Scribd Logo
Carica

Benvenuto in Scribd!

  • Human Rights Measurement Framework: Prototype Panels, Indicator Set and Evidence Base

    Caricato da

    jailhouselawyer
    1K visualizzazioni753 pagine
    Executive summary The Human Rights Measurement Framework (HRMF) is a new ‘analytical tool’ that brings together evidence for human rights analysis and assessments, and makes this information available to the Equality and Human Rights Commission (‘the Commission’), the Scottish Human Rights Commission (SHRC), regional and international human rights monitoring mechanisms, Government, public bodies, on-Government Organisations (NGOS), etc. It has been developed in order to begin to meet the need for a comprehensive evidence base for evaluating compliance with, and progress towards, the implementation of human rights in England, Scotland and Wales. The HRMF panels and indicator set have been developed and agreed through a combined process of research and consultation with subject experts and stakeholders, as well as extensive discussion with an advisory group and a project management group. This approach, we believe, has resulted in a high quality and analytically focused output that builds on recognised international best practice while fully reflecting and incorporating particular human rights issues and concerns in England, Scotland and Wales. Conceptually, the HRMF is anchored in the Indicators Framework developed by the United Nations Office for the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) developed as a response to the growing international demand for indicators that can be used to promote and monitor the implementation of human rights and to make information about the progress that states are making in fulfilling the obligations that flow from human rights available to human rights monitoring bodies and civil society (OHCHR, 2008, 2006b, 2010). The development of the HRMF has also built on a process of consultation with human rights stakeholders, subject experts and NGOs. The HRMF Specialist Consultation was undertaken from mid-June to mid-September 2010 with the principal aim of reaching maximum possible agreement on a set of indicators that should be used as a basis for evaluating compliance with, and progress towards, the implementation of human rights in England, Scotland and Wales. Participants were invited to comment on the nature and scope of the indicators that should be used to ‘populate’ the HRMF and to provide feedback on their legitimacy, validity and importance.

    Titolo originale

    Human Rights Measurement Framework: Prototype panels, indicator set and evidence base

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Formati disponibili

    PDF, TXT o leggi online da Scribd

    Hai trovato utile questo documento?

    Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

    Segnala questo documento
    Executive summary The Human Rights Measurement Framework (HRMF) is a new ‘analytical tool’ that brings together evidence for human rights analysis and assessments, and makes this information available to the Equality and Human Rights Commission (‘the Commission’), the Scottish Human Rights Commission (SHRC), regional and international human rights monitoring mechanisms, Government, public bodies, on-Government Organisations (NGOS), etc. It has been developed in order to begin to meet the need for a comprehensive evidence base for evaluating compliance with, and progress towards, the implementation of human rights in England, Scotland and Wales. The HRMF panels and indicator set have been developed and agreed through a combined process of research and consultation with subject experts and stakeholders, as well as extensive discussion with an advisory group and a project management group. This approach, we believe, has resulted in a high quality and analytically focused output that builds on recognised international best practice while fully reflecting and incorporating particular human rights issues and concerns in England, Scotland and Wales. Conceptually, the HRMF is anchored in the Indicators Framework developed by the United Nations Office for the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) developed as a response to the growing international demand for indicators that can be used to promote and monitor the implementation of human rights and to make information about the progress that states are making in fulfilling the obligations that flow from human rights available to human rights monitoring bodies and civil society (OHCHR, 2008, 2006b, 2010). The development of the HRMF has also built on a process of consultation with human rights stakeholders, subject experts and NGOs. The HRMF Specialist Consultation was undertaken from mid-June to mid-September 2010 with the principal aim of reaching maximum possible agreement on a set of indicators that should be used as a basis for evaluating compliance with, and progress towards, the implementation of human rights in England, Scotland and Wales. Participants were invited to comment on the nature and scope of the indicators that should be used to ‘populate’ the HRMF and to provide feedback on their legitimacy, validity and importance.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Scarica in formato PDF, TXT o leggi online su Scribd
    Segnala contenuti inappropriati
    1K visualizzazioni753 pagine

    Human Rights Measurement Framework: Prototype Panels, Indicator Set and Evidence Base

    Caricato da

    jailhouselawyer
    Executive summary The Human Rights Measurement Framework (HRMF) is a new ‘analytical tool’ that brings together evidence for human rights analysis and assessments, and makes this information available to the Equality and Human Rights Commission (‘the Commission’), the Scottish Human Rights Commission (SHRC), regional and international human rights monitoring mechanisms, Government, public bodies, on-Government Organisations (NGOS), etc. It has been developed in order to begin to meet the need for a comprehensive evidence base for evaluating compliance with, and progress towards, the implementation of human rights in England, Scotland and Wales. The HRMF panels and indicator set have been developed and agreed through a combined process of research and consultation with subject experts and stakeholders, as well as extensive discussion with an advisory group and a project management group. This approach, we believe, has resulted in a high quality and analytically focused output that builds on recognised international best practice while fully reflecting and incorporating particular human rights issues and concerns in England, Scotland and Wales. Conceptually, the HRMF is anchored in the Indicators Framework developed by the United Nations Office for the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) developed as a response to the growing international demand for indicators that can be used to promote and monitor the implementation of human rights and to make information about the progress that states are making in fulfilling the obligations that flow from human rights available to human rights monitoring bodies and civil society (OHCHR, 2008, 2006b, 2010). The development of the HRMF has also built on a process of consultation with human rights stakeholders, subject experts and NGOs. The HRMF Specialist Consultation was undertaken from mid-June to mid-September 2010 with the principal aim of reaching maximum possible agreement on a set of indicators that should be used as a basis for evaluating compliance with, and progress towards, the implementation of human rights in England, Scotland and Wales. Participants were invited to comment on the nature and scope of the indicators that should be used to ‘populate’ the HRMF and to provide feedback on their legitimacy, validity and importance.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Scarica in formato PDF, TXT o leggi online su Scribd
    Segnala contenuti inappropriati
    di 753

    Equality and Human Rights Commission Research report 81

    Human Rights Measurement Framework: Prototype panels, indicator set and evidence base

    Jean Candler, Holly Holder, Sanchita Hosali, Anne Maree Payne, Tiffany Tsang and Polly Vizard

    Human Rights Measurement Framework: Prototype panels, indicator set and evidence base
    Jean Candler, Holly Holder, Sanchita Hosali, Anne Maree Payne, Tiffany Tsang and Polly Vizard

    Equality and Human Rights Commission 2011 First published Winter 2011 ISBN 978 1 84206 430 6

    Equality and Human Rights Commission Research Report series


    The Equality and Human Rights Commission Research Report Series publishes research carried out for the Commission by commissioned researchers. The views expressed in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the Commission. The Commission is publishing the report as a contribution to discussion and debate. Please contact the Research Team for further information about other Commission research reports, or visit our website: Research Team Equality and Human Rights Commission Arndale House The Arndale Centre Manchester M4 3AQ Email: Telephone: Website: research@equalityhumanrights.com 0845 604 6610 www.equalityhumanrights.com

    If you require this publication in an alternative format, please contact the Communications Team to discuss your needs at: communications@equalityhumanrights.com

    Contents

    Contents
    Acknowledgements Data sources acknowledgements Web sources acknowledgements List of acronyms Executive summary 1 Introduction and overview 1.1 Background to the HRMF 1.2 Building blocks of the HRMF 1.3 Conceptual overview of the HRMF 1.4 Next steps in the development of the HRMF 1.5 Overview of this report 2 Research framework and methodology 2.1 How has the HRMF been developed? 2.2 The OHCHR Indicators Framework 2.3 The HRMF Specialist Consultation 2.4 HRMF indicator selection criteria 3 The underlying legal framework: guidance and clarification 3.1 The Human Rights Act 1998 3.2 Overview of selected articles of the HRA 3.3 Other human rights treaties and instruments covered by the HRMF 4 Using and interpreting the Human Rights Measurement Framework: guidance and clarification 4.1 What is being measured/monitored? 4.2 Interpreting the qualitative information within the HRMF 4.3 Interpreting the quantitative information within the HRMF 4.4 Worked example: The right to life (HRA, Article 2) xxvii xxviii xxviii xxix xxxii 2 3 5 7 11 12 13 13 14 18 22 26 26 30 34 40 40 41 44 49

    Contents

    The Right to Life (Human Rights Act (HRA), Article 2) Panel and indicators Evidence base Structural indicators Process indicators Outcome indicators

    62 62 64 64 69 76 158 158 161 161 170 182 272 272 275 275 280 281 342 342 345 345 349 350

    The Prohibition on Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (Human Rights Act, Article 3)
    Panel and indicators Evidence base Structural indicators Process indicators Outcome indicators

    The Right to Liberty and Security of the Person (Human Rights Act, Article 5) Panel and indicators Evidence base Structural indicators Process indicators Outcome indicators

    The Right to The Right to a Fair Trial (Human Rights Act, Article 6) Panel and indicators Evidence base Structural indicators Process indicators Outcome indicators

    ii

    Contents

    The Right to Respect for Private and Family Life (Human Rights Act, Article 8) Panel and indicators Evidence base Structural indicators Process indicators Outcome indicators

    374 374 377 377 389 390

    10 The Right to the Highest Attainable Standard of Physical and Mental Health (Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 25; International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Article 12) Panel and indicators Evidence base Structural indicators Process indicators Outcome indicators 11 The Right to Education (Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 26; International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Articles 13 and 14; Convention on the Rights of the Child, Articles 28 and 29; Human Rights Act, Protocol 1 Article 2) Panel and indicators Evidence base Structural indicators Process indicators Outcome indicators 12 The Right to an Adequate Standard of Living (Convention on the Rights of the Child, Article 27; International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Article 11) Panel and indicators Evidence base Structural indicators Process indicators Outcome indicators iii

    426 426 429 429 435 439

    498 498 500 500 505 506

    566 566 569 569 575 595

    Contents

    Appendix 1 Appendix 2 Appendix 3 Appendix 4 References Tables 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

    Further details of the protection and promotion of human rights in England, Scotland and Wales Demographics of respondents to the HM Inspectorate of Prisons surveys Details of participation in the Human Rights Measurement Framework Specialist Consultation and Advisory Group Record of feedback, comments and recommendations from the Human Rights Measurement Framework Specialist Consultation

    633 645 647

    655 697

    Protection of the right to life in domestic law (including constitutional/higher law) 64 Status of ratification of relevant international treaties Principles established in key cases (domestic and ECHR) Principles established in international standard-setting processes Gaps in legal protection The right to life non-implementation of legal judgments and recommendations 64 64 68 68 69

    The right to life identification of key regulators, inspectorates, ombudsman and examples of relevant responsibilities, powers and standards 69 Spotlight responsibilities and powers of key regulators and inspectors Spotlight primary legislation 70 73 74 76 78 79

    10 Use of lethal force/potentially lethal force policy guidance and training guidelines 11 Violations of the right to life case law outcomes

    12 The right to life key concerns raised by human rights monitoring bodies 13 The right to life Commission case law interventions

    14 The right to life summary of the outcomes of key inspection, regulation and complaints procedures; independent investigations into deaths related to the use of unlawful/arbitrary force; and other official investigations, inquiries and reviews into deaths that result in serious criticism of actions of the state, its agents or bodies fulfilling a public function 80

    iv

    Contents

    15 Outcomes of key investigations into deaths concerns around police response and the failure to protect highlighted by the IPCC 16 Outcomes of key investigations into deaths investigation of excess deaths in Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust by the Healthcare Commission (now the Care Quality Commission) 17 Outcomes of key investigations into deaths investigation into six deaths of people with learning difficulties by the PHSO 18 The right to life key concerns and allegations raised by private individuals and civil society organisations/reports in the media 19 Deaths during or following police contact (type of death by gender, age group and by ethnicity), England and Wales, 2008-09 20 Number of fatal injuries incurred by members of the public as a result of a road traffic accident while in pursuit/emergency response, 1996-07 2008-09, Scotland 21 Number of fatal injuries incurred by members of the public as a result of a road traffic accident while not in pursuit/emergency response, 1996-07 2008-09, Scotland 22 Fatal incidents investigated by the Prisons and Probations Ombudsman, by type of death and location, England and Wales, 2009-10 23 Self-inflicted deaths in prison custody by time in custody and by gender, England and Wales, 2005-09 24 Self-inflicted death by sentenced/unsentenced prisoners 25 Child deaths in penal custody, 1990-date, England and Wales (including deaths in privately-run secure training centres)

    87

    88 89 90 93

    95

    96 97 98 99 100

    26 Deaths of young people aged 21 and under in prison (England and Wales) 1990-date INQUEST monitoring 102 27 Hospital Standardised Mortality Ratios 28 Deaths where malnutrition was the underlying cause of death, by place of death, England and Wales, 1997-09 29 Deaths (persons) where malnutrition and effects of hunger were mentioned on the death certificate, by place of death, England and Wales, 1997-2009 30 Number of deaths and age-standardised rate per 1 million population, where the cause specified was the underlying cause of death, by place of death, England and Wales, 1997-09 103 105

    106

    107

    Contents

    31 Number of deaths and age-standardised rate per 1 million population, where the cause specified was mentioned on the death certificate, by place of death, England and Wales, 1997-2009 32 Deaths caused by malnutrition in Scotland 33 Offences currently recorded as homicide by age and sex of victim, 1999-2000 to 2009-10. England and Wales recorded crime 34 Relationship of currently recorded homicide victims1 to principal suspect by ethnic appearance of victim England and Wales, combined data for 2005-06 to 2007-08 35 Homicides currently recorded for all victims by relationship of victim to principal suspect, 1999-2000 to 2009-10. Recorded crime for England and Wales 36 Homicides currently1 recorded for victims under 16 years by relationship of victim to principal suspect, 1999-2000 2009-10. Recorded crime for England and Wales 37 Homicide by relationship of victim to principal suspect, all victims, Scotland, recorded crime in 1998-99, 2003-04 and 2008-09 38 Period life expectancy by age, country and gender, 2007-09 39 Life expectancy at birth and at age 65 (years) in Government Office Regions, by gender, 2007-09

    112 117 118

    120

    121

    125 129 129 130

    40 Life expectancy at birth and at age 65 (years) in council areas in Scotland, by gender, 2007-09 130 41 Life expectancy at birth and at age 65 (years) in local authorities in Wales, by gender, 2007-09 131 42 Local areas with the highest and lowest male life expectancy at birth, United Kingdom, 2007-09 43 Period life expectancy by social class, England and Wales, 2002-05 44 Infant mortality rates, England, Government Office Regions, 2009 45 Infant mortality rates, Scotland, NHS Area Boards, 2009 46 Infant mortality rates, Wales, Welsh Local Health Boards, 2009 47 Infant mortality rate (IMR) ethnic group: babies born in 2005, England and Wales 48 Infant deaths by mothers country of birth, England and Wales, 2009 49 Infant mortality rates by fathers Socio-economic Classification (NS-SEC), 2009 England and Wales vi 132 133 133 134 134 135 136 137

    Contents

    50 Age-specific mortality rates of all children (aged 0-15) from accidents, by NS-SEC, age group and selected causes, England and Wales 2001-03, rate per million 51 Deaths as a result of an unintentional injury, children aged under 15, by type of injury, Scotland, year ending 31 December 2009 52 Deaths as a result of an unintentional injury, children aged under 15, by deprivation quintile, number and standardised mortality ratios, Scotland, year ending 31 December, 2005-09 53 Age-standardised suicide rates (with 95 per cent confidence limits) by sex and age group, England, 1991-2009 54 Age-standardised suicide rates (with 95 per cent confidence limits) by sex and age group, Wales, 1991-2009 55 Age-standardised suicide rates (with 95 per cent confidence limits), Government Office Regions, 2009 56 Deaths for which the underlying cause was classified as intentional self-harm or event of undetermined intent by current local authority area: registered in Scotland, 2009 57 Deaths for which the underlying cause was classified as intentional self-harm or event of undetermined intent by sex and by type of cause: registered in Scotland, 2009 58 Age-standardised suicide rates by deprivation twentieth and sex, people aged 15 and over, England and Wales, 1999-2003 59 Deaths caused by intentional self harm and events of undetermined intent by gender and Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation, Scotland, 2000-09 60 Estimated rates of maternal deaths by type and ethnic group, England, 2006-08 61 Estimated rates of maternal deaths by National Statistics Socio-Economic Classification (NS SEC), England and Wales,2006-08 62 Gypsies and Travellers: Evidence on premature mortality 63 Public attitudes towards being protected if your life is under threat 64 Protection from torture, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment in domestic law (including constitutional/higher law) 65 Status of ratification of relevant international treaties 66 Principles established in key cases (domestic and ECHR) 67 Principles established in international standard-setting processes vii

    138 139

    140 140 142 144

    145

    145 146

    147 149 150 150 150 161 161 161 166

    Contents

    68 Inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment and prison conditions 69 Gaps in legal protection 70 The prohibition on torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment list of key regulators, inspectorates, ombudsman, etc. 71 The prohibition on torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment Spotlight responsibilities and powers of key regulators and inspectors 72 Number of prisons, immigration removal centres and short-term holding facilities inspected by HMIP that are evaluated as performing poorly or not sufficiently well, by Healthy Prison/Establishment Assessments and type of prison/establishment, England and Wales, 2008-09 73 Prisons: outcome of recommendations assessed in follow-up inspection reports published 2008-09, England and Wales 74 Immigration removal centres and short-term holding facilities: outcome of recommendations assessed in follow-up inspection reports published 2008-09, England and Wales 75 Eligible complaints made to the PPO, by service, England and Wales, 2008-09 and 2009-10 (%) 76 Detained people who self-report that they have made a complaint, and feel they are dealt with fairly, England and Wales 77 Investigation of deprivations of liberty and security of the person and outcomes of other investigations, inquiries and reviews 78 Outcome of completed investigations by allegation category (substantiated complaint cases only), England and Wales, 2008-09 79 Number of complaint allegations made against Scottish police officers that were substantiated, by region, Scotland, 2006-07 80 The prohibition on torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment policy guidance and training guidelines 81 Violence against women strategies 82 The prohibition on torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment case law outcomes 83 The prohibition on torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment key concerns raised by human rights monitoring bodies 84 The prohibition on torture and inhuman or degrading treatment EHRC case law interventions

    167 169 170

    171

    172 173

    175 175 176 177 177 179 180 182 182 184 190

    viii

    Contents

    85 The prohibition on torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment summary of the outcomes of key inspection, regulation and complaints procedures; independent investigations that engage Article 3; and other official investigations, inquiries and reviews engaging Article 3 that result in serious criticism of actions of the state, its agents or bodies fulfilling a public function 86 The prohibition on torture, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment Key concerns and allegations raised by private individuals and civil society organisations/reports in the media 87 Overcrowding in prisons: definitions and national key performance indicator results, England and Wales, 2009 88 Overcrowding in prisons by function, England and Wales, 2009 89 Average rate of overcrowding in prisons, England and Wales, 1998-99 2008-09 90 Slopping out 91 Number of prison cells that do not have access to in-cell sanitation, England and Wales, 2011

    191

    197 201 201 202 202 203

    92 In-cell sanitation recommendations made by HMIP since September 2009, England and Wales 204 93 Time out of cell recommendations made by HMIP since September 2009, England and Wales 94 Standardised ratio of proportion of patients who had recorded incidents hands-on restraint, England and Wales, 2009 95 Use of hands-on restraints in mental health institutions in England and Wales, 2009 96 Detained people who self-report they have been physically restrained in the last six months, England and Wales 97 Detained children and young people who self-report that they have ever been physically restrained while in this establishment, England and Wales 98 Respondents who self-report that they were handcuffed or restrained whilst in the police custody suite, England and Wales 99 Standardised ratio of proportion of patients who had recorded incidents physical assault on the patient, England and Wales, 2009 100 Incidences of physical assaults on inpatients within mental health and learning difficulties services, England and Wales, 2009 205 215 218 218

    219 219 220 223

    ix

    Contents

    101 Assault summary statistics, England and Wales, 2004-08 102 Assault incidents by role and age, England and Wales, 2004-08 103 Detained people who self-report that they have been victimised by a member of staff, England and Wales, 2009 104 Adult male prisoners who self-report that they have been victimised by a member of staff, by ethnicity, religion and disability, England and Wales, 2008-09 105 Detained people who self-report that they have experienced physical or sexual abuse or been victimised by a member of staff, England and Wales

    223 224 225

    226

    227

    106 Adult male prisoners who self-report that they have been victimised by a member of staff, by ethnicity, religion and disability, England and Wales, 2008-09 229 107 Detained people who self-report that they have been victimised by another prisoner/detainee, England and Wales 230

    108 Detained people who self-report that they have experienced physical or sexual abuse or been victimised by another prisoner/detainee, England and Wales 231 109 Adult male prisoners who self-report that they have been victimised by another prisoner because of their ethnicity, religion or disability, England and Wales, 2008-09 233 110 People in police custody who self-report that they were victimised by another detainee or member of staff, England and Wales 234 111 People in police custody who self-report that they were victimised by another detainee or member of staff by type of victimisation, England and Wales 234 112 Prevalence of intimate violence by category among adults aged 16 to 59, England and Wales, 2009-10 113 Estimated numbers of victims of intimate violence in the last year by category among adults aged 16 to 59, England and Wales, 2009-10 114 Percentage of adults who have had a partner since the age of 16 or who have had a partner or contact with an ex-partner in the last 12 months, who have experienced partner abuse by age and gender, Scotland, 2009-10 235 237

    238

    115 Percentage of adults who had experienced each form of psychological or physical abuse since the age of 16 by age and gender, Scotland, 2009-10 240

    Contents

    116 Percentage who had experienced any stalking/harassment or sexual victimisation1 since the age of 16/in the last 12 months by demographic variables, Scotland, 2009-10 117 Incidents of domestic abuse recorded by the police, by type of crime/offence and financial year, Scotland, 2000-01 to 2009-10 118 Rapes recorded by the police between 2003 and 2008, Scotland 119 Sanction detection rates for rape, recorded crime, England and Wales, 2008-09 and 2009-10 120 Action taken by the police against identified perpetrators of crimes or offences of domestic abuse cleared up by the police, by financial year, Scotland, 2000-01 to 2009-10 121 Current levels of hate crime in England and Wales, 2008-09 122 Racially or religiously aggravated offences recorded by police forces by offence type, with clear up rates for England and Wales, 2007-08 123 Recorded hate crime from regional forces in England, Wales and Northern Ireland*, January to December 2009 124 Recorded crime statistics on racially and religiously aggravated crime, England and Wales, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10 125 Number of rapes charges reported to the procurator fiscal, Scotland, April 2006 to 31 March 2007 126 The conviction rate of sexual offences, England and Wales, 2008 127 Reports, prosecutions and convictions for rape,Scotland, 1997-2006 128 Serious sexual offences brought to justice, England and Wales, 2009-10 129 Violence against the person and sexual offences brought to justice, offence type, England and Wales, 1998-99 2009-10 130 Pre-charge decisions: the percentage of defendants who were charged with domestic violence or rape, by crime type, England and Wales, 2007-08 2009-10 131 Reports and convictions for rape, Scotland, 1999-2000-2006-07 132 Number and outcomes in rape charges reported from 2006-07, Scotland 133 Completed prosecutions by outcomes: percentage convicted of domestic violence, sexual offences excluding rape, or rape, by crime type, England and Wales, 2007-08 2009-10

    242 243 246 247

    248 248 249 250 251 254 254 254 255 256

    257 257 258

    259

    xi

    Contents

    134 Pre-charge decisions: the percentage of defendants charged with a hate crime, by hate crime type, England and Wales, 2007-08 2009-10 135 Completed prosecutions by outcomes: Percentage convicted of a hate crime, by hate crime type, England and Wales, 2007-08 2009-10 136 Race crime statistics, Scotland, 2003-04 2008-09 137 Religiously aggravated crime statistics, Scotland, 2003-04 2008-09 138 Elder abuse and neglect in the private household population 139 Public attitudes toward the right not to be tortured or degraded: Liberty polling exercise 140 Protection of the right to liberty and security of the person (including constitutional/higher law) 141 Status of ratification of relevant international treaties 142 Principles established in key cases (domestic and ECHR) 143 Principles established in international standard setting processes 144 Gaps in legal protection 145 The right to right to liberty and security of the person non-implementation of legal judgments and recommendations 146 List of key regulators, inspectors, complaint handling mechanisms, etc. 147 The right to the right to liberty and security of the person policy guidance and training guidelines 148 Violations of the right to liberty and security of the person: case law outcomes 149 Key concerns raised by human rights monitoring bodies 150 Outcomes of inspection, regulation and complaints procedures that engage Article 5 151 Key concerns and allegations raised by private individuals and civil society organisations/reports in the media 152 Average waiting times in the crown court for cases committed for trial by remand status, weeks,England and Wales, 2005-09 153 Defendants proceeded against at magistrates courts average time for criminal cases from offence to completion by offence type, England and Wales, 2005-09 154 Population in prison establishments, by type of custody, sentence length and gender: total for age group 15-17 year olds, England and Wales, 2002-2008 xii

    259 259 260 260 261 263 275 275 275 279 279 279 280 280 281 283 285 286 287

    287

    288

    Contents

    155 Number of children accommodated in secure childrens homes 2002-2010 by gender, age, length of stay, and type of placement

    289

    156 Stop and search of people under Section 1 of PACE, and other legislation, (total numbers and per 1,000 population) by self-defined ethnicity, England and Wales, 2007-08 291 157 Percentage of stop and search under Section 1 of PACE and other legislation resulting in an arrest, ethnic appearance, England and Wales, 2006-07 2007-08 158 Percentage of stop and search under Section 1 of PACE and other legislation resulting in an arrest, by self-defined ethnicity, England and Wales, 2007-08 159 Stop and search of people under Section 60 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, by ethnic appearance, England and Wales, 2007-08 160 Stop and search of people under Section 60 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, by self-defined ethnicity, England and Wales, 2007-08 161 Stop and search of people under Section 44 (1) and (2) of the Terrorism Act 2000, by ethnic appearance, England and Wales, 2006-07 2007-08

    292

    293

    294

    294 295

    162 Stop and search of people under Section 44 (1) and (2) of the Terrorism Act 2000, by self-defined ethnicity, England and Wales, 2007-08 296 163 Stop and search of vehicle occupants under Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 and resultant arrests, by ethnic appearance, England and Wales, 2007-08 297 164 Stop and search of vehicle and occupants under Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 and resultant arrests, by self-defined ethnicity, England and Wales, 2007-08 165 Stop and search of pedestrians under Section 442 of the Terrorism Act 2000 and resultant arrests by ethnic appearance, England and Wales, 2007-08 166 Stop and search of pedestrians under Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 and resultant arrests, by self-defined ethnicity, England and Wales, 2007-08 167 Stop and accounts, total numbers and per 1,000 population aged 10 and over, by ethnic appearance, England and Wales, 2006-07 and 2007-08 168 Stop and search of people under Section 1 of the PACE, and other legislation, by ethnic appearance, England and Wales, 2007-08 xiii

    297

    299

    299

    301 302

    Contents

    169 Stop and search of people under Section 1 of PACE and other legislation per 1000 population, by ethnic appearance, 2006-07 2007-08 170 Percentage of the population that self-report being stopped on foot or in vehicles, and are stopped and searched, in the last year, by age, gender, ethnicity, disability, religion and social class 171 ASBOs issued at all courts, as reported to the Ministry of Justice by the Court Service, by age at date of issue, England and Wales, 1 April 1999 to 31 December 2009 172 ISOs1 issued at all magistrates courts, in addition to an ASBO, as reported to the Ministry of Justice2 by the Court Service, England and Wales, 1 April 1999 to 31 December 2009 173 ASBOs issued at all courts, as reported to the Ministry of Justice by the Court Service, by duration of order, England and Wales, 2009 174 ASBOs proven at all courts to have been breached, by type of sentence received, age group and sex, England and Wales, 1 June 2000 to 31 December 2009 175 Number of authorisations granted or not granted under the deprivation of liberty safeguards assessments, by age, gender, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, disability, length of authorisation, England,2010 176 Numbers of cases where authorisation is not granted by a Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards Assessment but the best interests assessor advises that deprivation of liberty is actually occurring, England, 2010 177 Number of cases where authorisation is granted and not granted by a Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards Assessment, total applications by local authority, England, 2010 178 Number of cases where authorisation is granted and not granted by a Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards Assessment, total applications by Primary Care Trust (PCT), England, 2010 179 Restricted patients detained in hospital by legal category, England and Wales, 2004-08 180 Restricted patients detained in hospital by sex, England and Wales, 2004-08 181 Standardised ratio of proportion of informally admitted patients deemed incapable of consenting, England and Wales, 2009 182 Standardised ratio of proportion of formally detained patients who are capable but refusing consent, England and Wales, 2009

    302

    303

    305

    306 308

    309

    311

    315

    315

    315 316 318 319 322

    xiv

    Contents

    183 Standardised ratio of proportion of formally detained patients deemed incapable of consenting, England and Wales, 2009 184 Standardised ratio of proportion of patients referred by criminal justice routes, England and Wales, 2009 185 Persons entering detention held solely under Immigration Act powers, by age and sex, UK, 2009 186 Persons removed from the United Kingdom on leaving detention, held solely under Immigration Act powers, by age, 2009 187 Number of children entering and leaving immigration and asylum detention centres 188 Persons in detention in the United Kingdom solely under Immigration Act powers, by length of detention as at 31 December 2009 189 Public attitudes towards only being arrested if there are reasonable grounds of suspicion 190 Public attitudes towards the right not to be detained without reason: Liberty polling exercise 191 Protection of the right to a fair trial in domestic law (including constitutional/higher law) 192 Status of ratification of relevant international treaties 193 Principles established in key cases (domestic and ECHR) 194 Principles established in international standard setting processes 195 Gaps in legal protection 196 List of key regulators, inspectorates and ombudsmen 197 Public expenditure on legal aid, 198 Violations of the right to a fair trial: case law outcomes 199 Key concerns raised by human rights monitoring bodies 200 Outcomes of inspection, regulation and complaints procedures that engage Article 6 201 Key concerns and allegations raised by private individuals and civil society organisations/reports in the media 202 Provision of interpreters and information in alternative languages for those detained in an immigration removal centre, as self-reported by detainees, England and Wales, 2008-09

    325 328 331 332 332 333 334 335 345 345 345 348 348 349 349 350 351 354 355

    355

    xv

    Contents

    203 Detained people who self-report that they find it easy or very easy to communicate with their solicitor or legal representative, England and Wales, 2008-09 204 Adult male prisoners who self-report that they find it easy or very easy to communicate with their solicitor or legal representative, by ethnicity, religion and disability, England and Wales, 2008-09 205 Percentage of those who are very satisfied with their experience of visiting court by ethnicity, age, disability, gender and religion, England and Wales, 2008-10 206 Percentage of civil justice problems where respondents obtained advice, England and Wales, January 2006 January 2009 207 Percentage of civil justice problems where respondents gave up or did nothing as opposed to other outcomes, England and Wales, January 2006 January 2009 208 Number of over 10 and under 18 year old defendants appearing at the Crown Court for trial or sentence, by sex, England and Wales, 2008

    356

    357

    358 359

    361 363

    209 Percentage of victims and witnesses satisfied with their treatment with the criminal justice system, measured by the Witness and Victim Experience Survey, England and Wales (2008-09 2009-10) 364 210 Percentage of victims and witnesses satisfied with their overall contact with the criminal justice system by ethnicity, measured by the Witness and Victim Experience Survey, England and Wales, cases closed in the 12 months to June 2010 211 Public attitudes towards being entitled to a fair trial 212 Public attitudes toward the right to a fair trial: Liberty polling exercise 213 Percentage of people that are very or fairly confident that the criminal justice system respects the rights of individuals accused of committing a crime and treats them fairly, by age, gender, ethnicity, disability, religion and social class, England and Wales, 2007-08 214 Proportion of those questioned in the British Crime Survey expressing confidence that the criminal justice system as a whole is fair, England and Wales (2008-09 2009-10) 215 Public confidence in the fairness of the criminal justice system, England and Wales (2008-09 2009-10) 216 Protection of the right to respect for private and family life in domestic law (including constitutional/higher law) 217 Status of ratification of relevant international treaties xvi

    364 365 366

    368

    369 370 377 377

    Contents

    218 Principles established in key cases (domestic and ECHR) 219 Principles established in international standard setting processes 220 Gaps in legal protection 221 Non-implementation of legal judgements and recommendations 222 The right to respect for private and family life identification of key regulators, ombudsmen, etc. 223 Right to respect for family and private life policy guidance and training guidelines 224 Violations of the right to respect for private and family life: case law outcomes 225 Key concerns raised by human rights monitoring bodies 226 Outcomes of inspection, regulation and complaints procedures that engage Article 8 227 Key concerns and allegations raised by private individuals and civil society organisations/reports in the media 228 Interference in private life and surveillance 229 Gender identity and human rights 230 Self-reported access and problems with the use of telephones and sending/receiving mail in detention, England and Wales 231 Adult male prisoners who self-report that they have problems with access and use of telephones and sending/receiving mail, by ethnicity, religion and disability, England and Wales, 2008-09 232 Detained people who self-report that they are able to have a shower, England and Wales

    377 387 387 389 389 389 390 394 395 398 399 400 401

    402 403

    233 Percentage of adult male prisoners who self-report that they are normally able to have a shower every day, by ethnicity, religion and disability, England and Wales, 2008-09 404 234 Detained people who self-report that they are treated with respect by most staff, England and Wales 235 Adult male prisoners who self-report that they are treated with respect by most staff, by ethnicity, religion and disability, England and Wales 236 Detained people who self-report that they have ever felt unsafe in their establishment, England and Wales 405 406 407

    xvii

    Contents

    237 Adult male prisoners who self-report that they have ever felt unsafe in their establishment, by ethnicity, religion and disability, England and Wales, 2008-09 238 Detained people who self-report that their religious beliefs are respected, England and Wales 239 Adult male prisoners who self-report that their religious beliefs are respected, by ethnicity, religion and disability, England and Wales, 2008-09 240 Experiences of bullying 241 Experiences of harassment because of skin colour, ethnic origin or religion, by religion, percentage, England, 2008-09 242 Reasons given for discrimination in recruitment and promotion, England and Wales, 2008-09 243 Awareness of information rights legislation access to information, England and Wales, 2010 244 Awareness of information rights legislation holding of personal information, England and Wales, 2010 245 Public attitudes towards respect for private and family life 246 Attitudes towards being treated with dignity and respect 247 Attitudes towards being treated fairly regardless of gender, race, disability, etc. 248 Public attitudes towards the right to be treated fairly and equally by population subgroup 249 Attitudes towards respect for private and family life and the home: Liberty polling exercise 250 Protection of the right to the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health in domestic law (including constitutional/higher law) 251 Status of ratification of relevant international treaties 252 Principles established in key cases (domestic, ECHR and international) 253 Principles established in international standard setting processes 254 Gaps in legal protection 255 List of key regulators, inspectorates, ombudsmen, etc. 256 Spotlight responsibilities and powers of key regulators, inspectorates, ombudsmen xviii

    408 409

    410 410 411 412 413 414 414 415 415 416 418 429 429 430 434 435 435 436

    Contents

    257 Right to the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health spotlight primary legislation and regulatory mechanisms 258 Right to the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health policy guidance and training guidelines 259 Identifiable expenditure on health services in England, Scotland and Wales, 2004-05 2009-10, million 260 Identifiable expenditure on health services in England, Scotland and Wales, 2004-05 2009-10, per head 261 The right to the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health: case law outcomes 262 Key concerns raised by human rights monitoring bodies 263 Outcomes of inspection, regulation and complaints procedures that engage the right to the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health 264 Outcomes of independent reviews that are relevant to the right to the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health 265 Health complaints accepted by the PSHO, by type of body, England, 2009-10 266 Issues raised in complaints to the Healthcare Commission (now the Care Quality Commission) 267 Recommendations made by the Healthcare Commission (now the Care Quality Commission) where a complaint has been upheld 268 NHS Performance performance ratings 2008-09: Core standards compliance by trust type (acute and specialist, and primary care trusts) and nationally (England only) 269 The independent healthcare sector: Rates of non-compliance with core national minimum standards 2007-08 (all providers) 270 Quality ratings of adult social care services, England, 2008-09 271 Average of national minimum standards met by social care services as at 31 March each year, England, 2009 272 Services meeting or exceeding individual National Minimum Standards all care homes for younger adults, England, 2008-09 273 Services meeting or exceeding individual National Minimum Standards residential care homes for younger adults*, England, 2008-09 274 Services meeting or exceeding individual National Minimum Standards nursing homes for younger adults, England, 2008-09 xix

    436 436 437 438 439 441

    443 444 445 446 446

    447 450 451 451 452 453 455

    Contents

    275 Services meeting or exceeding individual National Minimum Standards all care homes for older people, England, 2008-09 276 Services meeting or exceeding individual National Minimum Standards residential care homes for older people, England, 2008-09 277 Services meeting or exceeding individual National Minimum Standards Nursing homes for older people, England, 2008-09 278 Services meeting or exceeding individual National Minimum Standards home care agencies, England, 2008-09 279 Services meeting or exceeding individual National Minimum Standards nursing agencies, England, 2008-09 280 Services meeting or exceeding individual National Minimum Standards Shared Lives schemes, England, 2008-09 281 Outcomes judgements adult social services by council, England and Wales, 2009 282 Performance of councils for adult social services, England, 2009 283 Key concerns and allegations raised by private individuals and civil society organisations/reports in the media 284 Healthy life expectancy (HLE) at birth in years, by deprivation decile by gender, Scotland, 1999-2003 285 Disability-Free Life Expectancy (DFLE) at birth by area deprivation quintile and gender, England,2001-04 and 2005-08 286 Coronary heart disease mortality under 75 years by deprivation, rate per 100,000 and age-standardised to the European population, Scotland, 2000-08 287 Cancer mortality under 75 years by deprivation, rate per 100,000 and age-standardised to the European population, Scotland, 2000-08 288 Percentage reporting poor self-reported health(self-reported health bad or very bad) by age, sex, ethnicity, LLID and occupational group, Health Survey for England 2009 289 Limiting longstanding illness or disability by age, sex, ethnicity, LLID and occupational group, Health Survey for England 2009 290 Percentage reporting poor mental and psychosocial health (GHQ12 score greater than 4) by age, sex, ethnicity, LLID and occupational group, Health Survey for England 2009 291 Number of people self harming in prison, England and Wales, 2004-08

    457 458 460 461 462 462 463 463 463 464 465

    466 466

    467 467

    467 468

    xx

    Contents

    292 Standardised ratio of proportion of patients who had recorded incidents: Self harm, England and Wales, 2009 293 Recorded incidences of self harm by patients in mental health or learning difficulties services, per patient, England and Wales, 2009 294 People who have used the health service in their establishment, and who rate the overall quality of the service as good or very good, England and Wales 295 People who have drug or alcohol problems, and who self-report that they have received help or intervention whilst in this establishment, England and Wales, 2008-09 296 Children and young people who self-report that they have received help with an alcohol problem whilst detained, England and Wales, 2008-09 297 Children and young people who self-report that they have received help with a drugs problem whilst detained, England and Wales 298 People in custody who self-report that they were offered support for their drug or alcohol problem, England and Wales 299 Healthcare of children who had been looked after continuously for at least 12 months, 12 months ending 30 September, England, 2008-09 300 Substance misuse of children who had been looked after continuously for at least 12 months, 12 months ending 30 September, England, 2008-09 301 Comparisons between Gypsies and Travellers and age-sex matched comparators on standardised general health status measures, England 302 Percentage reporting that they were treated with dignity and respect during their stay in hospital 303 Percentage reporting that they were not always treated with dignity and respect during their stay in hospital by age, gender and disability 304 Percentage of those that need help who report receiving the help they need with eating from staff during their stay in hospital 305 Percentage reporting that did not always receive the help they needed with eating during their stay in hospital by age, gender and disability 306 Perceptions of the level of respect respondents are treated with when using health services, by age, sex, gender, religion, sexual orientation, social class, percentage, England, 2008-09 307 Perceptions of treatment with dignity and respect in healthcare services, Wales, 2006

    469 472

    472

    473 473 474 474 475

    476 477 478 479 480 480

    482 487

    xxi

    Contents

    308 Percentage that did not feel that they were involved as much as they wanted to be in decisions about their care and treatment 309 Numbersp of fatal injuries by main industry for 2010-11 310 Rate of fatal injuries by main industry for 2010-11 311 Average prevalence of work-related illness and non-fatal work related injury 312 Variations in support for the right to free healthcare if needed, by population subgroup, England, 2005 313 Protection of the right to education in domestic law (including constitutional/higher law) 314 Status of ratification of relevant international treaties 315 Principles established in key cases (domestic, ECHR and international) 316 Principles established in international standard setting processes 317 Gaps in legal protection 318 Primary legislation protecting the right to education 319 Violations of the right to education: case law outcomes 320 Key concerns raised by human rights monitoring bodies 321 Investigation of deprivations of the right to education and outcomes of other investigations, inquiries and reviews 322 Key concerns and allegations raised by private individuals and civil society organisations/reports in the media 323 Identifiable expenditure on education in England, Scotland and Wales, 2004-05 2009-10, million 324 Identifiable expenditure on education in England, Scotland and Wales, 2004-05 2009-10, per head 325 People of working age achieving functional literacy and numeracy skills, England 326 Key Stage 1 attainment by pupil characteristics, England, 2009-10 327 Attainment at Key Stage 4 by gender, ethnicity, deprivation and free school meals, England, 2008 328 Attainment at Key Stage 4 by gender, ethnicity, deprivation and free school meals, Wales, 2008

    488 488 489 489 491 500 500 501 504 505 506 506 507 508 509 513 516 519 521 527 530

    xxii

    Contents

    329 Attainment by the end of Secondary 4, by gender, urban/rural, ethnicity, and deprivation, Scotland, 2008 330 Permanent exclusions, by ethnicity and gender 331 Fixed period exclusions, by ethnicity and gender 332 Permanent exclusions by SEN status 333 Fixed period exclusions by SEN status 334 Permanent exclusions by SEN and primary need category 335 Self-reported participation in education and training of those in prison, England and Wales 336 Adult male prisoners who self-report that they are participating in education and training, by ethnicity, religion and disability, England and Wales, 2008-09 337 Self-reported participation and activities of detainees in an Immigration Removal Centre, England and Wales 338 Eligibility and performance of children who had been looked after continuously for at least 12 months, in Key Stages 1 and 2, compared with all children, 12 months ending 30 September, England, 2007-09 339 GCSE and GNVQ equivalent performance of children who had been looked after continuously for at least 12 months, in Year 11, compared with all children, 12 months ending 30 September, England, 2007-09 340 Numbers of children with SEN in England and Wales 341 Looked after children: Prevalence of SEN 342 Childrens self-reported experiences of school related bullying, England 2009 343 Perceptions of treatment with respect in education by personal characteristics 344 Support for right to access to free education for children by population subgroup, England, 2005 345 Protection of the right to education in domestic law (including constitutional/higher law) 346 Status of ratification of relevant international treaties 347 Principles established in key cases (domestic, ECHR and international) 348 Principles established in international standard setting processes xxiii

    532 534 536 538 541 542 545

    546 546

    547

    548 549 552 554 556 561 569 569 570 573

    Contents

    349 Gaps in legal protection 350 Child Poverty Act/child poverty targets 351 Fuel Poverty Duty 352 Identifiable expenditure on social protection in England, Scotland and Wales, 2004-05 2009-10, million 353 Identifiable expenditure on social protection per head in England, Scotland and Wales, 2004-05 2009-10 354 Identifiable expenditure on housing in England, Scotland and Wales, 2004-05 2009-10, million 355 Identifiable expenditure on housing per head in England, Scotland and Wales, 2004-05 2009-10 356 Violations of the right to an adequate standard of living case law outcomes 357 Key concerns raised by human rights monitoring bodies 358 Key concerns and allegations raised by private individuals and civil society organisations/reports in the media 359 Percentage of individuals in low-income groups by various family and household characteristics, UK, 2009-10

    574 575 578 579 585 591 593 595 596 597 597

    360 Percentage of individuals living in households with less than 60 per cent of contemporary median household income, by gender and adulthood, UK, 2009-10 600 361 Percentage of individuals living in households with less than 60 per cent of 1998-99 median household income held constant in real terms, by gender and adulthood, UK, 2009-10 601 362 Percentage of pensioners in low-income groups by various family and household characteristics, UK, 2009-10 363 Percentage of pensioners aged 65 or over in material deprivation by various family and household characteristics, United Kingdom 602 604

    363 Percentage of pensioners aged 65 or over in material deprivation by various family and household characteristics, United Kingdom (continued) 605 364 Percentage of children falling below various thresholds of contemporary median income, UK1, 2, 1998-99 2009-10 365 Number of children falling below various thresholds of contemporary median income, UK1, 2, 1998-99-2009-10 606 607

    xxiv

    Contents

    366 Number of children falling below various thresholds of 1998-99 median income held constant in real terms, UK, 1998-99 2009-10 367 Percentage of children in low-income groups by various family and household characteristics, UK, 2009-10 368 Percentage of children falling below various thresholds of 1998/99 median income held constant in real terms, United Kingdom, 1998-99 2009-10 369 Percentage and number of children falling below thresholds of low income and material deprivation, UK, 2004-05 2009-10 370 Percentage of children experiencing persistent low income, Great Britain, 1991-2008 371 Statutory homelessness: Households accepted by local authorities as owed a main homelessness duty, by ethnicity, England, 1998-2010 372 Statutory homelessness: Households accepted by local authorities as owed a main homelessness duty, by Government Office Region, England, 1998-2010 373 Number and estimates of rough sleepers, England, 2010 374 Total number of households in fuel poverty,England, 2003-09 375 Percentage of households in fuel poverty by ethnicity, disability, vulnerability and Government Office Region, England, 2003-08 376 Children in need whose primary need category is low income 377 Children looked after whose primary need category is low income, by category of need1, 2, 3, England, years ending 31 March 2006 to 31 March 2010 378 Children in need at 31 March 2010 whose primary need category at initial assessment is low income, by age and asylum seeking status, England, 2010 379 Looked after children at 31 March whose primary need category is low income, by age, England, 2010 380 Supported asylum seekers, 2007-09 381 Section 4 support for destitute asylum seekers 382 Support for the right to be looked after by the State if you can not look after yourself by population subgroup, England, 2005

    608 609

    611 612 613 614

    615 616 616 617 621

    622

    623 624 624 625 626

    xxv

    Contents

    Figures 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 HRMF building blocks HRMF Panels, Indicator Dashboards and Evidence Base OHCHR panels: Example of the right to life Model of human rights regulation and inspection Details of the HRMF Specialist Consultation questions The Human Rights Act 1998 Core international human rights treaties UN human rights treaties to which the UK is a party The need for careful analysis and interpretation of quantitative evidence using standard statistical methods: Illustration drawing on Office for National Statistics (ONS) deaths by place data 6 8 15 17 19 27 35 36

    47 50 633 638 642 648

    10 Illustrative HRMF panel: the right to life 11 Human rights treaties signed and ratified or having been the subject of an accession as of 26 February 2010

    12 Current status of UK ratification of UN human rights treaties 13 Summary of UK ratifications of core UN human rights treaties 14 Screenshot of the web consultation

    xxvi

    Acknowledgements

    Acknowledgments
    We are grateful to countless individuals and groups for their input into this project. LSE Human Rights Futures acted as unpaid advisors on the project and we are particularly grateful to Francesca Klug and Helen Wildbore for their comments and support. Alison Gerry provided comments and undertook an excellent review of the case law set out in the report. Gwen Oliver has provided outstanding overall project management and the research team have worked closely with a Project Management Group from the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) and the Scottish Human Rights Commission including Duncan Wilson and Mary Cunneen. Anna Henry, Fiona Glen, Neil Crowther, David Darton and others have also provided critical input and guidance. Thanks are also due to Kathleen Doyle and Morag Patrick (EHRC Scotland) and Amelia John (EHRC Wales). The project has also benefited from the comments from and recommendations of an Advisory Group and we are extremely grateful to the following: Paul Allin (Office for National Statistics (ONS)), Nick Croft (City of Edinburgh Council), Tom Dooley and Warwick Allen (Home Office), Lindsey Dyer (Mersey Care National Health Service Trust), Nicolas Fasel (Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR)), Gillian Fawcett (The Association of Chartered Certified Accountants), Tracey Good (National Health Service Centre for Equality and Human Rights), Samantha Grant and Michael Harmer (Welsh Assembly Government), Julia Husermann (Rights and Humanity), Todd Landman (Essex University), Peter Matejic (Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) Households Below Average Income Team), Diane McGiffen (Audit Scotland), Brian Peddie, Nuala Gormley, Duncan Isles (Scottish Government), Jiwan Raheja (Ministry of Justice Human Rights Team), Jacquie Roberts and Karen Anderson (Scottish Care Commission),Isabella Sankey (Liberty), Sally Stares (London School of Economics), Nigel Thompson (Care Quality Commission), Lizzie Romilly (Home Office). Advisory Group members and many others have provided time and input into the project and some have given permission for the use of data. We are particularly grateful for the one to one meetings and other exchanges that were held with Eric Metcalfe (JUSTICE), Anne Owers, Laura Nettleingham and Louise Falshaw (HM Inspectorate of Prisons), Nigel Thompson and Frank Worth (Care Quality Commission), Sara Brodie (Police Complaints Commissioner for Scotland), Nick Hardwick (Independent Police Complaints Commission), Age UK, Frances Butler and Claudia Wells (ONS) as well as to participants at two Ministry of Justice events for feedback and comments (Human Rights Senior Champions (SCs) Meeting, 17 November 2010; and Regulators, Inspectorates and Ombudsmen (RIO) Forum on Human Rights, 1 December 2010). We would also like to thank participants in the Specialist Consultation for giving up their time and providing critical recommendations, input and information on the basis of which the Human Rights Measurement Framework has been developed and agreed. At the Centre for Analysis of Social Exclusion, IT expertise from Anita Bardhan-Roy, Joe Johannes and Nic Warner was critical to the project, including the running and design of the web consultation. Finally, we would like to thank John Donohue at Creative Services for his outstanding work in editing this document. Responsibility for errors remains with the authors.

    xxvii

    Data acknowledgements

    Data sources acknowledgements


    The report contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v1.0. For further details, see www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/ The following datasets have been accessed via the UK Data Archive at Essex University: National Patient Survey Programme (England), SN5167 (group 33348). Deposited by Healthcare Commission. Home Office. Communities Group and National Centre for Social Research, Home Office Citizenship Survey, 2005 [computer file]. Colchester, Essex: UK Data Archive [distributor], June 2006. SN: 5367. Full acknowledgments for the datasets originally accessed in related work (the Equality Measurement Framework project) are provided at www.equalityhumanrights.com/ uploaded_files/emf/front_cover%2C_title_page%2C_contents_etc.pdf We are very grateful to the Archive and to the original collectors and depositors for making these data available. However, neither the Archive nor the original collectors or depositors of the data bear any responsibility for the analysis or interpretations presented in this report. The report presents findings based on research datasets which may not exactly reproduce national statistics published elsewhere.

