25.59Price v United Kingdom Application no 33394/96, [2001] ECHR 458, (2002) 5 CCLR 306
It had been a breach of Article 3 ECHR to detain a severely disabled woman in grossly unsuitable conditions
Facts: Ms Price, who was severely disabled as a result of Thalidomide, was imprisoned for three nights and four days in wholly unsuitable conditions.
Judgment: the European Court of Human Rights held that Ms Price had been subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment in breach of Article 3 ECHR and was awarded £4,500 damages:
24. The court recalls that ill-treatment must attain a minimum level of severity if it is to fall within the scope of Article 3. The assessment of this minimum level of severity is relative; it depends on all the circumstances of the case, such as the duration of the treatment, its physical and mental effects and, in some cases, the sex, age and state of health of the victim.
In considering whether treatment is ‘degrading’ within the meaning of Article 3, one of the factors which the court will take into account is the question whether its object was to humiliate and debase the person concerned, although the absence of any such purpose cannot conclusively rule out a finding of violation of Article 3 (see the Peers v Greece judgment of 19 April 2001, paragraphs 67–68 and 74).
…
30. There is no evidence in this case of any positive intention to humiliate or debase the applicant. However, the court considers that to detain a severely disabled person in conditions where she is dangerously cold, risks developing sores because her bed is too hard or unreachable, and is unable to go to the toilet or keep clean without the greatest of difficulty, constitutes degrading treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention. It therefore finds a violation of this provision in the present case.
Comment: there have been many subsequent cases where the European Court has decided that prison conditions have amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment for disabled prisoners: Vincent v France Application no 6253/03 (judgment 24 October 2006); ZH v Hungary Application no 28973/11 (judgment 6 November 2011); Arutyunyan v Russia Application no 48977/09 (judgment 10 January 2012); Zarzycki v Poland Application no 15351/03 (judgment 12 March 2013) (no breach); Grimailovs v Latvia Application no 6087/03 (judgment 25 June 2013); Semikhvostov v Russia Application no 2689/12 (judgment 6 February 2014); Asalya v Turkey Application no 43875/09 (judgment 15 April 2014); Helhal v France Application no 1040/12 (judgment 19 February 2015).