Human Rights Law.