    Web sources acknowledgements


    The websources cited in this report have been accessed over the course of the HRMF project between October 2009-December 2011.

    xxviii

    List of acronyms

    List of acronyms
    AP ASBOs BIHR CASE CIRI CCTV CEDAW CESCR CMF COs COSLA CSOs CTO DCSF DH DNA ECHR ECtHR EHRC EMF EU FRA FRS FREDA GDI GDP GEM Action Plan Anti-Social Behaviour Orders British Institute of Human Rights Centre for Analysis of Social Exclusion Cingranelli-Richards Closed Circuit Television Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights Childrens Measurement Framework Country Offices Convention of Scottish Local Authorities Civil Society Organisations Community Treatment Order Department for Children, Schools and Families Department of Health Deoxyribonucleic Acid European Court of Human Rights European Court of Human Rights Equality and Human Rights Commission Equality Measurement Framework European Union Fundamental Rights Agency Family Resources Survey Fairness, Respect, Equality, Dignity and Autonomy Gender Related Development Index Gross Domestic Product Gender Empowerment Measure

    xxix

    List of acronyms

    GEO GNI HDI HIV HM HMIP HPI HR HRA HRJRAMP HRMF HURIDOCS ICCPR ICERD ICESCR ICHRP ISOs LEA LSE MDG MoJ MP MSP NGOs NHRIs NHS OHCHR ONS OPM

    Government Equalities Office Gross National Income Human Development Index Human Immunodeficiency Virus Her Majestys Her Majestys Inspectorate of Prisons Human Poverty Index Human Rights Human Rights Act Human Rights Joint Risk Assessment and Management Plan Human Rights Measurement Framework Human Rights Information and Documentation Systems International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights International Council on Human Rights Policy Individual Support Orders Local Education Authority London School of Economics Millennium Development Goals Ministry of Justice Member of Parliament Member of the Scottish Parliament Non-Government Organisations National Human Rights Institutions National Health Service Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights Office for National Statistics Office for Public Management xxx

    List of acronyms

    PCT RIO SCs SHRC SMART SATs UDHR UK UN UNCESCR UNCRC UNDP UNHCHR UNHRC VAW VCS WAG WGI WHO

    Primary Care Trust Regulators, Inspectorates and Ombudsman (Forum) (Human Rights) Senior Champions Scottish Human Rights Commission Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Relevant, and Time-framed Standard Assessment Tests Universal Declaration of Human Rights United Kingdom United Nations United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child United Nations Development Programme United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights United Nations Human Rights Council Violence Against Women Voluntary and Community Sector Welsh Assembly Government Worldwide Governance Indicators World Health Organisation

    xxxi

    Executive summary

    Executive summary
    The Human Rights Measurement Framework (HRMF) is a new analytical tool that brings together evidence for human rights analysis and assessments, and makes this information available to the Equality and Human Rights Commission (the Commission), the Scottish Human Rights Commission (SHRC), regional and international human rights monitoring mechanisms, Government, public bodies, Non-Government Organisations (NGOS), etc. It has been developed in order to begin to meet the need for a comprehensive evidence base for evaluating compliance with, and progress towards, the implementation of human rights in England, Scotland and Wales. The HRMF panels and indicator set have been developed and agreed through a combined process of research and consultation with subject experts and stakeholders, as well as extensive discussion with an advisory group and a project management group. This approach, we believe, has resulted in a high quality and analytically focused output that builds on recognised international best practice while fully reflecting and incorporating particular human rights issues and concerns in England, Scotland and Wales. Conceptually, the HRMF is anchored in the Indicators Framework developed by the United Nations Office for the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) developed as a response to the growing international demand for indicators that can be used to promote and monitor the implementation of human rights and to make information about the progress that states are making in fulfilling the obligations that flow from human rights available to human rights monitoring bodies and civil society (OHCHR, 2008, 2006b, 2010). The development of the HRMF has also built on a process of consultation with human rights stakeholders, subject experts and NGOs. The HRMF Specialist Consultation was undertaken from mid-June to mid-September 2010 with the principal aim of reaching maximum possible agreement on a set of indicators that should be used as a basis for evaluating compliance with, and progress towards, the implementation of human rights in England, Scotland and Wales. Participants were invited to comment on the nature and scope of the indicators that should be used to populate the HRMF and to provide feedback on their legitimacy, validity and importance.

    Legal and normative underpinnings


    The HRMF covers both rights that have a clear basis for enforcement in domestic law through the Human Rights Act (HRA) (which incorporates many of the UKs obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)) and additional rights that are drawn from the international instruments that the UK has signed up to (such as the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), and the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD)). For the purposes of this report we describe the rights that are set out in the ECHR and incorporated into domestic law by the HRA, in the following way: Right to life, HRA, Article 2. The rights that are drawn from international instruments that the UK has signed up to, such as the ICESCR, are described as follows: Right to highest attainable standard of physical and mental health, ICESCR, Article 12. xxxii

    Executive summary

    What is being measured/monitored?


    The HRMF evidence base brings together information about domestic human rights law and treaty ratifications with a broad range of other evidence including information about the regulatory and public policy framework for protecting human rights; information on case law outcomes (ie information on violations/breaches); concerns highlighted by domestic and international human rights monitoring bodies (for example, the Joint Committee on Human Rights (JCHR) and United Nations treaty monitoring committees); findings of investigations, inquiries and reviews; issues raised by regulators, inspectorates and ombudsmen; and allegations and concerns raised by NGOs and other civil society mechanisms such as media reports. The HRMF also draws on a wide range of statistical sources including administrative data and social surveys. It is critical to understand that the HRMF is not intended as a violations counting system. Many of the indicators go beyond the concept of legal enforcement, violations and minimum compliance. They aim to provide evidence of the incorporation of human rights standards into broader public policy and the emergence of a so-called culture of respect for human rights. Proactive public policy measures as well as broader societal developments can help to reduce the risks of legal breaches of human rights and may ultimately reduce the need for legal enforcement activities and case law. A key aim of the HRMF is to capture and convey evidence about broader progress of this type. When using the HRMF attention should be given to interpreting the different types of information and evidence that are covered in the HRMF indicators and evidence base. Particular care should be taken to distinguish between those rights that are domestically enforceable through the HRA, and other rights which are set out in the various regional and international human rights instruments that the UK has signed up to. Further, whilst some of the indictors in the HRMF provide direct evidence on breaches and violations (for example, case law outcomes) other elements of the HRMF evidence base provide more general information about overall patterns and trends as well as background and contextual information on the broader picture in relation to which a human rights concern is being raised. It is critical that both the qualitative and quantitative indicators within the HRMF are appropriately interpreted in line with the guidance provided in Part II.

    Panels, indicators and evidence base


    The HRMF is made up of a series of panels each of which focuses on a single right (for example, Panel 1 focuses on the Right to Life). Each Panel has a corresponding indicator dashboard that has been developed and agreed through the Specialist Consultation process and by applying the project indicator selection criteria (as discussed in Chapter 2). The indicator dashboards each include a balance of 10 qualitative and quantitative indicators and draw on both official and non-official sources. An evidence base against each of the indicator dashboards is presented in this report in a series of tables. This sets out the qualitative and quantitative information that has been gathered against each of the HRMF indicators to date.

    xxxiii

    Executive summary

    Coverage Due to time and resource constraints, it has not been possible to develop and agree panels for all of the human rights that are incorporated in the HRA and/or reflected in international human rights instruments within the scope of the current project. The project has resulted in the development and agreement of eight prototype panels, five with a clear basis in domestic legislation (the HRA) and three drawn directly from the UKs obligations under the ICESCR. These are: Domestic basis: The Right to Life (HRA, Article 2) The Prohibition on Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (HRA, Article 3) The Right to Liberty and Security of the Person (HRA, Article 5) The Right to a Fair Trial (HRA, Article 6) The Right to Respect for Private and Family Life (HRA, Article 8)

    International basis: The Right to the Highest Attainable Standard of Physical and Mental Health (Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), Article25; ICESCR, Article 12) The Right to Education (UDHR, Article 26; ICESCR, Article 13/14; United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC), Article 28; HRA, Protocol 1 Article 2)1 The Right to an Adequate Standard of Living (UNCRC, Article 27; ICESCR, Article 11)

    It is anticipated that the HRMF will be expanded over time to incorporate the full range of human rights that are protected and promoted in domestic, regional and international instruments.

    Guidance on using and interpreting the HRMF


    Part II of this report provides further guidance on using and interpreting the HRMF indicators and should be read before using and interpreting the HRMF indicators. Chapter 3 provides guidance on the legal and normative underpinnings of the HRMF. It is particularly important that readers are aware of the critical distinction between those human rights that have an explicit basis in UK domestic law (the Human Rights Act 1998, which incorporates most of the rights in the ECHR) and those human rights that are protected and promoted in other regional and international treaties and instruments that the UK has signed and ratified (such as the ICESCR, the Convention Against Torture (CAT) and the CRC).

    xxxiv

    Executive summary

    Chapter 4 provides further guidance and clarification on using and interpreting the HRMF. The different types of information that are included within the HRMF are distinguished and the need for careful interpretation of both the qualitative and quantitative indicators is highlighted. An example of how one of the HRMF indicator dashboards works (focusing on the right to life) is also provided.

    Summary of the HRMF indicators


    A summary of the indicators that have been developed and agreed for each of the HRMF panels is given below. The Right to Life (HRA, Article 2) Indicator dashboard Indicator 1: Legal and constitutional framework Indicator 2: Legal precedents, gaps and standard-setting Indicator 3: Regulatory framework Indicator 4: Public policy framework Indicator 5: Outcomes of key judicial, regulatory and investigative processes Indicator 6: Spotlight statistics: Deaths in the police and criminal justice system context Indicator 7: Spotlight statistics: Deaths within health and social care institutions/community care Indicator 8: Spotlight statistics: Protection from third party violations homicide within society, community and families Indicator 9: Spotlight statistics: Premature mortality within families, community and society Indicator 10: Spotlight statistics: Public attitudes, understanding and experiences. The Prohibition on Torture and Inhuman Or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (HRA A3) Indicator dashboard Indicator 11: Legal and constitutional framework Indicator 12: Legal precedents, gaps and standard-setting Indicator 13: Regulatory framework Indicator 14: Public policy framework Indicator 15: Outcomes of key judicial, regulatory and investigative processes Indicator 16: Spotlight statistics: The use of restraint, punishment and conditions of detention Indicator 17: Spotlight statistics: Physical violence, physical and sexual abuse, and victimisation within miscellaneous establishments

    xxxv

    Executive summary

    Indicator 18: Positive duties and effective protection from sexual violence, domestic violence, hate crime and abuse within families, communities and society: Spotlight statistics on prevalence, detection and prosecution Indicator 19: Denial of basic needs Indicator 20: Spotlight statistics: Public attitudes, understanding and experiences. The Right to Liberty and Security of the Person (HRA, Article 5) Indicator dashboard Indicator 21: Legal and constitutional framework Indicator 22: Legal precedents, gaps and standard-setting Indicator 23: Regulatory framework Indicator 24: Public policy framework Indicator 25: Outcomes of key judicial, regulatory and investigative processes Indicator 26: Spotlight statistics: Deprivation of liberty Custodial context Indicator 27: Spotlight statistics: Deprivation of liberty Noncustodial context Indicator 28: Spotlight statistics: Administrative detention Mental health detention and issues of capacity/consent Indicator 29: Spotlight statistics: Detention within the asylum and immigration system Indicator 30: Spotlight statistics: Public attitudes, understanding and experiences. The Right to a Fair Trial (HRA, Article 6) Indicator dashboard Indicator 31: Legal and constitutional framework Indicator 32: Legal precedents, gaps and standard-setting Indicator 33: Regulatory framework Indicator 34: Public policy framework Indicator 35: Outcomes of key judicial, regulatory and investigative processes Indicator 36: Spotlight statistics: Access to courts and tribunals Indicator 37: Spotlight statistics: Special prosecution Indicator 38: Spotlight statistics: Appropriate justice for children and young people Indicator 39: Spotlight statistics: Treatment of victims and witnesses protection Indicator 40: Spotlight statistics: Public attitudes, understanding and experiences.

    xxxvi

    Executive summary

    The Right to Respect for Private and Family Life (HRA, Article 8) Indicator dashboard Indicator 41: Legal and constitutional framework Indicator 42: Legal precedents, gaps and standard-setting Indicator 43: Regulatory framework Indicator 44: Public policy framework Indicator 45: Outcomes of key judicial, regulatory and investigative processes Indicator 46: Privacy, identity and autonomy Indicator 47: Spotlight statistics: The detention context Indicator 48: Spotlight statistics: Unmet basic needs that may meet the Article 8 threshold Indicator 49: Spotlight statistics: Abuse, neglect, discrimination, lack of dignity and respect Indicator 50: Spotlight statistics: Public attitudes, understanding and experiences. The Right to the Highest Attainable Standard of Physical and Mental Health (UDHR, Article 25; ICESCR, Article 12) Indicator dashboard Indicator 51: Legal and constitutional framework Indicator 52: Legal precedents, gaps and standard-setting Indicator 53: Regulatory framework Indicator 54: Public policy framework Indicator 55: Outcomes of key judicial, regulatory and investigative processes Indicator 56: Spotlight statistics: Mortality rates, healthy life expectancy and ill health Indicator 57: Spotlight statistics: Prevalence of self-harm, access to health services and health outcomes at risk/vulnerable groups Indicator 58: Spotlight statistics: Spotlight statistics: Non-discrimination, autonomy and dignity and respect Indicator 59: Spotlight statistics: Social determinants, environmental and occupational health Indicator 60: Public attitudes, understanding and experiences. The Right to Education (UDHR Article 26; ICESCR Article 13/14; UNCRC Article 28; HRA Protocol 1, Article 22) Indicator dashboard Indicator 61: Legal and constitutional framework Indicator 62: Legal precedents, gaps and standard-setting

    xxxvii

    Indicator 63: Regulatory framework Indicator 64: Public policy framework Indicator 65: Outcomes of key judicial, regulatory and investigative processes Indicator 66: Spotlight statistics: Inequalities in educational attainment Indicator 67: Spotlight statistics: Exclusions and access to education/training and educational attainment for at risk/vulnerable groups Indicator 68: Spotlight statistics: Support for those with Special Educational Needs Indicator 69: Spotlight statistics: Bullying and treatment with dignity and respect subjective measures Indicator 70: Spotlight statistics: Public attitudes, understanding and experiences. The Right to an Adequate Standard of Living (UNCRC, Article 27; ICESCR, Article 11) Indicator dashboard Indicator 71: Legal and constitutional framework Indicator 72: Legal precedents, gaps and standard-setting Indicator 73: Regulatory framework Indicator 74: Public policy framework Indicator 75: Outcomes of key judicial, regulatory and investigative processes Indicator 76: Spotlight statistics: Income poverty and material deprivation Indicator 77: Spotlight statistics: Child income poverty and material deprivation reporting against the Child Poverty Act targets (fulfilment of the Child Poverty Duty) Indicator 78: Spotlight statistics: Deprivation in other basic needs Indicator 79: Spotlight indicators: Adequate standard of living at risk/vulnerable groups Indicator 80: Spotlight statistics: Public attitudes, understanding and experiences.

    Chapter notes
    1

    The right to education is also set out in the ECHR Protocol 1 Article 2 and is incorporated into domestic law in the HRA. This is a more limited right than the broader right to education derived from the ICESCR. The right to education is also set out in the ECHR Protocol 1 Article 2 and is incorporated into domestic law in the HRA. This is a more limited right than the broader right to education derived from the ICESCR.

    xxxviii

    Part I
    What is the Human Rights Measurement Framework?

    Introduction and overview

    Introduction and overview

    The Human Rights Measurement Framework (HRMF) is a new analytical tool that brings together evidence for human rights analysis and assessments, and makes this information available to the Equality and Human Rights Commission (the Commission), the Scottish Human Rights Commission (SHRC), regional and international human rights monitoring mechanisms, Government, public bodies and Non-Government Organisations (NGOs). It has been developed in order to begin to meet the need for a comprehensive evidence base for evaluating compliance with, and progress towards, the implementation of human rights in England, Scotland and Wales. The HRMF panels and indicator set have been developed and agreed through a combined process of research and consultation with subject experts and stakeholders, as well as extensive discussion with an advisory group and a project management group. This approach, we believe, has resulted in a high quality and analytically focused output that builds on recognised international best practice while fully reflecting and incorporating particular human rights issues and concerns in England, Scotland and Wales. Conceptually, the HRMF is anchored in the Indicators Framework developed by the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR)as a response to the growing international demand for indicators that can be used to promote and monitor the implementation of human rights and to make information about the progress that states are making in fulfilling the obligations that flow from human rights available to human rights monitoring bodies and civil society (OHCHR, 2008, 2006b, 2010). The development of the HRMF has also built on a process of consultation with human rights stakeholders, subject experts and NGOs. The HRMF Specialist Consultation was undertaken from mid-June to mid-September 2010 with the principal aim of reaching maximum possible agreement on a set of indicators that should be used as a basis for evaluating compliance with, and progress towards, the implementation of human rights in England, Scotland and Wales. Participants were invited to comment on the nature and scope of the indicators that should be used to populate the HRMF and to provide feedback on their legitimacy, validity and importance. The HRMF covers both rights that have a clear basis for enforcement in domestic law through the Human Rights Act (HRA) (which incorporates many of the UKs obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and additional rights that are drawn from the international instruments that the UK has signed up to (such as the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), and the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD)). For the purposes of this report we describe the rights that are set out in the ECHR and incorporated into domestic law by the HRA, in the following way: Right to life, HRA, Article 2. The rights that are drawn from international instruments that the UK has signed up to, such as the ICESCR, are described as follows: Right to highest attainable standard of physical and mental health, ICESCR, Article 12.

    Introduction and overview

    The Framework brings together information about domestic human rights law and treaty ratifications with a broad range of other evidence including information about the regulatory and public policy framework for protecting human rights; information on case law outcomes (ie information on violations/breaches); information about concerns highlighted by domestic and international human rights monitoring bodies (for example, the Joint Committee on Human Rights (JCHR) and United Nations treaty monitoring committees); findings of investigations, inquiries and reviews; issues raised by regulators, inspectorates and ombudsmen; and allegations and concerns raised by NGOs and other civil society mechanisms such as media reports. The HRMF also draws on a wide range of statistical sources including administrative data and social surveys. It is critical to understand that the HRMF is not intended as a violations counting system. Many of the indicators go beyond the concept of legal enforcement, violations and minimum compliance. They aim to provide evidence of the incorporation of human rights standards into broader public policy and of the emergence of a so-called culture of respect for human rights. Proactive public policy measures as well as broader societal developments can help to reduce the risks of legal breaches of human rights and may ultimately reduce the need for legal enforcement activities and case law. A key aim of the HRMF is to capture and convey evidence about broader progress of this type. This first chapter provides an introduction and overview to the HRMF. It is organised as follows: Section 1.1 sets out the background to, and rationale for, the HRMF; Section 1.2 provides a conceptual overview of the HRMF and the process whereby an indicator set to populate the HRMF has been developed and agreed; Section 1.3 makes recommendations on the next steps in taking the development of the HRMF forward; Section 1.4 provides an overview of this report.

    1.1

    Background to the HRMF

    The background to the HRMF is the decision of the Equality and Human Rights Commission (the Commission) in partnership with the SHRC to move ahead with the development of a set of indicators of the human rights position of individuals and groups in England, Scotland and Wales. The aim of the HRMF is to provide a systematic and rigorous basis for this exercise by: producing a credible and objective methodology with which to measure compliance with, and progress towards, the implementation of domestic and international human rights obligations providing the Commission, Government, public bodies, NGOs and others with an interest in human rights, with data against which to prioritise action on human rights meeting the statutory responsibilities of the Commission to monitor and report on progress in relation to equality and human rights.

    The development of the HRMF should be understood in terms of the Commissions general duty to encourage and support the development of a society based on equality and human rights (Equality Act 2006, Sections 3 and 9, Human Rights Duty) and specific 3

    Introduction and overview

    duties to monitor both the law and results (or social outcomes) by reporting on progress triennially to parliament, including by developing indicators and evaluating change (Equality Act 2006, Section 12). The Commission also has a statutory duty to consult with stakeholders (Equality Act 2006, Section 12 2(a)) and particular responsibilities to encourage public authorities to comply with their responsibilities under Section 6 of the HRA 1998 (c. 42) (Equality Act 2006, Section 9). The SHRC has a general duty to promote awareness, understanding and respect for all human rights, and a series of powers to protect human rights. The Commission and the SHRC are accredited as National Human Rights Institutions (NHRIs) with A-Grade status. This means that, in addition to their domestic enforcement functions, both institutions have a responsibility to promote international human rights norms including the international human rights instruments that the UK has signed up to. The HRMF builds on the Commissions earlier work on indicator-based monitoring including the development of the Equality Measurement Framework (EMF). The EMF uses administrative and social survey data to monitor the position of individuals and groups across 10 critical domains of life with systematic disaggregation by key characteristics such as age, gender, disability, religion and belief, race/ethnicity, sexual orientation and social class and separate monitoring by transgender status (see Alkire et al., 2009; and EHRC, 2010a). Related work on the Childrens Measurement Framework (CMF) is discussed in Holder et al. (2011). The HRMF also builds on the findings and recommendations of the Commissions Human Rights Inquiry. Background research for the Inquiry concluded that public sector organisations are generally not collecting detailed information on the benefits of human rights activities in a systematic way (Office for Public Management (OPM), 2009). The Inquiry recommended that the Commission should work with regulatory bodies and inspectors to develop human rights indicators that measure the extent to which public bodies are adopting a human rights approach (EHRC, 2009b:184). At the international level, treaty monitoring bodies such as the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC), the United Nations Human Rights Committee and the United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (UNCESCR) are increasingly emphasising the importance of disaggregated statistical information and indicators for human rights monitoring purposes. For example, the reporting guidelines issued by the UNCRC inform states about the annual disaggregated statistical data that they are obligated to collect and present to the Committee for its evaluations, alongside principal legislative texts and judicial decisions (UNCRC, 2005). Article 31 of the CRPD specifically obliges states to collect appropriate statistics and data. The UK has, on occasions, been criticised for having inadequate statistical systems for monitoring the human rights position of individuals and groups and for not making such information available to civil society and international treaty monitoring mechanisms. For example, the Concluding Observations of the UNCRC following its consideration of the UKs Periodic Report include specific recommendations on the need for additional data to monitor the position of certain at risk children (UNCRC, 2008).

    Introduction and overview

    The OHCHR Indicators Framework has been developed in response to increased international emphasis on the use of indicators for monitoring and promoting human rights. The Framework provides a common conceptual and methodological basis for developing human rights indicators and has itself been through a process of extensive consultation and validation with United Nations treaty bodies, special rapporteurs and civil society. The Framework has been endorsed by the inter-committee treaty monitoring body and the use of the system is being encouraged by the human rights treaty monitoring bodies. The UN Human Rights Committee has adopted revised guidelines for state reporting and requires states to provide disaggregated statistics based on the OHCHR Indicators Framework when submitting reports under specific provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights(ICCPR) whilst the UNCESCR requires states to identify indicators and related national benchmarks for each covenant right, taking into account the OHCHR Indicators Framework and list of illustrative indicators when submitting their reports (UN Economic and Social Council 2011; UNCESCR, 2009b). The Human Rights Commissioner for the Council of Europe has also highlighted the important role of indicators in addressing implementation gaps and evaluating progress towards the achievement of human rights in practice. He suggests that the OHCHR Indicators Framework provides a useful model for moving forward in this area based on the distinction between structural, process and outcome indicators (Hammarberg, 2009). The development of the HRMF has provided an opportunity to build on these developments and to address how human rights indicators can begin to be used to evaluate compliance with, and progress towards, the implementation of human rights in England, Scotland and Wales.

    1.2

    Building blocks of the HRMF

    The HRMF draws on three key inputs (or building blocks) set out in Figure 1. The first building block is the framework for protecting and promoting human rights in England, Scotland and Wales that is, the HRA 1998 together with other regional and international human rights instruments that the UK has signed up to (such as the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, the ICCPR and the ICESCR, the CRC), the Convention Against Torture (CAT) and the CRPD. Further details on the protection and promotion of human rights in England, Scotland and Wales are provided in Chapter 3. The second building block is coverage of three types of indicators structural indicators, process indicators and outcome indicators based on the OHCHR Indicators Framework. This conceptual anchoring provides the basis for the development and agreement of a set of indicators that provide evidence on the human rights standards to which the UK is committed in principle (structural indicators), the efforts that are being made by duty holders to meet the obligations that flow from human rights standards (process indicators) and the position and experiences of individuals and groups in practice (outcome indicators). Further details of the OHCHR Indicators Framework and the ways these have been modified and refined for the English, Scottish and Welsh contexts are provided in Section 1.6. 5

    Introduction and overview

    The third building block is that of stakeholder consultation in the development and agreement of the set of indicators that is being used with the HRMF. In developing the HRMF we have built not only on the OHCHR Indicators Framework but also on an extensive process of consultation with human rights NGOs, subject experts, Government departments, regulators, inspectorates, etc. In order to populate the HRMF a specialist consultation was undertaken from mid-June to mid-September 2010. The aim was to reach maximum possible agreement on the nature and scope of the indicators that are included in the HRMF as well as on their legitimacy, validity and importance. The views expressed in the HRMF Specialist Consultation are discussed in Chapter 2 and recorded in Appendix 4. Figure 1: HRMF building blocks

    Three core building blocks


    Legal underpinnings Starting point is the Human Rights Act 1998 which is enforceable in domestic law but also additional human rights instruments that the UK has signed up to (ICCPR, ICESC, CRC, CAT, CRPD, etc.) Three types of indicator drawing on the OHCHR Indicators Framework 1 Structural indicators (formal commitment to human rights in principle, for example, domestic human rights law/ratification of regional and international treaties) 2 Process indicators (steps taken or the efforts that states make to meet obligations that flow from human rights standards, for example, primary law, policies, targets, guidelines, inspection and regulatory frameworks or resource allocation) 3 Outcome indicators (results achieved in terms of the position/experiences of individuals and groups) Specialist consultation on the selection of indicators (June to September 2010) Included NGOs, Government departments, inspectorates, subject specialists in England, Scotland and Wales and aimed to reach the maximum possible agreement on the nature and scope of indicators/legitimacy/validity/importance

    Introduction and overview

    Systematic disaggregation and separate monitoring of at risk/ vulnerable groups


    An important objective of the HRMF has been to identify and bring together administrative and social survey data sources that can be used for the purposes of monitoring and promoting human rights. Taking forward this objective has involved building on the principle of systematic disaggregation of data by key characteristics such as age, gender, disability, religion and belief, race/ethnicity, sexual orientation, transgender status and social class reflected in the earlier EMF. In addition, the HRMF has put particular emphasis on identifying and bringing together administrative and social survey data sources that provide evidence on the position of specific at risk/vulnerable groups such as Gypsies and Travellers, refugee and asylum seekers, people resident or detained in public and private institutions (for example, older people resident in care homes or individuals detained in prisons), looked after children and children in need. Participants in the HRMF Specialist Consultation were invited to comment on the at risk/vulnerable groups that should be monitored separately for the purposes of the HRMF as well as to make suggestions on the administrative and social survey data sources that might provide a basis for this exercise.

    1.3

    Conceptual overview of the HRMF

    The HRMF is made up of a series of panels each of which focuses on a single right (for example, Panel 1 focuses on the Right to Life). Each panel includes a dashboard of 10 indicators that has been developed and agreed through the Specialist Consultation process and by applying the project indicator selection criteria. These are discussed in more detail in Chapter 2. The HRMF is represented as a 3-D matrix in Figure 2. The layers of the matrix represent the HRMF panels (with one panel for each human right that is included within the system, for example, the first panel is the panel for the Right to Life). The rows of the matrix represent the different types of indicator in the system (ie structural, process and outcome indicators, based on OHCHR good practice). The importance of systematic disaggregation and identification of the position of at risk/vulnerable groups is captured and specified at the bottom of the panel.

    Introduction and overview

    Figure 2: HRMF Panels, Indicator Dashboards and Evidence Base

    el s

    8 The Right to an Adequate Standard of Living (ICESCR, Article 11) 7 The Right to Education (ICESCR, Article 13 and Article 14) 6 The Right to the Highest Standard of Physical and Mental Health (ICESCR, Article 12)

    Etc.

    5 The Right to Respect for Private and Family Life (HRA, Article 8) 4 The Right to a Fair Trial (HRA, Article 6) 3 The Right to Liberty and Security of the Person (HRA, Article 5) 2 The Prohibition on Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (HRA, Article 3) 1 The Right to Life (HRA, Article 2)

    Pa n

    International basis

    Domestic basis

    Indicators

    Indicator Dashboard (10 indicators for each right)


    Structural Process Outcome X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

    Indicators should be systematically disaggregated and allow for identification/monitoring of at risk/vulnerable groups

    The HRMF panels


    Due to time and resource constraints, it has not been possible to develop and agree panels for all the human rights incorporated in the HRA and/or reflected in regional and international human rights instruments within the scope of the current project. The project has resulted in the development of eight prototype panels, five with a clear basis in domestic legislation (the HRA) and three drawn directly from the UKs obligations under the ICESCR. These are: Domestic basis: The Right to Life (HRA, Article 2) The Prohibition on Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (HRA, Article 3) The Right to Liberty and Security of the Person (HRA, Article 5) The Right to a Fair Trial (HRA, Article 6) The Right to Respect for Private and Family Life (HRA, Article 8)

    Introduction and overview

    International basis: The Right to the Highest Attainable Standard of Physical and Mental Health (Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), Article 25; ICESCR, Article 12) The Right to Education (UDHR, Article 26; ICESCR, Article 13/14; CRC, Article 28 and Article 29; HRA, Protocol 1, Article 2)1 The Right to an Adequate Standard of Living (CRC, Article 27;ICESCR, Article 11). It is anticipated that the HRMF will be expanded over time to incorporate the full range of human rights that are protected and promoted in domestic, regional and international instruments.

    The HRMF indicator dashboards


    Each of the HRMF panels is populated by a corresponding dashboard of 10 indicators with a total of 80 indicators currently included within the HRMF indicator set (ie 10 indicators for each of the eight panels). It is anticipated that the number of indicators in the overall set will increase as additional HRMF panels are developed. It is important to understand that we do not regard the HRMF indicator set as a fixed or final list but as one that will be periodically reviewed and updated (for example, every three years). It is also important to understand that the limit (or cap) on the number of indicators in each dashboard is essentially an arbitrary one. The indicators are intended to put the spotlight on key issues and concerns rather than as providing a complete evidence base under each human right. The definition of a human rights indicator that has been used in the development of the HRMF is the definition suggested by OHCHR: [H]uman rights indicators are specific information on the state of an event, activity or an outcome that can be related to human rights norms and standards; that address and reflect the human rights concerns and principles; and that are used to assess and monitor promotion and protection of human rights (OHCHR, 2006b). This definition was subjected to scrutiny and ultimately agreed on through the HRMF Specialist Consultation(see Chapter 3).It draws on the definition used by Special Rapporteur Paul Hunt in his various reports to the Commission on Human Rights (for example, Hunt 2003, Hunt 2006).

    Structural, process and outcome indicators


    The dashboard of 10 indicators for each panel includes a balance of structural, process and outcome indicators (based on the OHCHR model). This balance ensures that the evidence base under each panel incorporates information relating to the formal commitment to the human right in question in principle (through the HRA and additional regional and international instruments), the steps being taken by duty holders to discharge the obligations that flow from human rights (for example, primary law, policy and guidance, and regulation, inspection and complaints handling) and the results achieved in practice (in terms of the position and experiences of individuals and groups).

    Introduction and overview

    Each indicator dashboard begins with two structural indicators that capture and convey information about the formal commitment to human rights in the UK. This includes information on the protection of human rights in domestic law (including in higher law) and the status of the ratification of regional and international human rights instruments; and information about precedents in legal judgements and principles established in international standard-setting processes. Two process indicators are also included within the indicator dashboard for each right. These capture and convey information about the steps that duty holders are taking to fulfil the obligations that flow from human rights. This includes information about the public policy framework for the protection of human rights (including primary legislation, policies, plans, targets, codes, guidance and resource allocations) as well as information about key regulators, inspectorates, ombudsman and related mechanisms. Finally, each indicator dashboard also includes a series of outcome indicators. These capture and convey qualitative and quantitative information about the realisation of human rights and the position and experiences of individuals and groups in practice.

    The HRMF evidence base


    The HRMF evidence base is the qualitative and quantitative information that we have identified against each indicator within the scope of the current project. The evidence that has been gathered to date under each indicator is presented in this report in a series of tables. It is important to understand that we do not regard this evidence base as complete and that follow-up projects will be required not only to extend the HRMF in terms of the number of human rights covered by the system, but also to extend the evidence base itself. The HRMF evidence base brings together different types information for human rights analysis and assessments including: information about domestic human rights law and treaty ratifications information about human rights case law outcomes(ie violations/breaches) information about the public policy framework for protecting human rights concerns highlighted by domestic and international human rights monitoring bodies (for example, the JCHR and United Nations treaty monitoring committees) findings of investigations, inquiries and reviews issues raised by regulators, inspectorates and ombudsmen allegations and concerns raised by NGOs and other civil society mechanisms such as media reports statistical information drawing on a wide range of administrative and social survey sources.

    10

    Introduction and overview

    It is critical that in using and interpreting the HRMF indicators and evidence base adequate attention is given to distinguishing between these different types of information. Part II of this report provides guidance and clarification and is essential reading. Chapter 3 provides further guidance on the legal underpinnings of the HRMF and the protection of human rights in domestic law and the international instruments which the UK has signed up to. Chapter 4 provides further guidance on using and interpreting the qualitative and quantitative indicators and the HRMF evidence base. A worked example (focusing on the right to life) is also provided.

    1.4

    Next steps in the development of the HRMF

    The current project has resulted in the development and agreement of eight prototype panels and an associated indicator set. It is anticipated that the HRMF will be expanded over time to incorporate the full range of human rights that are protected and promoted in domestic, regional and international instruments. This will involve developing and agreeing additional panels and the associated indicator dashboards. The HRMF indicator set is not intended as a definitive fixed and final list and will need periodic review and revision as data availability changes and because new human rights concerns will emerge. We suggest that the indicator set is reviewed and revised every three years. It is anticipated that the HRMF evidence base will expand as the overall system is expanded. In addition, the evidence set out in this report is the evidence that we have been able to gather to date. However, there are some important gaps in the evidence base that will require dedicated follow-up work. For example, it has not been possible, within the current project, to map human rights standards to primary law. This work will require a specific follow-up project. The HRMF would ideally be continuously maintained and updated. Case law is continuously evolving, new investigations reviews are regularly concluding, inspections and complaints-handling mechanisms are constantly being undertaken, and new social survey and administrative data is continuously being collected and made available. Ideally, the HRMF would be viewed as a living document and additional evidence would be regularly added to the system. It is also anticipated that the HRMF will be made available on the web. Alongside a userfriendly, web-based system, there needs to be both a plain English summary of the HRMF and an accessible version, in order to maximise the use of the Framework by a broad range of individuals and groups. Ideally, in addition to making the report generally available, a web tool would be developed that would provide access to the indicators and data contained in the HRMF. One model would be to develop an interactive web tool which allows organisations (including civil society organisations) to upload their own data to widen the evidence base and keep it current.

    11

    Introduction and overview

    It is anticipated that over time a high quality narrative will be developed to accompany the HRMF. A narrative of this type would set out how compliance with, and progress towards, implementing human rights in England, Scotland and Wales can be evaluated against the agreed indicators. A model for this is provided in Chapter 4 (which provides a worked example based on the right to life).

    1.5

    Overview of this report

    Chapter 2 discusses the HRMF research framework and methodology, including the HRMF Specialist Consultation. Chapter 3 provides guidance on the protection of human rights in UK domestic law and in the regional and international human rights instruments that the UK is signed up to. Chapter 4 provides a worked example of an HRMF panel and essential guidance on interpreting and using the HRMF indicators. Chapters 5-12 set out the HRMF panels, indicators and evidence. Each chapter includes a: panel (one panel per right) dashboard of 10 indicators that has been developed and agreed for each panel qualitative and quantitative evidence base against each of the HRMF indicators.

    Details of participation in the HRMF specialist consultation are provided in Appendix 3 and feedback from the consultation is recorded in Appendix 4.

    Chapter notes
    1

    The right to education is also set out in the ECHR, Protocol 1, Article 2 and is incorporated into domestic law in the HRA. This is a more limited right than the broader right to education derived from the ICESCR.

    12

    Research framework and methodology

    Research framework and methodology

    This chapter sets out the methodology that has been used to develop and agree the Human Rights Measurement Framework (HRMF); Section 2.1 provides an overview of the research framework; Section 2.2. provides details of our conceptual starting point, the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) Indicator Framework; Section 2.3 provides details of the HRMF Specialist Consultation; Section 2.4 sets out the Indicator Framework selection criteria adopted in the HRMF.

    2.1

    How has the HRMF been developed?


    a preliminary literature and data review developing a provisional HRMF set of panels based on international good practice (by modifying and orientating the OHCHR panels) road-testing and revising the provisional HRMF conceptual grid with the project Advisory Group developing a long-list of human rights indicators based on the literature and data review including sources such as: OHCHR good practice indicators United Nations General Comments the Equality Measurement Framework (EMF) the Childrens Measurement Framework (CMF)

    Developing and agreeing the HRMF has been a multi-stage process which involved:

    developing a provisional short-list of spotlight indicators based on the long-list (by applying the provisional project selection criteria below) specialist consultation with human rights stakeholders and subject specialists aiming to reach maximum possible agreement on the HRMF conceptual grid and indicator set (including one-day events, web consultation and one-to-one meetings with specific organisations) refinement of a set of indicator selection criteria based on discussions and feedback from the Specialist Consultation, the Advisory Group and the Project Management Group revising the panels and short-list of spotlight indicators in the light of comments, feedback and recommendations from participants in the Specialist Consultation and the project selection criteria developing an evidence base under each right by populating the HRMF with the agreed indicators and measures using administrative, social survey and other data securing necessary agreements with data providers and commissioners. 13

    Research framework and methodology

    The development and agreement of the HRMF panels and the associated set of indicators has been an iterative process, reflecting these discrete research phases. After initial desk research, the provisional HRMF panels were revised in line with comments from the Project Management Group and subjected to a road-testing exercise with the Advisory Group. A provisional short-list of indicators was developed and the provisional panels/ short-list of indicators were subjected to scrutiny through a specialist consultation exercise, to establish: the extent to which the: panels had been modified and refined correctly correct short-list of indicators had been identified, and whether supplementary or alternative indicators were necessary.

    As discussed below, the consultation process involved three main one-day events (one each in England, Scotland and Wales), a 12-week web consultation and a series of indepth one-to-one meetings and discussions. The panels have also been presented at two events convened by the Ministry of Justice (MoJ), the Human Rights Senior Champions (SCs), and the Regulators, Inspectorates and Ombudsmen (RIO) Forum on Human Rights, with opportunities for discussion and feedback. The consultation feedback was analysed and the panels and indicators were revised for a final time and evidence using the indicator set for each panel was produced.

    2.2

    The OHCHR Indicators Framework

    An illustration of one of the OHCHR panels (for the right to life) is given below in Figure 3. The attributes of the right to life (arbitrary deprivation of life, disappearances of individuals, health and nutrition and death penalty) are specified in the columns of the panel. The different types of indicators covered in the OHCHR system (ie structural, process and outcome indicators) are specified in the rows. The principle of systematic disaggregation is specified in the final row of the panel, reflecting the emphasis of the OHCHR on systematic disaggregation and separate identification of the position of vulnerable/at risk groups. Illustrative indicators are included within the panel cells.

    14

    Figure 3: OHCHR panels: Example of the right to life2


    Disappearances of individuals Health and nutrition Death penalty

    Arbitrary deprivation of life

    Structural Indicators

    International human rights treaties, relevant to the right to life, ratified by the State Date of entry into force and coverage of the right to life in the Constitution or other forms of superior law Date of entry into force and coverage of domestic laws for implementing the right to life Date of entry into force and coverage of habeas corpus provision in the Constitution Time frame and coverage of national policy on health and nutrition Number of sub-national administrative entities that have abolished death penalty

    Date of entry into force and coverage of formal procedure governing inspection of police cells, detention centres and prisons by independent inspection agencies

    Process Indicators

    Proportion of received complaints on the right to life investigated and adjudicated by the national human rights institution, human rights ombudsperson or other mechanisms and the proportion of these responded to effectively by the government Proportion of communications sent by the UN Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances responded to effectively by the government in the reporting period Reported cases of disappearances (e.g. as reported to the UN Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances) Proportion of population using Number of convicted persons on death row in an improved drinking water the reporting period source Proportionof births attended by skilled health personnel

    15

    Proportion of communications sent by the UN Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions responded to effectively by the government in the reporting period

    Outcome Indicators

    Number of homicides and life threatening crimes, per 100,000 population Number of deaths in custody per 1,000 detained or imprisoned persons, by cause of death (e.g. illness, suicide, homicide)

    Infant mortality rates life expectancy at birth Prevalence of and death rates associated with communicable and non-communicable diseases (e.g. HIV/AIDS, malaria* and tuberculosis*)

    Proportion of death penalty sentences commuted Number of executions (under death penalty)

    Research framework and methodology

    All indicators should be disaggregated by prohibited grounds of discrimination, as applicable and reflected in metasheets

    Research framework and methodology

    It was decided at the outset of the current project that whilst the HRMF would be conceptually anchored in the OHCHR panels,a number of modifications and refinements would be necessary in order to ensure adequate contextualisation of the OHCHR panels for England, Scotland and Wales. These panels and attributes (column headings) as well as the indicators have been modified and refined in order to achieve this. For example, some of the attributes highlighted in the OHCHR panels (for example, disappearances of individuals or the death penalty under the right to life) are not key human rights concerns in England, Scotland and Wales. In addition, it was felt that there was a need to put more emphasis on the standards set out in the Human Rights Act (HRA)1998. The HRA provides a clear basis for the legal enforcement of human rights in the British context and includes explicit provisions under Section 6 for public bodies to comply with human rights. An important priority from the outset was to view the HRA the legal instrument that individuals can use to enforce their human rights in Britain as the starting point for the development of the HRMF and to ensure that this priority was reflected in the conceptual framing of the panels and attributes. A further priority was to give prominence to the role of regulators, inspectorates and ombudsmen in implementing and promoting human rights (building on the recommendations of the Equality and Human Rights Commissions(the Commission)Human Rights Inquiry) and on the incorporation of human rights standards into public policy. It is important to understand that in making these modifications and refinements our motivation has been to maximise the potential of the HRMF as a practical tool for promoting and monitoring the implementation of human rights in England, Scotland and Wales. For example, it is envisaged that the Scottish Human Rights Commission(SHRC) and the Commission, as human rights institutions, have an over-arching role in bringing together information that flows to them from other regulators, inspectorates and ombudsmen, and in identifying and reporting on any human rights issues that emerge. Hence, in England, information about the position of individuals and groups that is of potential relevance to the right to life flows from bodies such as the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC), HM Inspectorate of Prisons, the Prisons and Probation Ombudsman and the Care Quality Commission. The Commission is in a position to take an overview of the findings that emerge from these regulatory, inspection and complaintshandling processes and to identify and report on human rights concerns (including crosscutting human rights concerns that relate to the work of more than one of these bodies and processes). With this function in mind, an important priority in developing the HRMF has been to identify the monitoring systems that are used by regulators, inspectorates and ombudsmen and relate (or map) these to the HRMF. For example, the IPCC has an established process and procedure for monitoring deaths within custody, and the data arising from this established system is included within the HRMF evidence base on the right to life.

    16

    Research framework and methodology

    Figure 4: Model of human rights regulation and inspection

    EHRC
    HRMF Brings together cross-cutting concerns under each Article, e.g. concerns relating to Article 2, right to life, in police and criminal justice system context, health and social care context, educational context, etc

    Regulators, Inspectors and Ombudsman Builds on the ways in which human rights are being integrated into regulation, audit and inspection processes

    IPCC

    HM Inspectorate of Prisons

    Prisons and Probation Ombudsmen

    Care Quality Commission (MOU)

    Etc

    Another priority has been to ensure that the HRMF covers qualitative as well as quantitative indicators, and non-official as well as official data sources. A range of qualitative indicators (for example, case law indicators, indicators capturing and communicating the concerns expressed by human rights monitoring bodies and in investigations, inquiries and reviews, as well as information gathered by regulators, inspectorates and ombudsmen) were suggested by participants in the HRMF consultation. Participants also suggested that it was critical that independent human rights monitoring exercises do not only rely on official data sources and that it would be important to include indicators that draw on information generated by civil society, for example, by NonGovernment Organisations (NGOs) and through media reporting. The HRMF panels and indicator set have been developed and agreed through a combined process of research and consultation with subject experts and stakeholders, as well as extensive discussion with an advisory group and a project management group. This approach, we believe, has resulted in a high quality and analytically focused output that builds on recognised international best practice while fully reflecting and incorporating specific human rights issues and concerns in England, Scotland and Wales.

    17

    Research framework and methodology

    The OHCHR has also provided support and input to the HRMF. At the end of the project the OHCHR expressed the view that the indicators identified on the eight universal human rights in the HRMF and their contextualisation for England, Scotland and Wales have highlighted the relevance and applicability of a common approach on statistical and other indicators that is consistent with OHCHRs conceptual and methodological framework on indicators for human rights (HRI/MC/2008/3), in particular by seeking to capture linkages between human rights commitments, efforts and results through a configuration of structural, process and outcome indicators (OHCHR, 2011).

    2.3

    The HRMF Specialist Consultation

    In order to populate the HRMF a specialist consultation was undertaken from mid-June to mid-September 2010. The principal aim of the Specialist Consultation was to reach maximum possible agreement on a shortlist of spotlight indicators relevant for England, Scotland and Wales. In addition, feedback and comments on the panels and attributes; the development of a list of vulnerable groups; the types of data that are admissible (official, allegations-based, etc.); and other concerns and issues raised by participants are recorded and synthesised in this chapter.

    The Specialist Consultation: Scope, process and participation


    The following remit was specified for the Specialist Consultation: The primary aim was to develop and agree a set of indicators that put the spotlight on key human rights concerns. Broader comments (such as comments on the project aims and objectives, on the panels, and on the use of language and terminology) were also invited. It covered three types of indicators (structural indicators, process indicators and outcome indicators, based on the OHCHR model). It covered both quantitative indicators ( drawing on social surveys and administrative data sources) and qualitative indicators (covering case law, treaty ratifications, outcomes of investigations, data collected by NGOs, allegations of violations, etc.). It covered both official sources and non-official sources. It was envisaged that whilst some data sources would be covered by the National Statistical Standard system of quality control, other types and quality of data are also admissible). Its geographical scope covered Great Britain, England, Scotland and Wales. It covered children and adults. It covered stakeholders and subject specialists (ie it was not a full-scale public consultation). The emphasis would be on identifying and using existing data sources, although identifying data gaps was also an important concern.

    18

    Research framework and methodology

    Three all-day consultation events were held, one each in England, Scotland and Wales. The morning sessions included two presentations, the first of which introduced the consultation and consultation materials while the second provided an overview of the HRMF and the right to life panel. Break-out groups operated during the second half of the day, which ended in a plenary session where groups provided comments, feedback and recommendations from their discussions on the panels. Full details of participation in the Specialist Consultation are provided in Appendix 3. Details of comments, feedback and recommendations from the consultation events, along with feedback from the web consultation and in-depth one-to-one meetings, are provided in Appendix 4.

    What did we ask participants?


    Participants were invited to review the panels and input comments and feedback; to answer the consultation questions; and/or to provide us with information on related work. Participants were invited to respond to the consultation questions as well as for their general views, recommendations and reactions to the project. Figure 5: Details of the HRMF Specialist Consultation questions Definition of a human rights indicator We are proposing the following definition of a human rights indicator for the purposes of the project: [H]uman rights indicators are specific information on the state of an event, activity or an outcome that can be related to human rights norms and standards; that address and reflect the human rights concerns and principles; and that are used to assess and monitor promotion and protection of human rights. (UNOHCHR, 2006b). Do you have any feedback or comments on this definition?

    Identification of good practice examples Are you aware of agreed lists of human rights indicators that are being used for monitoring purposes in England, Scotland or Wales? Are you aware of good practice use of human rights indicators within official statistical monitoring systems? Do you have examples of human rights indicators from your everyday work/ organisation on which we could draw? Do you have any further suggestions or comments regarding statistical indicators that we could include in the short-lists of indicators in each domain, that are particularly important from a human rights perspective? Do you have an agreed definition of a human rights indicator that you use in your everyday work/organisation? Continued

    19

    Research framework and methodology

    Figure 5: Details of the HRMF Specialist Consultation questions (continued) Overall consultation questions Overall, do you think that the panels will make a useful contribution to human rights monitoring in England, Scotland and Wales? Do you think that dividing the panels by structure, process and outcome indicators is useful? Overall, are there any comments you would like to make about the focus, language or design of the panels (for example, coverage of the Human Rights Act, the international human rights framework, the rights covered in the first round of panel development, etc.)? Do you think we have got the language right for describing the HRMF? Indicators and measures for each panel Do you have any suggestions about indicators or measures that we could draw on for this panel? Do you have any suggestions about data sources that we could draw on for this panel? Is your organisation working with any indicators or measures that are relevant to the development of this panel? Are there any indicators or measures under this panel that you would remove? Do you have any comments about the way in which the design of this panel could be improved? Are you aware of any matching Scottish and Welsh sources that we could draw on for this panel?

    Vulnerable groups We would like to define a list of vulnerable groups to use with the HRMF project. Do you have any suggestions for who should be included in a list of vulnerable groups for children and adults?

    Other suggestions and comments Do you have any other overall comments about the project, the panels or human rights monitoring that you would like us to record? Do you have any suggestions or comments about additional ways in which we could draw on human rights principles and standards in taking the development of the HRMF forward?

    20

    Research framework and methodology

    What were the outcomes of the Specialist Consultation?


    The feedback from the HRMF Specialist Consultation was used by the research team to further develop the HRMF panels and to develop a revised list of indicators to use with the HRMF. Full details of the feedback from the HRMF Specialist Consultation are provided in Appendix 4. A number of key strategic issues and dilemmas that fundamentally affect the general positioning of the HRMF were discussed in the Specialist Consultation. The first issue concerns the use of legalistic terminology versus the use of plain English terminology and accessible terminology. One argument was that the HRMF is about monitoring the implementation of legal duties and that the language and terminology adopted should be based on legal definitions as much as possible. Another view was that the use of legal definitions and terminology should be avoided and that the need to use plain English and/ or accessible language should prevail. We agree with many stakeholders that accessible and plain English versions of the Framework are developed so that the system can be used by a range of individuals and groups. A related but distinct concern was whether the HRMF should be strictly anchored in/ driven by case law versus a broader approach grounded in human rights values such as freedom, respect, freedom equality, dignity and autonomy. The approach we have adopted here is to ensure that the panels are explicitly grounded in the legal framework, whilst formulating some indicators and measures in terms of human rights values. The legislative background underpinning values such as autonomy and dignity and respect are also emphasised. A third key issue relates to the question of whether the focus of the HRMF should be on domestic law and the HRA, or the international human rights framework. Some participants argued that the focus of the HRMF should be the HRA which is legally binding and enforceable in courts within the UK. Another view was that the starting point should be international human rights law, with its emphasis on economic, social and cultural rights, as well as civil and political rights. The approach we have adopted in the HRMF is to try to strike a balance between these two viewpoints, by adopting the HRA (with five of the HRMF panels having an explicit basis in domestic law) whilst also developing three panels that draw on the international human rights framework (the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), which has not been incorporated into UK domestic law, but which the UK is signed up to). We have also taken account of standard-setting by international human rights bodies in developing the HRMF indicator set. For example, General Comment 6 issued by the UN Human Rights Committee suggests that variations in infant mortality and life expectancy between individuals and groups can engage the right to life (UN Human Rights Committee, 1982). We have therefore included general population statistics on infant mortality and life expectancy (along with other general population statistics on mortality) under the Right to Life panel.

    21

    Research framework and methodology

    Fourth, a related issue was whether the HRMF should focus exclusively on developing indicators of minimal compliance and violations or whether it should also be concerned with proactive public policy and the emergence of a human rights culture. Our approach here has been to capture and incorporate both concerns. Some of the indicators in the HRMF system relate to minimal compliance and violations whilst others provide broader information about the emergence of a so-called human rights culture (for example, as evidenced by public attitudes and understanding of human rights and their self-reported experiences). Fifth, there was much discussion of the need for an expansion of the qualitative indicators within the HRMF in the Specialist Consultation. At the consultation stage, whilst we included some qualitative human rights indicators in the draft HRMF panels, the vast majority of indicators in the system were of a quantitative nature. Many participants called for a significant expansion of the qualitative indicators in the overall indicator set to include not only case law but also the findings of human rights bodies; the findings of inquiries, investigations and reviews; the findings of inspectorates, regulators and ombudsmen; and so forth. A major change in approach resulted from this input and feedback, with a very significant expansion of the qualitative information included within the HRMF at the revision stage. Finally, a number of participants emphasised the importance of including non-official (as well as official) data within the HRMF. It was argued here that a picture of the realisation of human rights in England, Scotland and Wales should not be reliant on the states version of events and official sources alone, and that non-official sources including press and media, advocacy and NGO data should also play a key role. Again, new indicators were introduced into the HRMF in order to address this recommendation.

    2.4

    HRMF indicator selection criteria

    The selection criteria principles developed for the EMF (set out in Alkire et al., 2009) were modified in line with the requirements of the HRMF and synthesised into a practical and manageable checklist under the headings of admissibility criteria, criteria for selecting individual indicators, criteria that apply to the balance of indicators within each panel, and criteria that apply to the HRMF as a system.

    General admissibility criteria


    Indicator types: Both qualitative and quantitative indicators are admissible. Data sources: Both official and non-official data sources are admissible. Structures, process and outcomes: Structural, process and outcome indicators are all admissible. Individual-/institutional level: Admissible indicators can relate to individuals, resources, and other units, such as prisons, hospitals and other institutions.

    22

    Research framework and methodology

    Selection criteria that apply at the HRMF level


    Essential: The starting point for the development of the HRMF panels should be domestic human rights law (ie the HRA) but some indicators within the portfolio as a whole should also reflect and capture the international human rights framework. Indicators should be evenly balanced across panels. The portfolio of indicators as a whole should put the spotlight on the concerns of different individuals and groups (rather than an overemphasis on the concerns of any particular subgroup).

    Selection criteria that apply to each panel (panel balancing criteria)


    Essential: Within each panel there should be a balance between structural, process and outcome indicators. Within each panel there should be a balance between a case law driven approach (focusing on minimum compliance/violations) and a focus on broader human rights principles/the emergence of a human rights culture. Within each panel there should be a balance between indicators that capture and reflect negative duties and those that capture and reflect positive duties.

    Desirable: Within each panel there should be an emphasis on objective measures. However, it is also desirable that subjective measures (for example, perceptions of discrimination, self-reported treatment with dignity and respect, voiced based indicators and attitudinal indicators) are included within the indicator dashboard for each right.

    Selection criteria that apply to single indicators


    Essential: An indicator is valid if it contributes to an information base for evaluating the human rights position of individuals and groups in England, Scotland and/or Wales. An indicator is important and represents a priority for inclusion in the HRMF if it captures and reflects concerns raised through the legal process, by human rights monitoring bodies (for example, the Joint Committee on Human Rights, United Nations monitoring committees, or as raised in United Nations General Comments), in independent investigations and inquiries, by relevant inspectorates/audit bodies, or by civil society, in media reports, etc. An indicator is legitimate if maximum possible agreement has been achieved in relation to its validity and importance within the overall portfolio by relevant stakeholders and subject experts, through the HRMF Specialist Consultation process. An indicator comes from a credible and reliable source. 23

    Research framework and methodology

    Desirable: Disaggregation. The indicator is disaggregated by population subgroups and the non-private household population and vulnerable/at risk groups can be separately identified and reported on. Frequency. The indicator is collected reasonably frequently (at least every three years) for monitoring purposes. Time series. A time series that provides a basis for comparison over time and consistent evaluation of trends is available. International comparability. The indicator provides a basis for comparison, either regionally or internationally. Robustness. Standard statistical requirements of accuracy, reliability and validity, as well as the criterion of non-ambiguity, are desirable but not essential.3

    Other considerations
    Emphasis on existing sources. Existing social survey sources and administrative sources should be used wherever possible. Cost minimisation. New data collection should only be proposed in cases where reasonably close alternatives or suitable proxy indicators are not available and the cost implications of data requests should be taken into account. EMF indicators should be used where they are fit for purpose. Indicators or measures already being used in other Commission Frameworks (the EMF, Childrens Measurement Framework or Good Relations Framework) should be used where they are fit for purpose. For example, if an indicator of domestic violence has been included in the EMF and is defined and specified in a way that is useful for the HRMF, it can reasonably be included in the HRMF. This methodology is intended to maximise overlap between the frameworks in order to capitalise on relevant previous and ongoing technical work on indicators; to build on existing agreements with data commissioners and providers; and to minimise cost burdens.

    Chapter notes
    2 3

    This figure provides extracts from the OHCHR panel on the right to life. For the full version see OHCHR (2008). For the full panel see Chapter 4. Robustness was considered an essential characteristic for the purposes of the EMF consultation. This approach was not adopted for the HRMF consultation since it was viewed as overly-restrictive for example, it could potentially rule out relevant sources of data from non-official sources.

    24

    Part II
    Guidance on using and interpreting the Human Rights Measurement Framework

    The underlying legal framework: guidance and clarification

    The underlying legal framework: guidance and clarification

    This chapter is essential reading prior to using the Human Rights Measurement Framework (HMRF) and interpreting the HRMF evidence base as it provides guidance on the legal underpinnings of the HRMF project. The chapter is organised as follows: Section 3.1 provides background information on human rights that have explicit legal protection in UK domestic law (the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA)). Section 3.2 provides an illustrative analysis of selected articles of the HRA. Section 3.3 provides information about additional human rights that are protected and promoted in other international treaties and instruments that the UK has signed and ratified (such as the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) and the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC)).

    3.1

    The Human Rights Act 1998

    The first five panels of the HRMF are based on human rights that have an explicit basis in domestic law, through the HRA. These are the panels covering: The Right to Life (HRA, Article 2) The Prohibition on Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (HRA, Article 3) The Right to Liberty and Security of the Person (HRA, Article 5) The Right to a Fair Trial (HRA, Article 6) The Right to Respect for Private and Family Life (HRA, Article 8).

    The HRA came into force throughout the UK on 2 October 2000. It makes most of the makes most of the human rights set out in the European Convention on Human Rights (the Convention) enforceable in domestic law4 and, in Section 6, places a legal duty on all public authorities to act in a way which is not incompatible with Convention rights. A list of the key articles in the HRA is provided in Figure 6. Prior to the HRA people in the UK who sought an effective remedy for breaches of their Convention rights had to seek redress from the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) rather than being able to directly access their rights in UK courts. Following the HRA, any person, corporate body, Non-Government Organisation (NGO), or group of individuals who believe that their rights have been infringed by a public authority can raise this in any existing procedure before a court or tribunal (criminal or civil). They can, alternatively, start proceedings under the HRA itself. It is not necessary to be a UK national in order to make a claim under the Convention and the remedies available for breach of Convention rights are wide and include damages. The time limit for bringing proceedings under the HRA is one year from the date of the act complained of, although this may be extended in some circumstances.

    26

    The underlying legal framework: guidance and clarification

    The domestic courts must take into account the case law of the ECtHR. They are not, however, bound by it. Any domestic court that ignores or declines to follow clear Strasbourg case law runs the risk of being challenged in the ECtHR. Therefore, in practice, the UK courts cannot develop standards that are below the existing human rights standards established by the ECtHR but there is nothing stopping them being more generous in rights terms than the ECtHR and developing its own case law under the HRA. The Convention represents a floor rather than a ceiling for the protection of human rights. For all new legislation, the minister responsible for the bill must make a statement confirming that it complies with the Convention (or explaining why it does not). The courts must interpret legislation in a way that is compatible with the Convention where this is possible. However, they cannot overturn acts of parliament. Where it is not possible to interpret legislation so as to be compatible with the Convention, the high court and more senior courts will issue a declaration of incompatibility. The courts may strike down most subordinate or secondary legislation when not compatible with the Convention. Figure 6: The Human Rights Act 1998 The right to life (Article 2). The right not to be subjected to torture, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (Article 3). The right to be free from slavery and forced labour (Article 4). The right to liberty (Article 5). The right to a fair and public trial or hearing (Article 6). The right not to be subject to arbitrary or retrospective criminal penalties (Article 7). The right to respect for private and family life, home and correspondence (Article 8). The right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion (Article 9). The right to freedom of expression and to receive and impart information (Article 10). Continued

    27

    The underlying legal framework: guidance and clarification

    Figure 6: The Human Rights Act 1998 (continued) The right to assembly and to associate with others, including in organisations like trade unions (Article 11). The right to marry and start a family (Article 12). The right not to be discriminated against (Article 14). The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions and property (Protocol 1, Article 1). The right to education, including respect for the religious and philosophical convictions of parents (Protocol 1, Article 2). The requirement to hold free and fair elections (Protocol 1, Article 3) Abolition of the death penalty (Protocol 6, Article 1).

    There is no entitlement to abuse rights to destroy, or unnecessarily limit the rights of others (Article 17). Note: Rights are referred to by reference to the Articles in the European Convention on Human Rights. Source: EHRC (2009: 23).

    European Convention on Human Rights


    At the regional level, the UK signed up to the European Convention on Human Rights in 1951. The Convention, which UK lawyers and civil servants helped to draft, was agreed after the Second World War by the Council of Europe.5 The Convention is enforced by the ECtHR based in Strasbourg. The Convention is divided into articles, with Articles 2 to 14 setting out the human rights that are protected by the Convention. The Convention mainly deals with civil and political rights, although it should be noted that the interpretation of the rights reflects societal changes (see below regarding living instrument aspect of the Convention). There are also supplementary protocols that have been agreed by the Council of Europe which states can sign up to. The UK is a party to a number of the protocols that guarantee additional rights (these include Protocols 1, 3 and 6).

    Positive obligations
    The Convention is continually being interpreted and developed; it is a set of standards which evolve with society, rather than setting out fixed standards which reflect the particular time at which they were enacted.6 Therefore, the Convention can sometimes impose a positive obligation on the state to protect rights, although this may not be explicitly stated in the text, such positive obligations are considered necessary for the effective operation of the right. An example of a positive obligation is the duty to take reasonable steps to protect the right to life, including by putting in place a legal framework

    28

    The underlying legal framework: guidance and clarification

    that protects Convention rights and in certain circumstances, take further steps to ensure those rights are effectively protected. As will be discussed below, the courts have established that such positive obligations exist, for example, in relation to Article 3 (the prohibition of torture), Article 2 (the right to life) and Article 8 (the right to respect for private and family life). Analysing the jurisprudence of the ECtHR, positive obligations may include a duty to: provide a reasonable level of resources to individuals in order to protect a Convention right prevent breaches, this may mean intervening to protect one individual from the actions of another provide information to those whose Convention rights are at risk and respond to breaches of Convention rights.

    The duties of public authorities


    Under Section 6 of the HRA all public authorities must act in a way that is compatible with the ECHR. Public authority is not properly defined in the HRA, but parliament made clear that it was to be broadly interpreted. It includes all central and local government agencies, and includes hospitals, the prison services, and police and social services departments. It also includes courts and tribunals. The notion of public authority was also intended by parliament to extend to private bodies such as companies or charities to the extent that they are carrying out a public function, for example, a private hospital or a care home acting under contract with a local authority. Private individuals, where they are not carrying out a public function, have no responsibility to protect Convention rights under the HRA. However, there is a positive obligation on public authorities to ensure that these rights are protected.

    The devolved context


    The HRA covers the UK, so human rights in Scotland and Wales are protected and promoted by it. In addition to this, the Scotland Act 1998 is an important aspect of legal protection of human rights in Scotland. Prior to the entry into force of the HRA in October 2000, human rights cases in Scotland were brought in respect of the executive acts from 20 May 1999 and in respect of Acts of the Scottish Parliament from 1 July 1999 (Wilson, 2010).

    29

    The underlying legal framework: guidance and clarification

    3.2

    Overview of selected articles of the HRA7

    This section provides an overview of Articles 2, 3 and 8 of the HRA and clarifies the nature and scope of the legal duties that flow from these rights.

    Article 2
    Everyone's right to life shall be protected by law. No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for which this penalty is provided by law. The deprivation of life shall not be regarded as inflicted in contravention of this Article when it results from the use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary: 1) 2) 3) in defence of any person from unlawful violence in order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent the escape of a person lawfully detained in action lawfully taken for the purpose of quelling a riot or insurrection.

    The right to life is considered to be fundamental.8 The ECtHR refers to the substantive and the procedural aspects of Article 2. The substantive aspect of Article 2 deals with the duties on states to secure life, and in turn entails two aspects: a negative duty to refrain from arbitrarily depriving anyone of their life except in the limited circumstances prescribed a positive duty under certain circumstances to take measures to ensure the protection of life.

    The procedural aspect refers to the requirement that states have in place adequate legal and administrative systems to investigate, prosecute and punish those who take life intentionally. This procedural aspect also includes the duty on the state to provide a full and effective investigation into deaths which are within the ambit of Article 2.9 The right to life could be engaged where loss of life is caused or risked by the actions of state officials. If a state official (for example, a police officer, member of the armed forces or prison officer) intentionally takes the life of another person, this will always engage their right to life and any death caused by an agent of the state using force beyond that which is absolutely necessary under the provisions set out in Article 2.2 will amount to a violation. For example, in the McCann case, the ECtHR established that the use of force must be no more than what is absolutely necessary to defend persons from unlawful violence. Article 2 also imposes a requirement for the state to take appropriate measures to safeguard life under certain circumstances. This includes a positive duty to provide a legal regime that effectively protects life and positive duties to take reasonable measures to protect life from certain identifiable threats. For example, Article 2 can impose positive obligations on public authorities to take preventive measures to protect an individual whose life is at risk from the criminal acts of another individual if the authorities have or ought to have knowledge of this risk.10 Public authorities are also under a positive duty to implement measures to protect life where there is a known risk in the detention context 30

    The underlying legal framework: guidance and clarification

    (including where there is a risk from suicide) and to implement protective and safeguarding measures where there is a known risk to life in the context of mental health patients who are detained. The procedural aspect of Article 2 requires effective investigations into the loss of life. Domestic law must, therefore, properly prohibit and punish killings, and unlawful killing must be subject to criminal sanctions. All deaths must be properly investigated and the law must be effectively implemented. Other issues that could potentially engage Article 2 include inadequate protective regulation and, in the healthcare context, negligent healthcare provision and under certain circumstances, the withdrawal of life-saving treatment.

    Article 3
    No one should be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. This is an absolute right which means that the state can never justify interference with this right, not even in the case of national emergency, war or similar. The UK courts have established that dignity is at the core of the rights protected by Article 3 and that dignity is a core value of our society.11 Conduct has to be very serious for it to breach Article 3 and the treatment must attain a minimum level of severity.12 Whether this threshold is met will depend on the circumstances of the case, such as the duration of the treatment, its physical or mental effects and in some cases the sex, age and state of health of the victim.13 Article 3 covers three kinds of treatment: torture, inhuman treatment or punishment, and degrading treatment or punishment. Torture is the most serious kind of ill treatment. The UN Convention Against Torture (CAT) defines it as having three elements: severe pain or suffering which can be either mental or physical, or both intentionally inflicted for the purposes of obtaining information, for punishment or to intimidate or discriminate against the person, and infliction by someone acting in an official capacity without the consent of the victim.

    Inhuman treatment is less severe than torture and has been described as causing severe suffering, whether mental or physical. It could include serious physical assault or prolonged sexual and emotional abuse, particularly in relation to children. Hooding, wall standing, subjection to noise, sleep deprivation and deprivation of food and drink have been found to be inhuman treatment.14 Degrading treatment is conduct that grossly humiliates. It is designed to arouse in the victim feelings of fear, anguish, and inferiority capable of humiliating them and possibly breaking their physical or moral resistance.15 Discrimination based on race may in certain circumstances amount to degrading treatment. 31

    The underlying legal framework: guidance and clarification

    Examples where Article 3 might be engaged include the general conditions of detention, including in the context of prison and juvenile custody; the general conditions of hospitals, residential homes and/or care homes and other institutions16; and the standard of domiciliary care provision. In addition to the duty on the state not to subject individuals to torture, or inhuman or degrading treatment, Article 3 also imposes some positive obligations to prevent individuals from being subjected to such treatment. Under Article 3, where the state knew or ought to have known about the risk of vulnerable people suffering treatment covered by Article 3 at the hands of other private individuals, there is a positive obligation to act, for example, in cases of child abuse.17 Positive duties also prevent the removal of foreign nationals to a country where they are at risk of suffering Article 3 type treatment18 and the destitution of asylum seekers in relation to the level/type/lack of support provided by the state.19

    Article 8
    Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence. 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 or morals or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. Article 8 protects four discrete interests: family life, private life, home and correspondence. It is a qualified right, which means it can be restricted in accordance with the limitation clause set out in the second paragraph of the text. The limitation takes account of the general public interest. To establish a breach of Article 8 it is necessary to show three elements: that there is private life, family life, home or correspondence being enjoyed or potentially being enjoyed but for the interference that there is an interference with the enjoyment of these rights, and that this interference is not in accordance with the law, necessary or proportionate.

    Private life has been interpreted by the ECtHR as a persons physical and psychological integrity.20 It includes at least two elements: 1) the notion of an inner circle in which the individual may live their own personal life as they choose; and 2) the right to establish and develop relationships with other human beings.21 The ECtHR has stressed that the concept of private life is broad and not susceptible to exhaustive definition.22

    32

    The underlying legal framework: guidance and clarification

    Examples of issues that fall within this concept include compulsory medical treatment23 or forcible restraint; personal autonomy and a persons ability to establish and develop relationships with other people24; sexual life and same sex relationships25; personal identity, including name26 and gender27; the holding, use or disclosure of personal information, which includes access to information held by public authorities28 and retention of information and samples by the state, for example, policies governing the retention of DNA samples by criminal justice agencies29; and stop and search police powers.30 Family life is interpreted broadly, in a way which does not allow legally recognised relationships to prevail over biological and social reality31. Family life, therefore, includes marriage and other de facto relationships and is not confined to blood relatives, rather it is a question of fact depending on the real existence of close personal ties.32 Examples of issues that fall within the ambit of family life include being able to develop family relationships and, where a family is split up, the right to ongoing contact subject to the childs interest33; the states responsibility to protect children; and in deportation cases where a person has established or wishes to establish close family ties34, although the UK courts have been reluctant to find that deportation is a violation of Article 8. Home: The ECtHR has held that there is no abstract definition of home. What is important is the intention and attitude of the person to consider the place identified as the home as the place where they live or are settled or intend such.35 The ECtHR has frequently established that the right protected by Article 8 is the right to respect for ones existing home and not a right to be provided with housing accommodation or better accommodation than is provided. Examples of issues that fall within the ambit of home include Gypsy and Traveller caravan sites36 and closures of care homes or hospital wards.37 Correspondence has been interpreted widely to cover personal communications such as letters and telephone calls.38

    Positive obligations
    Article 8 includes positive obligations to act in order to protect individuals rights as well as negative obligations which require the state to refrain from taking certain action which interferes with the rights protected under Article 8.39 Examples where positive obligations have been imposed include: Ensuring there are adequate legal remedies, including addressing barriers to access justice: X and Y v the Netherlands no. 8978/80 [1985] ECHR involved a failure by the state to prosecute a rape case. The law required the victim to make a complaint but in this case the victim was unable to do so because of her mental disability. The ECtHR, finding a violation of Article 8, established that states had a positive obligation to prosecute the perpetrator in cases involving abuse and the availability of civil remedies (for example, damages) was not sufficient to protect Article 8 rights.

    33

    The underlying legal framework: guidance and clarification

    Providing support to disabled parents in order to maintain their right to a family life: Kutzner v Germany no. 46544/99 [2002] ECHR the applicants two young children had been removed from their care because it was alleged that the parents impaired mental development rendered them incapable of bringing up their children. There was no suggestion of any neglect or ill treatment. The children were separated from each other and eventually fostered. For the first six months they had no contact with their parents and thereafter it was restricted to one hour on a monthly basis. The ECtHR found a violation of the right to a family life, referring to the states positive obligations to take measures to facilitate the familys reunion as soon as possible. These measures also included the provision of additional educational and other measures to support the family. Providing care arrangements for older and disabled people that respect Article 8. For example, in R (Bernard) v London Borough of Enfield [2002] EWHC 2287 (Admin) the UK courts held that the borough council had a duty to provide assistance to a disabled woman so that she could maintain basic physical and psychological integrity.

    3.3

    Other human rights treaties and instruments covered by the HRMF

    In addition to the HRA, the HRMF covers other regional and international human rights treaties and instruments that the UK has signed and ratified. In using and interpreting the HRMF, it is particularly important to make an appropriate distinction between the legal status of human rights that are codified in the HRA and that have an explicit basis in domestic law (and which can be directly enforced in UK courts) and regional and international treaties that do not have an explicit basis in domestic law. Further details of these are provided below and in Appendix 1.

    International human rights treaties


    The UK has also signed and ratified a number of international human rights treaties such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), the ICESCR and the CRC. International human rights treaties that are not incorporated into domestic law cannot be directly enforced through the UK courts. As highlighted above, it is therefore critical, in using and interpreting the HRMF, to maintain an appropriate distinction between the legal status of those human rights that have an explicit basis in domestic law through the HRA, and human rights that are incorporated into international treaties and cannot be directly enforced by UK courts. Nevertheless, by signing and ratifying international human rights treaties, the UK has indicated its commitment to fulfil the obligations that flow from these instruments under international law. The fulfilment of international treaty obligations in the field of human rights is monitored by international committees such as the UN Human Rights Committee, the United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (UNCESCR) and the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC). These monitoring committees undertake standard setting in relation to their remits and evaluate countries performance on a periodic basis. The UK submits periodic reports to the monitoring committee and the committees evaluation of the UKs performance in relation to the fulfilment of its obligations is set out in concluding observations. Some of the treaties are supplemented by optional protocols dealing with specific concerns which states can elect to sign up to. For example, the UK is a party to 34

    The underlying legal framework: guidance and clarification

    the individual complaints procedure under the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) and has also signed the optional protocol to the Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities. Figures 7 and 8 provide further details of the core international human rights treaties that the UK is (and is not) signed up to and the bodies that monitor the UKs performance in complying with the obligations that flow from these treaties. Additional information is also provided in Appendix 1. Figure 7: Core international human rights treaties
    ICERD ICCPR ICESCR CEDAW CAT CRC ICRMW Date International Convention on the Elimination of All 21 December 1965 Forms of Racial Discrimination International Covenant on Civil and Political 16 December 1966 Rights International Covenant on Economic, Social and 16 December 1966 Cultural Rights Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of 18 December 1979 Discrimination against Women Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, 10 December 1984 Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment Convention on the Rights of the Child 20 November 1989 International Convention on the Protection of the 18 December 1990 Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Optional Protocol of the Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, aiming at the abolition of the death penalty Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women Optional protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the involvement of children in armed conflict Optional protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities 20 December 2006 13 December 2006 10 December 2008 16 December 1966 15 December 1989 CRPD CESCR HRC HRC Monitoring body CERD CCPR CESCR CEDAW CAT CRC CMW

    CRPD ICESCR-OP ICCPR-OP1 ICCPR-OP2

    OP-CEDAW OP-CRC-AC

    10 December 1999 25 May 2000

    CEDAW CRC

    OP-CRC-SC

    25 May 2000

    CRC

    OP-CAT

    18 December 2002

    CAT

    OP-CRPD

    12 December 2006

    CRPD

    35

    The underlying legal framework: guidance and clarification

    Figure 8: UN human rights treaties to which the UK is a party40


    Treaty CERD CCPR CERD Article 14 Optional Protocol Second Protocol ICESCR Optional Protocol CAT CAT Article 22 OPCAT CEDAW CEDAW Optional Protocol CRC CRC Optional Protocol on Armed Conflict CMW CRPD CRPD Optional Protocol CPPED Status of UK (Yes=1, No=0) 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0

    Notes: The Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and its Protocol entered into force on 3 May 2008. The Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance is not yet into force.

    International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights


    The HRMF draws in particular on the ICESCR. Three of the HRMF panels cover human rights that are codified in this instrument: The Right to the Highest Standard of Physical and Mental Health (Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), Article 25; ICESCR, Article 12) The Right to Education (UDHR, Article 26; ICESCR, Articles 13 and 14, CRC, Article 28; HRA, Protocol 1 Article 2)41 The Right to an Adequate Standard of Living (CRC, Article 27; ICESCR, Article 11)

    The ICESCR emerged out of the UDHR, alongside a similar treaty for civil and political rights (ICCPR) to imbue the rights established in the UDHR with binding obligations on states. It opened for signatures in 1966, with the two covenants coming into force in 1976. It has been repeatedly recognised and reaffirmed by the UN and its member states that the rights outlined in these two treaties are equal, interdependent and indivisible. The UK was one of the earlier signatories of the ICESCR in 1968 and is obligated to ensure domestic legislation and measures are compatible with its obligations under this treaty. The UK is required to make regular reports to the treatys monitoring committee on

    36

    The underlying legal framework: guidance and clarification

    compliance with its obligations and progress towards the realisation of the rights set out in the Covenant. The monitoring committee consists of independent experts, who raise concerns or recommendations to states through the concluding observations of their reports on a states progress towards the realisation of the rights in the treaty as well as producing general comments which explain in greater detail how these rights are to be understood and realised. The optional protocol to this treaty which would allow individuals to make direct complaints to the committee was adopted unanimously by the UN General Assembly in 2008 but has not yet entered into force, and the UK has yet to sign up to it. The UK has bound itself to this treaty under international law opening itself up to observations and potential criticisms from the monitoring committee, and shadow reports from NGOs or others highlighting areas of concern. However, the ICESCR is not directly incorporated in UK law, meaning that the rights enshrined within the treaty are not directly legally enforceable within UK law.

    European regional arrangements


    The Council of Europe, based in Strasbourg, has 47 member countries and was founded on 5 May 1949. It seeks to develop common and democratic principles throughout Europe based on the Convention and other reference texts on the protection of individuals. Among the core Council of Europe human rights treaties to which the UK is a party are the: European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms European Social Charter European Convention for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings.

    Further details are provided in Appendix 1.

    37

    The underlying legal framework: guidance and clarification

    Chapter notes
    4

    7 8

    9 10 11 12 13

    14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

    23 24

    25

    The rights which are not included are those in Articles 1 and 13 which deal with access to an effective remedy for all those within the countrys jurisdiction. The Government decided not to include these in the HRA as it considered that the HRA itself was the effective remedy accessible to all in the UK. The Council of Europe was set up to safeguard and defend human rights, democracy and the rule of law across its 47 member states. It should not be confused with the European Union, although signing up to the European Convention is a pre-condition of European Union membership. The Council of Europe spans the European continent and includes countries such as Russia, Turkey and the Ukraine. For example, the American Bill of Rights enshrines principles of equality; however, at the time of enactment gender equality had not been recognised or envisaged as part of the text, but subsequent application reflects the changing nature of society. The subsection under Article 2 draws on Gerry (2011). McCann v UK [GC] no. 18984/91 [1995] ECHR, para 147: ...as a provision which not only safeguards the right to life but sets out the circumstances when deprivation of life may be justified, Article 2 ranks as one of the most fundamental provisions in the Convention... one which, in peacetime, admits no derogation under Article 15. Together with Article 3, it also enshrines one of the basic values of democratic societies making up the Council of Europe. McCann v UK [GC] no. 18984/91 [1995] ECHR. Osman v UK [GC] no. 23452/94 [1998] ECHR. R v East Sussex County Council Ex parte A, B, X and Y [2003] EWHC 167 (Admin) (DRC Intervener). Ireland v UK no. 5310/71 [1978] ECHR. Costello-Roberts v UK no. 13134/87 [1993] ECHR, para 30: Factors such as the nature and context of the punishment [or treatment], the manner and method of its execution, its duration, its physical and mental effects, and in some instances, the sex, age, and state of health of the victim must all be taken into account. Ireland v UK no. 5310/71 [1978] ECHR. Tyrer v UK no. 5856/72 [1978] ECHR. R v East Sussex County Council Ex parte A, B, X and Y [2003] EWHC 167 (Admin) (DRC Intervener); B v UK no. 9480//82 [1987] ECHR. Z and others v UK (GC) no. 29392/95 [2001] ECHR. Chahal v UK (GC) no. 22414/93 [1996] ECHR. R v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Limbuela [2005] UKHL 66. Botta v Italy no. 21439/93 [1998] ECHR. See, for example, Connors v UK no. 66746/01 [2004] ECHR and Niemietz v Germany no. 13710/88 [1992] ECHR. Pretty v UK no. 2346/02 [2002] ECHR, para 61-62: It covers the physical and psychological integrity of a person. It can sometimes embrace aspects of an individuals physical and social identity. Elements such as, for example, gender identification, name and sexual orientation and sexual life fall within the personal sphere protected by Article 8. Article 8 also protects a right to personal development, and the right to establish and develop relationships with other human beings and the outside worldthe Court considers that the notion of personal autonomy is an important principle underlying the interpretation of its guarantees. See, for example, YF v Turkey no. 24209/94 [2003] ECHR and Glass v UK no. 61827/00 [2004] ECHR. Bruggerman & Scheuten v Germany no. 6959/75 [1977] EHRR 244 para 55: private life also secures to the individual a sphere in which he or she can freely pursue the development and fulfilment of his or her own personality. Dudgeon v UK no. 7525/76 [1983] ECHR: private life was held to include sexual life and laws which criminalised sexual activity between men is an interference with private life under Article 8.

    38

    The underlying legal framework: guidance and clarification

    26 27 28

    29

    30

    31 32 33

    34 35 36 37

    38 39

    40 41

    Burghartz v Switzerland no. 16213/90 [1992] ECHR: legal restrictions on the names people can adopt engage Article 8. Goodwin v UK (GC) no. 28957/95 [2002] ECHR: national laws which discriminate against transsexual people engage Article 8. Gaskin v UK no. 10454/83 [1989] ECHR: access to social work files where this is necessary for the person to know about their early childhood. Odievre v France no. 42326/09 [2003] ECHR: access to information for adopted children about their biological parents. S & Marper v UK (GC) nos. 30562/04 and 30566/04 [2008] ECHR: the policy of blanket DNA and fingerprint retention for all people suspected of committing criminal acts breached the right to private life. Gillan and Quinton v UK no. 4158/05 [2010] ECHR: stop and search powers under Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 breach the right to respect for private life because the power is so broad that it fails to provide safeguards against abuse. Kroon v the Netherlands no. 18535/91 [1994] ECHR, para 40. Marckx v Belgium no. 6833/74 [1979] ECHR. Whitear v UK [1997] EHRLR 291: the interests of the child may require a parents access to be restricted. Johansen v Norway no. 17383/90 [1996] ECHR: particular weight should be attached to the best interests of the child and that, depending on the seriousness of the issues, these may override those of the parent. In particular, the parent cannot be entitled to have such measures taken as would harm the childs health and development. Cliliz v The Netherlands no. 29192/95 [2000] ECHR. Buckley v UK no. 20348/92 [1995] ECHR. Buckley v UK no. 20348/92 [1995] ECHR; Connors v UK no. 66746/01 [2004] ECHR. Coughlan & Ors v North & East Devon Health Authority [1999] EWCA Civ 1871: the health authority attempted to move a disabled woman from her specialist NHS unit where she had lived for six years. Taking into account all the circumstances, including the health authoritys desire to close the facility for budgetary reasons, the court considered that depriving somebody of her home without providing accommodation to meet her needs amounted to a breach of Article 8. It also considered that the authority had previously promised the applicant that she could remain there for life. Klass v Germany no. 5029/71 [1977] ECHR. X and Y v the Netherlands no. 8978/80 [1985] ECHR, para 23: although the object of Article 8 is essentially that of protecting the individual against arbitrary interference by the public authorities, it does not merely compel the State to abstain from such interference; in additional to this primarily negative undertaking, there may be positive obligations inherent in an effective respect for private and family life. These obligations may involve the adoption of measures designed to secure respect for private life even in the sphere of relations of individuals between themselves. As of 25 February 2010. Source: www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/treaty/index.htm (accessed 26 February 2010). The right to education is also set out in the ECHR Protocol 1 Article 2 and is incorporated into domestic law in the HRA. This is a more limited right than the broader right to education derived from the ICESCR.

    39

    Using and interpreting the Human Rights Measurement Framework: guidance and clarification

    Using and interpreting the Human Rights Measurement Framework: guidance and clarification

    This chapter is essential reading prior to using the Human Rights Measurement Framework (HRMF) and provides guidance on interpreting the HRMF indicators and evidence base. Section 4.1 sets out the nature and scope of the HRMF evidence base and highlights the need for appropriate analysis and interpretation; Section 4.2 provides further guidance on the use and interpretation of the quantitative indicators within the HRMF; Section 4.3 provides further guidance on the use and interpretation of the qualitative indicators within the HRMF; Section 4.4 provides a worked example of one of the HRMF indicator dashboards (focusing on the right to life).

    4.1

    What is being measured/monitored?

    As discussed in Section 1.3, the HRMF evidence base brings together different types information for human rights analysis and assessments including: information about domestic human rights law and treaty ratifications information about human rights case law outcomes(i.e. violations/breaches) information about the regulatory and public policy framework that protects human rights concerns highlighted by domestic and international human rights monitoring bodies (for example, the Joint Committee on Human Rights (JCHR) and United Nations treaty monitoring committees) findings of investigations, inquiries and reviews issues raised by regulators, inspectorates and ombudsmen allegations and concerns raised by Non-Government Organisations (NGOs) and other civil society mechanisms such as media reports statistical information drawing on a wide range of administrative and social survey sources.

    It is critical to understand that the HRMF is not intended as a violations counting system. Many of the indicators go beyond the concept of legal enforcement, violations and minimum compliance. They aim to provide evidence of the incorporation of human rights standards into broader public policy and of the emergence of a so-called culture of respect for human rights. Proactive public policy measures as well as broader societal developments can help to reduce the risks of legal breaches of human rights and may ultimately reduce the need for legal enforcement activities and case law. A key aim of the HRMF is to capture and convey evidence about broader progress of this type.

    40

    Using and interpreting the Human Rights Measurement Framework: guidance and clarification

    When using and interpreting the HRMF, attention should be given to interpreting the different types of information and evidence that are covered in the HRMF indicators and evidence base. Particular care should be taken to distinguish between those rights that are domestically enforceable through the Human Rights Act (HRA), and other rights which are set out in the various regional and international human rights instruments that the UK has signed up to. Further, whilst some of the indictors in the HRMF provide direct evidence on breaches and violations (for example, case law outcomes) other elements of the HRMF evidence base provide more general information about overall patterns and trends as well as background and contextual information on the broader picture in relation to which a human rights concern is being raised. It is critical that both the qualitative and quantitative indicators within the HRMF are appropriately interpreted in line with the guidance in this chapter.

    4.2

    Interpreting the qualitative information within the HRMF

    The different types of information that are included within the HRMF evidence base are listed in Section 4.1. This section now runs through the different types of qualitative information within the HRMF evidence base. The intention is to provide further clarification and guidance on use and interpretation. Information about domestic human rights law and treaty ratifications Indicator 1 under each of the HRMF panels provides information about domestic human rights law and treaty ratifications. In using and interpreting the HRMF, particular care should be taken to distinguish between those rights that are domestically enforceable through the HRA, and other rights which are set out in the various regional and international human rights instruments that the UK has signed up to. Information about human rights case law outcomes (breaches) It is critical to understand that only two of the indicators in the dashboard for each right capture and convey information about case law: Information about the principles established in case law is reflected in each of the HRMF panels under the second indicator Information about legal outcomes (i.e. specific information about violations/breaches) is reflected within each HRMF panel under the fifth indicator.

    Consider the second HRMF panel which covers the prohibition on torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment(HRA, Article 3). The second indicator captures the case law principles that are relevant under this panel. For example, the evidence base under the second indicator includes the principles established in the Chahal case (where the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) found that Article 3 prevents expulsion of an individual to a country where there are substantial grounds for believing that they might be tortured or where there might be inadequate protection against persecution). The fifth indicator captures the outcomes of key cases that are relevant under this panel. For example, the evidence base under the fifth indicator includes the finding of a violation/ breach of Article 3 in the Chahal case. 41

    Using and interpreting the Human Rights Measurement Framework: guidance and clarification

    Information about regulatory and public policy frameworks


    The HRMF also provides information about regulatory and public policy frameworks that protect human rights. This includes primary law, policies, codes and guidelines and information about key regulators, inspectorates and ombudsmen as well as their key powers and responsibilities. For example, HM Inspectorate of Prisons (HMIP) for England and Wales provides independent scrutiny of the conditions for and treatment of prisoners and other detainees including those young offender institutions and immigration detention facilities. HMIPs work constitutes an important part of the UKs obligations under the Optional Protocol to the United Nations Convention against Torture and Inhuman and Degrading Treatment (including having in place regular independent inspection of places of custody). This responsibility is captured under the HRMF panels covering the right to life (HRA, Article 2) and the prohibition on torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (HRA, Article 3).

    Information about concerns raised by national and international human rights monitoring bodies
    Some of the evidence reported in the HRMF whilst not focusing on case law nevertheless captures and conveys concerns and issues highlighted by authoritative national and international human rights bodies. For example, the HRMF panel covering the prohibition on torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment includes the findings of the JCHR relating to allegations of UK complicity in torture; concerns raised by the Equality and Human Rights Commission (the Commission) concerning torture guidelines; and findings by the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) relating to secret detention and rendition. The panels covering the right to liberty and security of the person (HRA, Article 5) and the right to a fair trial (HRA, Article 6) include findings of the JCHR relating to pre-charge detention, secret evidence and control orders; findings of United Nations special rapporteurs relating to secret detention; and findings of the JCHR and the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) relating to the detention of children and the use of Anti-Social Behaviour Orders (ASBOs). The panel covering the right to liberty and security of the person also includes research findings of the Commission relating to stop and search.

    The findings of investigations, inquiries and reviews


    The findings of investigations, inquiries and reviews are another key HRMF source. Examples for the HRMF panel covering the prohibition on torture and on inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment include the Independent Inquiry into UK Involvement with Detainees in Overseas Counter-terrorism Operations; and findings of the Stern Review relating to how rape complaints are dealt with by public authorities in England and Wales. Findings under the panel covering the right to liberty and security of the person include findings of the Governments Independent Review of Counter-Terrorism. Findings under the panel covering the right to respect for private and family life (HRA, Article 8) include the findings of the Home Affairs Select Committee relating to surveillance.

    42

    Using and interpreting the Human Rights Measurement Framework: guidance and clarification

    Findings of regulators, inspectorates and ombudsmen


    The HRMF evidence base includes where appropriate findings of regulators, inspectorates and ombudsmen. Examples for the HRMF panel covering the prohibition on torture and on inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment include the findings of the National Council for Independent Monitoring Boards on Slopping Out; findings of the National Preventative Mechanism relating to detainees with mental health problems (including the use of restraint); and findings of the Commission for Social Care Inspection on the use of restraint in elderly care services. Examples for other panels include findings of HMIP Youth Justice Board concerning a worsening of the disproportionate representation of black and minority ethnic (BME) young people in custody (the panel covering liberty and security of the person, HRA, Article 5); findings of the Information Commissioners Office relating to the use of personal information (the panel covering the right to respect for private and family life, HRA, Article 8); and the Care Quality Commission inspection findings examining whether elderly people receive essential standards of care, including whether they are treated with dignity and respect, and whether those that need help receive support with eating (the panel covering the right to the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health, Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), Article 25; International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), Article 12). In some cases the criteria and frameworks adopted by regulators and inspectorates may correspond to legally enforceable human rights and to specific international human rights standards. For example, case law has emerged in relation to the practices of slopping out in prisons (see case law outcomes under the panel covering the prohibition on torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, HRA, Article 3); the National Preventative Mechanism reflects the standards that the UK has signed up to under the Convention Against Torture (CAT); and both HMIP England and Wales, and HMIP Scotland, explicitly link their inspection criteria to both domestic human rights law (i.e. the HRA) and to international human rights standards (for example, the provisions of the CAT). Other inspectorates and regulators are also increasingly adopting this approach. For example, as discussed above the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) provides a mechanism for discharging the positive duty to investigate deaths under Article 2 of the HRA and has undertaken a series of recent investigations relating to failure to protect for example in relation to homicide, domestic violence and anti-social behaviour. The Care Quality Commission has a Formal Memorandum of Understanding with the Commission that aims to ensure adequate regulation and inspection on equality and human rights in the health and social care context. At the same time, it is imperative to understand that the HRMF evidence base draws on the work of regulators and inspectorates using their own criteria and frameworks. It is, therefore, critical that care is taken when using and interpreting the HRMF to maintain an appropriate distinction between the criteria and frameworks adopted by regulators and inspectorates on the one hand, and the breach of a legally enforceable human right on the other.

    43

    Using and interpreting the Human Rights Measurement Framework: guidance and clarification

    NGO and media reports and allegations


    The HRMF also includes NGO and media reports. Participants in the HRMF Specialist Consultation argued that it is imperative to include NGO data within the HRMF since it would be wrong, in principle, to rely on official information and a states version of events in the context of independent human rights monitoring and reporting. Building on this approach, Panel 3 includes evidence and analysis by Liberty on terrorism and pre-charge detention and evidence from Amnesty International on rendition and secret detention. Media reports of human rights violations are also admissible within the HRMF, such as the media allegations of torture reported in the evidence base under the panel covering the prohibition on torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (HRA, Article 3).We have only included information within the HRMF that we believe to be from a reliable and credible source. Nevertheless, it is essential that when using and interpreting the HRMF evidence base appropriate consideration is given to issues of quality and the different types of sources on which the HRMF draws.

    4.3

    Interpreting the quantitative information within the HRMF

    The HRMF evidence base also includes statistical information drawn from a broad range of social survey and administrative sources. Statistical information of this type can play a number of different roles in human rights analysis and assessments, for example, by: providing direct information on human rights violations and prima facie evidence of human rights violations/deficiencies providing information about overall patterns and variations and evidence of the vulnerability/risks of different individuals and groups and of possible gaps and/or weaknesses in protection providing information about the outcomes of relevant regulatory and inspection processes (for example, routine statistical monitoring of the number of deaths in custody and/or following police contact) and of other relevant monitoring excises providing relevant contextual and background information (for example, general population data on the prison population, on stop and search by ethnicity and data on public attitudes/understanding of human rights) meeting the data requests of international human rights bodies that monitor the implementation of international human rights treaties that the UK is signed up to (such as the UN Human Rights Committee, the United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (UNCESCR) and the UNCRC).

    As with the qualitative indicators in the HRMF, important health warnings apply to the interpretation of the HRMF quantitative indicators. All of the statistical evidence presented in this report should be carefully interpreted and used in line with definitions, terminology, interpretations and guidance set out by the original data providers, including guidance on the limitations and quality of the data, and in line with disclosure policy and rules. We have included as much supplementary information as possible in footnotes together with references to the original source of the data. However, readers and users of the HRMF 44

    Using and interpreting the Human Rights Measurement Framework: guidance and clarification

    requiring further clarification on the interpretation of data are strongly advised to check whether the original source of the data includes a commentary and/or further guidance, or to follow up with the original data providers. The status of the statistical evidence also requires careful examination and interpretation in the light of standard statistical methods and evidential thresholds (for example, for establishing improvements and retrogression over time and variations by population subgroup using standard tests for statistical significance).An example of the need for careful analysis applying standard methods of statistical analysis is given in Figure 9. It is also important to understand that the statistics presented in this report are potentially of varying quality. Only some of the official statistics that are included have achieved national statistics classification. Some of the administrative statistics might be subject to variations in recording and coding whilst others might be based on small numbers. We have included as much information as possible about the statistics that are included within the HRMF in footnotes. However, in some cases it may be necessary to consult original data sources or other relevant sources in order to resolve questions about quality and interpretation that may arise.

    Official administrative and social survey data sources


    Some of the HRMF indicators draw on official administrative and social survey data sources. Statistical evidence of this type can often add to human rights analysis by helping to identify overall trends and patterns, highlighting which individuals and groups may be particularly vulnerable, identifying risks of a specific breach of human rights, as ultimately determined by the courts, pointing towards gaps in protection and so forth. Administrative statistics can also be important for the purposes of monitoring and, in some cases, general population statistics can also help to shed light on the issue of disproportionality. However, it is imperative not to over-interpret the statistical evidence that is included within the HRMF and to maintain a clear and appropriate distinction between statistical analysis on the one hand and legal analysis on the other.

    Administrative statistics generated from specific monitoring exercises


    The evidence base under the first HRMF panel covering the right to life (HRA, Article 2) includes statistical data on deaths in custody in the police and criminal justice context. Routine statistical monitoring is undertaken by relevant inspectorates in this area including routine monitoring of deaths in police custody which are published on an annual basis by the IPCC. Data of this type is useful for human rights monitoring purposes and has therefore been included within the HRMF evidence base. Similarly, the evidence base under the panel covering the prohibition on torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (HRA, Article 3) includes data derived from routine statistical monitoring of complaints to the police by category. Again, this data is included because it is useful for monitoring purposes.

    45

    Using and interpreting the Human Rights Measurement Framework: guidance and clarification

    Specialist social surveys run by regulators and inspectorates


    Some of the quantitative indicators draw on the specialist social surveys run by regulators and inspectorates. For example, information on the conditions and treatment in prisons, secure units and asylum and immigration centres are included in the HRMF indicator set under the panels covering the prohibition on torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (HRA, Article 3) and the right to respect for private and family life (HRA, Article 8), based on the specialist surveys conducted by HMIP. Similarly, quantitative indicators of compliance with the Care Quality Commissions essential standards framework, including statistics generated through specialist patient surveys, such as treatment with dignity and respect and support for nutritional needs during hospital stays, are included under the panel covering the right to the highest attainable standards of physical and mental health (UDHR, Article 25; ICESCR, Article 12). These statistics are again based on the inspection criteria adopted by the individual inspectorates, and should be used and interpreted in the light of the comments above.

    General population surveys


    The HRMF also draws on a range of other social surveys including general population surveys and user surveys. For example, the panel covering the prohibition on torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (HRA, Article 3) includes general population survey information on the prevalence of domestic violence derived from the British Crime Survey self-completion module together with administrative statistics on the number of instances reported to the police, the number of investigations carried out by the police, the number of cases going to court, and the outcomes of these cases. This information is particularly helpful in evaluating the implementation of Article 3 (including the positive duty to protect individuals from violations by third parties) and can usefully supplement case law analysis (for example, the findings in the Opuz v Turkey case) as well as the findings of investigations (for example, investigations into the failure to protect life conducted by the IPCC) by helping to identify overall trends and patterns in domestic violence, highlighting which individuals and groups may be particularly vulnerable and pointing towards gaps in protection. Nevertheless, it is imperative to maintain a clear and appropriate distinction between the statistical analysis of these overall trends and gaps, and the analysis of a legal violation of a human right, established through an appropriate judicial process given the specific facts of a case.

    46

    Using and interpreting the Human Rights Measurement Framework: guidance and clarification

    Figure 9: The need for careful analysis and interpretation of quantitative evidence using standard statistical methods: Illustration drawing on Office for National Statistics (ONS) deaths by place data The Right to Life (HRA, Article 2) (Indicator 7, Tables 30 and 31) provides data showing the number of deaths and age-standardised rate per 1 million population from c. difficile, dehydration, falls, MRSA, pressure sores and septicaemia, by place of death with separate reporting of hospitals and care homes, England and Wales, 1997-2009 where: (a) the cause specified was the underlying cause of death; (b) the cause specified was mentioned on the death certificate. This data represents an important new development in data collection and the ways in which deaths are monitored and investigated and has been included as a complement to qualitative evidence within the HRMF that raises questions about the treatment of older people in hospitals and care homes. However, the interpretation of this data is not straightforward. The data provides information about general trends and overall patterns in deaths by place rather than fact based information about any particular case (ONS, 2011b) and emphasise that the figures should be interpreted with caution for a number of reasons. First, in order to understand patterns and trends it is necessary to look at data series covering cases where: (a) a specified cause (for example, dehydration, malnutrition, c. difficile, MRSA) is recorded as the underlying cause of death; (b) the specified cause was mentioned anywhere on the death certificate (either as the underlying cause or as a contributory factor). This is because in many cases involving dehydration, malnutrition, c. difficile and MRSA many of the deaths will be people who already have a serious illness, and it is this illness that is recorded as the underlying cause of death. Second, the data does not provide enough evidence to support any conclusion about the quality of care within an establishment. For example, in relation to the data on deaths caused by malnutrition, the data does not establish what caused the malnutrition. There are of course many explanations as to why someone becomes malnourished: for example they may have cancer of the digestive tract, which means they cannot eat properly or cannot absorb nutrients; they may have suffered from a stroke or have advanced dementia which can cause difficulties chewing and swallowing; or they may abuse alcohol and so not eat properly. The deceased may also have been malnourished before they went into the establishment or have been in the establishment for a very short time, and the malnutrition may have also have nothing to do with not being fed properly. Continued

    47

    Using and interpreting the Human Rights Measurement Framework: guidance and clarification

    Figure 9: The need for careful analysis and interpretation of quantitative evidence using standard statistical methods: Illustration drawing on Office for National Statistics (ONS) deaths by place data (continued) Third, some of the deceased may have had several of the specified conditions. For example, an older woman with osteoporosis has fallen down and fractured her hip. Whilst in hospital she develops an infection, which leads to septicaemia and she is treated with antibiotics. She then develops c. difficile and dies. The underlying cause of death would probably be the osteoporosis, but septicaemia and c. difficile would also be mentioned on the death certificate. So this woman would appear in three columns of Table 31. It is therefore not possible to add up the numbers of deaths from different conditions in Table 31 in order to obtain a total number of deaths from all six causes, because this could count the same death several times. Fourth, evaluation of trends requires the analysis of confidence intervals which are the standard evidential threshold used in statistics to determine whether a trend has increased or decreased significantly over time. For example, if we look at deaths from pressure sores in hospitals in Table 30, the numbers increased from 500 deaths in 1997 to 604 deaths in 2009, whilst the rates increased slightly from 6.1 to 6.4 deaths per million population. However, calculations based on small numbers of events are often subject to random fluctuations, and in order to make statements about trends it is necessary to analyse the confidence interval. In 1997 we can say that we are fairly sure that the rate was between 5.6 and 6.7; and in 2009 it was between 5.9 and 6.9. Because these two confidence intervals overlap (i.e. 5.9 is lower than 6.7) we cannot definitely say that the mortality rate was significantly higher in 2009 compared with 1997 even though the numbers look slightly higher. In contrast, Table 31 provides data on deaths where dehydration was mentioned anywhere on the death certificate by place. In care homes, the numbers increased from 65 in 2001 to 125 in 2009, whilst the rates increased from 0.7 to 1.1 deaths per million population. Taking account of the information provided by the confidence intervals we can be fairly sure that the rate in care homes was between 0.5 and 0.8 deaths per million population in 2001 and between 0.9 and 1.3 deaths per million population in 2009. Since the confidence intervals do not overlap we can legitimately conclude that the increase in this rate over time is significant in a statistical sense. In hospitals, the number of deaths increased from 587 in 2001 to 816 in 2009, whilst the rates increased from 6.5 to 7.8 deaths per million population. Given the confidence intervals we can be fairly sure that the rate was between 5.9 and 7.0 deaths per million population in 2001 and was between 7.3 and 8.4 deaths per million population in 2009. The confidence intervals do not overlap and again, we can legitimately conclude that the increase in this rate over time is significant. Source: Based on ONS (2011b).

    48

    Using and interpreting the Human Rights Measurement Framework: guidance and clarification

    Disaggregation and separate identification of the position of at risk and vulnerable groups
    Wherever possible, administrative and social survey statistics have been systematically disaggregated by characteristics such as age, gender, disability, religion and belief, race/ethnicity, sexual orientation, transgender status and social class. In addition, particular emphasis has also been put in the HRMF on identifying and bringing together administrative and social survey data sources that support separate monitoring of at risk/ vulnerable groups, such as conditions of detention for prisoners under the panels covering the prohibition on torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (HRA, Article 3) and the right to respect for private and family life (HRA, Article 8); the number of asylum seekers and refugees who enter and leave detention under the panel covering the right to liberty and security of the person (HRA, Article 5); educational gaps for looked after children (included in the evidence base under the right to education (UDHR, Article 26, ; ICESCR, Articles 13 and 14; CRC, Article 28 and Article 29; HRA, Protocol 1 Article 2); and the numbers of children in need whose primary care need is recorded as low income (included in the evidence base under the panel covering the right to an adequate standard of living, UNCRC, Article 27; ICESCR, Article 11). However, even where a range of demographic variables are recorded and at risk/vulnerable groups are separately identified, the potential for both systematic disaggregation and for separating monitoring for at risk/vulnerable groups is limited by sample size and other factors such as the need to maintain anonymity, privacy and disclosure. For further discussion in relation to sample size, see Alkire et al. (2009). In relation to anonymity, privacy and disclosure, we have, generally speaking, been guided by the guidelines and policies set out by data providers.

    4.4

    Worked example: The right to life (HRA, Article 2)

    Figure 10 provides details of the indicator dashboard that has been developed and agreed for the right to life. This will now be used to illustrate how the HRMF indicator dashboards work.

    49

    Figure 10: Illustrative HRMF panel: the right to life42


    Other action/inaction by the state, its agents or bodies fulfilling a public function Noninstitutional context Institutional context (covers prisons, police stations, secure units, detention centres, schools, health and social care settings, etc.)

    Protection of the right to life by the state, its agents or bodies fulfilling a public function

    Use of unlawful/arbitrary force by the state, its agents or bodies fulfilling a public function

    Indicators

    Noninstitutional context

    Institutional context (covers prisons, police stations, secure units, detention centres, schools, health and social care settings, etc.)

    Effective investigation of all deaths covered by Article 2

    Structural

    Indicator 1: Legal and constitutional framework for the protection of the right to life. Evidence base: Protection of the right to life in domestic law (including constitutional/higher law); status of ratification of relevant regional/international treaties. Indicator 2: Legal precedents, gaps and standard-setting. Evidence base: principles established in key cases (domestic and ECHR) and in international standard-setting processes; gaps in legal protection; non-implementation of legal judgements and recommendations.

    Process

    Indicator 3: Regulatory framework for the protection of the right to life. Evidence base: Identification of key regulators, inspectorates, ombudsman/spotlight responsibilities and powers, minimum standards and inspection/complaints-handling criteria. Indicator 4: Public policy framework for the protection of the right to life. Evidence base: Primary law policies, plans, targets and goals; training guidelines, codes; spotlight resource allocations; etc.

    Using and interpreting the Human Rights Measurement Framework: guidance and clarification

    50
    Indicators should be systematically disaggregated

    Outcome

    Indicator 5: Outcomes of key judicial, regulatory and investigative processes. Evidence base: Case law outcomes; concerns raised by human rights monitoring bodies; outcomes of inspection, regulation and complaints procedures; outcomes of investigations, inquiries and reviews; key allegations by civil society organisation/reports in the media. Indicator 6: Spotlight statistics: Deaths in the police/criminal justice system context. Evidence base: Deaths during or following contact with the police (by category of death), within prisons, secure units, court cells, and immigration and asylum centres (covering deaths from natural causes, non-natural causes and self-inflicted deaths) and during transit. Indicator 7: Spotlight statistics: Deaths within health and social care institutions. Evidence base: Hospital Standardised Mortality Ratios (HSMRs); deaths through neglect, malnutrition, dehydration, pressure sores, avoidable/preventable and excess deaths; variations in overall hospital mortality rates. Indicator 8: Spotlight statistics: Protection from third party violations homicide within society, community and families. Evidence base: Homicide rates: by characteristic (age, gender, race/ethnicity, disability, etc.) and by category (with separate reporting of hate crime homicide, religious/racially incited homicide and domestic homicide, etc.). Indicator 9: Spotlight statistics: Premature mortality within families, community and society. Evidence base: Life expectancy and infant mortality rates by ethnicity, social class and area deprivation; maternal mortality rates; child accidental death rate by social class. Indicator 10: Spotlight statistics Public attitudes/experiences. Evidence base: Public attitudes towards, and understanding of, the right to life.

    Using and interpreting the Human Rights Measurement Framework: guidance and clarification

    As Figure 10 suggests, the right to life indicator dashboard includes a balance of structural, process and outcome indicators. This balance ensures that the evidence base under the right to life (HRA, Article 2) Panel incorporates information relating to the formal commitment to the human right in question in principle (through the Human Rights Act and additional regional and international instruments), the steps being taken by duty holders to discharge the obligations that flow from the right to life (for example, primary law, policy and guidance, and regulation, inspection and complaints-handling) and the results achieved in practice (in terms of the position and experiences of individuals and groups).

    The right to life structural indicators


    The right to life indicator dashboard begins with two structural indicators that provide evidence base on the formal commitment to protect and promote the right to life in England, Scotland and Wales. Indicator 1: Legal and constitutional framework Indicator 1 provides information on the formal commitment to the human right to life in principle through codification in domestic law and ratification of international human rights instruments. The HRA incorporates Article 2 of the ECHR and establishes an explicit basis for Article 2 in domestic law. Violations of Article 2 are therefore legally justiciable and the negative and positive duties that flow from Article 2 can be legally enforced through the domestic courts. Indicator 1 also provides information on additional regional and international instruments that the UK has signed up to, such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the International Convention on the Rights of the Child, that protect the right to life. The legal status of these instruments should be understood in the context of the discussion in Chapter 3. For further details of the evidence base under Indicator 1, see Table 1. Indicator 2: Legal precedents, gaps and standard-setting The evidence under Indicator 2 identifies key legal principles that have been applied in judicial processes to determine whether a particular issue or concern meets the threshold for establishing a violation of Article 2 of the HRA. Article 2 establishes a negative obligation on duty holders to refrain from arbitrarily taking life. The evidence base under Indicator 2 includes information on principles that have been applied in determining the nature and scope of violations of this duty. For example, in the McCann case, the ECtHR established that the use of force must be no more than what is absolutely necessary to defend persons from unlawful violence. This principle is included in the evidence base under Indicator 2. For references and further examples, see Table 3. Indicator 2 also provides information on key principles that relate to the positive duty to protect life under Article 2 of the HRA. The Courts have established that Article 2 creates positive duties to protect life, as well as negative duties to refrain from arbitrarily depriving individuals of life and that the failure to undertake positive steps to protect life can meet the threshold necessary to establish a justiciable violation of Article 2. The McCann case is again important here, establishing that the obligation to ensure that everyones life is 51

    Using and interpreting the Human Rights Measurement Framework: guidance and clarification

    protected by law has a procedural aspect whereby the circumstances of a deprivation of life receives public and independent scrutiny. A number of further principles that clarify the nature and scope of this procedural duty under Article 2 have been established through the domestic courts. For example, the principle that there should be an effective public examination by an independent official body into any death occurring in circumstances in which the substantive obligations of Article 2 may have been violated and agents of the state may be implicated; and the principle that a near suicide of a prisoner can trigger an obligation under Article 2 to conduct an investigation which is independent, prompt and involves the next of kin. The positive duties under Article 2 can also require legislative and administrative measures to protect and safeguard life and the courts have established that the failure to undertake such measures can satisfy the threshold for justiciable violations of the right to life. In the Osman case the ECtHR established that the police were under a positive obligation to take reasonable steps to protect life where they knew or ought to have known of a real and immediate risk to life. In the domestic courts, the Savage case clarified the nature and scope of the responsibilities of dutyholders (in this case, an NHS Trust) to implement protective and safeguarding measures where there is a known risk to life in the context of mental health patients who are detained. The case established that for detained patients Article 2 can be breached when duty holders have the requisite knowledge, actual or constructive, of a real and immediate risk to a patients life from self-harm and fail to do all that could reasonably have been expected of them to avoid or prevent that risk. In other key cases, the ECtHR has established that violations of Article 2 can arise in the context of the failure of duty holders to provide effective protection from violations by third parties. For example, Article 2 can be violated in the context of an explosion caused by a build-up of hazardous waste where there was no effective regulation and inspection, and in the context of the failure to protect women from life-threatening domestic violence. For references and further examples, see Table 3. Indicator 2 also provides information on principles that are established in authoritative international standard-setting processes. These principles do not necessarily provide information on issues and concerns under the right to life that satisfy the threshold for legal justiciability under the HRA. However, the UK has signed up to a number of international human rights instruments and the bodies that monitor the implementation of these instruments have set out a number of principles that are relevant for monitoring and reporting on implementation. For example, the UK has signed up to the United Nations Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (UNCCPR) and the implementation of the UNCCPR in the UK is monitored by the United Nations Committee on Civil and Political Rights. The Committees General Comment 6 suggests that the right to life should not be interpreted narrowly but rather as covering such issues as life expectancy and infant mortality. Information about the principle established in this international standard is also included in the evidence base under Indicator 2. For references and further examples, see Table 3.

    52

    Using and interpreting the Human Rights Measurement Framework: guidance and clarification

    In addition, Indicator 2 provides information on gaps in protection under the right to life and information on non-implementation of legal judgements. The right to life is protected in the HRA and in a range of international instruments that the UK is signed up to. The JCHR highlighted in 2007 that there was protection available under UK law for circumstances where there has been a serious breach of the right to life as a result of the gross management failure of a private or public organisation, but no identifiable individual within the organisation can be proved to be responsible for the failure (see Table 5). Relevant new primary legislation is highlighted in Table 9. The UK has not yet signed up to the individual complaints mechanism under the ICCPR First Optional Protocol. On the non-implementation of legal judgements, the JCHR has highlighted the delays in agreeing appropriate implementation measures, in particular in respect of establishing new independent inquiries, in cases relating to the use of force by the security services in Northern Ireland. For references and further examples, see Tables 5 and 6. For further details of the evidence base under Indicator 2, see Tables 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6).

    The right to life process indicators


    The process indicators under the right to life panel provide evidence on the steps being taken by duty holders to fulfil the obligations that flow from the right to life. There are two process indicators under the right to life. Indicator 3: Regulatory framework Indicator 3 provides spotlight information on the key regulators, inspectorates and ombudsmen that have powers and responsibilities relating to the right to life and the investigation/monitoring of deaths. The information here sheds light both on the processes that are available in England, Scotland and Wales for investigating and monitoring deaths in the police and criminal justice context and in other areas such as health and social care, as well as the findings of the bodies that are charged with relevant responsibilities, and the types of monitoring and inspection that are in place. For example, in England and Wales the IPCC investigates deaths in police custody and/ or following police contact and complaints; whilst the Prisons and Probation Ombudsman investigates deaths in prison custody. In the health and social care context, investigations into deaths are undertaken by a range of bodies including health authorities, coroners and others. The Care Quality Commission inspects on essential standards of care that cover patient safety and quality and undertake responsive inspections and investigations relating to deaths, whilst the Health and Social Care Ombudsman undertakes complaints handling including those relating to deaths. Indicator 3 provides a mechanism for highlighting and bringing together spotlight information on the powers and responsibilities of key regulators, inspectorates and ombudsmen in relation to deaths, and for analysing these within a human rights framework.

    53

    Using and interpreting the Human Rights Measurement Framework: guidance and clarification

    The evidence base under Indicator 3 also includes some specific information on the ways in which some of the regulators, inspectorates and ombudsmen relate their own work to domestic and international human rights standards. For example, an IPCC submission to the JCHR notes that IPCC investigations enable the state to comply with the requirement under Article 2 for an effective independent investigation into any alleged breach by the police, and this information is included in the evidence base under Indicator 3. Information is also include on the ways in which HMIP England and Wales, and HMIP Scotland, relate their powers and remits to legally binding human right standards (such as the positive duty to take reasonable measures to prevent suicide in prisons under Article 2) as well as to international standards such as those set out in the CAT. For details of the evidence base under Indicator 3, see Tables 7 and 8. Indicator 4: Public policy framework Indicator 4 provides further information on the steps that are being taken to discharge the obligations that flow from the right to life, including legal, policy and other measures. The evidence based here brings together spotlight information on primary law, policies, plans, targets, goals, training, guidelines, codes and resource allocations. For example, relevant primary law includes the Criminal Law Act 1967 Part 1 Section 3, relating to the use of force in making arrest and legislation that protects individuals and groups from homicide. Policy guidance and training guidelines on the use of lethal force/potentially lethal force and the use of restraint have been issued by a number of bodies, and these are also included in the Indicator 4 evidence base. Examples for the prison and secure training centre context include Prison Services Policy (Prison Service Order (PSO) 1600 Use of Force) and Use of Force Training Manual; PSO 2700 Suicide prevention and selfharm management; PSO 2710 Follow up to deaths in custody; The Secure Training Centre (Amendment) Rules and the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) Physical Control in Care Training Manual. For references and further examples, see Table 10. We have also included identifiable expenditure on social protection as an element of the evidence base under Indicator 4. There were a number of discussions in the HRMF Specialist Consultation regarding the role of resource indicators within the HRMF (for a detailed record, see Appendix 4). Whilst some participants highlighted the possible limitations of resource indicators, others highlighted the importance of resource allocations as one element of the positive steps that duty holders can take to protect the right to life. The particular importance of expenditure on social care for children was highlighted in the context of statistics that reveal the increased vulnerability of under ones to homicide and potential gaps and weaknesses in protection (discussed under Indicator 8). Some participants suggested that expenditure on social care for adults is also particularly important in the context of the positive duty to protect the right to life. For these reasons, we have included information on general trends in identifiable expenditure on social protection within the evidence base under Indicator 4. We recommend that follow-up work is undertaken to identify specific expenditure streams on safeguarding children and adults, and on child and adult protection, in follow-up projects. For further details of the evidence base under Indicator 4, see Tables 9 and 10. 54

    Using and interpreting the Human Rights Measurement Framework: guidance and clarification

    The right to life outcome indicators


    The outcome indicators under the right to life panel illustrated in Figure 3 provide evidence on results achieved and the position of individuals and groups in practice. The outcome indicators for the right to life dashboard brings together both qualitative and quantitative information on relevant outcomes from a range of official, authoritative and NGO sources. Indicator 5: Outcomes of key judicial, regulatory and investigative processes Indicator 5 is a qualitative indicator that provides a broad range of evidence about outcomes in practice including: case law outcomes that engage the right to life (i.e. violations/breaches) findings of authoritative national and international human rights bodies that relate to the right to life findings of other investigations, inquiries and reviews, and findings highlighted by regulators, inspectorates and ombudsmen, that relate to the right to life allegations and concerns raised by NGOs and other civil society mechanisms such as media reports.

    The evidence base under Indicator 5 begins with information on case law outcomes where violations/breaches of human rights have been established through a judicial process. For example, the outcomes of McCann and Savage cases discussed already, where violations or breaches of Article 2 were established through the courts, are both included in the evidence base under Indicator 5. For references and further examples, see Table 11. Alongside information on case law outcomes, the evidence base under Indicator 5 includes issues and concerns highlighted by national and international human rights bodies. For example, the evidence against this indicator includes the finding of the Joint Committee on Human Rights in its report Deaths in Custody, which examines the causes of deaths in custody and considers what may be done to prevent these deaths and to better protect the right to life (and other human rights) of vulnerable people held in the custody of the state. Findings of international human rights monitoring bodies relating to the right to life are also included in the evidence base under Indicator 5. These include concerns around child deaths in custody and concerns about the gap in infant mortality between the most and the least well-off groups highlighted by the UNCRC and findings of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) relating to maternal mortality rates among ethnic minorities and the high numbers of miscarriages and stillbirths for women from Traveller communities. For references and further examples, see Table 12. The evidence base against Indicator 5 also includes findings by official inquiries, investigations and reviews. Examples include the findings of the Bloody Sunday Inquiry, which concluded that the unjustifiable firing by soldiers on Bloody Sunday caused the 55

    Using and interpreting the Human Rights Measurement Framework: guidance and clarification

    deaths of 13 people and injury to a similar number, none of whom was posing a threat of causing death or serious injury. Other examples are the Inquest finding relating to the 14-year-old Adam Rickwood and the unlawful use of restraint which was found to be a contributing factor; and the findings of death reviews such as the reviews of preventable deaths on behalf of Local Safeguarding Children Boards. Examples for Scotland include a review of Fatal Accident Inquiry (FAI) legislation undertaken in 2009 which recommended mandatory FAIs to cover work-related deaths, deaths of any person subject to compulsory detention by a public authority, and deaths of children being maintained in a residential establishment. The findings of regulators, inspectorates and ombudsmen are another key source under Indicator 5. Section 6 of the HRA establishes a duty on public bodies to comply with the HRA and in the McCann case discussed already, the ECtHR established that the obligation to ensure that everyones life is protected by law includes a procedural aspect whereby the circumstances of a deprivation of life receives public and independent scrutiny. The relevance of the powers and responsibilities of the IPCC in this context was discussed above and the evidence base under Indicator 5 includes a number of findings of IPCC investigations such as the IPCC inquiry into the death of Ian Tomlinson relating to the alleged use of force by a police officer. Other IPCC investigations that relate to the positive duty to protect life (including in the context of violations by third parties) are also reflected. For example, the IPCC investigation into the death of Rabina Bibi found that the police force failed by not dispatching police officers when an initial call for assistance was made contrary to force policy on domestic abuse. The IPCC investigation into the death of Fiona Pilkington highlighted the failure to implement a cohesive, structured and effective approach in the context of harassment/anti-social behaviour. The importance of including information relating to the failure to protect life in the context of domestic violence and disability hate crime was highlighted in the HRMF Specialist Consultation, and the evidence base here is intended to capture and reflect these concerns. Broadening out from the police and criminal justice system context, the findings of other regulators and inspectorates that have powers and responsibilities to investigate and monitor deaths in England, Scotland and Wales are also included as evidence under Indicator 5. Examples include the findings of the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman and the Local Government Ombudsman highlighting failures in the quality of health and social care services in the context of deaths of people with learning disabilities; findings of the Health Services Ombudsman relating to end of life care of older people; and findings in the investigation of excess deaths in Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust by the Healthcare Commission (now the Care Quality Commission). For references and further examples, see Tables 14, 15, 16 and 17. Indicator 5 also includes spotlight information on allegations and concerns raised by NGOs and other civil society mechanisms such as media reports. Examples include concerns raised in Inquests Briefing on the death of Ian Tomlinson, concerns around the deaths of six people with a learning disability in NHS care highlighted in the Mencap Death by 56

    Using and interpreting the Human Rights Measurement Framework: guidance and clarification

    Indifference campaign and press and advocacy reports of deportation cases that raise issues and concerns under Article 2. For references and further examples, see Table 18. For further details of the evidence base here under Indicator 5, see Tables 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18. Indicator 6: Spotlight statistics: Deaths in the police and criminal justice system context The outcome indicators under the right to life panel illustrated in Figure 3 also include a series of quantitative indicators that provide statistical information on key concerns and issues. The first of these, Indicator 6, includes data generated by a range of bodies that have responsibilities and powers relating to the investigation and monitoring of deaths in the police and criminal justice system context (including, for example, deaths during or following contact with the police, deaths from natural and non-natural causes (including suicide) within prisons, secure units, court cells, immigration and asylum centres and during transit). For further details of the evidence base under Indicator 6, see Tables 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 and 26. Indicator 7: Spotlight statistics: Deaths within health and social care institutions/ community care This information under Indicator 7 is intended to provide a broader picture of the systems that are in place to investigate and monitor deaths in England, Scotland and Wales beyond the police and criminal justice context. Participants in the HRMF Specialist Consultation also highlighted the need for robust systems for investigating and monitoring deaths across the board, including within the health and social care context. For example, the evidence base under Indicator 7 includes data on variations in death rates by NHS Trusts. This data series has been included because we feel that it represents an important new development in the routine monitoring of deaths in the health and social care context. The inclusion of this data in the evidence base should be understood in the context of the findings of the investigation of excess deaths in Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust by the Healthcare Commission (now the Care Quality Commission) (on which, see Table 16). The evidence base under Indicator 7 also includes data on the number of deaths and agestandardised death rate per 1 million population from c. difficile, dehydration, falls, MRSA, pressure sores and septicaemia, with separate reporting for hospitals and care homes. These statistics also represent an important new development in ONS data collection and have been included as a complement to qualitative evidence within the HRMF on the treatment of older people in health and social care highlighted under the panels covering the right to life (HRA, Article 3); the prohibition on torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (HRA, Article 3);the right to respect for private and family life (HRA, Article 8); and the right to the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health (UDHR, Article 25; ICESCR, Article 12). However, it is critical to understand that statistics of this type require careful analysis and interpretation. Further guidance on the 57

    Using and interpreting the Human Rights Measurement Framework: guidance and clarification

    use and interpretation of the HRMF evidence base drawing on the example of the ONS series on deaths by place is provided in Figure 9. For further details of the evidence base under Indicator 7, see Tables 27, 28, 29, 30, 31 and 32. Indicator 8: Spotlight statistics: Protection from third party violations homicide within society, community and families Indicator 8 provides statistical information on the prevalence of homicide by characteristic (by age, gender and ethnicity) and by category (with separate reporting of hate crime homicide, religious/racially incited homicide and domestic homicide).Participants in the HRMF Specialist Consultation put particular emphasis on the importance of positive duties to protect the right to life including in the context of violations by third parties and the importance of child homicide, domestic homicide, racially motivated homicide and hate crime homicide, were all highlighted during the course of discussions. The statistical information under Indicator 8 is intended to provide general information to inform this analysis on the prevalence of homicide, the vulnerability and risks of different individuals and groups, and possible gaps and/or weaknesses in protection. For example, Table 33 provides information on the homicide rate per million of the population by age and sex of victim, 1999-2000 to 2009-10 for England and Wales. The data shows that, for the population subgroups identified in the analysis, the greatest risk of homicide is for under ones and highlights the particular vulnerability of this group. For further details of the evidence base under Indicator 8, see Tables 33, 34, 35, 36 and 37. Indicator 9: Spotlight statistics: Premature mortality within families, community and society Indicator 9 provides statistical information on other types of premature mortality within families, community and society including life expectancy and infant mortality rates by ethnicity, social class and area deprivation; maternal mortality rates; suicide rates; and child accidental death. The statistical information here is again intended to provide general information to inform this analysis on the prevalence of premature mortality within families, community and society, the vulnerability and risks of different individuals and groups, and possible gaps and/or weaknesses in protection. Data of this type is often requested by international bodies that monitoring the implementation of international human rights treaties that the UK is signed up to, such as the UN Human Rights Committee and the UNCRC. Participants in the HRMF Specialist Consultation put particular emphasis on disaggregation of this data by a broad range of characteristics including area deprivation. The inclusion of the data on child accidental deaths reflects participants comments regarding differential vulnerability to road and traffic accidents and to fire both by social class and for particular population subgroups (for example, Gypsies and Travellers).

    58

    Using and interpreting the Human Rights Measurement Framework: guidance and clarification

    For further details of the evidence base under Indicator 9, see Tables 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61 and 62. Indicator 10: Spotlight statistics: Public attitudes, understanding and experiences Finally, Indicator 10 provides information on public support for, and understanding of, the right to life. The evidence base here relates to population values and the ways in which the idea of human rights is embedded in broader culture. For further details of the evidence base under Indicator 10, see Table 63.

    59

    Using and interpreting the Human Rights Measurement Framework: guidance and clarification

    Chapter notes
    42

    This is a shortened one page version of the right to life panel. The full version is provided in Chapter 5.

    60

    Part III
    The Human Rights Measurement Framework panels, indicators and evidence base

    Chapter 5
    The Right to Life (Human Rights Act, Article 2)

    Please read Part II Guidance on using and interpreting the Human Rights Measurement Framework first.

    The Right to Life (Human Rights Act (HRA), Article 2)

    Panel and indicators


    Other action/inaction by the state, its agents or bodies fulfilling a public function Noninstitutional context Institutional context (covers prisons, police stations, secure units, detention centres, schools, health and social care settings, etc.) Effective investigation of all deaths covered by Article 2

    Protection of the right to life by the state, its agents or bodies fulfilling a public function

    The Right to Life HRA, Article 2

    Indicators

    Use of unlawful/arbitrary force by the state, its agents or bodies fulfilling a public function

    Noninstitutional context

    Institutional context (covers prisons, police stations, secure units, detention centres, schools, health and social care settings, etc.)

    Structural (indicators of commitment in principle)

    Indicator 1: Legal and constitutional framework Protection of the right to life in domestic law (including constitutional/higher law) Status of ratification of relevant international treaties

    62

    Indicator 2: Legal precedents, gaps and standard-setting Principles established in key cases (domestic and ECHR) and international standard-setting processes Gaps in protection and non-implementation of legal judgements and recommendations

    Process (indicators of steps taken including legal, regulatory and public policy measures)

    Indicator 3: Regulatory framework Key regulators, inspectorates, ombudsmen and other mechanisms for complaints handling Relevant responsibilities and powers, national minimum standard frameworks and inspection/complaints-handling criteria

    Indicator 4: Public policy framework Primary legislation, policies, plans, targets and goals Codes and guidance (covers guidance to military personnel/police, prison and other security and detention personnel on the use of lethal/potentially lethal force, and guidance on the use of force and restraint in the health and social care context) Spotlight resource allocations (including public expenditure on child protection and adult protection)

    Outcome (indicators of the position of individuals and groups in practice/ emergence of a human rights culture)

    Indicator 5: Outcomes of key judicial, regulatory and investigative processes Violations of the right to life: Case law outcomes Key concerns raised by human rights monitoring bodies Outcomes of judicial processes/inspection, regulation and complaints procedures/independent inquiries, investigations and reviews that engage Article 2. For example: outcomes of independent investigations into the use of unlawful/arbitrary force findings by regulators/inspectorates relating to the failure to protect life (positive duties) including failure to protect from homicide (in the police and criminal justice context) and investigations into excess, avoidable and preventable deaths and deaths through neglect within the health and social care context outcomes of inquest and coroners findings and other death review processes (for example, child death reviews/serious case reviews for safeguarding adults/domestic homicide reviews (established under Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004 Article 9 (1) significant case reviews and fatal accident inquiries in Scotland) that result in findings of neglect and/or serious criticism of actions of the state, its agents or bodies fulfilling a public function Key allegations by private individuals and civil society organisations/reports in the media

    Indicator 6: Spotlight statistics: Deaths in the police and criminal justice system context Deaths within prisons, secure units, police and court cells, immigration and asylum centres and during transit (covering deaths from natural causes, non-natural causes and self-inflicted deaths) Deaths during or following contact with the police (by category of death)

    63

    Indicator 7: Spotlight statistics: Deaths within health and social care institutions/community care Statistics on excess deaths, avoidable and preventable deaths and deaths through neglect in health and social care establishments and in the community health and social care context Statistics on the use of Do Not Resuscitate orders without consent/applications to administer lifesaving medical treatment especially for those with and without capacity

    Indicator 8: Spotlight statistics: Protection from third party violations homicide within society, community and families Homicide rates per million disaggregated by characteristics of victim including age, gender, race/ethnicity and disability) with separate reporting of hate crime homicide, religious/racially incited homicide and domestic homicide

    Indicator 9: Spotlight statistics: Premature mortality within families, community and society Life expectancy, infant mortality, suicide rates and accidental deaths

    The Right to Life HRA, Article 2

    Indicator 10: Public attitudes, understanding and experiences Public attitudes towards the right to life as a right you should have and you do have Self-reported experiences of protection of life

    Indicators should be systematically disaggregated Key disaggregation characteristics include ethnicity/race, gender, disability, sexual orientation, transgender, religion and belief, age, social class, area (region, urban/rural, remoteness) with separate reporting of the non-private household population and at risk/vulnerable groups including individuals staying in/ resident/detained in public and private institutions; individuals living in poverty; refugees/asylum seekers, vulnerable children and young people (for example, children in need, looked after children, children who are carers), Gypsies and Travellers, etc.

    The Right to Life HRA, Article 2

    Evidence base
    Structural indicators Indicator 1: Legal and constitutional framework
    Table 1: Protection of the right to life in domestic law (including constitutional/higher law) UK HRA, Article 2. Table 2: Status of ratification of relevant international treaties43 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) Article 6 ratified. ICCPR First Optional Protocol not ratified (individual complaints mechanism). ICCPR Second Optional Protocol ratified (abolition of death penalty). United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) Article 6 ratified. Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearances not ratified. ECHR and Protocols 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 10, 11, 13 and 14 ratified. Geneva Conventions ratified.44

    Indicator 2: Legal precedents, gaps and standard-setting


    Table 3: Principles established in key cases (domestic and ECHR) Procedural aspects McCann and Others v UK [GC] no. 18984/91 [1995] ECHR45 The European Court of Human Rights established that the obligation to ensure that everyones life is protected by law includes a procedural aspect whereby the circumstances of a deprivation of life receives public and independent scrutiny. See also Jordan v UK no. 24746/94 [2001] ECHR.46 R (on the application of Amin) v Secretary of State for Home Department [2003] UKHL 5147 The House of Lords established that it is indispensable that proper procedures are in place for ensuring accountability of agents of the state in the context of the right to life. R (Middleton) v West Somerset Coroner and Another [2004] UKHL 1048 The House of Lords considered the extent that an inquest fulfils requirements under Article 2. These concern the need for an effective public examination by an independent official body into any death occurring in circumstances in which the substantive obligations of Article 2 may have been violated and agents of the state may be implicated.

    64

    The Right to Life HRA, Article 2

    R (JL) v The Secretary State [2008] UKHL 6849 The House of Lords held that a near suicide of a prisoner which left him with brain damage automatically triggered an obligation under Article 2 to conduct an investigation, which is independent, prompt and involves the next of kin. R (Humberstone) v Legal Services Commission [2010] EWHC 760 (Admin)50 Whether the refusal to give legal aid funding breached the states obligation to carry out an effective investigation into a death.

    Use of force McCann and Others v UK [GC] no. 18984/91 [1995] ECHR51 The European Court of Human Rights established that the use of force must be no more than what is absolutely necessary to defend persons from unlawful violence.

    Positive obligations Osman v UK [GC] no. 23452/94 [1998] ECHR52 The European Court of Human Rights established that police were under an obligation to take reasonable steps to protect life where they knew or ought to have known of a real and immediate risk to life. LCB v UK [1999] 27 EHRR 21253 The European Court of Human Rights found that Article 2 includes a duty of the state in healthcare to do all that could have been required of it to prevent the applicants life from being avoidably put at risk (the case involved alleged exposure to life threatening levels of radiation linked to nuclear testing. The European Court found that the UK ought to have warned of the risks and subsequently to monitor her health in light of those risks). Calvelli and Ciglio v Italy [GC] no. 32967/96 [2002] ECHR54 The Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights held that Article 2 imposes positive obligations on the state to make regulations compelling hospitals to adopt appropriate measures for the protection of their patients lives. However, the European Court found that there had been no violation of Articles 2 and 6. McKerr v UK no. 28883/95 [2001] ECHR55 The investigation must also be effective in the sense that it is capable of leading to a determination of whether the force used in such cases was or was not justified in the circumstances and to the identification and punishment of those responsible.

    65

    The Right to Life HRA, Article 2

    neryldz v Turkey [GC] no. 48939/99 [2004] ECHR56 The case concerned an explosion at a municipal dump caused by a build up of methane gases due to defective equipment, where the authorities had failed to effectively regulate and inspect. The European Court of Human Rights found that there was an obligation under Article 2 to take all appropriate steps to safeguard life and that there was a primary duty on the state to put in place a legislative and administrative framework designed to provide effective deterrence against threats to the right to life. Article 2 must be construed as applying in the context of any activity, whether public or not, in which the right to life may be at stake, and a fortiori in the case of industrial activities, which by their very nature are dangerous. The case concerns the obligation for the state to properly regulate and police dangerous activities, and the European Court found a violation of Article 2 in both its substantive and procedural aspect. Savage v South Essex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust [2008] UKHL 7457 The House of Lords established that in addition to general obligations on health authorities and their staff, Article 2 imposes an obligation to take reasonable steps to prevent harm, where they have knowledge, actual or constructive, of a real and immediate risk to the patients life from self-harm. The right to life requires positive measures to protect the lives of individuals in custody in prisons and mentally ill people detained in hospitals (including protection from suicide). Savage v South Essex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust [2010] EWHC 865 (QB) The European Court of Human Rights found that the Trust had breached Article 2 because it had the requisite knowledge, actual or constructive, of a real and immediate risk to the patients life from self-harm, and failed to do all that could reasonably have been expected of it to avoid or prevent that risk. Brecknell v UK no. 32457/04 [2008] ECHR58 Violation of Article 2 (lack of independence of the investigating body during the initial stages of the investigation). Opuz v Turkey no. 33401/02 [2009] ECHR59 In a judgement establishing that the right to life requires positive measures to protect women from domestic violence, the European Court of Human Rights found a violation of Articles 2, 3 and 14. Rabone v Pennine Care NHS Trust [2010] EWCA Civ 69860 The Court of Appeal established that the Article 2 operational obligation set out in Savage does not extend to voluntary patients in hospital, who are suffering from physical or mental illness, even where there is a real and immediate risk of death. McCann v UK [GC] no. 18984/91 [1995] ECHR61 (cited above) also established the positive duty to undertake effective official investigations under Article 2 where death follows use of lethal force by agents of the state.

    66

    The Right to Life HRA, Article 2

    Deportation Al-Saadoon & Mufdhi v UK no. 61498/08 [2010] ECHR62 The European Court of Human Rights considered the case of two Iraqi civilians accused of murdering two members of the UK Armed Forces which was transferred to the Iraqi High Tribunal which has the power of imposing the death penalty. It found a violation of the rights of the claimants under Article 2.

    Extraterritorial aspects Al Skeini & Others v Ministry of Defence [2008] 1 AC 153 This case concerned the application of the HRA 1998 in relation to six deaths that occurred during the occupation of southern Iraq by UK forces. The Appellate Committee held unanimously that the exceptions to territoriality were limited and were confined to examples such as embassies and naval frigates. On the facts of the appeal, the Committee held that HRA jurisdiction was capable of extending to a British military base (on which one of the deceased, Mr Mousa, was tortured to death) but refused to extend it beyond its gates, notwithstanding that British Forces were in occupation and control of Basra and its environs. Al-Skeini and others v UK (GC) no. 55721/07 [2011] ECHR63 The European Court of Human Rights held that following the removal from power of the Baath regime and until the accession of the Interim Government, the United Kingdom (together with the United States) assumed in Iraq the exercise of some of the public powers normally to be exercised by a sovereign government. In particular, the United Kingdom assumed authority and responsibility for the maintenance of security in South East Iraq. In these exceptional circumstances, the Court considers that the United Kingdom, through its soldiers engaged in security operations in Basrah during the period in question, exercised authority and control over individuals killed in the course of such security operations, so as to establish a jurisdictional link between the deceased and the United Kingdom for the purposes of Article 1 of the Convention. R (Smith) v Secretary of State for Defence [2010] UKSC 2964 The Supreme Court considered the jurisdiction of Article 2 and the implications that this has for inquest requirements in relation to a soldier who died of heat stroke while serving in Iraq. Whilst finding that members of a states armed forces serving abroad are not automatically within the jurisdiction of the state, a public inquest was found to be necessary because the evidence that was placed before the Coroner has raised the possibility that there was a failure in the system that should have been in place to protect soldiers from the risk posed by the extreme temperatures in which they had to serve. On the facts disclosed it was arguable that there was a breach of the States substantive obligations under article 2. This was enough to trigger the need to give a verdict that complied with the requirements of article 2.

    67

    The Right to Life HRA, Article 2

    Assisted suicide Pretty v UK no. 2346/02 [2002] ECHR65 The European Court of Human Rights established that the right to life does not incorporate right to commit suicide. [c.f. recent Swiss case Haas v Switzerland no. 31322/07 ECHR66, where right to choose manner and timing of death was an element of Article 8, provided the individual had the legal and practical capacity to take their life. There is no positive duty under the ECHR to support someone to realise that element of self-determination. The applicant had tried several psychiatrists and none would provide him with the prescription for medication he felt he needed to take his life.]

    Withdrawal of life sustaining treatment Airedale NHS Trust v Bland [1993] AC 78967, Re A (Children) (Cojoined twins: Surgical Separation) [2001] Fam 14768 The domestic courts have found that the withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment from terminally ill patients will not violate Article 2. NHS Trust A v Mrs M, NHS Trust B v Mrs H [2001] 1 All ER 801 and North Staffordshire Combined Healthcare Trust v Dorothy Humphries [2001] 2 FLR 501 the principles set out by the House of Lords in Bland v Airedale NHS Trust, according to which it may be lawful to withdraw artificial nutrition and hydration from patients in a persistent vegetative state, are compatible with Articles 2 and 3 of the ECHR (NHS Litigation Authority, 2007).69 Re OT [2009] EWHC 633 (Fam) The High Court found that the withdrawal of life sustaining treatment, which was no longer in the patients best interest, was not a breach of Article 2 or Article 8.

    Table 4: Principles established in international standard-setting processes In its General Comment 6, the UN Human Rights Committee (UNHRC) has stated that the state is not only under a negative obligation to refrain from intentional and unlawful taking of life, but also a positive obligation to protect life (including, for example, steps to reduce infant mortality and to increase life expectancy). The state is required to take all possible measures to reduce infant mortality and to increase life expectancy.71

    Table 5: Gaps in legal protection Individual complaints under ICCPR First Optional Protocol. Domestic legislation the Joint Committee on Human Rights (JCHR) highlighted that there was no protection available under UK law for circumstances where there has been a serious breach of the right to life as a result of the gross management failure of a private or public organisation, but no identifiable individual within the organisation can be proved to be responsible for the failure. (JCHR, 2007).72 For relevant primary legislation, see Table 9. 68

    The Right to Life HRA, Article 2

    Table 6: The right to life non-implementation of legal judgements and recommendations The JCHR highlighted a series of cases concerning the use of force by the security forces in Northern Ireland, Jordan, McKerr, Finucane, Kelly, Shanaghan, and McShane, arguing that they are notable for the considerable delay there has been in agreeing appropriate implementation measures, in particular in respect of establishing new independent inquiries in the individual cases concerned.73

    Process indicators Indicator 3: Regulatory framework


    Table 7: The right to life identification of key regulators, inspectorates, ombudsman and examples of relevant responsibilities, powers and standards Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) (investigate all deaths following police contact and complaints). Prisons and Probation Ombudsman (PPO) (investigate all deaths in custody). Ministerial Board on Deaths in Custody.74 Independent Advisory Panel on Deaths in Custody.75 HM Inspectorate of Prisons (HMIP) for England and Wales. HMIP for Scotland. Care Quality Commission (CQC) (responsive inspections and investigations relating to deaths). Health and Social Care Ombudsman (complaints handling, including relating to deaths) Office for standards in education, childrens services and skills (Ofsted). Health and Safety Executive (HSE). Police Complaints Commissioner for Scotland (investigate complaints, including complaints about deaths and Quality of Service complaints). Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS). Scottish Public Services Ombudsman. Scottish Fatal Accidents Inquiries the primary investigative mechanism to comply with Article 2 in Scotland, undertaken by Sheriffs.76

    69

    The Right to Life HRA, Article 2

    HM Inspectorate of Constabulary for Scotland. HM Inspectorate of Constabulary(HMIC). Crown Prosecution Service (CPS). National Preventive Mechanism (NPM)77.

    Table 8: Spotlight responsibilities and powers of key regulators and inspectors Example 1: The procedural duty to investigate deaths under Article 2 interpretation by the IPCC In a submission to the JCHR in 2006, the IPCC noted that Article 2 of the ECHR is interpreted as involving not only a negative obligation upon the state not to take life, but also a positive obligation to take steps to protect the right to life, including a procedural obligation to ensure that there is an adequate and effective investigation into deaths which are alleged to have arisen from the use of lethal force by state agents, or from the states negligent failure to protect the lives of persons for whom it is responsible. The IPCC submission further notes that IPCC investigations enable the state to comply with the requirement under Article 2 for an effective independent investigation into any alleged breach by the police. Any death or serious injury following some form of direct or indirect contact with the police where there is reason to believe that the contact may have caused or contributed to the death or serious injury, must be referred to the IPCC, regardless of whether there has been a complaint. In this way, through its investigatory function, the IPCC plays an important role in ensuring compliance by the state with Article 2 where the police are concerned. An effective independent investigation is followed by full criminal proceedings or, in their absence where a death is involved, an inquest. In this way, the state discharges its procedural investigative obligations under Article 2. Source: IPCC (2006).

    70

    The Right to Life HRA, Article 2

    Example 2: The positive duty to take reasonable measures to prevent suicide in prisons under Article 2 interpretation by HMIP Scotland In Scotland, standards used in the inspection of prisons are explicitly linked to human rights standards including international human rights treaties, the HRA and domestic and regional jurisprudence. International and domestic case law feed into an inspection model and a system of indicators, which include regular inspections to ensure that appropriate steps are taken to ensure that individual prisoners are protected from harm by themselves and others. In interpreting its duties under the right to life, HMIP Scotland is clear that the duties of the regulator extend to the positive duty to take reasonable measures to protect life: Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights (Schedule 1 of the Human Rights Act 1998) guarantees the right to life. The UK Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights has emphasised that there is a close link between the right to life and the duty of care: Article 2 imposes on States, not only a negative duty not to take life intentionally or negligently, but also a positive duty to safeguard life. Case law makes it clear that the duty of care linked to the positive obligation to protect life comes into play whenever the prison authorities know or ought to know that there is a risk to a prisoners life. There is a breach of Article 2 if, when knowing there is a risk, the authorities fail to take reasonable measures to prevent the harm. So the safety and protection of the individual prisoner is a legal duty. Source: HMIP (2006).

    71

    The Right to Life HRA, Article 2

    Example 3: Positive duties to inspect prisons under the CAT The HMIP Expectations document sets out criteria for assessing the conditions in prisons and the treatment of prisoners. This document notes that the Joint Parliamentary Human Rights Committee considers that independent, human rights based inspection criteria are essential to fulfil the requirements of the Optional Protocol to the CAT, which requires states to have in place an independent expert preventive mechanism for regularly visiting and inspecting places of detention. The Expectations criteria draw on, and are referenced against, both the HRA and international human rights standards. And HMIPs four tests safety, respect, purposeful activity and resettlement are increasingly accepted, both domestically and internationally, as the cornerstones of a healthy custodial environment. As in Scotland, HMIP in England and Wales recognises that there is a duty of care in relation to suicide prevention in prisons and the importance of accountability. Suicide prevention is a key element of the inspection methodology of HMIP. The four tests of a healthy prison were introduced in HMIPs thematic review Suicide is everyones concern. Judgements against each of the healthy prison tests are made and published in all full inspection reports. Source: HMIP (2008), www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/publications/inspectorate-reports/ hmipris/expectations_2009.pdf and HMIP (2010b) www.justice.gov.uk/inspectorates/hmiprisons/docs/HMIP_AR_2008-9_web_published_rps.pdf Example 4: Review of Fatal Accident Inquiry legislation Lord Cullen undertook a review of Fatal Accident Inquiry (FAI) legislation in 2009. Key recommendations included extending the categories under which an FAI should be mandatory to include work-related deaths, deaths of any person subject to compulsory detention by a public authority, and deaths of children being maintained in a residential establishment. Source: Scottish Government (2009b) www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/290392/0089246.pdf

    72

    The Right to Life HRA, Article 2

    Indicator 4: Public policy framework


    Table 9: Spotlight primary legislation78 The Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007 This Act, which came into effect in 2008, created a new offence of corporate manslaughter which can be committed by organisations which cause the death of a person through gross negligence management failings.. The legislation strengthens the accountability of custody providers under the criminal law and covers both public and private providers, such as prisons, secure hospitals, police and juvenile detention facilities. The law has also been extended to that it applies to Ministry of Defence and UK Borders Agency customs custodial facilities.

    73

    The Right to Life HRA, Article 2

    Table 10: Use of lethal force/potentially lethal force policy guidance and training guidelines Prison and Secure Training Centre (STC) context Prison Services Policy (Prison Service Order (PSO) 1600 Use of Force79) and Use of Force Training Manual. PSO 2700 Suicide prevention and self harm management80; PSO 2710 Follow up to deaths in custody. The Secure Training Centre (Amendment) Rules, which amended the Secure Training Centre Rules 1998, amend the existing rules to permit STCs to use force against detained children and young people to ensure good order and discipline. The Amendment Rules were criticised for widening the scope for restraint in STCs (JCHR, 2008).81 The Ministry of Justices (MoJs) Physical Control in Care Training Manual,created by the National Offender Management Service to train staff in safe methods of restraining young people in secure training centres,amended July 2010(National Offender Management Service, 2010).82

    Police context Criminal Law Act 1967 Part 1 Section 3, use of force in making an arrest.83 Guidance on the Safer Detention & Handling of Persons in Police Custody (Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO), 2006).84 Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) Code C, setting out the requirements for the detention, treatment and questioning of suspects not related to terrorism in police custody.85 PACE Code Hon the detention, treatment and questioning by police officers of persons under Section 41 of, and Schedule 8 to, the Terrorism Act 2000.86 Operational Use of Taser Guidance (ACPO,2008).87 Human Rights Advice on the Use of Taser (Starmer and Gordon, 2007) Tasers should be treated as potentially lethal equipment, rather than lethal or non-lethal. The fact that a Taser should be treated as potentially lethal does not mean that its use can never be compatible with Article 2 of the ECHR (the right to life) or the HRA. The proper test under Article 2 of the ECHR and the HRA for the use of a Taser is that its use will be lawful where it is immediately necessary to prevent or reduce the likelihood of recourse to lethal force (for example, conventional firearms). ACPO, Manual of Guidance on Keeping the Peace (National Policing Improvement Agency (NPIA), 2010).89

    74

    The Right to Life HRA, Article 2

    HM Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC), Policing Public Order. An overview and review of progress against the recommendations of Adapting to Protest and Nurturing the British Model of Policing, February 201190. HMIC found less progress on one of its key recommendations (Nurturing the British Model 1a): that a single overarching set of principles on the use of force be adopted across the Service91.

    Health and social care context England and Wales Mental Health Act 1983 Section 136, relating to the police powers to detain a person suffering from a mental disorder in a public place in a place of safety.92 Mental Capacity Act (2005): Code of Practice93 Sections 6.40-6.48 set out the definition of restraint and the conditions that have to be satisfied in order for it to be legally justified, particularly if the person being restrained does not have the capacity to consent (Qureshi, 2009); Sections 24-26 relating to Advance Decisions to refuse treatment. NICE Clinical Guideline 42 Health and social care staff should be trained to anticipate behaviour that challenges and how to manage violence, aggression and extreme agitation, including de-escalation techniques and methods of physical restraint (National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) and Social Care Institute for Excellence (SCIE), 2006).94 Rights, risks and restraints: An exploration into the use of restraint in the care of older people.(Commission for Social Care Inspection (CSCI), 2007a).95 Guidance for inspectors: How to move towards restraint free care (CSCI, 2007b).96 Mental Capacity Act 2005 Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards code of practice97 this code of practice provides safeguards for people who lack capacity specifically to consent to treatment or care in either a hospital or a care home that, in their own best interests, can only be provided in circumstances that amount to a deprivation of liberty (as opposed to a restriction of liberty), and where detention under the 1983 Mental Health Act is not appropriate for the person at that time (Qureshi, 2009:35).98

    Scotland Rights, risks and limits to freedom: Principles and guidance on good practice in caring for residents with dementia and related disorders and residents with learning disabilities where consideration is being given to the use of physical restraint and other limits to freedom (Mental Welfare Commission for Scotland, 2006).99

    See Table 346. 75

    The Right to Life HRA, Article 2

    Outcome indicators Indicator 5: Outcomes of key judicial, regulatory and investigative processes
    Table 11: Violations of the right to life case law outcomes Procedural aspects of Article 2 McCann and Others v UK [GC] no. 18984/91 [1995] ECHR100 Violation of Article 2 (see Table 3). R (on the application of Amin) v Secretary of State for Home Department [2003] UKHL 51 In finding a violation of Article 2 due to the lack of a post-mortem investigation consistent with domestic and Convention standards, the House of Lords established that it is indispensable that proper procedures are in place for ensuring accountability of agents of the state in the context of the right to life (see Table 3). R (Middleton) v West Somerset Coroner and Another [2004] UKHL 10101 The House of Lords considered the extent that an inquest fulfils requirements under Article 2. These concern the need for an effective public examination by an independent official body into any death occurring in circumstances in which the substantive obligations of Article 2 may have been violated and agents of the state may be implicated (see Table 3). R (JL) v The Secretary State [2008] UKHL 68102 The House of Lords held that a near suicide of a prisoner which left him with brain damage automatically triggered an obligation under Article 2 to conduct an investigation, which is independent, prompt and involves the next of kin (see Table 3). R (Humberstone) v Legal Services Commission [2010] EWHC 760 (Admin)103 The refusal to give legal aid funding breached the states obligation to carry out an effective investigation into a death (see Table 3).

    Use of force McCann and Others v UK [GC] no. 18984/91 [1995] ECHR104 In finding a violation of Article 2, the European Court of Human Rights established that the use of force must be no more than what is absolutely necessary to defend persons from unlawful violence (see Table 3).

    Positive obligations Osman v UK [GC] no. 23452/94 [1998] ECHR105 The European Court of Human Rights found no violation of Articles 2 and 8, however,it did find that there had been a violation of Article 6 (see Table 3).

    76

    The Right to Life HRA, Article 2

    LCB v UK [1999] 27 EHRR 212106 No violation of Articles 2 and 8 (see Table 3). McKerr v UK no. 28883/95 [2001] ECHR107 Violation of Article 2 (see Table 3). Savage v South Essex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust [2008] UKHL 74108 The Court found a violation of Article 2 (see Table 3). Brecknell v UK no. 32457/04 [2008] ECHR109 Violation of Article 2 (lack of independence of the investigating body during the initial stages of the investigation) (see Table 3). Rabone v Pennine Care NHS Trust [2010] EWCA Civ 698110 No violation of Article 2 (see Table 3). R (on the application of Amin) v Secretary of State for Home Department [2003] UKHL 51111 The House of Lords found that the refusal to hold a public inquiry was a breach of Article 2 (see Table 3).

    Deportation and Article 2 Al-Saadoon & Mufdhi v UK no. 61498/08 [2010] ECHR112 The European Court of Human Rights found a violation of Article 3 (see Table 3).

    Extraterritorial aspects of Article 2 Al-Skeini and others v UK (GC) no. 55721/07 [2011] ECHR113 The European Court of Human Rights found a violation of Article 2 (procedural aspect) (see Table 3). R (Smith) v Secretary of State for Defence [2009] EWCA Civ 441114 Relating to the procedural obligation on the state to undertake an Article 2 investigation (see Table 3).

    Assisted suicide Pretty v UK no. 2346/02 [2002] ECHR115 The European Court of Human Rights found no violation of Article 2 (see Table 3).

    77

    The Right to Life HRA, Article 2

    Withdrawal of life sustaining treatment Airedale NHS Trust v Bland [1993] AC 789116, Re A (Children) (Cojoined twins: Surgical Separation) [2001] Fam 147117 The withdrawal of life sustaining treatment from terminally ill patients will not violate Article 2 (see Table 3). NHS Trust A v Mrs M, NHS Trust B v Mrs H [2001] 1 All ER 801 and North Staffordshire Combined Healthcare Trust v Dorothy Humphries [2001] 2 FLR 501 The principles set out by the House of Lords in Bland v Airedale NHS Trust, according to which it may be lawful to withdraw artificial nutrition and hydration from patients in a persistent vegetative state, are compatible with Articles 2 and 3 of the ECHR (Human Rights Information Service, 2007)118 (see Table 3). Re OT [2009] EWHC 633 (Fam) The High Court found that the withdrawal of life sustaining treatment, which was no longer in the patients best interest, was not a breach of Articles 2 or 8 (see Table 3).

    Table 12: The right to life key concerns raised by human rights monitoring bodies Domestic JCHR (2009b) Coroners and Justice Bill119 Concern that provision for certified inquests would contravene Article 2 of ECHR. JCHR (2004b) Deaths in Custody120 Examining the causes of deaths in custody, and considering what may be done to prevent these deaths, and to better protect the right to life, and other human rights, of vulnerable people held in the custody of the state. JCHR (2007) Treatment of older people in health and social care, including malnutrition and dehydration (see Table 83). International United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (UNCEDAW) (2008) Expressed concern over the high rate of maternal mortality among all ethnic minorities [as well as high numbers of miscarriages and stillbirths particularly for women from Traveller communities]. It also noted that women of minority and ethnic communities suffer higher rates of depression and mental illness, while women of Asian descent have higher suicide and self-harm rates.121 UNCRC (2008) Was very concerned about UK child deaths in custody as well as the high prevalence of self-injurious behaviour among children in custody. The UNCRC also expressed concern about the widening gap in infant mortality between the most and the least well-off groups. United Nations Committee on Economic Social and Cultural Rights (UNCESCR) (2009) Expressed concern about the increasing suicide rates of mental health patients.122

    78

    The Right to Life HRA, Article 2

    Table 13: The right to life Commission case law interventions The need for positive duties to protect life Chief Constable of Hertfordshire Police v Van Colle [2008] UKHL 50; Smith v Chief Constable of Sussex Police, House of Lords The Commission made submissions in these cases on the scope of the obligation on law enforcement authorities to take steps to protect individuals from threats to their life by third parties. It argued that the Court of Appeal applied the correct principles as to when a positive obligation had been engaged, that is was necessary to have a flexible approach which did not apply a strict threshold, and that in this case the duty had been breached. The Commission also made submissions on the proper relationship between common law negligence and a failure to discharge the positive obligation implicit in Article 2 of the HRA; for example, that if a negligence claim fails, that does not automatically mean that an HRA claim fails. In the case of Van Colle, concerning whether the Osman test under Article 2 had been met such that a positive obligation arose, the House of Lords found the police did not breach Mr Van Colles right to life under Article 2 of the HRA in failing to take further steps to prevent his murder. In Smith, the case concerned the extending of the duty of care in negligence to cases of failures to protect life. The House of Lords allowed the appeal by Sussex Police and effectively restored the decision of the First Instance Judge who struck out the negligence claim. The House of Lords approved the principle in Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police [1989] AC 53 that, in the absence of special circumstances, the police owed no common law duty of care to protect individuals against harm caused by criminals, since such a duty would encourage defensive policing and would divert manpower and resources from their primary function of suppressing crime and apprehending criminals in the general public interest.

    79

    The Right to Life HRA, Article 2

    The need for an effective and independent investigation (and what constitutes an effective and independent investigation) R (JL) v Secretary of State for Home Department, House of Lords, 2008] UKHL 68. The case concerned an attempted suicide at a young offenders institution. The House of Lords accepted the Commissions submissions that near deaths in custody warranted an independent Article 2 compliant investigation. Oxfordshire Assistant Deputy Coroner and Secretary of State for Defence v R (Catherine Smith) [2009] EWCA Civ 441. The case concerned the territorial application of the HRA and the ECHR and the duty to hold an independent investigation. The Court accepted the Commissions submissions on the jurisdictional application of HRA and on the need for Article 2 compliant investigation. R (Smith) v Secretary of State for Defence [2010] UKSC 29. The case concerned the jurisdictional application of human rights protection for British military personnel and the right to an investigation under Article 2. The Supreme Court accepted the Commissions submissions on the need for an Article 2 compliant investigation but did not accept its submissions on the jurisdictional application of the HRA. Source: Equality and Human Rights Commission (2010c). Table 14: The right to life summary of the outcomes of key inspection, regulation and complaints procedures; independent investigations into deaths related to the use of unlawful/arbitrary force; and other official investigations, inquiries and reviews into deaths that result in serious criticism of actions of the state, its agents or bodies fulfilling a public function Protection of life: army context The Bloody Sunday Inquiry123, which found that the unjustifiable firing by soldiers on Bloody Sunday caused the deaths of 13 people and injury to a similar number, none of whom was posing a threat of causing death or serious injury. Inquest into the death of Corporal Mark Wright, killed in Afghanistan in 2006, finding that a lack of appropriate military equipment was one of the causes of his death.124

    Protection of life: police context Inquest into death of Paul Davies, finding that his death was contributed to by police neglect, due to lack of training of officers in forced search and control and restraint of a detained person.125 The Stockwell Investigation into the fatal shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes126, leading to the prosecution of the Office of the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis for failing to provide for the health, safety and welfare of Jean Charles de Menezes.

    80

    The Right to Life HRA, Article 2

    IPCC Investigation into the death of Ian Tomlinson127, relating to the alleged use of force by a police officer that was not necessary, proportionate or reasonable in the circumstances. The Crown Prosecution Service has subsequently determined that the officer involved in the incident will be charged with manslaughter.128 IPCC investigation into the death of Rabina Bibi, finding that the police force failed Ms Bibi by not dispatching police officers to her when she initially called for assistance, contrary to force policy on domestic abuse.129 IPCC investigation into the death of Fiona Pilkington, who had made 33 calls over a seven-year period asking police for help after suffering repeated and continuing abuse and torment from a gang of youths130. The IPCCs final report concluded that the failure by police officers to identify Fiona Pilkington, her son and severely disabled daughter as a collective vulnerable family unit was at the core of Leicestershire Constabularys failure to implement a cohesive, structured and effective approach to the harassment/anti social behaviour from which they were suffering (IPCC, 2009c, 2010:23).131 Investigation into Deaths in or following police custody: An examination of the cases 1998/99 2008/09 (Hannan et al., 2010).132

    Protection of life: STC context Inquest into the death of 14-year-old Adam Rickwood, criticising failings by the private company running the Hassockfield STC, the Youth Justice Board, Prison Service restraint trainers and the Lancashire Youth Offending Team. Finding that unlawful use of restraint contributed to the death (Inquest, 2007).133

    Protection of life: prison context The Scottish Parliament, Conditions in Scottish Prisons, Research Note 00/34, 16 May 2000134, providing some statistical briefing on conditions in Scottish prisons in relation to the practice of slopping out, overcrowding, suicide rates, drugs misuse and violence by prisoners. Finding that Levels of suicide continue to pose a serious problem in Scottish prisons despite the introduction by SPS in 1998-99 of a new estate-wide suicide prevention strategy (Scottish Parliament, 2000).

    Protection of life: immigration detention and deportation HMIP, Detainee escorts and removals: A thematic review, August 2009135, found a number of weaknesses in the systems for monitoring, investigating and complaining about incidents where force had been used or where abuse was alleged (HMIP, 2010c).136

    81

    The Right to Life HRA, Article 2

    FAI, Scotland137 Suicide at Dunvagel Immigration removal centre, 2004138, finding that Failure to facilitate communication between non-English speaking detainees and the authorities detaining them is likely to lead to wrong assessments being made, wrong decisions being taken, risks to the physical or mental health of such detainees and to injustice to at least some of them. Suicide at Barlinnie Prison, 2003139, emphasising the issue of language difficulties in accurately assessing the suicide risk of a non-English speaking prisoner and finding that the case highlighted the difficulties potentially presented for non-English speaking prisoners and those from different ethnic or cultural backgrounds. Death in hospital, 2004140, finding that full and accurate medical and nursing notes are absolutely essential to enable a proper assessment of the patient to be made by all medical staff involved in the care of the patient. Head injury caused by a fall when under the influence of alcohol, 2004141, recommending that Consideration should be given to the provision of supervised accommodation to which persons arrested or detained under the influence of alcohol might be admitted. Such provision would require... a degree of medical supervision and be subject to a regime of checking or observation similar to that which currently exists for dealing with vulnerable patients in custody. Choking on food in hospital, 2004142, finding that the death may have been avoided by having in place a system of ensuring patients were provided with the consistency of food for their particular dietary needs.

    Protection of life: health context Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust Inquiry 2009 Report143, identifying severe failings in emergency care provided by Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust between 2005 and mid 2008. See Table 16 for a detailed overview (Healthcare Commission (now the Care Quality Commission), 2009).

    Protection of life: health context, maternal deaths context Healthcare Commission Investigation into 10 maternal deaths at, or following delivery at, Northwick Park Hospital, North West London Hospitals NHS Trust, between April 2002 and April 2005. The report finds that there were either major or minor deficiencies in the care and treatment provided to all but one of the 10 women144 (Healthcare Commission (now the Care Quality Commission), 2006).

    82

    The Right to Life HRA, Article 2

    Protection of life: the mental health context Parliamentary Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO) and the Local Government Ombudsman (PHSO, 2009), Six Lives, highlights failures in the quality of health and social care services for people with learning disabilities; finding, with maladministration, service failure and unremedied injustice in a number, but not all, of the 20 bodies investigated (three councils, 16 NHS bodies and the Healthcare Commission (now the Care Quality Commission)) (also see Mencaps Death by Indifference campaign) (see Table 17 for further details).

    Protection of life: social care context Inquest into the death of Alan Simper, finding that he died from infected multiple pressure sores as a result of care failings by the nursing home in which he was resident.145 Inquest into the death of Will Perrin, finding that his death was due to neglect by the care home in which he resided. The coroner condemned the homes failure to provide basic food or nourishment.146 Joint police and Health and Safety Executive investigation into the death of Anthony Pinder, which found that the care home in which Mr Pinder was resident had failed to ensure that staff were adequately trained to carry out the safe physical restraint of residents.147

    End of life care PHSO Report (PHSO, 2011), Care and Compassion. Report of the Health Services Ombudsman on 10 investigations into NHS care of older people148, February 2011. The report provides a summary of 10 investigations undertaken by the PHSO; the Ombudsman notes that the reasonable expectation that an older person or their family may have of dignified, pain-free end of life care, in clean surroundings in hospital, is not being fulfilled. Instead, these accounts present a picture of NHS provision that is failing to respond to the needs of older people with care and compassion and to provide even the most basic standards of care.

    Treatment of older people in health and social care Evidence on compliance with minimum nutritional standards is provided in Care Quality Commission (2011c) (see Table 85 for further details).

    83

    The Right to Life HRA, Article 2

    Protection of life: child protection context Victoria Climbi Inquiry 2003149, documenting the gross failure of the UKs child protection system leading to the death of Victoria Climbi. The Inquirys Chairman concluded that despite the Children Act 1989 having been in force for just under a decade, the standard of investigation into criminal offences against children may not be as rigorous as the investigation of similar crimes against adults. The Laming Review of Child Protection (Baby P case) 2009150, making wide-ranging recommendations in relation to child protection in the UK (Laming, 2009). Adult and Child Protection Committees Significant Case Reviews, for example, a significant case review was commissioned in line with national guidance to examine the particular circumstances surrounding the child protection issues, and the role of the various authorities involved, following the death of Brandon Muir in Dundee in 2008.151

    Protection of life: Outcomes of serious case reviews Safeguarding Adults Board Serious Case Reviews (Jean and Derek Randall case) finding no neglect by authorities in relation to the death of an elderly couple who died of natural causes in their home after refusing offers of help by local authorities.152 Serious Case Review, Parkside House, Northamptonshire, June 2010 (on behalf of Northamptonshire Safeguarding Vulnerable Adults Board) a review into the case of five elderly people who died from causes that were considered to be consistent with the effects of severe neglect.153

    84

    The Right to Life HRA, Article 2

    Proportion of child death1 reviews completed by Child Death Overview Panels (CDOPs) on behalf of Local Safeguarding Children Boards (LSCBs)2 which were reviewed as preventable. England, years ending 31 March 2009 and 2010
    Number of child death reviews completed on behalf of the LSCB which were assessed as preventable6 in the year ending 31 March 2009 2010 Total 2009 and 2010 260 20 20 20 30 40 20 40 30 20 50 20 Proportion of all completed child deaths reviewed which were assessed as preventable7 in the year ending 31 March 2009 2010 Total 2009 and 2010 5% 7% 2% 3% 5% 5% 4% 5% 8% 3% 7% 7%

    England Region North East North West12 Yorkshire and Humberside East Midlands West Midlands East of England London Inner London Outer London South East South West

    110 10 10 10 10 20 x 20 20 x 30 10

    150 10 10 10 20 30 20 20 10 10 20 10

    5% 12% 2% 4% 5% 4% x 5% 10% x 14% 15%

    4% 6% 2% 3% 5% 5% 6% 5% 6% 4% 4% 5%

    Source: Department for Education (2010a), Table A.

    85

    The Right to Life HRA, Article 2

    Notes: 1. A child for these purposes is defined as a child aged 0 up to 18 years, excluding still births. 2. Figures are rounded to the nearest 10. Figures may not add up due to rounding. Numbers from 1 to 5 inclusive have been suppressed, being replaced by a cross (x). Percentages are shown rounded to whole numbers but where the numerator was five or less or the denominator was 10 or less, they have been suppressed and replaced by a cross (x). Notes 3-5 are not shown as they relate to additional data from the source table that is not presented here. 6. A preventable child death is defined as events, actions or omissions contributing to the death of a child or to substandard care of a child who died, and which, by means of national or locally achievable interventions, can be modified. 7. A number of panels encountered issues in the first year of reviewing child deaths which meant that the proportion of deaths assessed as preventable was artificially high, or artificially low. For example some panels prioritised the order in which deaths were reviewed to ensure that by 31 March 2009 the deaths with they felt had the greatest learning points were reviewed fully. This resulted in a high proportion of preventable child deaths in the first year of reviewing deaths. Other panels had experienced problems interpreting the definition of preventability, therefore by 31 March 2009 they felt unable to fully review many of the child deaths which were the most complex and more likely to be preventable. This resulted in a low proportion of preventable child deaths in the first year of reviewing deaths. Notes 8-10 are not shown as they relate to additional data from the source table that is not presented here. 11. This proportion is calculated by dividing the sum of number of child death reviews completed in the year ending 31 March 2009 and 31 March 2010 (column F) by the approximate number of deaths in the year ending 31 March 2009 and 31 March 2010 (Column Q). 12. Please note that one LSCB included child death reviews which had been completed in April 2009 in the data provided for the year ending 31 March 2009, therefore there are a small number of children included in the last two columns in the table.

    86

    The Right to Life HRA, Article 2

    Table 15: Outcomes of key investigations into deaths concerns around police response and the failure to protect highlighted by the IPCC The IPCC Annual Report for 2008-09 details nine deaths that were alleged murders where concerns were raised about the police response prior to the death. The largest group of cases included women (six) who were known to be at risk from their former partners and were subsequently murdered. Two children were found dead after officers responded to a call expressing concerns about their mothers mental welfare. One teenager was shot dead after police were made aware that he had been the target of a stabbing attack. Source: IPCC (2009d: 5,6). The IPCC Annual Report for 2009-10 notes that a growing number of referrals and complaints are in cases where violence against and abuse of women is involved. Another trend is the number of cases where the allegation is that the police and other statutory agencies have failed to protect women or vulnerable people from violence and abuse. The IPCC states that: Failure to protect covers cases where there has been prior contact with the police, but the allegation or concern is that their actions have not prevented a death, injury or serious offence. Investigations into these cases focus on whether a different course of action by the police could have prevented the tragic outcome. A number of relevant investigations into deaths are detailed in the IPCC 2009-10 Annual Report. For example, the IPCC carried out an independent investigation into the way that West Midlands Police responded to contact from Ms Rabina Bibi on the day of her death. Ms Bibi was murdered at her home in Coventry in 2008 by her ex-partner in front of her seven-year-old daughter. The IPCC investigation found that the force failed Ms Bibi by not dispatching police officers to her when she initially called for assistance, contrary to force policy on domestic abuse. Source: IPCC (2010).

    87

    The Right to Life HRA, Article 2

    The terms of investigation of the IPCC report into the death of Ms Rabina Bibi included an explicit reference to the duty to take reasonable steps to protect life under the HRA. These included explicit consideration of whether The force had met its obligations under Article 2 of the Human Rights Act and otherwise to take reasonable steps to protect Rabina Bibis life. Source: Report following the IPCCs independent investigation into West Midlands police contact with Rabina Bibi immediately prior to her death in Foleshill on 3 September 2008, 25 January 2010, www.ipcc.gov.uk/en/Pages/inv_reports_central_ region.aspx The IPCC Annual Report for 2009-10 further notes that the police failure to protect can also be an issue in cases where the police have not responded to reports of anti-social behaviour. An inquest into the deaths of Fiona Pilkington and her daughter ended in September 2009. The inquest heard that Ms Pilkington and her neighbours had made 33 calls over a seven-year period asking police for help after suffering repeated and continuing abuse and torment from a gang of youths outside her home in Barwell. In October 2007, Ms Pilkington drove to a lay-by near Earl Shilton, Leicestershire and set the car alight with herself and her disabled daughter inside the vehicle. The IPCCs final report concluded that the failure by police officers to identify Fiona Pilkington, her son and daughter as a collective vulnerable family unit was at the core of Leicestershire Constabularys failure to implement a cohesive, structured and effective approach to the harassment/antisocial behaviour from which they were suffering.154 Source: IPCC (2010). Table 16: Outcomes of key investigations into deaths investigation of excess deaths in Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust by the Healthcare Commission (now the Care Quality Commission) In 2008 the Healthcare Commission (now the Care Quality Commission) carried out an investigation into apparently high mortality rates in patients admitted as emergencies to Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust since April 2005, and the care provided to these patients. It also considered the trusts arrangements for monitoring mortality rates and its systems for ensuring that patients were cared for safely. One of the aims of the investigation was to clarify how the trust investigated its apparently high mortality rates. Analysis undertaken for the investigation showed that the trust consistently had a high mortality rate for patients admitted as emergencies, which it could not explain. The rate had been comparatively high for several years, but the trust had not investigated this. In April 2007, Dr Fosters Hospital Guide showed that the trust had a hospital standardised mortality ratio (HSMR) of 127 for 2005-06, in other words more deaths than expected. The trust established a group to look into mortality, but put much of its effort into attempting to establish whether the high rate was a consequence of poor recording of clinical information. 88

    The Right to Life HRA, Article 2

    The investigation found that the trust did not have a grip on operational and organisational issues, with no effective system for the admission and management of patients admitted as emergencies. Nor did it have a system to monitor outcomes for patients, so it failed to identify high mortality rates among patients admitted as emergencies. This was a serious failing. Commenting on the national picture and lessons for other organisations , the investigation recommended that in the future trusts should be able to get access to timely and reliable information on comparative mortality and other outcomes, and for trusts to conduct objective and robust reviews of mortality rates and individual cases, rather than assuming errors in data. Source: Healthcare Commission (now the Care Quality Commission) (2009). Table 17: Outcomes of key investigations into deaths investigation into six deaths of people with learning difficulties by the PHSO The PHSO and the Local Government Ombudsman Six Lives Report sets out the findings of its investigation into complaints about the deaths of six people with learning difficulties. The report highlights failures in the quality of health and social care services for people with learning disabilities; finding, with maladministration, service failure and unremedied injustice in a number, but not all, of the 20 bodies investigated (three councils, 16 NHS bodies and the Healthcare Commission(now the Care Quality Commission)). Significant failures in service across both health and social care are identified. The report highlights the impact of organisational behaviour which does not adapt to individual needs, or even consistently follow procedures designed to maintain a basic quality of service for everyone. A lack of leadership and a failure to understand the law in relation to disability discrimination and human rights is highlighted. This led to situations in which people with learning disabilities were treated less favourably than others, resulting in prolonged suffering and inappropriate care. The PHSO concluded that in one case the death of the person concerned occurred as a consequence of the service failure and maladministration identified. In another case it concluded that it was likely the death of the person could have been avoided, had the care and treatment provided not fallen so far below the relevant standard. In two cases, although complaints of service failure and maladministration were upheld, the Ombudsman did not conclude that the persons death was avoidable. Source: PHSO (2009).

    89

    The Right to Life HRA, Article 2

    Table 18: The right to life key concerns and allegations raised by private individuals and civil society organisations/reports in the media Inquests Briefing on the death of Ian Tomlinson155, arguing that Mr Tomlinsons death raises key concerns around police powers, tactics and responsibilities. Inquest argued that The controversial circumstances surrounding Mr Tomlinsons death require robust, independent and transparent investigation. According to Inquest, his death also raises wider contextual questions about: a. b. c. d. e. f. the police planning, operation, command and control of the G20 protests; the lines of accountability and control in relation to joint police operations; the role of the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) Territorial Support Group (TSG); abuse of police powers including the use of excessive and unlawful force; the police strategy of forcibly preventing people from leaving the area and the policy of containment known as kettling; the police media strategy and their briefings preceding the G20 protests, during the day, and following Ian Tomlinsons death and how this affected police strategy and behaviour; the inaccuracy of official accounts concerning the contact between police officers and Ian Tomlinson and the cause of his death; the failure of the police to learn from the Metropolitan Polices shameful handling of the aftermath of the death of Jean Charles de Menezes; the role of the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) including in relation to the media, and the process of investigating deaths following police contact.

    g. h. i.

    Inquests Briefing on the death of Jimmy Mubenga (Inquest 2011)156 during removal from the UK whilst being escorted by three private security guards working for Group 4 Services (G4S) contracted by the UK Border Agency (UKBA). The Briefing called for a parliamentary committee inquiry into use of restraint and force in deportation cases and scrutiny by human rights mechanisms.

    90

    The Right to Life HRA, Article 2

    Inquests Briefing on the death of 14-year-old Adam Rickwood (Inquest 2007)157 stated that [t]here have been 29 deaths of children in penal custody in England and Wales since 1990. There has never been a public inquiry following any of these deaths. Collectively they raise thematic issues that need to be addressed in a joined-up manner through a properly resourced inquiry so that appropriate recommendations are made to ensure that lessons are learned and safeguards put in place to protect the lives of children in the future. Inquest argued that the death of 14-year-old Adam Rickwood158 reignited concerns over the treatment of children by the criminal justice system. His case has attracted substantial parliamentary and public disquiet and led for calls for a radical overhaul of the way the state treats child offenders. It suggested that its casework has highlighted that child deaths are too often linked to failings in the community, the inappropriate use of penal custody for vulnerable children, and inadequate treatment whilst in custody whereby the institutions are unable to care for the vulnerabilities of those that they detain. Inquest calls for a judicial inquiry into the treatment of children within the juvenile justice system which should consider the following issues as part of its deliberations: the type and prevalence of physical restraint used against children in custody; the appropriateness of the force used on children; how the type of the pain inflicting nose distraction technique was originally approved and medically assessed; the monitoring, auditing and reviewing of PCC and if potential risks and injuries were identified; how the staff are trained in the use of restraint.

    Mencaps Death by Indifference campaign a campaign following the deaths of six people with learning disabilities in NHS care, exposure of alleged massive care failings, suggestion that the individuals concerned died unnecessarily as a result of receiving worse healthcare than people without learning disabilities, challenging earlier findings of no service failure by the PHSO159. Mencap welcomes the Six Lives Report of the PHSO whilst not accepting the finding in relation to GPs. Details of Mencaps position are provided at www.mencap.org.uk/news.asp?id=9637. See Table 14.

    Institute of Race Relations (2006), Driven to Desperate Measures highlighting the deaths of 221 asylum seekers who have died either attempting to reach the UK or in the UK in the past 17 years, including people taking their own lives after having asylum claims rejected or those who died after being returned to countries where they feared for their safety.160

    91

    The Right to Life HRA, Article 2

    Medical Justice, Outsourcing Abuse: The use and misuse of state-sanctioned force during the detention and removal of asylum seekers (Birnberg Peirce & Partners et al., 2008).161 Daily Mail, Dignity for the Elderly Campaign against neglect of the elderly within health and social care establishments.162

    Press/media/advocacy reports of deportation cases Brenda Namigadde case outcome pending, the threatened deportation of lesbian woman to Uganda where she fears for her life after recent attacks on homosexuals.163 Medhi Kazemi case a gay Iranian teenager granted asylum on the grounds of fearing for his life if returned to Iran.164 Dumisani Lungu case a child and his HIV positive parents face deportation to Malawi where the parents argue that the lack of medical treatment will lead to their rapid deaths.165

    Other press/media/advocacy reports BBC Panorama report that proper maternity care could have prevented the deaths of 17 women in London over 18 months.166

    92

    The Right to Life HRA, Article 2

    Indicator 6: Spotlight statistics: Deaths in the police and criminal justice system context
    Table 19: Deaths during or following police contact (type of death by gender, age group and by ethnicity), England and Wales, 2008-09
    Road traffic fatalities N Gender Male Female Total Age group Not known Under 18 yrs 18-20 yrs 21-30 yrs 31-40 yrs 41-50 yrs 51-60 yrs 61 yrs and over Total Ethnic group White Of which: White British Any other White background 36 90 2 67 9 60 20 59 67 73 38 95 3 100 10 67 24 71 75 82 0 7 4 16 4 2 3 4 40 18 10 40 10 5 8 10 100 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 3 100 100 0 0 0 2 4 8 1 0 15 13 27 53 7 100 1 4 3 7 9 8 0 2 34 3 12 9 21 26 24 6 100 1 11 7 25 20 18 4 6 92 1 12 8 27 22 20 4 7 100 34 6 40 85 15 100 3 0 3 100 100 13 2 15 87 13 100 24 10 34 71 29 100 74 18 92 80 20 100 % Fatal shootings N % Death during or following police custody N % Other deaths following police contact N % N

    Total %

    33

    12

    Continued

    93

    The Right to Life HRA, Article 2

    Table 19: Deaths during or following police contact (type of death by gender, age group and by ethnicity), England and Wales, 2008-09 (continued)
    Road traffic fatalities N Asian or Asian British Of which: Asian Indian Any other Asian background Black or Black British Of which: Black Caribbean Black African Any other Black background Mixed race Of which: White and Black Caribbean Any other ethnic group Not known Total 0 0 0 0 1 1 7 7 0 2 6 1 3 1 3 0 0 2 13 0 2 2 0 % Fatal shootings N 0 % Death during or following police custody N 2 % 13 Other deaths following police contact N 2 % 6 N 4

    Total % 4

    0 2

    0 0

    0 3

    20

    2 4

    6 12

    2 9

    2 10

    2 0

    0 0

    1 0

    2 1

    6 3

    5 1

    5 1

    0 0 0 40

    100

    0 0 0 3

    100

    0 0 0 15

    100

    1 2 1 34

    3 6 3 100

    1 2 1 92

    1 2 1 100

    Source: IPCC (2009a), Tables A1.1, A1.2 and A1.3. Note: 1 Percentages are rounded and therefore may not add up to 100 per cent.

    94

    Table 20: Number of fatal injuries incurred by members of the public as a result of a road traffic accident while in pursuit/ emergency response, 1996-07 2008-09, Scotland
    Fife 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 Grampian Lothian & Borders Northern Strathclyde Tayside Scotland 2 0 3 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 1

    Central 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

    Dumfries & Galloway

    199697

    1997-98

    1998-99

    1999-2000

    2000-01

    2001-02

    2002-03

    2003-04

    2004-05

    n/k

    2005-06

    95

    2006-07

    2007-08

    2008-09

    Source: The Scottish Government (2011).

    The Right to Life HRA, Article 2

    Table 21: Number of fatal injuries incurred by members of the public as a result of a road traffic accident while not in pursuit/ emergency response, 1996-07 2008-09, Scotland
    Fife 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Grampian Lothian & Borders Northern Strathclyde Tayside Scotland 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 1

    Central 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

    Dumfries & Galloway

    199697

    The Right to Life HRA, Article 2

    1997-98

    1998-99

    1999-2000

    2000-01

    2001-02

    2002-03

    2003-04

    2004-05

    n/k

    2005-06

    96

    2006-07

    2007-08

    2008-09

    Source: The Scottish Government (2011).

    The Right to Life HRA, Article 2

    Table 22: Fatal incidents investigated by the Prisons and Probations Ombudsman, by type of death and location, England and Wales, 2009-10
    Male prison Self-Inflicted Natural Causes Homicide or Attack Illicit Drug Overdose Accidental Unclassified Total 54 107 0 2 0 6 169 Female prison 1 4 0 0 0 0 5 YOI 5 0 0 0 0 0 5 Approved Immigration Premises removal centre 3 4 0 3 0 1 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Discretionary 0 1 0 1 0 1 3 Total 63 116 0 6 0 8 193

    Source: PPO (2010).

    97

    The Right to Life HRA, Article 2

    Table 23: Self-inflicted deaths in prison custody by time in custody and by gender, England and Wales, 2005-09
    2005 Time in custody 1 to 2 days
    2 1

    2006 2 3 2 6 10 8 11 25 67 64 3 67 78,127

    2007 1 4 6 10 11 15 10 35 92 84 8 92 80,216

    2008 3 4 3 5 8 8 9 20 60 59 1 60 82,572

    2009 0 8 4 6 8 10 6 18 60 57 3 60 83,461

    on day of arrival 3 days to one week 1 week to 1 month 1 month to 3 months 3 months to 6 months 6 months to 1 year over one year Total self-inflicted deaths Gender Male Female Total self-inflicted deaths Prison population4 Three-year rolling average annual rates per 1,000 prisoners (self-inflicted deaths)
    3

    0 11 2 15 9 12 10 19 78 74 4 78 75,979

    1.20

    1.05

    1.01

    0.91

    0.86

    Source: Ministry of Justice (MoJ) (2010a), Tables 2 and 3. Notes: 1 Time in custody refers to time spent on current offence/prison number. Some prisoners may have previously spent time in prison custody for a different offence with a different prison number but this is not included. 2 Prisoners who die on the date of arrival will typically have been in the prison for less than 12 hours. The one to two days category includes any death after midnight on the date of arrival and before midnight on the second complete day in the prison. Care needs to be taken when interpreting numbers of deaths in the early days of custody as the actual number of deaths in precise 24-hour time slots is not known accurately due to uncertainty about the exact time of incident/death. 3 Deaths in prison custody figures include deaths of prisoners while released on temporary license (ROTL) for medical reasons but exclude other types of ROTL (see Data Sources and Quality). Approximately one one-third of the deaths in prison custody shown here actually occur in hospitals or hospices. 4 Population statistics are derived from the MoJ Offender Management Caseload Statistics. The prison population figure shown for 2009 is provisional.

    98

    The Right to Life HRA, Article 2

    Table 24: Self-inflicted death by sentenced/unsentenced prisoners According to HMIP, the downward trend in self-inflicted deaths in prisons observed in 2007-08 was maintained in 2008-09. There were 64 deaths in the inspectorate reporting year, compared with 68 in the previous year, and in the calendar year 2009, there were 60, the same as in 2008, and a decline of a third since 2007. As a proportion of the prison population, the rate dropped from 133 per 100,000 in 2002 to 72 per 100,000. As in previous years, around two-thirds of self-inflicted deaths took place in local prisons, though one in four were in training prisons. A disproportionate number were unsentenced: though only 16 per cent of the population, they accounted for half the deaths. A high proportion of deaths continue to take place in the early days in a new prison. One in three occurred within the first seven days of being in the current prison an indication of the additional vulnerability at this stage and 42 per cent occurred within the first 28 days. Foreign national prisoners this year were under-represented in self-inflicted deaths, but life-sentenced prisoners remained over-represented. Source: HMIP England and Wales (2010b: 11, 21, 22).

    99

    Table 25: Child deaths in penal custody, 1990-date, England and Wales (including deaths in privately-run secure training centres)
    Age Date 17 15 17 16 14 15 17 16 16 16 16 17 17 17 17 17 17 16 17 17 17/01/1997 17/04/1998 09/07/1998 Self-Inflicted Self-Inflicted Self-Inflicted 10/11/1998 Self-Inflicted 30/05/1999 Self-Inflicted 29/08/1999 Self-Inflicted 30/05/2000 Self-Inflicted 01/08/2000 Self-Inflicted 06/09/2000 Self-Inflicted HMYOI Feltham HMYOI Wetherby HMYOI Brinsford HMYOI Hindley HMYOI Wetherby HMYOI Hindley HMYOI Glen Parva HMP Doncaster HMYOI Hindley 15/02/2001 Self-Inflicted HMYOI Brinsford 27/07/2001 Self-Inflicted HMYOI Wetherby 29/09/2001 Self-Inflicted HMYOI Feltham 24/03/2002 Self-Inflicted HMYOI Stoke Heath 06/10/2002 Self-Inflicted HMP Parc 19/04/2004 Restraint Rainsbrook STC 09/08/2004 Self-Inflicted Hassockfield STC Narrative Accidental death + narrative Misadventure Accidental death Suicide + neglect Misadventure Accidental death Suicide Misadventure Suicide Suicide Suicide Accidental death Suicide Suicide Suicide while balance of his mind disturbed Continued 20/01/2005 Self-Inflicted HMYOI Lancaster Farms Narrative 15/09/2005 Self-Inflicted HMYOI Hindley Narrative 29/11/2007 Self-inflicted HMYOI Lancaster Farms Narrative 18/04/2011 Self-inflicted HMYOI Wetherby Awaited Classification Establishment Inquest Verdict

    Name

    Sex

    Ethnicity

    Ryan Clark

    Male

    White

    Liam McManus

    Male

    UK White

    Sam Elphick

    Male

    UK White

    The Right to Life HRA, Article 2

    Gareth Price

    Male

    UK White

    Adam Rickwood

    Male

    UK White

    Gareth Myatt

    Male

    UK mixed

    Ian Powell

    Male

    UK White

    Joseph Scholes

    Male

    UK White

    Kevin Jacobs

    Male

    UK White

    Mark Dade

    Male

    UK White

    Anthony Redding

    Male

    UK White

    Kevin Henson

    Male

    UK White

    100

    Philip Griffin

    Male

    UK White

    David Dennis

    Male

    UK White

    Anthony Howarth

    Male

    UK White

    Kirk Edwards

    Male

    UK White

    John Keyworth

    Male

    UK White

    Nicholas Whelan

    Male

    UK White

    Colin Scarborough

    Male

    UK White

    Lee Wagstaff

    Male

    UK White

    Table 25: Child deaths in penal custody, 1990-date, England and Wales (including deaths in privately-run secure training centres) (continued)
    Age Date 16 16 17 17 17 16 15 15 17 15 12/07/1990 Self-Inflicted HMP Swansea 12/08/1990 Self-Inflicted HMP Leeds 26/10/1990 Self-Inflicted HMYOI Glen Parva 22/09/1991 Self-Inflicted HMYOI Feltham Open Open Open 02/05/1992 Self-Inflicted HMYOI Deerbolt Suicide Accidental death 13/09/1993 Self-Inflicted HMP Exeter Open 10/05/1994 Self-Inflicted HMP Cardiff Suicide 08/08/1994 Self-Inflicted HMP Low Newton Suicide 02/10/1995 Homicide HMP Stoke Heath Unlawful killing 03/12/1995 Self-Inflicted HMP Doncaster Accidental death Classification Establishment Inquest Verdict

    Name

    Sex

    Ethnicity

    Mark Weldrand

    Male

    UK White

    Chris Greenaway

    Male

    UK White

    Andrew Batey

    Male

    UK White

    Joseph Stanley

    Male

    Irish White

    David Stewart

    Male

    UK White

    Patrick Murphy

    Male

    UK White

    Jeffrey Horler

    Male

    UK White

    Craig Walsh

    Male

    UK White

    Simon Willerton

    Male

    UK White

    Philip Knight

    Male

    UK White

    Source: INQUEST (2011), Casework and monitoring. Copies of narrative verdicts are available on request from INQUEST.167

    101

    Acronyms: HMYOI Her Majestys Young Offenders Institute; HMP Her Majestys Prison; STC Secure Training Centre.

    Reference: Inquest (2011), Child deaths in penal custody (England and Wales) 1990-date, available from www.inquest.org.uk/

    The Right to Life HRA, Article 2

    The Right to Life HRA, Article 2

    Table 26: Deaths of young people aged 21 and under in prison (England and Wales) 1990-date: INQUEST monitoring
    Year 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 Total: Self-inflicted 8 5 9 8 9 3 13 6 13 16 15 18 19 15 16 14 11 12 3 10 5 10 238 Non-selfinflicted 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 1 3 1 3 0 2 0 0 0 0 18 Other Nonnatural causes 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 Homicide 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 6 Total 8 5 11 8 11 3 14 7 15 18 15 20 20 19 19 17 12 14 3 10 5 10 264

    Source: INQUEST monitoring and case work, updated August 2011.168

    102

    The Right to Life HRA, Article 2

    Indicator 7: Spotlight statistics: Deaths within health and social care institutions/community care
    Table 27: Hospital Standardised Mortality Ratios
    Lower than expected mortality Aintree University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust Ashford and St Peters Hospitals NHS Trust Barnet and Chase Farm Hospitals NHS Trust Barts and The London NHS Trust Bradford Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust East Kent Hospitals University NHS Foundation Trust Epsom and St Helier University Hospitals NHS Trust Frimley Park Hospital NHS Foundation Trust Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust North Bristol NHS Trust North West London Hospitals NHS Trust Plymouth Hospitals NHS Trust Royal Free Hampstead NHS Trust Salford Royal NHS Foundation Trust Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust St Georges Healthcare NHS Trust Taunton and Somerset NHS Foundation Trust The Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust The Whittington Hospital NHS Trust University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust West Middlesex University Hospital NHS Trust Ratio 85 90 88 89 81 81 79 90 85 80 91 92 87 90 87 86 72 84 92 84 89 90 84 72 86 86 Continued

    103

    The Right to Life HRA, Article 2

    Table 27: Hospital Standardised Mortality Ratios (continued)


    Higher than expected mortality Barking, Havering and Redbridge University Hospitals NHS Trust Buckinghamshire Hospitals NHS Trust City Hospitals Sunderland NHS Foundation Trust* Derby Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust East Sussex Hospitals NHS Trust* George Eliot Hospital NHS Trust* Hull and East Yorkshire Hospitals NHS Trust Isle of Wight NHS Primary Care Trust* Mid Cheshire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust Northampton General Hospital NHS Trust* Pennine Acute Hospitals NHS Trust** Royal Bolton Hospital NHS Foundation Trust** Shrewsbury and Telford Hospital NHS Trust* South London Healthcare NHS Trust* Southport and Ormskirk Hospital NHS Trust* The Dudley Group of Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust The Royal Wolverhampton Hospitals NHS Trust* University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust Western Sussex Hospitals NHS Trust* Ratio 116 118 114 112 110 113 117 115 114 112 110 116 117 109 113 115 116 109 107

    Source: Dr Foster (2010). Notes: * Denotes trusts which did not have high HSMRs last year. ** Denotes trusts with high HSMRs for the past six years. According to the Dr Foster report,: the HSMR is one of the most commonly used measures of overall mortality for trusts and looks at those conditions which account for the vast majority of deaths in hospital (80 per cent). The table compares the number of deaths at the trust with an estimate of the number that would happen if mortality ratios were in line with the national average. This takes into account a patients diagnosis, age, admission method and other characteristics. If a trust has the same number of deaths as estimated, it is given a score of 100. If it has 10 per cent more deaths, it is given a score of 110, or for 10 per cent fewer deaths a score of 90 (Dr Foster 2010: 11).

    104

    The Right to Life HRA, Article 2

    Table 28: Deaths where malnutrition was the underlying cause of death, by place of death, England and Wales, 1997-091, 2, 3, 4
    Deaths (persons) Place of death Care home Hospital Other Total

    1997 11 34 6 51

    1998 19 25 5 49

    1999 8 28 9 45

    2000 9 26 8 43

    2001 6 45 7 58

    2002 6 56 5 67

    2003 8 51 6 65

    2004 7 45 8 60

    2005 4 45 12 61

    2006 3 62 10 75

    2007 7 53 19 79

    2008 8 42 17 67

    2009 11 57 14 82

    Source: Office for National Statistics (ONS) (2011b). Notes: See Figure 9 for a discussion of the interpretation of this data. 1 Cause of death was defined using the International Classification of Diseases (ICD), Ninth Revision (ICD-9) codes 260-263 (malnutrition) for the years 1997-2000, and the ICD, Tenth Revision (ICD-10) codes E40-E46 (malnutrition) for 2001 onwards. Deaths were included where malnutrition was the underlying cause of death. The introduction of ICD-10 in 2001 means that the numbers of deaths from these causes before 2001 are not completely comparable with later years. 2 Care home includes a variety of NHS, local authority and private nursing/care/ residential homes; Hospital includes NHS hospitals or multifunction sites, and military and other non-NHS hospitals; Other includes any other place e.g. other types of communal establishment, at home (at a private residential address) and elsewhere. 3 Figures for England and Wales include deaths of non-residents. 4 Figures are for deaths registered in each calendar year.

    105

    The Right to Life HRA, Article 2

    Table 29: Deaths (persons) where malnutrition and effects of hunger were mentioned on the death certificate, by place of death, England and Wales, 199720091, 2, 3, 4
    Deaths (persons) Place of death Care home Hospital Other Total

    1997 30 175 40 245

    1998 33 163 22 218

    1999 26 192 49 267

    2000 36 181 29 246

    2001 27 195 34 256

    2002 26 249 19 294

    2003 26 222 32 280

    2004 25 222 36 283

    2005 27 218 35 280

    2006 25 268 51 344

    2007 29 268 56 353

    2008 38 288 56 382

    2009 38 284 53 375

    Source: ONS (2011b). Notes: See Figure 9 for a discussion of the interpretation of this data. 1 Cause of death was defined using the International Classification of Diseases (ICD), Ninth Revision (ICD-9) codes 260-263 (malnutrition) for the years 1997-2000, and the ICD, Tenth Revision (ICD-10) codes E40-E46 (malnutrition) for 2001 onwards. Deaths were included where malnutrition was the underlying cause of death. The introduction of ICD-10 in 2001 means that the numbers of deaths from these causes before 2001 are not completely comparable with later years. 2 Care home includes a variety of NHS, local authority and private nursing/care/ residential homes; Hospital includes NHS hospitals or multifunction sites, and military and other non-NHS hospitals; Other includes any other place e.g. other types of communal establishment, at home (at a private residential address) and elsewhere. 3 Figures for England and Wales include deaths of non-residents. 4 Figures are for deaths registered in each calendar year.

    106

    Table 30: Number of deaths and age-standardised rate per 1 million population, where the cause specified was the underlying cause of death, by place of death, England and Wales, 1997-091, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
    Care home Rate5 .. .. 0.2 .. 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.7 1.2 1.8 1.6 1.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.2 97 128 0.0 0.2 106 0.1 0.3 99 0.1 0.3 79 0.8 1.1 1.1 1.0 1.3 0.1 0.2 99 1.1 0.9 1.3 1,563 14.5 13.8 0.9 0.7 0.8 0.9 0.8 1.1 1.4 1.8 2,288 21.8 20.9 1.5 2.0 1,735 16.8 16.0 1.0 1.4 1,714 16.8 16.0 17.6 17.6 22.7 15.2 1.3 1.0 1.3 1.3 1.2 1.6 0.6 0.9 957 9.7 9.1 10.3 0.3 0.5 585 6.0 5.5 6.5 0.2 0.4 467 4.8 4.4 5.3 0.1 0.3 408 4.2 3.8 4.7 325 473 603 1,032 1,644 2,114 35 26 6 13 11 11 6 7 0.2 0.4 359 3.7 3.4 4.1 308 .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 0.1 0.3 247 2.8 2.4 3.1 265 3.0 .. 3.2 3.4 5.0 6.2 10.3 16.2 20.3 0.4 0.2 * 0.1 0.1 0.1 * * .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 2.6 .. 2.8 3.1 4.5 5.7 9.7 15.4 19.4 0.2 0.1 * 0.1 0.1 0.1 * * LCL6 UCL6 Number Rate5 LCL6 UCL6 Rate5 LCL6 Number .. .. 19 .. 26 21 28 41 74 132 207 179 123 15 18 22 10 15 24 Hospital Other UCL6 .. .. 3.3 .. 3.6 3.8 5.4 6.7 11.0 17.0 21.2 0.5 0.3 * 0.2 0.2 0.2 * * Continued
    The Right to Life HRA, Article 2

    Cause

    Year

    Number

    c. difficile

    1997

    c. difficile

    1998

    c. difficile

    1999

    c. difficile

    2000

    c. difficile

    2001

    c. difficile

    2002

    c. difficile

    2003

    c. difficile

    2004

    c. difficile

    2005

    c. difficile

    2006

    c. difficile

    2007

    107

    c. difficile

    2008

    c. difficile

    2009

    Dehydration

    1997

    Dehydration

    1998

    Dehydration

    1999

    Dehydration

    2000

    Dehydration

    2001

    Dehydration

    2002

    Table 30: Number of deaths and age-standardised rate per 1 million population, where the cause specified was the underlying cause of death, by place of death, England and Wales, 1997-09 (continued)1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
    Care home Rate Rate 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.1 1.3 1.5 1.1 46.6 44.7 47.5 49.1 53.4 50.8 54.9 56.4 56.4 56.4 57.0 5,791 5,616 57.0 54.2 51.9 49.3 53.4 54.9 54.9 54.9 55.5 55.5 52.8 47.6 46.1 49.0 50.6 55.0 52.3 56.4 57.9 57.9 57.8 58.5 58.5 55.6 43.3 46.1 45.2 48.1 0.9 1.3 1.2 1.7 12 8 599 485 526 556 630 612 660 645 672 638 594 617 588 1.0 1.5 8 0.9 1.4 8 1.2 1.7 11 0.1 * * 0.1 * 9.0 7.2 7.7 8.3 9.0 8.7 9.4 9.0 9.2 8.6 7.9 7.9 7.8 1.2 1.6 7 * 1.0 1.5 11 0.1 0.1 * 0.0 * * 0.0 * 8.2 6.5 7.1 7.6 8.3 8.0 8.7 8.3 8.5 7.9 7.3 7.3 7.2 Rate 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.2 7.6 7.4 7.4 6.6 7.0 7.2 7.3 6.7 6.4 5.5 5.8 5.8 5.4 4.9 5.8 5.3 6.2 5.4 6.3 5.1 6.0 5,535 5,708 5.9 6.9 5,375 6.2 7.2 5,197 6.7 7.8 5,023 6.7 7.7 4,609 6.5 7.6 4,768 6.1 7.1 4,275 6.9 8.0 4,079 6.9 8.0 3,801 7.0 8.1 3,881 0.1 0.3 128 0.2 0.5 162 0.2 0.4 130 0.2 0.5 121 0.2 0.4 147 0.1 0.3 139 0.1 0.3 125
    5

    Hospital Number
    5

    Other Number
    5

    Cause LCL
    6

    Year UCL
    6

    Number LCL
    6

    UCL

    LCL

    UCL6 0.2 * 0.2 * * 0.2 * 9.7 7.8 8.4 8.9 9.7 9.4 10.1 9.7 9.9 9.3 8.6 8.6 8.4 Continued

    Dehydration 22 29 37 32 41 24 717 712 721 652 711 729 728 684 675 609 670 679 644

    2003

    21

    Dehydration

    2004

    The Right to Life HRA, Article 2

    Dehydration

    2005

    Dehydration

    2006

    Dehydration

    2007

    Dehydration

    2008

    Dehydration

    2009

    Falls

    1997

    Falls

    1998

    Falls

    1999

    Falls

    2000

    108

    Falls

    2001

    Falls

    2002

    Falls

    2003

    Falls

    2004

    Falls

    2005

    Falls

    2006

    Falls

    2007

    Falls

    2008

    Falls

    2009

    Table 30: Number of deaths and age-standardised rate per 1 million population, where the cause specified was the underlying cause of death, by place of death, England and Wales, 1997-09 (continued)1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
    Care home Rate LCL Rate 0.7 0.8 0.7 1.1 1.5 1.3 1.5 1.4 2.1 2.6 1.8 2.2 1.4 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.5 1.5 175 158 1.9 1.7 1.9 1.2 1.1 1.2 1.4 1.2 1.3 1.6 1.5 1.6 2.3 3.0 2.1 2.5 1.6 1.6 1.7 1.9 1.7 1.8 2.2 2.0 1.8 2.4 1.1 1.6 1.3 1.8 1.1 1.6 125 163 205 247 263 247 3 0 17 9 15 15 13 22 16 1.3 1.8 113 0.9 1.3 92 0.6 0.9 59 0.7 1.2 1.3 1.5 1.9 2.4 2.7 2.8 2.7 * * 0.2 * 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.6 1.0 50 0.6 0.5 0.8 42 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.9 1.1 1.2 1.6 2.0 2.3 2.5 2.4 * * 0.1 * 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 Rate * 0.0 0.0 * 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.1 * 0.8 0.9 0.8 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.8 1.2 1.0 1.0 0.9 138 137 1.2 143 1.3 128 1.2 117 * 139 0.2 208 0.4 180 0.3 236 0.4 188 0.4 124 0.3 137 0.2 110 0.2 130 * 91 0.2 59 0.2 56 * 54 UCL LCL UCL LCL * 0.1 0.1 * 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.2 * 1.0 1.1 1.0 0.8 0.8 0.8 1.0
    5 6 6

    Hospital Number
    5 6 6 5 6

    Other Number UCL6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.4 1.6 1.7 2.2 2.7 3.0 3.1 3.0 * * 0.3 * 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.4 0.2 Continued
    The Right to Life HRA, Article 2

    Cause 7 10 10 8 15 11 22 28 30 20 33 17 8 95 109 92 73 81 86 99

    Year

    Number

    MRSA

    1997

    MRSA

    1998

    MRSA

    1999

    MRSA

    2000

    MRSA

    2001

    MRSA

    2002

    MRSA

    2003

    MRSA

    2004

    MRSA

    2005

    MRSA

    2006

    MRSA

    2007

    109

    MRSA

    2008

    MRSA

    2009

    Pressure sores

    1997

    Pressure sores

    1998

    Pressure sores

    1999

    Pressure sores

    2000

    Pressure sores

    2001

    Pressure sores

    2002

    Pressure sores

    2003

    Table 30: Number of deaths and age-standardised rate per 1 million population, where the cause specified was the underlying cause of death, by place of death, England and Wales, 1997-09 (continued)1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
    Care home Rate LCL Rate 2.0 1.9 1.6 1.4 1.4 1.5 19.0 18.5 21.1 21.2 24.9 24.2 25.4 26.1 27.0 26.4 25.8 23.8 2,137 24.1 23.2 24.3 25.0 25.9 25.3 24.8 22.7 23.1 23.8 20.1 22.2 26.0 25.3 26.5 27.2 28.2 27.5 26.9 24.8 25.1 20.1 22.2 17.5 19.5 18.0 20.1 1.3 1.8 19 39 34 38 35 37 41 29 32 46 44 47 45 53 1.2 1.6 13 1.2 1.7 18 1.3 1.8 14 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.5 0.5 0.8 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.8 1.6 2.2 7 * 1.7 2.3 9 * * * 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 Rate 0.5 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.7 0.6 0.4 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.7 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.7 1.0 1.2 1.1 2,219 2,064 1.3 2,261 1.3 2,267 1.1 2,091 1.0 1,996 1.1 1,905 1.2 1,828 0.8 1,496 1.0 1,460 1.0 1,271 0.8 1,279 0.8 150 0.9 147 1.0 146 1.0 155 1.0 178 0.9 176 UCL LCL UCL LCL 0.7 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.6 0.6 0.8 0.8 0.6 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.9 1.1 1.1 1.0 1.0 0.8
    5 6 6

    Hospital Number
    5 6 6 5 6

    Other Number UCL6 * * 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.6 0.6 1.0 0.8 0.8 0.8 1.0

    Cause 69 90 95 89 83 74 58 75 70 53 93 85 77 85 105 111 107 108 90

    Year

    Number

    Pressure sores

    2004

    Pressure sores

    2005

    The Right to Life HRA, Article 2

    Pressure sores

    2006

    Pressure sores

    2007

    Pressure sores

    2008

    Pressure sores

    2009

    Septicaemia

    1997

    Septicaemia

    1998

    Septicaemia

    1999

    Septicaemia

    2000

    Septicaemia

    2001

    110

    Septicaemia

    2002

    Septicaemia

    2003

    Septicaemia

    2004

    Septicaemia

    2005

    Septicaemia

    2006

    Septicaemia

    2007

    Septicaemia

    2008

    Septicaemia

    2009

    Source: ONS (2011b).

    Notes: See Figure 9 for a discussion of the interpretation of this data.

    1 Cause of death was defined using the ICD, Ninth Revision (ICD-9) for the years 1997-2000, and the ICD, Tenth Revision (ICD-10) for 2001 onwards. The ICD codes used are shown in the definitions worksheet. Deaths were included where the specified cause was the underlying cause of death. The introduction of ICD-10 in 2001 means that the numbers of deaths from these causes before 2001 are not completely comparable with later years.

    2 Care home includes a variety of NHS, local authority and private nursing/care/residential homes; Hospital includes NHS hospitals (excluding psychiatric hospitals) or multifunction sites, and military and other non-NHS hospitals; Other includes any other place e.g. other types of communal establishment (such as psychiatric hospitals or hospices), at home (at a private residential address) and elsewhere.

    3 Figures for England and Wales include deaths of non-residents.

    4 Figures are for deaths registered in each calendar year.

    111

    5 Age-standardised mortality rates per 1 million population, standardised to the European Standard Population. Age-standardised rates are used to allow comparison between populations which may contain different proportions of people of different ages, and so also allow comparisons over time.

    6 The lower and upper confidence limits have been provided. These form a confidence interval, which is a measure of the statistical precision of an estimate and show the range of uncertainty around the estimated figure. Calculations based on small numbers of events are often subject to random fluctuations. As a general rule, if the confidence interval around one figure overlaps with the interval around another, we cannot say with certainty that there is more than a chance difference between the two figures. Data for c. difficile is not available for 1997, 1998 and 2000 due to the use of ICD-9. Data is available for 1999 because a special coding exercise was carried out.
    The Right to Life HRA, Article 2

    *Rates are not calculated where there are fewer than 10 deaths.

    Table 31: Number of deaths and age-standardised rate per 1 million population, where the cause specified was mentioned on the death certificate, by place of death, England and Wales, 1997-20091, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
    Care home Rate5 .. .. 0.3 .. 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.8 1.2 2.2 3.5 3.3 1.9 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.7 1.0 0.8 1.2 0.5 0.8 587 775 0.4 0.7 546 0.5 0.8 561 0.6 0.9 550 6.4 6.4 6.1 6.5 8.5 0.5 0.9 608 7.1 1.6 2.1 3,627 35.0 33.9 6.5 5.9 5.9 5.6 5.9 7.9 3.0 3.7 5,420 53.6 52.1 3.1 3.8 3,534 34.9 33.7 1.9 2.5 3,111 30.9 29.8 32.0 36.1 55.0 36.2 7.7 6.9 7.0 6.6 7.0 9.1 1.0 1.5 1,763 18.0 17.2 18.8 0.6 1.0 1,086 11.3 10.6 11.9 0.3 0.6 880 9.2 8.6 9.8 0.2 0.4 752 8.0 7.4 8.5 631 878 1,071 1,868 3,129 4,395 141 88 40 53 59 46 50 41 0.3 0.5 621 6.6 6.0 7.1 555 .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 0.2 0.5 457 5.2 4.7 5.7 486 5.5 .. 5.9 6.7 9.3 11.2 19.0 31.6 43.8 1.5 0.9 0.5 0.7 0.8 0.6 0.6 0.5 .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 5.0 .. 5.4 6.2 8.7 10.5 18.1 30.5 42.5 1.3 0.7 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.4 LCL6 UCL6 Number Rate5 LCL6 UCL6 Rate5 LCL6 Number .. .. 32 .. 38 33 46 81 126 240 395 370 218 66 74 61 53 65 98 Hospital Other UCL6 .. .. 6.0 .. 6.4 7.3 9.9 11.9 19.8 32.7 45.1 1.8 1.1 0.7 0.9 1.1 0.8 0.8 0.7 Continued

    Cause

    Year

    Number

    c. difficile

    1997

    c. difficile

    1998

    The Right to Life HRA, Article 2

    c. difficile

    1999

    c. difficile

    2000

    c. difficile

    2001

    c. difficile

    2002

    c. difficile

    2003

    c. difficile

    2004

    c. difficile

    2005

    c. difficile

    2006

    c. difficile

    2007

    112

    c. difficile

    2008

    c. difficile

    2009

    Dehydration

    1997

    Dehydration

    1998

    Dehydration

    1999

    Dehydration

    2000

    Dehydration

    2001

    Dehydration

    2002

    Table 31: Number of deaths and age-standardised rate per 1 million population, where the cause specified was mentioned on the death certificate, by place of death, England and Wales, 1997-2009 (continued)1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
    Care home Rate5 1.0 0.9 1.1 1.5 1.2 1.3 1.1 16.6 16.8 16.4 15.4 10.5 11.0 11.1 9.7 9.6 8.3 8.6 8.7 8.1 7.6 8.6 8.1 9.2 8.1 9.2 7,458 7,577 7,318 7.8 8.9 7,169 9.0 10.2 7,053 9.1 10.3 6,817 73.2 73.3 72.5 74.0 74.0 70.0 10.4 11.7 6,723 72.8 10.3 11.6 6,298 68.4 66.7 71.1 71.5 71.6 70.8 72.3 72.3 68.4 9.8 11.1 6,313 69.9 68.2 14.7 16.2 8,593 95.1 93.1 15.6 17.2 8,274 93.1 91.1 95.1 97.1 71.7 70.1 74.5 74.9 75.0 74.2 75.7 75.6 71.6 16.0 17.6 7,781 88.0 86.1 90.0 15.8 17.4 7,559 87.1 85.2 89.1 0.9 1.3 816 7.8 7.3 8.4 1.1 1.5 934 9.0 8.5 9.6 71 71 990 850 897 884 857 851 884 842 900 841 815 848 818 1.0 1.4 905 9.0 8.4 9.6 71 1.2 1.7 932 9.5 8.9 10.1 70 0.9 1.3 837 8.8 8.2 9.3 64 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 13.8 11.7 12.3 12.2 11.8 11.6 12.0 11.3 11.8 10.9 10.5 10.5 10.3 0.7 1.1 799 8.5 7.9 9.1 64 0.8 0.8 1.2 773 8.5 7.9 9.1 56 0.7 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 13.0 10.9 11.5 11.4 11.0 10.9 11.2 10.6 11.1 10.2 9.8 9.8 9.6 LCL6 UCL6 Number Rate5 LCL6 UCL6 Rate5 LCL6 Number 99 93 111 155 133 143 125 1,563 1,614 1,588 1,521 1,050 1,109 1,113 997 1,013 915 981 1,009 963 Hospital Other UCL6 0.8 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.9 14.7 12.5 13.1 13.0 12.5 12.4 12.8 12.1 12.6 11.6 11.2 11.2 11.0 Continued
    The Right to Life HRA, Article 2

    Cause

    Year

    Number

    Dehydration

    2003

    Dehydration

    2004

    Dehydration

    2005

    Dehydration

    2006

    Dehydration

    2007

    Dehydration

    2008

    Dehydration

    2009

    Falls

    1997

    Falls

    1998

    Falls

    1999

    Falls

    2000

    113

    Falls

    2001

    Falls

    2002

    Falls

    2003

    Falls

    2004

    Falls

    2005

    Falls

    2006

    Falls

    2007

    Falls

    2008

    Falls

    2009

    Table 31: Number of deaths and age-standardised rate per 1 million population, where the cause specified was mentioned on the death certificate, by place of death, England and Wales, 1997-2009 (continued)1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
    Care home Rate LCL Rate 2.7 2.5 2.8 3.9 4.3 4.2 5.3 5.2 7.8 8.3 6.6 11.9 7.2 6.1 6.1 5.8 6.2 5.8 568 610 6.4 7.0 11.2 6.6 5.6 5.6 5.3 5.6 5.3 5.9 6.5 6.1 7.7 8.9 7.2 12.6 7.7 6.7 6.7 6.3 6.7 6.3 7.0 7.6 7.2 8.3 4.7 5.7 4.8 5.8 3.7 4.6 415 482 600 837 830 859 41 27 62 56 60 60 46 69 54 3.8 4.7 336 3.5 4.3 308 2.5 3.2 221 2.8 4.1 4.2 5.3 6.0 7.1 9.9 9.4 9.8 0.5 0.4 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.5 0.8 0.6 2.1 2.8 180 2.4 2.3 3.0 151 2.0 1.7 2.0 2.4 3.6 3.8 4.7 5.4 6.6 9.2 8.8 9.2 0.3 0.2 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.6 0.4 Rate 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.7 1.1 0.8 1.0 1.0 0.6 3.5 3.7 3.1 2.9 3.0 2.8 3.0 3.7 3.5 3.8 3.6 524 512 3.9 488 4.5 509 4.4 500 0.9 671 1.4 1,061 1.5 605 1.2 722 1.6 673 1.0 452 0.7 428 0.7 332 0.6 351 0.6 315 0.5 223 0.6 188 0.5 202 UCL LCL UCL LCL 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.8 1.4 1.0 1.3 1.2 0.7 3.9 4.1 3.5 3.3 3.4 3.1 3.4
    5 6 6

    Hospital Number
    5 6 6 5 6

    Other Number UCL6 2.3 2.7 3.1 4.5 4.6 5.8 6.5 7.7 10.5 10.1 10.5 0.6 0.5 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.7 1.0 0.8 Continued

    Cause 33 41 36 43 44 47 58 86 139 100 129 128 83 355 374 328 306 329 312 321

    Year

    Number

    MRSA

    1997

    MRSA

    1998

    The Right to Life HRA, Article 2

    MRSA

    1999

    MRSA

    2000

    MRSA

    2001

    MRSA

    2002

    MRSA

    2003

    MRSA

    2004

    MRSA

    2005

    MRSA

    2006

    MRSA

    2007

    114

    MRSA

    2008

    MRSA

    2009

    Pressure sores

    1997

    Pressure sores

    1998

    Pressure sores

    1999

    Pressure sores

    2000

    Pressure sores

    2001

    Pressure sores

    2002

    Pressure sores

    2003

    Table 31: Number of deaths and age-standardised rate per 1 million population, where the cause specified was mentioned on the death certificate, by place of death, England and Wales, 1997-2009 (continued)1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
    Care home Rate LCL Rate 6.6 7.3 6.7 6.5 6.0 6.4 156.5 163.1 179.6 186.1 203.7 217.4 238.1 252.6 276.1 288.5 275.8 265.7 255.3 214.2 234.8 249.2 272.6 284.9 272.4 262.3 252.0 200.5 183.0 189.2 206.9 220.7 241.5 256.1 279.6 292.0 279.3 269.0 258.6 176.5 182.6 160.1 166.0 153.6 159.3 5.9 6.9 84 287 289 308 279 325 364 363 408 421 481 481 553 552 5.5 6.5 69 6.0 7.0 80 6.2 7.3 67 0.8 0.9 0.8 0.9 4.3 4.4 4.3 4.1 4.7 5.3 5.1 5.7 5.7 6.4 6.2 7.1 7.1 6.7 7.8 57 0.7 6.1 7.1 48 0.6 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.6 0.7 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.6 4.2 4.8 4.5 5.2 5.2 5.8 5.6 6.5 6.5 Rate 2.6 2.5 2.4 2.7 2.2 2.2 6.7 7.2 7.6 7.3 7.9 7.6 8.3 8.2 8.8 9.4 9.2 8.7 8.9 10.0 9.9 10.5 24,366 23,810 23,206 10.7 24,922 10.0 23,468 9.4 20,868 9.5 19,348 8.8 17,469 9.1 15,894 8.4 14,097 8.8 13,308 8.3 12,005 7.8 11,273 2.8 604 2.8 575 3.3 605 3.1 605 3.2 647 3.2 570 UCL LCL UCL LCL 2.9 2.9 2.7 3.0 2.5 2.5 7.3 7.8 8.2 7.9 8.5 8.2 8.9 8.8 9.4 10.1 9.9 9.3 9.4
    5 6 6

    Hospital Number
    5 6 6 5 6

    Other Number UCL6 0.7 0.8 1.0 1.1 0.9 1.1 4.8 4.9 4.8 4.6 5.2 5.9 5.6 6.3 6.3 7.0 6.8 7.7 7.7

    Cause 282 295 282 313 271 285 632 693 717 702 784 764 825 819 899 995 1,006 947 1,019

    Year

    Number

    Pressure sores

    2004

    Pressure sores

    2005

    Pressure sores

    2006

    Pressure sores

    2007

    Pressure sores

    2008

    Pressure sores

    2009

    Septicaemia

    1997

    Septicaemia

    1998

    Septicaemia

    1999

    Septicaemia

    2000

    Septicaemia

    2001

    115

    Septicaemia

    2002

    Septicaemia

    2003

    Septicaemia

    2004

    Septicaemia

    2005

    Septicaemia

    2006

    Septicaemia

    2007

    Septicaemia

    2008

    Septicaemia

    2009

    The Right to Life HRA, Article 2

    Source: ONS (2011b).

    Notes: See Figure 9 for a discussion of the interpretation of this data.

    The Right to Life HRA, Article 2

    1 Cause of death was defined using the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9) for the years 1997-2000, and the International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD-10) for 2001 onwards. The ICD codes used are shown in the definitions worksheet. Deaths were included where the specified cause was the underlying cause of death. The introduction of ICD10 in 2001 means that the numbers of deaths from these causes before 2001 are not completely comparable with later years.

    2 Care home includes a variety of NHS, local authority and private nursing/care/residential homes; Hospital includes NHS hospitals (excluding psychiatric hospitals) or multifunction sites, and military and other non-NHS hospitals; Other includes any other place e.g. other types of communal establishment (such as psychiatric hospitals or hospices), at home (at a private residential address) and elsewhere.

    3 Figures for England and Wales include deaths of non-residents.

    4 Figures are for deaths registered in each calendar year.

    116

    5 Age-standardised mortality rates per 1 million population, standardised to the European Standard Population. Age-standardised rates are used to allow comparison between populations which may contain different proportions of people of different ages, and so also allow comparisons over time.

    6 The lower and upper confidence limits have been provided. These form a confidence interval, which is a measure of the statistical precision of an estimate and show the range of uncertainty around the estimated figure. Calculations based on small numbers of events are often subject to random fluctuations. As a general rule, if the confidence interval around one figure overlaps with the interval around another, we cannot say with certainty that there is more than a chance difference between the two figures. Data for c. difficile is not available for 1997, 1998 and 2000 due to the use of ICD-9. Data is available for 1999 because a special coding exercise was carried out. *Rates are not calculated where there are fewer than 10 deaths.

    The Right to Life HRA, Article 2

    Table 32: Deaths caused by malnutrition in Scotland Figures for deaths by malnutrition in Scotland were released in August 2009 following a parliamentary question by the West of Scotland MSP. In 2009, there were 15 deaths in hospitals where malnutrition was the principal cause of death and a further 67 cases where it was a contributory factor. The number of people dying from malnutrition has remained relatively steady since 2005. The 2009 figures show that over-75 year olds were the most susceptible and that Greater Glasgow and Clyde was the area where the largest number of deaths occurred. Source: The Scotsman (2010).

    117

    Indicator 8: Spotlight statistics: Protection from third party violations homicide within society, community and families

    Table 33: Offences currently1 recorded as homicide by age and sex of victim, 1999-2000 to 2009-10. England and Wales recorded crime
    200102 2002-03 200304 200405 200506 200607 200708 200811 200910

    The Right to Life HRA, Article 2

    19992000

    2000012

    Sex

    Number

    Rate per million pop.

    Number

    Rate per million pop. Number

    Rate per million pop. Number

    Rate per million pop. Number

    Rate per million pop. Number

    Rate per million pop. Number

    Rate per million pop. Number

    Rate per million pop. Number

    Rate per million pop.

    Number

    Rate per million pop.

    Number 30 19 24 12 7 9 4 3 4 35 11 23 28 10 18 10 11 21 12 8 20 16 6 22 186 50 236 223 67 290 29 33 31 9 6 8 4 2 3 36 10 23 29 9 19 12 6 18 8 8 16 9 6 15 163 48 211 164 59 223 33 17 26 6 6 6 3 2 2 31 10 21 21 8 15

    Age of victim Under 1 year

    1 to 4 years

    5 to 15 years

    16 to 29 years

    30 to 49 years

    M F T M F T M F T M F T M F T

    18 13 31 7 4 11 14 9 23 148 49 197 182 77 259

    56 43 50 5 3 4 4 2 3 32 11 21 25 10 17

    22 23 45 14 6 20 20 10 30 160 60 220 194 82 276

    71 78 75 11 5 8 5 3 4 35 13 24 26 11 18

    11 5 16 14 5 19 20 7 27 182 62 244 225 92 317

    37 17 27 11 4 8 5 2 4 39 14 26 30 12 21

    14 17 31 15 11 26 10 24 34 151 58 209 213 83 296

    46 59 53 12 9 11 3 7 5 32 13 23 28 11 19

    18 8 26 10 9 19 16 10 26 172 54 226 230 72 302

    58 27 43 8 8 8 4 3 4 37 12 24 30 9 20

    11 11 22 10 8 18 11 10 21 190 61 251 197 73 270

    34 36 35 8 7 8 3 3 3 40 13 27 26 9 18

    14 7 21 5 4 9 8 9 17 165 76 241 178 88 266

    43 22 33 4 3 4 2 3 2 34 16 25 23 11 17

    10 6 16 15 8 23 16 11 27 175 52 227 212 74 286

    11 31 12 35 23 33 7 5 10 8 17 6 9 3 3 1 12 2 138 26 39 8 177 17 165 22 72 9 237 15 Continued

    Rate per million pop.

    118

    Table 33: Offences currently1 recorded as homicide by age and sex of victim, 1999-2000 to 2009-10 . England and Wales recorded crime (continued)
    200102 2002-03 200304 200405 200506 200607 200708 200811 200910

    19992000

    2000012

    Sex

    Number

    Rate per million pop.

    Number

    Rate per million pop. Number

    Rate per million pop. Number

    Rate per million pop. Number

    Rate per million pop. Number

    Rate per million pop. Number

    Rate per million pop. Number

    Rate per million pop. Number

    Rate per million pop. Number

    Rate per million pop.

    Number 80 32 112 14 5 9 82 30 112 14 5 9 70 33 103 14 29 43 5 8 7 13 36 49 5 10 8 21 29 50

    Age of victim 50 to 69 years 10 3 7 8 7 7 21 9 9 15 8 9 21 21 21 21 18 9 24 39 63 10 11 10 62 155 217 25 43 36 21 30 51 9 8 8 29 31 60 12 9 10 22 27 49 9 7 8 17 17 34 7 5 5 20 7 73 35 108 13 6 9 71 59 130 13 10 11 83 39 122 15 7 10 96 36 132 17 6 11 76 28 104 13 5 9 73 29 102 12 5 9

    70 years and over

    M F T

    60 31 91

    11 5 8

    56 18 74

    M F T

    16 44 60

    7 12 10

    18 24 42

    Total all ages

    18

    20 7

    17 7

    M % F % 15 794 15 943 18 772 15 780 15

    445 66 227 34

    538 70 227 30

    549 69 245 31

    536 57 407 43

    550 71 222 29

    549 70 231 30

    468 66 241 34 709

    518 72 197 28 13 715

    541 73 203 27 13 744

    451 70 193 30 14 644

    421 68 198 32 12 619

    672

    13

    765

    Source: Ministry of Justice (MoJ) (2011a).

    Notes: 1 As at 28 September 2010; figures are subject to revision as cases are dealt with by the police and the courts, or as further information becomes available.

    2 For the year 2000-01 there were 58 victims (54 male and 4 female) of unknown age.

    The Right to Life HRA, Article 2

    3 For the year 2004-05 there were 6 victims of unknown age.

    4 For the year 2005-06 there were 2 victims of unknown age.

    Rate per million pop. 12 5 8 8 8 8 16 7 11

    119

    The Right to Life HRA, Article 2

    Table 34: Relationship of currently recorded homicide victims1 to principal suspect by ethnic appearance of victim: England and Wales, combined data for 2005-06 to 2007-08
    Ethnic appearance of victim White Relationship of victim to principal suspect Family Of which: Spouse/lover Other known Stranger
    2, 3

    Total Other Unknown

    Black

    Asian

    465 282 433 538 1,436 193 1,629

    35 12 67 98 200 54 254

    42 21 40 65 147 30 177

    15 9 20 26 61 8 69

    19 9 9 49 77 22 99

    576 333 569 776 1,921 307 2,228

    Total with current suspect No current suspect4 Total

    Source: MoJ (2009a), Table 3.6. Notes: 1 Offences recorded as homicide as at 4 November 2008; figures are subject to revision as cases are dealt with by the police and the courts, or as further information becomes available. 2 Includes cases where victims relationship to principal suspect is not known. 3 Total includes 52 victims of the 7 July 2005 London bombings. 4 Unlike Table 3.5 [in the original source document] , excludes cases where a former principal suspect has been acquitted, etc., and is based upon the all victims no suspect row of Table 1.05 in Povey et al. (2009) Homicides, Firearm Offences and Intimate Violence 2007/08.

    120

    Table 35: Homicides currently1 recorded for all victims by relationship of victim to principal suspect, 1999-2000 to 2009-10. Recorded crime for England and Wales
    200001 200102 200203 200304 200405 200506 200607 200708 200809 200910

    Numbers

    19992000

    Male victims

    Victim acquainted with suspect 31 9 23 17 139 219 235 237 213 251 260 205 142 154 134 168 176 138 179 252 18 13 10 15 16 15 14 26 29 30 26 39 22 30 6 10 12 23 15 14 7 14 34 16 185 276 43 31 27 19 14 16 22 27 23 9 31 9 169 241 17 10 21 19 145 212

    Son or daughter

    Parent

    Partner/ex-partner

    Other family

    Friend/acquaintance

    Total known

    Victim not acquainted with suspect 152 74 226 445 538 549 536 550 303 312 323 299 289 549 82 98 82 65 51 221 214 241 234 238 210 53 263 468 199 67 266 518 198 67 265 541 166 44 210 451 148 61 209 421 Continued

    121

    Stranger2

    No suspect

    Total not known

    Total

    The Right to Life HRA, Article 2

    Table 35: Homicides currently1 recorded for all victims by relationship of victim to principal suspect, 1999-2000 to 2009-10. Recorded crime for England and Wales (continued)
    200001 200102 200203 200304 200405 200506 200607 200708 200809 200910

    Numbers

    19992000

    Female victims

    The Right to Life HRA, Article 2

    Victim acquainted with suspect 19 6 89 5 25 144 176 181 191 156 174 145 24 30 39 26 32 30 23 140 8 9 8 7 9 6 5 101 118 106 96 105 90 91 5 12 11 9 7 6 3 12 79 16 28 154 38 12 27 18 21 13 18 19 13 12 101 5 18 149 23 11 95 7 14 150

    Son or daughter

    Parent

    Partner/ex-partner

    Other family

    Friend/acquaintance

    Total known

    Victim not acquainted with suspect 66 17 83 227 227 245 407 222 51 64 216 66 57 231 8 24 30 15 15 43 40 186 51 42 74 22 96 241 36 21 57 197 28 21 49 203 25 19 44 193 26 22 48 198 Continued

    122

    Stranger2

    No suspect

    Total not known

    Total

    Table 35: Homicides currently1 recorded for all victims by relationship of victim to principal suspect, 1999-2000 to 2009-10. Recorded crime for England and Wales (continued)
    200001 200102 200203 200304 200405 200506 200607 200708 200809 200910

    Percentages

    19992000

    Male victims

    Victim acquainted with suspect 7 2 5 4 31 49 44 43 40 46 47 44 26 28 25 31 32 29 35 49 3 2 2 3 3 3 3 5 5 6 5 7 5 6 1 2 2 4 3 3 1 3 6 3 34 51 8 6 5 3 3 3 4 5 5 2 7 2 37 53 4 2 5 5 34 50

    Son or daughter

    Parent

    Partner/ex-partner

    Other family

    Friend/acquaintance

    Total known

    Victim not acquainted with suspect 34 17 51 100 100 100 100 100 56 57 60 54 53 100 15 18 15 12 9 41 39 45 43 43 45 11 56 100 38 13 51 100 37 12 49 100 37 10 47 100 35 14 50 100 Continued

    123

    Stranger2

    No suspect

    Total not known

    Total

    The Right to Life HRA, Article 2

    Table 35: Homicides currently1 recorded for all victims by relationship of victim to principal suspect, 1999-2000 to 2009-10. Recorded crime for England and Wales (continued)
    200001 200102 200203 200304 200405 200506 200607 200708 200809 200910

    Percentages

    19992000

    Female victims

    The Right to Life HRA, Article 2

    Victim acquainted with suspect 8 3 39 2 11 63 78 74 47 70 75 60 11 12 10 12 14 12 12 71 4 4 2 3 4 2 3 44 48 26 43 45 37 46 2 5 3 4 3 2 2 6 39 8 14 76 17 5 7 8 9 5 9 9 7 6 52 3 9 77 12 6 48 4 7 76

    Son or daughter

    Parent

    Partner/ex-partner

    Other family

    Friend/acquaintance

    Total known

    Victim not acquainted with suspect 29 7 37 100 100 100 100 100 22 26 53 30 25 100 4 10 7 7 6 19 16 46 23 18 31 9 40 100 18 11 29 100 14 10 24 100 13 10 23 100 13 11 24 100

    124

    Stranger2

    No suspect

    Total not known

    Total

    Source: MoJ (2011a).

    Notes:

    1 As at 28 September 2010; figures are subject to revision as cases are dealt with by the police and by the courts, or as further information becomes available.

    2 Includes not known.

    Table 36: Homicides currently1 recorded for victims under 16 years by relationship of victim to principal suspect, 1999-2000 2009-10. Recorded crime for England and Wales
    200001 200102 200203 200304 200405 200506 200607 200708 200809 200910

    Numbers

    19992000

    Male victims

    Victim acquainted with suspect 29 3 32 46 36 28 28 19 23 27 5 6 2 10 7 8 6 7 31 41 30 26 18 12 15 21 24 20 5 25 16 2 18

    Son or daughter

    Other family/friend/acquaintance

    Total acquainted

    Victim not acquainted with suspect 4 3 7 39 56 45 39 44 32 10 9 11 16 13 4 27 3 6 5 5 6 1 7 3 6 11 7 3 7 7 14 41 6 1 7 38 1 3 4 29 2 7 9 27 Continued

    Stranger2

    No suspect

    Total not acquainted

    125

    Total

    The Right to Life HRA, Article 2

    Table 36: Homicides currently1 recorded for victims under 16 years by relationship of victim to principal suspect, 1999-2000 2009-10. Recorded crime for England and Wales (continued)
    200001 200102 200203 200304 200405 200506 200607 200708 200809 200910

    Numbers

    19992000

    Female victims

    The Right to Life HRA, Article 2

    Victim acquainted with suspect 19 1 20 36 13 34 18 23 12 19 2 3 9 2 4 2 2 5 21 34 10 25 16 19 10 17 16 12 3 15 20 1 21

    Son or daughter

    Other family/friend/acquaintance

    Total acquainted

    Victim not acquainted with suspect 5 1 6 26 39 17 52 27 29 3 4 18 9 6 8 20 1 7 5 4 2 3 3 11 4 2 6 2 4 6 25 1 3 4 25 1 4 5 20 1 3 4 25 Continued

    Stranger2

    No suspect

    Total not acquainted

    126

    Total

    Table 36: Homicides currently1 recorded for victims under 16 years by relationship of victim to principal suspect, 1999-2000 2009-10. Recorded crime for England and Wales (continued)
    200001 200102 200203 200304 200405 200506 200607 200708 200809 200910

    Percentages

    19992000

    Male victims

    Victim acquainted with suspect 74 8 82 82 80 72 64 59 85 66 9 13 5 23 22 30 15 18 82 73 67 67 41 38 56 51 63 69 17 86 59 7 67

    Son or daughter

    Other family/friend/acquaintance

    Total acquainted

    Victim not acquainted with suspect 10 8 18 100 100 100 100 100 100 18 20 28 36 41 15 100 5 13 13 11 19 4 13 7 15 25 22 11 17 17 34 100 16 3 18 100 3 10 14 100 7 26 33 100 Continued

    Stranger2

    No suspect

    Total not acquainted

    127

    Total

    The Right to Life HRA, Article 2

    Table 36: Homicides currently1 recorded for victims under 16 years by relationship of victim to principal suspect, 1999-2000 2009-10. Recorded crime for England and Wales (continued)
    200001 200102 200203 200304 200405 200506 200607 200708 200809 200910

    Percentages

    19992000

    Female victims

    The Right to Life HRA, Article 2

    Victim acquainted with suspect 73 4 77 92 76 65 67 79 60 76 5 18 17 7 14 10 8 20 84 87 59 48 59 66 50 68 64 60 15 75 80 4 84

    Son or daughter

    Other family/friend/acquaintance

    Total acquainted

    Victim not acquainted with suspect 19 4 23 100 100 100 100 100 100 8 24 35 33 21 40 100 0 6 13 19 14 10 8 18 21 15 7 30 8 16 24 100 4 12 16 100 5 20 25 100 4 12 16 100

    Stranger2

    No suspect

    Total not acquainted

    128

    Total

    Source: MoJ (2011a).

    Notes:

    1 As at 28 September 2010; figures are subject to revision as cases are dealt with by the police and by the courts, or as further information becomes available.

    2 Includes not known.

    The Right to Life HRA, Article 2

    Table 37: Homicide by relationship of victim to principal suspect, all victims, Scotland, recorded crime in 1998-99, 2003-04 and 2008-09
    1998-99 Relationship Partner/ex-partner Relative (parent, son, daughter, other blood relative) Acquaintance Total known Total unknown (stranger/ relationship not known) Total known and unknown (solved cases) Total Sex of victim M F M F M F M F M F M F N 8 9 8 2 42 6 58 17 13 4 71 21 92 % of all 11.3 42.9 11.3 9.5 59.2 28.6 81.7 81.0 18.3 19.0 100 100 2003-04 N 1 4 9 5 55 2 65 11 28 3 93 14 107 % of all 1.1 28.6 9.7 35.7 59.1 14.3 69.9 78.6 30.1 21.4 100 100 2008-09 N 5 13 9 2 44 8 58 23 10 5 68 28 96 % of all 7.4 46.4 13.2 7.1 64.7 28.6 85.3 82.1 14.7 17.9 100 100

    Source: Walby et al. (2010), Table 4.2). Notes: Data from the Scottish Government. This table includes all victims, including those under 16 years old. The figures are of solved cases. Prior to 2000-01, ex-partner does not necessarily include ex-boyfriend/girlfriend as these may have been recorded as simply acquaintances. Comment from Walby (2010: 23): Domestic homicides in Scotland are disproportionately committed against women. For Scotland in 2008/09, 46% of all female homicide victims were killed by a partner or ex-partner, with an additional 7% by another family member. The respective numbers were 7% and 13%. Original source cited as Scottish Government.

    Indicator 9: Spotlight statistics: Premature mortality within families, community and society
    Table 38: Period life expectancy by age, country and gender, 2007-09
    England Birth Male Female 78.0 82.1 20 58.7 62.7 50 30.4 33.7 80 8.0 9.4 Birth 77.1 81.4 Wales 20 57.8 62.0 50 29.7 33.0 80 7.8 9.2 Birth 75.3 80.1 Scotland 20 56.0 60.6 50 28.4 31.9 80 7.4 8.7

    Source: ONS (2010c).

    129

    The Right to Life HRA, Article 2

    Table 39: Life expectancy at birth and at age 65 (years) in Government Office Regions, by gender, 2007-09
    Males GOR North East North West Yorkshire and The Humber East Midlands West Midlands East of England London South East South West Birth 76.8 76.6 77.4 78.1 77.5 79.3 78.6 79.4 79.2 65 years 17.0 17.0 17.5 17.8 17.7 18.5 18.4 18.7 18.6 Females Birth 80.9 80.8 81.5 82.1 81.9 83.0 83.1 83.3 83.3 65 years 19.5 19.5 20.0 20.4 20.4 21.0 21.2 21.3 21.3

    Source: ONS (2010c). Table 40: Life expectancy at birth and at age 65 (years) in council areas in Scotland, by gender, 2007-09
    Males Council area Aberdeen City Aberdeenshire Angus Argyll & Bute Clackmannanshire Dumfries & Galloway Dundee City East Ayrshire East Dunbartonshire East Lothian East Renfrewshire Edinburgh, City of Na h-Eileanan an Iar Falkirk Fife Glasgow City Highland Inverclyde Midlothian Moray North Ayrshire North Lanarkshire Birth 75.7 78.0 76.9 76.5 75.0 76.8 73.7 74.6 78.3 76.7 77.8 76.9 73.5 75.9 76.1 71.1 76.3 73.1 76.6 76.7 74.0 73.7 65 years 16.4 17.8 17.7 17.1 15.9 17.4 16.7 15.9 18.3 17.0 17.5 17.5 15.7 16.4 16.8 13.9 17.4 15.5 16.6 17.1 15.9 15.4 Females Birth 80.6 81.4 80.6 80.4 80.9 80.6 79.4 78.8 83.1 81.2 82.0 81.5 82.0 79.8 80.4 77.5 81.2 79.0 81.3 80.9 79.2 78.5 65 years 19.1 19.8 19.5 19.6 19.5 19.6 19.4 18.5 20.9 19.4 20.4 20.2 20.5 18.4 19.4 17.6 19.8 18.8 19.2 19.7 18.5 17.9 Continued

    130

    The Right to Life HRA, Article 2

    Table 40: Life expectancy at birth and at age 65 (years) in council areas in Scotland, by gender, 2007-09 (continued)
    Males Council area Orkney Islands Perth & Kinross Renfrewshire Scottish Borders Shetland Islands South Ayrshire South Lanarkshire Stirling West Dunbartonshire West Lothian Birth 75.5 78.2 73.7 77.1 76.2 75.9 74.9 77.3 72.5 76.0 65 years 16.4 18.0 15.7 17.3 18.0 17.2 15.9 17.7 15.3 16.3 Females Birth 81.7 81.8 79.2 81.2 81.8 80.9 79.9 81.8 78.4 79.7 65 years 19.4 20.1 18.2 19.5 20.7 19.6 18.8 19.8 17.9 18.6

    Source: ONS (2010c). Table 41: Life expectancy at birth and at age 65 (years) in local authorities in Wales, by gender, 2007-09
    Males Local authority Isle of Anglesey/Ynys Mn Gwynedd/Gwynedd Conwy/Conwy Denbighshire/Sir Ddinbych Flintshire/Sir y Fflint Wrexham/Wrecsam Powys/Powys Ceredigion/Ceredigion Pembrokeshire/Sir Benfro Carmarthenshire/Sir Gaerfyrddin Swansea/Abertawe Neath Port Talbot/Castell-nedd Port Talbot Bridgend/Pen-y-bont ar Ogwr The Vale of Glamorgan/Bro Morgannwg Cardiff/Caerdydd Rhondda Cynon Taf/Rhondda Cynon Taf Merthyr Tydfil/Merthyr Tudful Caerphilly/Caerffili Blaenau Gwent/Blaenau Gwent Torfaen/Tor-faen Monmouthshire/Sir Fynwy Newport/Casnewydd Birth 76.7 77.3 77.1 77.9 78.1 77.4 79.5 80.4 77.3 77.3 76.9 76.2 76.4 78.2 77.0 75.5 74.6 76.1 75.6 76.8 79.5 76.7 65 years 17.4 17.4 17.9 18.2 17.5 17.4 18.6 19.9 17.6 17.3 17.5 16.9 16.9 18.0 17.2 16.4 16.0 16.5 16.4 17.0 18.7 17.0 Females Birth 81.9 82.0 81.5 81.3 82.0 81.2 83.2 84.1 82.2 81.3 81.6 80.7 81.2 82.6 81.8 80.0 79.3 81.1 79.1 81.0 83.3 81.8 65 years 20.4 20.4 20.5 20.1 20.2 19.8 21.4 22.3 20.3 20.0 20.2 19.6 19.9 20.9 20.3 18.8 19.0 19.5 18.5 20.0 21.5 20.3

    Source: ONS (2010c).

    131

    The Right to Life HRA, Article 2

    Table 42: Local areas with the highest and lowest male life expectancy at birth, United Kingdom, 2007-091, 2
    Rank 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Local area Kensington and Chelsea Westminster Epsom and Ewell South Buckinghamshire Wokingham South Cambridgeshire Crawley Fareham Elmbridge East Dorset Country/Government Office Region London London South East South East South East South East South East South East South East South West Life expectancy at birth (years) 84.4 83.4 81.8 81.7 81.7 81.6 81.6 81.4 81.4 81.4

    Highest life expectancy at birth

    Lowest life expectancy at birth 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Glasgow City West Dunbartonshire Inverclyde Na h-Eileanan an Iar Belfast Renfrewshire Blackpool Dundee City North Lanarkshire North Ayrshire Scotland Scotland Scotland Scotland Northern Ireland Scotland North West Scotland Scotland Scotland 71.1 72.5 73.1 73.5 73.5 73.7 73.7 73.7 73.7 74.0

    Source: ONS (2010a). Notes: 1 Based on boundaries as of 2010. 2 Three-year rolling average, based on deaths registered in calendar years and mid-year population estimates.

    132

    The Right to Life HRA, Article 2

    Table 43: Period life expectancy by social class, England and Wales, 2002-05
    At birth Social class Men Professional Managerial and technical/intermediate Skilled non-manual Skilled manual Partly skilled Unskilled Social class Women Professional Managerial and technical/intermediate Skilled non-manual Skilled manual Partly skilled Unskilled 85.1 83.2 82.4 80.5 79.9 78.1 22.0 21.0 19.9 18.7 18.9 17.7 80.0 79.4 78.4 76.5 75.7 72.7 18.3 18.0 17.4 16.3 15.7 14.1 At age 65

    Source: ONS (2007), cited in Alkire et al. (2009). Table 44: Infant mortality rates, England, Government Office Regions, 2009
    Number England North East North West Yorkshire and the Humber East Midlands West Midlands East of England London South East South West 3,110 113 427 366 274 429 288 579 403 231 Mortality rates1 4.6 3.8 4.9 5.5 5.1 6.0 4.0 4.5 3.9 4.0

    Source: ONS (2010d). Notes: 1 Infant deaths per 1,000 live births. Infant deaths include deaths under one year.

    133

    The Right to Life HRA, Article 2

    Table 45: Infant mortality rates, Scotland, NHS Area Boards, 20091
    Number Ayrshire & Arran Borders Dumfries & Galloway Fife Forth Valley Grampian Greater Glasgow Highland Lanarkshire Lothian Orkney Shetland Tayside Western Isles 18 3 5 24 14 21 55 12 20 33 1 29 Rate2 4.6 2.6 3.3 5.8 4.2 3.3 3.9 3.8 3.0 3.4 5.0 6.7

    Source: General Register Office for Scotland (GROS) (2010b). Notes: 1 Provisional data. 2 Rate per 1,000 live births. Table 46: Infant mortality rates, Wales, Welsh Local Health Boards, 2009
    Number Wales Betsi Cadwaladr University Powys Teaching Hywel Dda Abertawe Bro Morgannwg University Cwm Taf Aneurin Bevan Cardiff and Vale University 166 44 5 15 19 20 31 32 Mortality rates1 4.8 5.7 4.0 3.9 3.3 5.6 4.6 5.3

    Source: ONS (2010d). Notes: 1 Infant deaths per 1,000 live births. Infant deaths include deaths under one year. Mortality rates calculated from fewer than 20 deaths are distinguished by italic type as a warning that their reliability as a measure may be affected by the small number of events.

    134

    The Right to Life HRA, Article 2

    Table 47: Infant mortality rate (IMR) ethnic group: babies born in 2005, England and Wales
    Deaths All
    2

    IMR 5.0 4.2 5.8 9.6 6.0 9.8 4.5 4.3 5.4 5.1

    3,200 34 93 231 118 73 1,859 142


    3

    Bangladeshi Indian Pakistani African Caribbean White British White Other All other ethnic groups Not stated

    271 357

    Source: ONS (2008b). Notes: 1 Deaths under age one per 1,000 live births. 2 Includes birth and death registration records not linked to an NHS Numbers for Babies record. 3 Chinese, Other Asian, Other Black, Other, and all Mixed groups.

    135

    The Right to Life HRA, Article 2

    Table 48: Infant deaths by mothers country of birth, England and Wales, 2009
    Number All United Kingdom England and Wales Scotland Northern Ireland Elsewhere Outside the United Kingdom Irish Republic Other European Union Rest of Europe Commonwealth Australia, Canada and New Zealand New Commonwealth Asia Bangladesh India Pakistan East Africa Southern Africa Rest of Africa Far East Caribbean Rest of the New Commonwealth United States of America Rest of World and not stated 40 58 145 36 21 96 3 29 9 12 219 4.7 4.6 7.9 8.9 4.5 7.4 2.2 8.4 2.4 3.9 5.2 10 437 2.2 6.3 3,141 2,258 2,212 28 15 3 883 11 169 25 Rates1 4.4 4.2 4.2 4 6.8 7.3 5.1 3.7 3.8 3.2

    Source: ONS (2010b). Notes: 1 Infant deaths per 1,000 live births.

    136

    The Right to Life HRA, Article 2

    Table 49: Infant mortality rates by fathers Socio-economic Classification (NS-SEC), 2009 England and Wales1, 2
    All Inside marriage4 All5 1.1 Large employers and higher managerial 1.2 Higher professional 2 Lower managerial and professional 3 Intermediate 4 Small employers and own account worker 5 Lower supervisory and technical 6 Semi-routine 7 Routine Other6 Outside marriage joint registration All5 1.1 Large employers and higher managerial 1.2 Higher professional 2 Lower managerial and professional 3 Intermediate 4 Small employers and own account worker 5 Lower supervisory and technical 6 Semi-routine 7 Routine Other6 1,322 22 32 132 72 163 177 216 257 140 4.7 2.3 2.6 3.1 4.9 3.8 4.1 5.6 4.8 5.4 1,577 116 169 312 123 195 127 205 181 103 4.1 3.3 3.2 3.5 5.3 3.7 3.2 5.4 5.6 6.0 Number 2,899 Rates3 4.4

    Source: ONS (2010b). Notes: 1 Information on fathers occupation is not collected for births outside marriage if the father does not attend the registration of the babys birth. Figures for live births in NS-SEC groups are a 10 per cent sample coded for fathers occupation. 2 NS-SEC based on fathers occupation at death registration. 3 Stillbirths and perinatal deaths per 1,000 live births and stillbirths. Neonatal, postneonatal and infant deaths per 1,000 live births. 4 Inside marriage and outside marriage/joint registration only, including cases where fathers occupation was not stated. Figures for sole registrations are excluded. 5 Includes cases where fathers occupation was not stated. 6 Students; occupations inadequately described; occupations not classifiable for other reasons; never worked and long-term unemployed. Rates based on less than 10 deaths are in italics.

    137

    Table 50: Age-specific mortality rates of all children (aged 0-15) from accidents, by NS-SEC, age group and selected causes, England and Wales 2001-031, 2, rate per million

    Age group 13 7 17 26 21 91 97 69 226 217 66 17.6 16.9 7.8 2.9 4.9 4.4 5.3 4.9 3.6 3.8 2.1 4.5 32 19 36 67 33 7 8.4 8.9 99 38 73 136 76 18 63 46 56 65 64 17 34 28 48 91 42 9 33 15 29 45 30 7 35 14 29 44 29 7 3 3 4 5 6 3 3.3 4.1 27 6 33 77 25 6 3 10 10 22 54 18 3 2 17 9 16 15 14 2 2 8 18 13 48 15 3 1 1 1 4 10 11 3 15.9 18.4 13 13 15 31 14 2 1 1

    0-13 1-4 5-9 10-14 15 0-15 Drowning

    Pedestrian accidents

    Exposure to fire/hot substances

    Suffocation 2 3 4 5 5 8 13 12 6 6.8 6.3

    Higher managerial, professional

    The Right to Life HRA, Article 2

    Large employers, higher managers

    Higher professionals

    Lower managerial, professional

    Intermediate

    Small employers, own account workers

    Lower supervisory and technical

    Semi-routine

    Routine

    Non-occupied'4

    138

    All children

    Ratio 7:1

    Ratio 'Non-occupied':1

    Source: Siegler and Al-Hamad (2010), Tables 3 and 4.

    Notes:

    1 Figures in the table are rounded to nearest integer.

    2 Age-specific mortality rates were not calculated where there were fewer than 3 deaths in a cell, denoted by a hyphen (-).

    3 Deaths at aged 0 only included postneonatal deaths (children at least 28 days but under one year).

    4 The Non-occupied category includes never worked, long-term unemployed, full-time students, inadequately described and unclassified for other reasons.

    5 Figures in original table are presented with confidence intervals, refer to Siegler and Al-Hamad (2010) for further details.

    Table 51: Deaths as a result of an unintentional injury, children aged under 15, by type of injury, Scotland, year ending 31 December 2009
    1985 147 64 49 34 17 11 8 10 11 8 8 6 10 14 6 9 12 18 8 7 4 1 5 9 44 28 19 19 13 15 13 10 15 6 75 45 36 41 42 31 28 20 26 20 23 18 4 1 1990 1995 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 21 4 6 11

    Type of injury

    Number

    Total deaths

    Road traffic accidents

    Home

    Other

    Standardised death rate1 per 100,000 population 7.9 4.7 1.3 1.9 1.1 0.8 0.5 0.6 0.9 0.7 0.8 0.4 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.2 3.3 2.0 1.3 1.7 0.9 1.4 1.2 4.8 2.8 2.0 2.7 2.3 2.5 2.2 1.3 0.9 0.0 0.3 2.0 1.5 0.0 0.5 1.2 0.3 0.1 0.8 1.7 1.6 0.1 0.0 1.2 0.4 0.3 0.4

    Total

    Road traffic accidents

    Home

    Other

    139

    Source:IDS Scotland (2010).

    Notes: Data from: GROS.

    1 Directly standardised using the European standard population. Definitions available at: www.isdscotland.org/isd/4438.html

    The Right to Life HRA, Article 2

    The Right to Life HRA, Article 2

    Table 52: Deaths as a result of an unintentional injury, children aged under 15, by deprivation quintile, number and standardised mortality ratios, Scotland, year ending 31 December, 2005-09
    Deprivation quintile 1 Number of deaths Standardised mortality ratio Lower 95% confidence interval Upper 95% confidence interval 28 126.1 79.4 172.8 2 16 72.5 37.0 108.0 3 29 134.5 85.5 183.4 4 19 90.4 49.8 131.1 5 13 56.2 25.6 86.7 Total1 105 100.0

    Source: IDS Scotland (2010). Notes: Data from: GROS and Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation (SIMD). 1 Excludes cases where deprivation quintile could not be assigned. Definitions available at: www.isdscotland.org/isd/4438.html Table 53: Age-standardised suicide rates1 (with 95 per cent confidence limits) by sex and age group, England2, 1991-20093
    Rate per 100,000 population 20.2 20.0 19.0 18.5 18.8 17.8 17.5 19.8 19.1 18.1 17.5 16.8 16.6 16.5 16.1 15.4 14.9 15.8 16.1 Lower confidence limit 19.6 19.4 18.4 17.9 18.2 17.2 16.9 19.2 18.4 17.5 17.0 16.2 16.1 16.0 15.6 14.9 14.3 15.3 15.5 Upper confidence limit 20.9 20.7 19.6 19.1 19.5 18.4 18.1 20.5 19.7 18.7 18.1 17.4 17.2 17.1 16.7 15.9 15.4 16.4 16.6 Number of deaths 3,778 3,756 3,561 3,507 3,558 3,412 3,327 3,777 3,670 3,497 3,421 3,292 3,298 3,295 3,251 3,131 3,043 3,263 3,330 Continued

    Year Males 15 and over 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

    140

    The Right to Life HRA, Article 2

    Table 53: Age-standardised suicide rates1 (with 95 per cent confidence limits) by sex and age group, England2, 1991-20093 (continued)
    Rate per 100,000 population 6.5 6.4 6.1 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.8 5.7 5.9 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.6 5.4 4.8 4.4 4.7 4.8 Lower confidence limit 6.1 6.1 5.8 5.4 5.4 5.3 5.3 5.5 5.4 5.5 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.3 5.1 4.5 4.1 4.4 4.5 Upper confidence limit 6.8 6.8 6.5 6.0 6.1 6.0 6.0 6.1 6.0 6.2 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.9 5.7 5.1 4.7 5.0 5.1 Number of deaths 1,331 1,332 1,290 1,207 1,202 1,179 1,171 1,209 1,201 1,228 1,131 1,138 1,132 1,215 1,157 1,044 950 1,019 1,060

    Year Females 15 and over 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

    Source: ONS (2011a). Notes: 1 Rates per 100,000 population standardised to the European Standard Population. 2 Excludes deaths of non-residents. 3 Deaths registered in each calendar year. Suicide is defined as deaths given an underlying cause of intentional self-harm or injury/poisoning of undetermined intent. In England and Wales, it has been customary to assume that most injuries and poisonings of undetermined intent are cases where the harm was self-inflicted but there was insufficient evidence to prove that the deceased deliberately intended to kill themselves (Adelstein and Mardon, 1975). This cannot be assumed in children due to the possibility that these deaths were caused by unverifiable accidents, neglect or abuse. Therefore, only adults aged 15 years and over are included in the figures.

    141

    The Right to Life HRA, Article 2

    Table 54: Age-standardised suicide rates1 (with 95 per cent confidence limits) by sex and age group, Wales2, 1991-20093
    Rate per 100,000 population 22.6 24.6 20.6 22.0 23.8 20.5 19.4 21.4 24.6 22.9 23.1 21.0 23.4 22.9 18.8 19.4 20.3 17.1 17.4 Lower confidence limit 19.8 21.7 17.9 19.3 20.9 17.8 16.8 18.7 21.6 20.0 20.2 18.2 20.6 20.1 16.3 16.9 17.7 14.7 15.0 Upper confidence limit 25.4 27.6 23.2 24.8 26.7 23.1 22.0 24.1 27.5 25.7 25.9 23.7 26.3 25.7 21.3 22.0 22.9 19.5 19.8 Number of deaths 247 269 228 245 264 226 214 236 268 252 253 229 254 258 213 223 232 195 201 Continued

    Year Males 15 and over 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

    142

    The Right to Life HRA, Article 2

    Table 54: Age-standardised suicide rates1 (with 95 per cent confidence limits) by sex and age group, Wales2, 1991-20093 (continued)
    Rate per 100,000 population 5.9 6.2 5.1 5.6 5.0 4.5 6.2 6.5 5.1 5.6 4.9 5.8 6.6 5.8 4.4 6.3 4.3 5.8 4.3 Lower confidence limit 4.6 4.9 3.8 4.4 3.7 3.3 4.8 5.1 3.8 4.3 3.7 4.5 5.2 4.4 3.3 4.9 3.2 4.5 3.2 Upper confidence limit 7.3 7.6 6.3 6.9 6.2 5.7 7.6 7.9 6.3 7.0 6.2 7.2 8.1 7.1 5.6 7.7 5.4 7.2 5.4 Number of deaths 73 78 62 75 62 55 74 82 65 68 59 75 78 72 56 77 57 71 57

    Year Females 15 and over 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

    Source: ONS (2011a). Notes: 1 Rates per 100,000 population standardised to the European Standard Population. 2 Excludes deaths of non-residents. 3 Deaths registered in each calendar year. Suicide is defined as deaths given an underlying cause of intentional self-harm or injury/poisoning of undetermined intent. In England and Wales, it has been customary to assume that most injuries and poisonings of undetermined intent are cases where the harm was self-inflicted but there was insufficient evidence to prove that the deceased deliberately intended to kill themselves (Adelstein and Mardon, 1975). This cannot be assumed in children due to the possibility that these deaths were caused by unverifiable accidents, neglect or abuse. Therefore, only adults aged 15 years and over are included in the figures.

    143

    Table 55: Age-standardised suicide rates1 (with 95 per cent confidence limits), Government Office Regions2, 20093
    Males Females

    GOR 19.2 19.8 15.4 15.2 15.8 13.7 13.6 15.9 18.9 17.0 20.8 389 5.7 14.5 17.2 530 5.2 12.3 14.9 431 4.4 3.7 4.5 4.7 12.2 15.2 321 4.2 3.4 14.1 17.5 336 4.7 3.8 13.4 17.0 270 5.3 4.3 13.7 17.1 321 3.6 2.8 18.1 21.5 538 5.9 5.0 6.8 4.4 6.3 5.6 5.0 5.1 6.0 6.7 16.5 21.9 194 4.0 2.8 5.2

    Rate per 100,000 population Number of deaths

    Lower confidence limit

    Upper confidence limit

    Rate per 100,000 population

    Lower confidence limit

    Upper confidence limit

    Number of deaths 43 167 80 103 110 102 139 191 125

    North East

    The Right to Life HRA, Article 2

    North West

    Yorkshire and the Humber

    East Midlands

    West Midlands

    East of England

    London

    South East

    South West

    Source: ONS (2011a).

    144

    Notes:

    1 Rates per 100,000 population standardised to the European Standard Population.

    2 Excludes deaths of non-residents.

    3 Deaths registered in each calendar year. Suicide is defined as deaths given an underlying cause of intentional self-harm or injury/ poisoning of undetermined intent. In England and Wales, it has been customary to assume that most injuries and poisonings of undetermined intent are cases where the harm was self-inflicted but there was insufficient evidence to prove that the deceased deliberately intended to kill themselves (Adelstein and Mardon, 1975). This cannot be assumed in children due to the possibility that these deaths were caused by unverifiable accidents, neglect or abuse. Therefore, only adults aged 15 years and over are included in the figures.

    The Right to Life HRA, Article 2

    Table 56: Deaths for which the underlying cause was classified as intentional selfharm or event of undetermined intent by current local authority area: registered in Scotland, 2009
    Region All Scotland Aberdeen City Aberdeen-shire Angus Argyll & Bute Clackmannanshire Dumfries & Galloway Dundee City East Ayrshire East Dunbartonshire East Lothian Number Region 746 East Renfrewshire 34 Edinburgh City 29 Eilean Siar 11 Falkirk 19 Fife 4 Glasgow City 24 Highland 23 Inverclyde 15 Midlothian 9 Moray 13 North Ayrshire Number Region 7 North Lanarkshire 64 Orkney Islands 3 Perth & Kinross 19 Renfrewshire 50 Scottish Borders 116 Shetland Islands 32 South Ayrshire 11 South Lanarkshire 9 Stirling 17 West Dunbartonshire 24 West Lothian Number 49 2 14 34 13 4 10 44 9 14 20

    Source: GROS (2010a). Table 57: Deaths for which the underlying cause was classified as intentional selfharm or event of undetermined intent by sex and by type of cause: registered in Scotland, 2009
    All such deaths Number registered in year Number 746 Sex Males 549 Females 197 Type of cause Intentional selfharm 568 Undetermined intent 178

    Source: GROS (2010a). Notes: In mid-2009, the balance between intentional self-harm and undetermined intent was altered by a change in how Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS) provides information about suicides. See www.gro-scotland.gov.uk/statistics/theme/vitalevents/deaths/suicides/definition-of-stats/how-nrs-classifies/index.html

    145

    The Right to Life HRA, Article 2

    Table 58: Age-standardised suicide rates by deprivation twentieth and sex, people aged 15 and over, England and Wales, 1999-2003
    Men Deprivation twentieth 1 (most affluent) 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 (most deprived) Rate per 100,000 population 11.9 11.7 13.7 13.2 15.0 15.0 14.8 16.9 17.2 17.2 17.6 17.8 18.7 21.1 20.8 22.0 23.1 22.1 22.2 25.4 Women Rate per 100,000 population 3.6 4.5 4.5 5.0 3.9 5.0 5.1 4.9 5.0 5.6 6.0 5.6 5.7 5.5 6.3 6.3 6.7 6.1 7.0 7.4

    Source: Brock et al. (2006), cited in Allmark (2010). Notes: The ONS data from which Brocke created this table states that Carstairs scores provide an index of deprivation at ward level based on an unweighted combination of four census variables: unemployment, overcrowding, car ownership and low Social Class (Social Class IV and V). Originally calculated using the 1981 Census, and subsequently updated following the 1991 Census, the version used here is based on the 2001 Census. All the variables except for low Social Class are the same as in 1991. Social Class was replaced in the 2001 Census by the National Statistics Socio-economic Classification (NS-SEC). The NS-SEC categories have been matched to Social Class IV and V. (Available at: www.statistics.gov.uk/statbase/Product.asp?vlnk=14068&More=Y_) (accessed 4 November 2010).

    146

    The Right to Life HRA, Article 2

    Table 59: Deaths caused by intentional self harm and events of undetermined intent by gender and Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation, Scotland, 2000-09
    European agestandardised rates (95% confidence intervals) 2000-04 11 (9.3-13) 11.6 (9.8-13.6) 16.1 (13.9-18.5) 18.4 (16.1-21) 22.8 (20.2-25.6) 22.8 (20.3-25.6) 28.5 (25.6-31.6) 29.7 (26.7-32.9) 35.8 (32.5-39.3) 49.5 (45.6-53.6) 25.3 (24.4-26.2) 2005-09 11 (9.2-13) 10.2 (8.5-12) 16.6 (14.5-19) 18.1 (15.9-20.6) 18.9 (16.6-21.4) 19.6 (17.2-22.1) 25.3 (22.6-28.2) 30.3 (27.3-33.5) 34 (30.8-37.5) 45.4 (41.6-49.3) 22.9 (22-23.7) Continued

    Numbers 2000-04 Males 10 (most affluent) 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 (most deprived) Unknown Scotland 145 148 199 229 288 288 361 372 443 606 103 3,182 142 139 221 241 249 258 326 382 418 548 16 2,940 11.5 11.9 16.6 18.8 23.4 23.3 29.0 29.9 35.4 48.1 25.7 2005-09 2000-04

    Crude rates 2005-09 11.2 10.8 17.5 19.0 19.7 20.4 26.1 30.9 34.0 44.8 23.4

    147

    The Right to Life HRA, Article 2

    Table 59: Deaths caused by intentional self harm and events of undetermined intent by gender and Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation, Scotland, 2000-09 (continued)
    European agestandardised rates (95% confidence intervals) 2000-04 3.9 (3-5.1) 4.2 (3.1-5.4) 4.8 (3.7-6.1) 5.7 (4.5-7.2) 7.3 (5.9-8.9) 8.5 (7-10.2) 7.7 (6.3-9.3) 9.6 (8-11.4) 10.5 (8.9-12.4) 16.7 (14.6-19) 8.1 (7.6-8.6) 2005-09 3.2 (2.3-4.2) 2.8 (2-3.8) 5.1 (3.9-6.4) 4.8 (3.7-6.1) 6.9 (5.6-8.4) 7.8 (6.4-9.5) 7.4 (6-9) 8.7 (7.2-10.4) 11.2 (9.5-13.2) 15.2 (13.1-17.4) 7.3 (6.9-7.8)

    Numbers 2000-04 Females 10 (most affluent) 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 (most deprived) Unknown Scotland 57 56 66 77 98 116 110 133 147 233 17 1,110 47 42 72 68 97 107 103 120 150 207 2 1,015 4.3 4.3 5.2 6.0 7.6 8.8 8.1 9.7 10.5 16.3 8.3 2005-09 2000-04

    Crude rates 2005-09 3.5 3.2 5.4 5.1 7.3 8.0 7.6 8.8 11.0 15.1 7.6

    Source: Scottish Public Health Observatory (2010a). Notes: Data from the GROS. Crude rates: these are the number of deaths divided by the SIMD population estimate for each sex/year group. The rate per 100,000 population is displayed. European age-standardised rates (EASRs): In order to compare rates in populations with different age structures(ie different areas or over time), rates can be agestandardised by applying a standard population. The standardised rate is calculated by multiplying each crude age-specific rate by the corresponding age group weight from the standard population (in this case the hypothetical European Standard) and then summing up these values over all ages. The rate per 100,000 population is displayed. Confidence Intervals for the EASRs: Describes the degree of uncertainty around the EASR. The width of the confidence interval depends on the sample size from which the estimate is derived and the underlying variability in the data. A 95% confidence interval implies that 95 times out of 100 the interval will include the true underlying rate.

    148

    The Right to Life HRA, Article 2

    Notes: 1 The figures shown are based on deaths registered in Scotland. This equates to all deaths that occurred in Scotland and thus, the figures are likely to include a small proportion of deaths for persons who are not residents of Scotland. It is also worth noting that the figures do not relate to deaths in the actual year of death, but to deaths registered in the year. This is important to be aware of because, although the majority of deaths registered in a year will have occurred in that year, a minority will have occurred in the previous year. 2 Details of the SIMD 2009 are available at www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Statistics/SIMD. These are devised at the datazone geography. Population estimates for 2009 at datazone level are not yet available, therefore, we have estimated rates and EASRs for 2009 using 2008 population estimates. 3 For analyses using SIMD 2009, ISD have changed their labelling and now label the categories as 1=most deprived to 5/10=least deprived. Our policy of populationweighting the quintiles remains unchanged, so the datazones contained within each quintile/decile will differ slightly to those presented in Scottish Government releases. Table 60: Estimated rates of maternal deaths by type and ethnic group, England, 2006-08
    Estimated death rate (direct and indirect) per 100, 000 maternities 8.51 6.08 28.05 31.89 32.82 8.51 12.24 12.52 14.27 6.08 15.11 7.97 95% confidence interval for death rate 7.28-9.96 1.52-24.31 20.14-39.07 15.95-63.76 22.17-48.57 2.13-34.02 8.14-18.43 6.26-25.04 8.29-24.58 1.52-24.32 3.78-60.40 3.99-15.94

    Ethnic group White Mixed Black Caribbean African Other Asian Indian Pakistani Bangladehsi Chinese Other

    Source: Centre for Maternal and Child Enquiries (2011: Table 1.20). Saving Mothers Lives.169

    149

    The Right to Life HRA, Article 2

    Table 61: Estimated rates of maternal deaths by National Statistics Socio-Economic Classification (NS SEC), England and Wales, 2006-08
    Social class of husband and partner and partnership status Managerial and professional Intermediate Routine and manual All employed Unemployed, unclassifiable or not stated All women with partners Estimated death rate (direct and indirect) per 100, 000 maternities 6.48 13.56 14.87 10.48 60.15 12.78 95% confidence interval for death rate 4.65-9.03 9.48-19.39 11.27-19.62 8.73-12.58 42.54-85.06 10.87-15.02

    Source: Centre for Maternal and Child Enquiries (2011, Table 1.22).170 Table 62: Gypsies and Travellers: Evidence on premature mortality Parry et al. (2004) report an excess prevalence of miscarriages, stillbirths, neonatal deaths and premature death of older offspring in the Gypsy Traveller group compared with other groups. A recent review of the evidence in relation to differentials in life expectancy is provided in Cemlyn et al. (2009: 50) who highlight decreased life expectancy for the Irish Traveller sub-population.

    Indicator 10: Spotlight statistics: Public attitudes, understanding and experiences


    Table 63: Public attitudes towards being protected if your life is under threat
    Which of the following, if any, would you say are the most important values for living in Britain today? % Bring protected if your life is under threat 58 And which four of five, if any, are most important to you personally? % 35 And which, if any, do you consider to be fundamental human rights? % 44

    Source: Kaur-Ballagan et al. (2009), Charts 1, 2 and 3. Notes: This data is based on a demographically representative, face-to-face omnibus survey with 1,994 British adults over the age of 16 undertaken in August 2008.

    150

    The Right to Life HRA, Article 2

    Chapter notes
    43

    The status of UN treaty ratification is drawn from the UN Treaty Database, www.unhchr. ch/tbs/doc.nsf/Statusfrset?OpenFrameSet (accessed 4 November 2010). The status of European treaty ratification is drawn from the Council of Europe Treaty Office website, conventions.coe.int/ (accessed 4 November 2010). When a state signs an international treaty this signals its preliminary endorsement of the treaty, it does not create a binding legal obligation. A state which ratifies or accedes to a treaty is asserting that it considers itself to be legally bound by the treaty. Ratification requires the state to have previously signed the treaty, whereas accession is a single step which does not require previous signing. It should be noted that a treaty which has been acceded to or ratified by the UK does not automatically become part of the domestic law; separate legislative action is required to incorporate international law into domestic law (for example, the HRA making the ECHR enforceable in the UK). Nonetheless, ratification or accession is a states expression that it consents to be legally bound by the treaty, including respecting and implementing its provisions. www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/Pays?ReadForm&c=GB cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentId=695820&portal=hbkm&sourc e=externalbydocnumber&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649 cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentId=697327&portal=hbkm&sourc e=externalbydocnumber&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649 www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200203/ldjudgmt/jd031016/amin-1.htm www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/2004/10.html www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200708/ldjudgmt/jd081126/ssj-1.htm www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2010/760.html cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentId=695820&portal=hbkm&sourc e=externalbydocnumber&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649 cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentId=696134&portal=hbkm&sourc e=externalbydocnumber&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649 www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/1998/49.html cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentId=698206&portal=hbkm&sourc e=externalbydocnumber&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649 cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentId=697328&portal=hbkm&sourc e=externalbydocnumber&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649 cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentId=708579&portal=hbkm&sourc e=externalbydocnumber&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649 www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200809/ldjudgmt/jd081210/savage-1.htm cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentId=826000&portal=hbkm&sourc e=externalbydocnumber&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649 cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentId=851046&portal=hbkm&sourc e=externalbydocnumber&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649 www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2010/698.html cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentId=695820&portal=hbkm&sourc e=externalbydocnumber&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649 cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentId=863698&portal=hbkm&sourc e=externalbydocnumber&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649 cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentId=887952&portal=hbkm&sourc e=externalbydocnumber&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649 www.supremecourt.gov.uk/docs/uksc_2009_0103_judgment_v2.pdf cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentId=698325&portal=hbkm&sourc e=externalbydocnumber&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649 cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentId=880261&portal=hbkm&sourc e=externalbydocnumber&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649

    44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66

    151

    The Right to Life HRA, Article 2

    67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74

    75 76 77

    78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95

    www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1992/5.html www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2000/254.html Human Rights Information Service, NHS Litigation Authority, What the courts have said about end of life decisions and human rights, 1 May 2007, www.nhsla.com/Publications/ (accessed 3 October2011). OHCHR, General Comment No. 6: The Right to Life, www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/0/84ab9690 ccd81fc7c12563ed0046fae3 (accessed 2 February 2011). www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt200607/jtselect/jtrights/34/3406.htm (accessed 17 November 2010). www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt200506/jtselect/jtrights/133/13305.htm#a2 paragraph 10 (accessed 17 November 2010). iapdeathsincustody.independent.gov.uk/about/ministerial-council-on-deaths-in-custody/ ministerial-board/. Terms of reference include all types of death in state custody in prisons, in or following policy custody, immigration detention, the deaths of residents of approved premises and the deaths of those detained under the Mental Health Act in hospital. Providing independent advice and expertise to the Ministerial Board on Deaths in Custody. All recommendations arising from the inquiries are held at www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/ Justice/law/fatalaccidentinquiries/Recommend The Optional Protocol of the Convention Against Torture (CAT) requires that states designate an NPM to carry out visits to places of detention, to monitor the treatment of and conditions for detainees and to make recommendations regarding the prevention of ill-treatment. The UKs NPM is currently made up of 18 visiting or inspecting bodies in the four different nations of the UK, covering all forms of detention such as prisons, police custody, immigration detention centres, childrens secure accommodation and mental health institutions. The NPM is coordinated by HMIP. www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2007/19/section/2 and www.justice.gov.uk/news/features/ feature010911a.htm (accessed November 2011). www.justice.gov.uk/guidance/prison-probation-and-rehabilitation/psipso/psos.htm (accessed 3 October2011). www.justice.gov.uk/guidance/prison-probation-and-rehabilitation/psipso/psos.htm www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt200708/jtselect/jtrights/65/6503.htm (accessed 3 October2011). www.justice.gov.uk/publications/docs/physical-control-in-care-training-manual-2010.pdf (accessed 8 March 2011). www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1967/58/section/3 (accessed 3 February 2011). www.nacro.org.uk/data/files/nacro-2006021400-469.pdf www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/police/operational-policing/pace-codes/pace-code-c (accessed 3 February 2011). www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/police/operational-policing/pace-codes/pace-code-h (accessed 3 February 2011). www.acpo.police.uk/documents/uniformed/2008/200812UNTAS01.pdf www.nipolicingboard.org.uk/intro_of_taser.pdf www.acpo.police.uk/documents/uniformed/2010/201010UNKTP01.pdf www.hmic.gov.uk/SiteCollectionDocuments/PPR/PPR_20110209.pdf (accessed 3 October2011). www.hmic.gov.uk/SiteCollectionDocuments/PPR/PPR_20110209.pdf, p 20. www.mentalhealthalliance.org.uk/policy/documents/LordsCtteeStage_136_Briefing.pdf (accessed 3 October2011). www3.imperial.ac.uk/pls/portallive/docs/1/51771696.PDF www.scie.org.uk/publications/misc/dementia/dementia-guideline.pdf (accessed 3 February 2011). cambridgeshire.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/46979CAB-51B2-4305-B64B-E520165D56D7/0/ Restraint.pdf, November 2007 (accessed 3 February 2011).

    152

    The Right to Life HRA, Article 2

    96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125

    126 127 128 129 130

    www.positive-options.com/news/downloads/restraint_guidance_for_inspectors_csci_ december_2007.pdf (accessed 3 February 2011). www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/PublicationsPolicyAndGuidance/ DH_085476 (accessed 3 February 2011). www.scie.org.uk/publications/reports/report26.pdf (accessed 3 October2011). www.mwcscot.org.uk/web/FILES/Publications/Rights_Risks_web.pdf cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentId=695820&portal=hbkm&sourc e=externalbydocnumber&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/2004/10.html www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200708/ldjudgmt/jd081126/ssj-1.htm www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2010/760.html cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentId=695820&portal=hbkm&sourc e=externalbydocnumber&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649 cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentId=696134&portal=hbkm&sourc e=externalbydocnumber&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649 www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/1998/49.html cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentId=697328&portal=hbkm&sourc e=externalbydocnumber&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649 www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200809/ldjudgmt/jd081210/savage-1.htm cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentId=826000&portal=hbkm&sourc e=externalbydocnumber&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649 www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2010/698.html www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200203/ldjudgmt/jd031016/amin-1.htm cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentId=863698&portal=hbkm&sourc e=externalbydocnumber&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649 cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentId=887952&portal=hbkm&sourc e=externalbydocnumber&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649 www.supremecourt.gov.uk/docs/uksc_2009_0103_judgment_v2.pdf cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentId=698325&portal=hbkm&sourc e=externalbydocnumber&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1992/5.html ww.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2000/254.html www.library.nhs.uk/healthmanagement/ViewResource.aspx?resID=267515 (accessed 1 February 2011). www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt200809/jtselect/jtrights/94/9405.htm (accessed 17 November 2010). www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt200405/jtselect/jtrights/15/1502.htm (accessed 3 February 2011). www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/cedaw/docs/CEDAW.C.GBR.CO.6.pdf, p 11 (accessed 1 February 2011). www.unhcr.org/refworld/publisher,CESCR,CONCOBSERVATIONS,GBR,4af181b10,0.html webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20101103103930/http://bloody-sunday-inquiry.org/ (accessed 3October 2011). www.heraldscotland.com/mark-wright-inquest-full-statement-from-coroner-1.892347 inquest.gn.apc.org/website/press-releases/press-releases-2010/highly-critical-jury-verdictcondemns-police-neglect-as-contributing-to-death-of-paul-davies (accessed 2 February 2011). www.ipcc.gov.uk/index/resources/evidence_reports/investigation_reports/the_stockwell_ investigation.htm (accessed 24 November 2010). www.ipcc.gov.uk/news/Pages/pr-291110-tomlinsonupdate.aspx (accessed 2 February 2011) www.ipcc.gov.uk/en/Pages/investigation_reports.aspx (accessed 14 June 2011). IPCC Annual Report and Statement of Accounts 2009/10, p 23, www.ipcc.gov.uk/Pages/ corp_reports-plans.aspx (accessed 2 February 2011). www.ipcc.gov.uk/news/Pages/pr_290909_pilkington.aspx (accessed 2 February 2011).

    153

    The Right to Life HRA, Article 2

    131 132 133

    134 135 136 137

    138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162

    www.ipcc.gov.uk/en/Pages/investigation_reports.aspx (accessed 14 June 2011). fflm.ac.uk/upload/documents/1291370447.pdf (accessed 3 October 2011). inquest.gn.apc.org/website/press-releases/press-releases-2011/serco-and-youth-justiceagencies-condemned-for-unlawful-treatment-of-vulnerable-boy-in-custody (accessed 2 February 2011). www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/research/pdf_res_notes/rn00-34.pdf (accessed 4 November 2010). www.justice.gov.uk/inspectorates/hmi-prisons/docs/Detainee_escorts_and_removals_2009_ rps.pdf (accessed 10 February 2011). www.justice.gov.uk/inspectorates/hmi-prisons/docs/HMIP_AR_2008-9_web_published_rps. pdf, p 74. Under the Fatal Accidents and Sudden Deaths Inquiry (Scotland) Act1976, an inquiry must be held in cases of death in custody or as a result of an accident at work. The full list of FAI recommendations is accessible at www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Justice/law/ fatalaccidentinquiries/Recommend www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/tung.html www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/fai_wu.html www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/FOSTER.html www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/MCKELVIE.html www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/Allan.html www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/PublicationsPolicyAndGuidance/ DH_098660 (accessed 2 February 2011). www.cqc.org.uk/_db/_documents/Northwick_tagged.pdf (accessed August 2011). www.rjw.co.uk/latest-news/article/alan-simper-dies-after-failings-at-a-leading-care-home/ (accessed 2 February 2011). mobile.wimbledonguardian.co.uk/news/4760335.How_could_this_happen_/?ref=rss (accessed 2 February 2011). www.hse.gov.uk/press/2010/coi-yh-21410.htm (accessed 9 February 2010). www.chi.gov.uk/_db/_documents/Northwick_tagged.pdf www.dh.gov.uk/prod_consum_dh/groups/dh_digitalassets/documents/digitalasset/ dh_110711.pdf (accessed 2 February 2011). www.education.gov.uk/publications//eOrderingDownload/HC-330.pdf (accessed 2 February 2011). www.dundeeprotects.co.uk/documents/100aSCRReport-BrandonLeeMuir.pdf (accessed 24 May 2011). www.communitycare.co.uk/Articles/2010/08/23/115150/Council-cleared-of-failure-to-help39frozen-couple39.htm (accessed 2 February 2011). www.northamptonshire.gov.uk/en/councilservices/asc/services/va/Documents/PDF%20 Documents/Final%20Parkside%20v4%20executive%20summary%20for%20publication.pdf Report downloadable from www.ipcc.gov.uk/en/Pages/investigation_reports.aspx (accessed 14 June 2011). inquest.gn.apc.org/pdf/INQUEST_ian_tomlinson_briefing_jun_2009.pdf (accessed 24 November 2010). inquest.org.uk/pdf/briefings/INQUEST_parliamentary_inquiry_call_Jimmy_Mubenga_briefing.pdf inquest.gn.apc.org/pdf/INQUEST_adam_rickwood_briefing_04_07.pdf, p 4. inquest.gn.apc.org/pdf/INQUEST_adam_rickwood_briefing_04_07.pdf www.mencap.org.uk/campaigns/take-action/death-indifference (accessed 3 October 2011). www.irr.org.uk/pdf/Driventodesperatemeasures.pdf (accessed 3 February 2011). www.medicaljustice.org.uk/images/stories/reports/outsourcing%20abuse.pdf (accessed 3 February 2011). www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1313495/Daily-Mail-honoured-Dignity-Elderly-campaign. html

    154

    The Right to Life HRA, Article 2

    163

    164 165

    166 167 168 169 170

    madikazemi.blogspot.com/2011/01/uk-preparing-to-put-asylum-seeking.html?utm_ source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+SaveMehdiKazemi+%28 LGBT+asylum+news%29 news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7294908.stm www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2007/apr/04/aids.immigration, www.barnardos.org. uk/news_and_events/media_centre/press_releases/press_releases_archive. htm?ref=28348&year=2007&month=4 Report dated 25 July 2011 available at: www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14219978 (accessed August 2011). Available online at inquest.gn.apc.org/pdf/Deaths_of_Children_in_Penal_Custody_1990date.pdf (accessed November 2011). Available online at www.inquest.org.uk/ (accessed November 2011). onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1471-0528.2010.02847.x/pdf (accessed August 2011). onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1471-0528.2010.02847.x/pdf (accessed August 2011).

    155

    Chapter 6
    The Prohibition on Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (Human Rights Act, Article 3)

    Please read Part II Guidance on using and interpreting the Human Rights Measurement Framework first.

    The Prohibition on Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (Human Rights Act (HRA), Article 3)

    Panel and indicators

    Protection from torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment by the state, its agents or bodies fulfilling a public function Other action/inaction by the state, its agents or bodies fulfilling a public function (treatment and conditions which infringe dignity and respect) Noninstitutional context Institutional context (covers prisons, police stations, secure units, detention centres, schools, health and social care settings, etc.)

    Indicators

    Use of torture by the state, its agents or bodies fulfilling a public function

    Noninstitutional context

    Institutional context (covers prisons, police stations, secure units, detention centres, schools, health and social care settings, etc.)

    Effective investigation of allegations of torture, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment

    The Prohibition on Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment HRA, Article 3

    158

    Structural (indicators of commitment in principle)

    Indicator 11: Legal and constitutional framework Protection from torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment in domestic law (including constitutional/higher law) Status of ratification of relevant international treaties

    Indicator 12: Legal precedents, gaps and standard-setting Principles established in key cases (domestic and ECHR) and in international standard-setting processes Gaps in protection and non-implementation of legal judgements and recommendations

    Process (indicators of steps taken including legal, regulatory and public policy measures)

    Indicator 13: Regulatory framework Key regulators,inspectorates, ombudsmen Relevant responsibilities and powers, national minimum standard frameworks and inspection/complaints handling criteria

    Indicator 14: Public policy framework Primary legislation including entry and scope of law enabling effective prosecution of those complicit in torture Relevant codes and guidance (for example, training, guidance and strategies provided to military and other personnel on complicity to torture; training, guidance and strategies provided to police, prison and other security and detention personnel/those with caring responsibilities/those working in mental health context/educational establishments) on the use of force, detention, arrest, discipline, punishment and restraint Other relevant policies, plans, targets and goals (for example, safeguarding adult and children plans/procedures, support services for victims of domestic violence; violence against women strategy) Spotlight resource allocations (including public expenditure on child protection and adult protection, and support services for victims of domestic violence)

    Outcome (indicators of the position of individuals and groups in practice/ emergence of a human rights culture)

    The Prohibition on Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment HRA, Article 3

    159

    Indicator 15: Outcomes of key judicial, regulatory and investigative processes Violations of the right to freedom from torture, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment: Case law outcomes Number of disciplinary actions following allegations of torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, number of prosecutions and sentencing/sanctions/out of court settlements/compensation payments Key concerns raised by human rights monitoring bodies Outcomes of inspection, regulation and complaints procedures and independent inquiries/inspections that may engage Article 3 (for example,Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC)inquiries, HM Inspectorate of Prisons (HMIP)inquiries, inquiries relating to immigration detention and removals, inquiries relating to torture allegations/health and social care complaints upheld by the relevant ombudsmen; safeguarding children/adults inquiries, in Scotland, significant case reviews, and investigations that result in serious criticism of actions of the state, its agents or bodies fulfilling a public function) Key allegations by private individuals and civil society organisations/reports in the media. (NB: covers reported cases, including allegations of use or complicity to torture, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment by

    the state or state agents overseas, including cases of involvement in extraordinary rendition172; alleged deportation of individuals to countries where they face the risk of torture, including use of diplomatic assurances and Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs); use of evidence and intelligence derived from torture)

    Indicator 16: Spotlight statistics: The use of restraint, punishment and conditions of detention Appropriate punishment and restraint of children and young people (covers looked after children, detained children and young people/children and young people in secure units/public and private school context). Conditions of detention that may engage Article 3 for example,slopping out, overcrowding in prisons, prolonged confinement in cells and conditions for people with disabilities

    Panel and indicators (continued)

    Outcome (indicators of the position of individuals and groups in practice/ emergence of a human rights culture)

    Indicator 17: Spotlight statistics: Physical violence, physical and sexual abuse, and victimisation within miscellaneous establishments Victimisation, physical assault and sexual violence within the police and criminal justice system (covers prison establishments, secure childrens homes, secure training centres, immigration centres, etc.) Physical assault within mental health and learning difficulties services Child abuse, elder abuse and other significant harm within the institutional context

    Indicator 18: Positive duties and effective protection from sexual violence, domestic violence, hate crime and abuse within families, communities and society: Spotlight statistics on prevalence, detection and prosecution Prevalence, detection and prosecution of sexual violence, domestic violence, hate crime and racially or religiously aggravated crime Child abuse and elder abuse in the private household population Bullying of children and young people that meets the threshold for Article 3 (covers public and private school contexts, see Article 8 for details)

    The Prohibition on Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment HRA, Article 3

    160

    Indicator 19: Spotlight statistics: Denial of basic needs The percentage of older people reporting lack of support for individual nutritional needs in social and healthcare establishments (with separate reporting for older disabled) Percentage of asylum-seekers/undocumented migrants experiencing destitution. (NB: covers violations of positive obligations, for example, if an official makes a decision which leaves a person with no food, shelter or means of subsistence)

    Indicator 20: Spotlight statistics: Public attitudes, understanding and experiences Public attitudes towards the right to freedom from torture, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment as a right you should have and you do have Self-reported experiences by individuals who feel that they have not had an adequate investigation in relation to violation of Article 3 rights

    Indicators should be systematically disaggregated Key disaggregation characteristics include ethnicity/race, gender, disability, sexual orientation, transgender, religion and belief, age, social class, area (region, urban/rural, remoteness) with separate reporting of the non-private household population and at risk/vulnerable groups including individuals staying in/ resident/detained in public and private institutions; individuals living in poverty; refugees/asylum seekers, vulnerable children and young people (for example, children in need, looked after children, children who are carers), Gypsies and Travellers, etc.

    The Prohibition on Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment HRA, Article 3

    Evidence base
    Structural indicators Indicator 11: Legal and constitutional framework
    Table 64: Protection from torture, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment in domestic law (including constitutional/higher law) UK HRA, Article 3. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) Article 7 ratified. ICCPR First Optional Protocol not ratified (individual complaints mechanism). UN Convention Against Torture (CAT) and Optional Protocol ratified. ECHR and Protocols 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 6, 8, 10, 11, 13 and 14 ratified. European Convention for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment and Protocols 1 and 2 ratified. Geneva Conventions, common Article 3 ratified.174 Rome Statute Article 7(1)(f) ratified. UN Convention on the Rights of the Child Articles 19 and 37 ratified. Table 65: Status of ratification of relevant international treaties173

    Indicator 12: Legal precedents, gaps and standard-setting


    Table 66: Principles established in key cases (domestic and ECHR) Deportations Vilvarajah and others v UK nos. 13163/87; 13164/87; 13165/87; 13447/87; 13448/87 [1991] ECHR175 The European Court of Human Rights established that the Article 3 threshold requires a real risk of persecution if returned to the home country, not a mere possibility of ill-treatment. Chahal v UK (GC) no. 22414/93 [1996] ECHR176; Koci v Secretary of State for Home Department [2003] EWCA Civ 1507177 The European Court of Human Rights found that Article 3 prevents expulsion of an individual to a country where there are substantial grounds for believing that they might be tortured or where there might be inadequate protection against persecution.

    161

    The Prohibition on Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment HRA, Article 3

    Koci v Secretary of State for Home Department [2003] EWCA Civ 1507178 Finding that there would be a violation of Articles 2 and 3, were the appellant to be sent back to Albania, because of the threat to his life and because to live in hiding, or at least to live in constant fear of a reprisal shooting, would amount to inhuman and degrading treatment. D v UK no. 30240/96 [1997] ECHR179 The European Court of Human Rights found that there would be a breach of Article 3 if the UK Government were to deport a terminally-ill man suffering from AIDS to his home country of St Kitts, where no specialist medical treatment and little if any social support would be available. N v UK (GC) no. 26565/05 [2008] ECHR180 The European Court of Human Rights that Article 3 principally applies to prevent a deportation or expulsion where the risk of ill-treatment in the receiving country emanates from intentionally inflicted acts of the public authorities there or from non-state bodies when the authorities are unable to afford the applicant appropriate protectionAliens who are subject to expulsion cannot in principle claim any entitlement to remain in the territory of a Contracting State in order to continue to benefit from medical, social or other forms of assistance and services provided by the expelling State. The fact that the applicants circumstances, including his life expectancy, would be significantly reduced if he were to be removed from the Contracting State is not sufficient in itself to give rise to breach of Article 3. The decision to remove an alien who is suffering from a serious mental or physical illness to a country where the facilities for the treatment of that illness are inferior to those available in the Contracting State may raise an issue under Article 3, but only in a very exceptional case, where the humanitarian grounds against the removal are compelling. Naseer & Ors v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2010] UKSIAC 77/2009181 The UK Supreme Court rejected the deportation of two men on the grounds that they would be at real risk of prohibited ill-treatment if they were returned to Pakistan.

    Corporal punishment of children Tyrer v UK no. 5856/72 [1978] ECHR182 The European Court of Human Rights established that to engage Article 3 the intensity of suffering and humiliation involved in a punishment must go beyond the inevitable element of suffering and humiliation connected with any form of legitimate treatment or punishment.

    162

    The Prohibition on Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment HRA, Article 3

    Costello-Roberts v UK no. 13134/87 [1993] ECHR183 The European Court of Human Rights established that in order for punishment to be degrading and in breach of Article 3, the humiliation or debasement involved had to attain a particular level of severity, the assessment of which depended on all the circumstances of the case. Beyond the measures to be expected from measures taken on a purely disciplinary plane, the application had adduced no evidence of any severe or longlasting effects as a result of the treatment complained of. A v UK no. 25599/94 [1998] ECHR184 The European Court of Human Rights found that the defence of reasonable chastisement, which the prosecution had to disprove, meant that the law did not provide adequate protection for the childs Article 3 rights, which prohibit absolutely inhuman and degrading treatment. Subsequently, amendments were made by Section 58 of the Children Act 2004 which has removed the defence of reasonable chastisement in cases concerning actual bodily harm, unlawfully inflicting grievous bodily harm with intent, causing grievous bodily harm and cruelty to a child.

    Threshold for Article 3 cases Ireland v UK no. 5310/71 [1978] ECHR185 The European Court of Human Rights established that in order to engage Article 3 the ill-treatment involved has to attain a minimum level of severity before it can be considered inhuman or degrading treatment.

    Deprivation in basic needs can meet Article 3 threshold R v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Limbuela [2005] UKHL 66186 The House of Lords established that refusal to give financial support (including practice of refusing accommodation or food) to asylum seekers may breach Article 3 where the individuals involved would otherwise be destitute.

    Protection from third party violations Z and others v UK (GC) no. 29392/95 [2001] ECHR187 The European Court of Human Rights established that there is a positive obligation on states to protect children from ill treatment about which it had, or ought to have had, knowledge. Opuz v Turkey no. 33401/02 [2009] ECHR188 The European Court of Human Rights established that the authoritys failure to protect the applicant from her exhusbands violent and abusive behaviour amounted to a violation of Article 3. E and others v UK no. 33218/96 [2002] ECHR189 The European Court of Human Rights criticised the UKs lack of effective remedies, including investigation.

    163

    The Prohibition on Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment HRA, Article 3

    MC v Bulgaria no. 39272/98 [2004] ECHR190 The European Court of Human Rights found a violation of Article 3 where the domestic legal prohibition of rape was inadequate due to a disproportionate emphasis on need for violence. The definition of the offence in domestic law effectively required proof of physical resistance. The Court referred to developing state practice on rape definitions as broader than in the past and found that the Bulgarian definition was inadequate as it did not protect individuals from non-consensual sexual acts. The Court stated that state parties have a positive obligation both to enact criminal legislation to effectively punish rape and to apply this legislation through effective investigation and prosecution.

    Rape cases191 Aydin v Turkey (GC) no. 23178/94 [1997] ECHR192 The European Court of Human Rights established that rape could constitute torture and violate Article 3. X and Y v the Netherlands no. 8978/80 [1985] ECHR193 Establishing the duty to have effective legal protections from abuse. The European Court of Human Rights found a violation of Article 8.

    Medical treatment Pretty v UK no. 2346/02 [2002] ECHR194 The European Court of Human Rights ruled that states are required to take measures designed to ensure that individuals within their jurisdiction are not subjected to torture or inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment, including such treatment administered by private individuals. The suffering which flows from naturally occurring illness, physical or mental, may be covered by Article 3, where it is, or risks being, exacerbated by treatment, whether flowing from conditions of detention, expulsion or other measures, for which the authorities can be held responsible. Article 3 is cast in absolute terms, without exception or proviso, or the possibility of derogation. Herczegfalvy v Austria no. 10533/83 [1992] ECHR195 A patient detained in a psychiatric institution, suffering from paranoid querulans went on hunger strike. The hospital director ordered forced feeding, the patient refused and was given sedatives against his will, and had to be overpowered to be forcibly fed. In finding no violation of Article 3, the European Court of Human Rights found that a measure which is a therapeutic necessity cannot be inhuman and degrading(but the means by which it is employed can amount to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment as in a Ukrainian case on forced feeding). However, vulnerability and powerlessness of people detained on mental health grounds called for increased vigilance by the Court and national authorities to satisfy themselves that medical necessity had been shown to exist. Suggestion from the case is that H lacked capacity to refuse treatment, but had he had capacity, doctors could have compelled treatment if they satisfied themselves of the legality, necessity and proportionality of non-consensual treatment.

    164

    The Prohibition on Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment HRA, Article 3

    Nevmerzhitsky v Ukraine no. 54825/00 [2005] ECHR196 In the circumstances of that case the European Court of Human Rights considered that forced feeding of the applicant was not justified as the state had not shown that it was a medical necessity. It also considered that the unjustified non-consensual treatment, combined with the manner in which forced-feeding was carried out amounted to torture. The Court found a violation of Article 3 (on account of torture and degrading treatment).

    Discrimination East African Asians v UK (1973) 3 EHRR 76197 The differential treatment on basis of race may constitute a form of degrading treatment.

    Disability Price v UK no. 33394/96 [2001] ECHR198 The European Court of Human Rights established that detaining a disabled person in conditions without adequate facilities constitutes inhuman and degrading treatment in violation of Article 3. It found that there is no need to prove an intention to inflict inhuman and degrading treatment on the part of the authorities to establish a violation of Article 3. R v East Sussex County Council Ex parte A, B, X and Y [2003] EWHC 167 (Admin) (DRC Intervener)199 The England and Wales High Court established that a blanket ban on manual lifting by carers of people with a disability is unlikely to be lawful because it does not consider a persons individual circumstances. A breach of Article 3 may occur if applicants are left in their own bodily waste or on the lavatory for a long time because care workers are banned from lifting them. R (B) v Director of Public Prosecutions [2009] EWHC 106 (Admin)200 A mental health patient successfully challenged the Director of Public Prosecutionss decision to discontinue a prosecution for wounding with intent and witness intimidation, on the basis that the victims mental illness meant he would not be a credible witness. This decision was a breach of Artice 3, which includes the duty to provide a legal system for bringing to justice those who commit serious acts of violence against others.

    165

    The Prohibition on Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment HRA, Article 3

    Jurisdiction over acts of torture committed abroad R v Bartle and the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis, ex parte Pinochet [1999] UKHL 147201 The House of Lords established that a state partys courts have jurisdiction over acts of torture committed abroad and that a former head of state does not have immunity from such crimes.

    Effective investigation Elci v Turkey nos 23145/93 and 25091/95 [2003] ECHR202 The case concerned the arrest and detention of suspected members of the PKK who alleged illtreatment. The European Court of Human Rights found that the applicants had been ill-treated but in addition, in view of the judicial authorities total failure to investigate the applicants complaints of ill-treatment, the European Court of Human Rights also found that there had been a violation of Article 3 in its procedural aspect. Assenov v Bulgaria no. 24760/94 [1998] ECHR203 The European Court of Human Rights found that the lack of a thorough and effective investigation into the applicants arguable claim that he had been beaten by police officers had violated the requirement for an effective investigation under Article 3.

    Table 67: Principles established in international standard-setting processes International standard-setting UNHRC General Comment 7 Complaints about ill-treatment must be investigated effectively by competent authorities; this extends to pupils and patients in educational and medical institutions. Replaced by the United Nations Human Rights Committee (UNHRC) General Comment 20 prohibition covers mental suffering as well as physical pain. States must not expose people to risk of torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment by way of their extradition, expulsion or refoulement. There is a particular requirement for safeguards to be put in place for vulnerable people. Requirement to protect children from all forms of physical or mental violence, injury or abuse, neglect or negligent treatment, maltreatment or exploitation (UNCRC, Article 19) Requirement to protect children from torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment(UNCRC, Article 37). CAT General Comment 1 refoulement and communications. CAT General Comment 2 implementation of Article 2 by states parties Prohibition against torture absolute and non-derogable; extends to territories or facilities under the states control (for example, conflict zones) and applies to all persons, citizen or non-citizen. The concept of any territory under its (the states) jurisdiction, linked as it is with the principle of non-derogability, includes any territory or facilities and must be applied to protect any person, citizen or noncitizen without discrimination subject to the de jure or de facto control of a state party (CAT General Comment 2). 166

    The Prohibition on Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment HRA, Article 3

    Table 68: Inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment and prison conditions Cases Ali v Romania no. 20307/02 [2010] ECHR204 One of the factors that the European Court of Human Rights took into account in determining whether the conditions in detention amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment was the availability of showers. The European Court of Human Rights noted In addition, when corroborating the parties allegations on the sanitary conditions with the CPT reports, the European Court can but conclude that the applicant was deprived of the possibility to maintain an adequate corporal hygiene in prison: hot water was only available once a week for one hour. In this context, while availability of showers and cleaning equipment is a step forward towards ensuring decent conditions in prison, their utility remains rather futile given the lack of hot water. The European Court found a violation of Article 3. Gubin v Russia no. 8217/04 [2010] ECHR205 The European Court of Human Rights took into account the infrequency of inmates capacity to shower in finding an Article 3 breach. Carson [2005] NIQB 80206 In considering whether a person has been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment one must consider the totality of the circumstances. A particular act on its own may constitute treatment, although the concept of treatment generally points to a course of conduct. In considering whether the sanitary arrangements have given rise to degrading treatment those arrangements must be looked at in the overall context of the surrounding prison arrangements. Karalevicius v Lithuania no. 53254/99 [2005] ECHR207 The European Court of Human Rights takes into account access to showers and regularity and heating of the water supply as factors in determining whether conditions of detention breach Article 3. The European Court found a violation of Article 3. Nevmerzhitsky v Ukraine no. 54825/00 [2005] ECHR208 The findings of prison inspectors were a factor which the European Court of Human Rights considered seriously and contributed to finding a breach of Article 3: in view of the small number of showers per prison section (for example, two showers for over 170 prisoners) and their very dilapidated state, prisoners had great difficulty in maintaining satisfactory personal hygiene.

    167

    The Prohibition on Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment HRA, Article 3

    Napier v the Scottish Ministers [2004]209 Showers and access to them is not just a procedural matter but a practical one. Prisoners health issues (in this case eczema) which require extra care must be taken into account: It was impossible to wash with the care that his skin required at a sink during slopping out. He could only splash water over himself. The water he could take to the cell was inadequate and became contaminated as soon as it was used. His attempt to secure his removal from the hall to better conditions had failedIn sum, the court considers that the condition of the applicant detention...amounted to degrading treatment within the meaning of Article 3 of the Convention. Valainas v Lithuania no. 44558/98 [2001] ECHR210 In relation to the conditions of detention it was noted that Sanitary conditions were deplorable. Toilets, sinks and shower facilities were colonies of bacteria. There were various leaks and the water pipes were very old, rusty and affected by fungus.. The applicant stated that it was very difficult to keep himself clean as he was only allowed to shower once a week on designated days. Showering on an unspecified day was penalised. Shower facilities only worked five days a week, and were always overcrowded. During the summer, hot water was only available at weekends. The European Court of Human Rights found a violation of Article 3. Generalov v Russia no. 24325/03 [2009] ECHR211 The following contributed to the Courts finding of Article 3 breaches: ... Access to shower facilities appears to have been sporadic: at times he showered every couple of days but on other occasions, according to the logbook, he did not leave his cell to shower for two weeks.... The water in the shower was usually lukewarm; the inmates had to wait for hours for their turn to take a shower.

    Segregation Somerville v Scottish Ministers [2007] UKHL 44212 The routine use of segregation with no proper tier of review or appeal amounted to a breach of Article 3.213

    168

    The Prohibition on Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment HRA, Article 3

    Mental health in the context of detention Slawomir Musial v Poland no. 28300/06 [2009] ECHR214 The Court has held on many occasions that the detention of a person who is ill may raise issues under Article 3 of the Convention and that the lack of appropriate medical care may amount to treatment contrary to that provision. In particular, the assessment of whether the particular conditions of detention are incompatible with the standards of Article 3 has, in the case of mentally ill persons, to take into consideration their vulnerability and their inability, in some cases, to complain coherently or at all about how they are being affected by any particular treatment. The Court observes that there are three` particular elements to be considered in relation to the compatibility of an applicants health with his stay in detention: (a) the medical condition of the prisoner, (b) the adequacy of the medical assistance and care provided in detention, and (c) the advisability of maintaining the detention measure in view of the state of health of an applicant. The Court found a violation of Article 3. See Table 252 for additional cases in relation to Article 3 and the right to the highest attainable standard of health. Table 69: Gaps in legal protection Individual complaint under ICCPR First Optional Protocol. Ambiguity in relation to the coverage of violations of Article 3 by non-state actors, for example, private security firms. CAT (i) article 15 of the Convention prohibits the use of evidence gained by torture wherever and by whomever obtained; notwithstanding the State partys assurance set out in paragraph 3 (g), supra, the State partys law has been interpreted to exclude the use of evidence extracted by torture only where the State partys officials were complicit; and (ii) article 2 of the Convention provides that no exceptional circumstances whatsoever may be invoked as a justification for torture; the text of Section 134(4) of the Criminal Justice Act however provides for a defence of lawful authority, justification or excuse to a charge of official intentional infliction of severe pain or suffering, a defence which is not restricted by the Human Rights Act for conduct outside the State party, where the Human Rights Act does not apply; moreover, the text of Section 134(5) of the Criminal Justice Act provides for a defence for conduct that is permitted under foreign law, even if unlawful under the State partys law215

    169

    The Prohibition on Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment HRA, Article 3

    Process indicators Indicator 13: Regulatory framework


    Table 70: The prohibition on torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment list of key regulators, inspectorates, ombudsman, etc. National Preventive Mechanism (NPM)216 IPCC Police Complaints Commissioner for Scotland HMIP England and Wales HMIP Scotland HM Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC) HMIC Scotland Prisons and Probation Ombudsman (PPO) Care Quality Commission (CQC) Social Care and Social Work Improvement Scotland Health and Social Care Ombudsman Office for Standards in Education, Childrens Services and Skills (OFSTED) Health and Safety Executive Scottish Public Services Ombudsman Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS) Multi-Agency Resource Centre on child protection at Stirling University which is conducting an audit of significant case reviews and developing guidance.

    170

    The Prohibition on Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment HRA, Article 3

    Table 71: The prohibition on torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment Spotlight responsibilities and powers of key regulators and inspectors The NPM217 The Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (OPCAT) is an international human rights treaty designed to strengthen protection for people deprived of their liberty. It recognises that such people are particularly vulnerable and aims to prevent their ill-treatment through establishing a system of visits or inspections to all places of detention. The UK ratified OPCAT in December 2003 and designated its NPM in March 2009. The UKs NPM is coordinated by HMIP and is currently made up of 18 visiting or inspecting bodies who visit places of detention such as prisons, police custody, immigration detention centres, childrens secure accommodation and mental health institutions. The HMIPs work constitutes an important part of the UKs obligations under the OPCAT: to have in place regular independent inspection of places of custody.

    171

    The Prohibition on Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment HRA, Article 3

    Table 72: Number of prisons, immigration removal centres and short-term holding facilities inspected by HMIP that are evaluated as performing poorly or not sufficiently well, by Healthy Prison/Establishment Assessments and type of prison/ establishment, England and Wales, 2008-09
    Purposeful activity 5 (63%) 0 8 (38%) 0 0 0 0 1 (100%) 4 (57%) Total number of prisons inspected 8 3 21 2 3 2 1 1 7

    Safety Local prisons High secure prisons Trainer prisons Therapeutic community prisons Open prisons Resettlement prisons Split site trainer and open prison Split site local and young adult prison Young adult establishments Children and young peoples establishment Womens prisons Extra-jurisdiction Military correction and training centre Immigration removal centres 2 (25%) 1 (33%) 6 (29%) 0 0 0 0 0 2 (29%)

    Respect 3 (38%) 1 (33%) 7 (33%) 0 1 (33%) 0 1 (100%) 1 (100%) 2 (29%)

    Resettlement 1 (13%) 1 (33%) 9 (43%) 1 (50%) 1 (33%) 0 1 (100%) 0 1 (14%)

    4 (44%) 3 (38%) 1 (50%) 0 3 (50%)

    1 (11%) 3 (38%) 1 (50%) 0 2 (33%)

    1 (11%) 0 2 (100%) 0 1 (17%)

    0 1 (13%) 1 (50%) 1 (100%) 3 (50%)

    9 8 2 1 6

    Source: HMIP for England and Wales (2010b). Notes: Prisons and establishments are scored on a scale from 1-4: 1 Performing poorly; 2 Not performing sufficiently well; 3 Performing reasonably well; 4 Performing well. We have categorised underperformance as those who scored either a 1 or 2. Percentages illustrate the number of prisons which are underperforming in each area of the Healthy Prison/Establishment Assessment as a percentage of the total number of prisons/ establishments inspected for each establishment type.

    172

    The Prohibition on Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment HRA, Article 3

    Table 73: Prisons: outcome of recommendations assessed in follow-up inspection reports published 2008-09, England and Wales
    Recommendations Local prisons Peterborough Preston Swansea Parc Total High security prisons Whitemoor Total Trainer prisons Blundeston Camp Hill Coldingley Gartree Kingston Lowdham Grange Parkhurst Risley Shepton Mallet Stocken Moorlands Total Open prisons Ford Total Resettlement prisons Blantyre House Kirklevington Grange Total 37 56 93 (100%) 20 23 43 (46%) 5 11 16 (17%) 12 22 34 (37%) Continued 100 100 (100%) 52 52 (52%) 23 23 (23%) 25 25 (25%) 127 154 90 143 92 109 115 163 104 110 161 1,368 (100%) 62 40 43 47 39 50 28 60 63 41 65 538 (39%) 28 27 22 36 24 32 24 39 18 31 43 324 (24%) 37 87 25 60 29 27 63 64 23 38 53 506 (37%) 138 138 (100%) 63 63 (46%) 26 26 (19%) 49 49 (36%) 218 89 144 155 606 (100%) 81 46 42 62 231 (38%) 69 29 43 44 185 (31%) 68 14 59 49 190 (31%) Achieved Partially achieved Not achieved

    173

    The Prohibition on Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment HRA, Article 3

    Table 73: Prisons: outcome of recommendations assessed in follow-up inspection reports published 2008-09, England and Wales (continued)
    Recommendations Young adult establishments Northallerton Rochester Swinfen Hall Thorn Cross Total Children and young peoples establishment Ashfield Downview Josephine Butler Unit (Girls) Huntercombe Total Womens prison Holloway Peterborough Send Total Extra-jurisdiction Guernsey Maghaberry Total Prison total 151 155 306 (100%) 3,839 (100%) 61 44 105 (34%) 1,597 (42%) 31 28 59 (19%) 936 (24%) 59 83 142 (46%) 1,306 (34%) 136 226 109 471 (100%) 65 91 34 190 (40%) 38 75 34 147 (31%) 33 60 41 134 (28%) 122 64 26 32 111 93 105 83 392 (100%) 50 31 61 46 188 (48%) 29 18 18 21 86 (22%) 32 44 26 16 118 (30%) Achieved Partially achieved Not achieved

    74 169 365 (100%)

    43 80 187 (51%)

    14 30 70 (19%)

    17 59 108 (30%)

    Source: HMIP for England and Wales (2010b).

    174

    The Prohibition on Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment HRA, Article 3

    Table 74: Immigration removal centres and short-term holding facilities: outcome of recommendations assessed in follow-up inspection reports published 2008-09, England and Wales
    Recommendations Immigration removal centres Campsfield House Dover Dungavel Total Short-term holding facilities Reliance House Sandford House Birmingham International Airport Waterside Court John Lennon Airport Glasgow Airport Glasgow Festival Court Portsmouth Continental Ferry Port Total Total 23 24 32 7 5 13 9 9 9 7 10 10 82 82 69 233 (100%) 35 26 36 97 (42%) 23 18 14 55 (24%) 24 38 19 81 (35%) Achieved Partially achieved Not achieved

    37 24 37 36 31

    9 7 20 16 6

    11 7 9 11 11

    17 10 8 9 14

    244 (100%) 477 (100%)

    83 (34%) 180 (38%)

    76 (31%) 131 (27%)

    85 (35%) 166 (35%)

    Source: HMIP for England and Wales (2010b). Table 75: Eligible complaints made to the PPO, by service, England and Wales, 200809 and 2009-10 (%)
    2008-09 % Prisons Probation Immigration Overall eligibility 46 14 56 43 2009-10 % 52 16 67 48

    Source: PPO (2010).

    175

    The Prohibition on Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment HRA, Article 3

    Table 76: Detained people who self-report that they have made a complaint, and feel they are dealt with fairly, England and Wales
    Type of prison Local N=4,323 High security N=418 Young offenders (18-21) N=1,858 Category B trainers N=855 Category C trainers N=4,167 Open N=1,254 Female N=1,352 Children and young people (under 18) N=776 Immigration removal centres N=1,019 N 523 70 272 162 779 170 279 158 54 % 30 25 37 30 35 45 45 41 19

    Source: HMIP for England and Wales (2010a). Notes: The n-value refers to the total number of respondents for each survey. Percentages may vary in regard to the n-value as all comparator data is weighted. Local comparator from 2006 onwards. High secure comparator from 2007 onwards. Young offender institutions comparator from 2005 onwards. Category B trainers comparator from 2005 onwards. Category C trainers comparator from 2005 onwards. Opens comparator from 2005 onwards. Children and young people comparator from 2009 onwards. Female comparator from 2005 onwards. Immigration removal centre comparator from 2005 onwards. Data for children and young people only includes responses from males because of the small number of female respondents. Percentages are calculated only from those who answered the question; missing data has been excluded. See Appendix 2.

    176

    The Prohibition on Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment HRA, Article 3

    Table 77: Investigation of deprivations of liberty and security of the person and outcomes of other investigations, inquiries and reviews Outcome of completed investigations by the IPCC relating to breach of Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) by allegation category (substantiated complaint cases only), England and Wales, 2008-09
    Allegation category Breach of Code A PACE on stop and search Breach of Code B PACE on searching of premises and seizure of property Breach of Code C PACE on detention, treatment and questioning Breach of Code D PACE on identification procedures Breach of Code E PACE on tape recording Multiple or unspecified breaches of PACE which cannot be allocated to a specific code Number of substantiated allegations 25 50 111 2 1 6

    Source: IPCC (2009b), Table 4.5. Table 78: Outcome of completed investigations by allegation category (substantiated complaint cases only), England and Wales, 2008-09
    Allegation category Serious non-sexual assault Sexual assault Other assault Oppressive conduct or harassment Unlawful/unnecessary arrest or detention Irregularity in relation to evidence/perjury Corrupt practice Mishandling of property Breach of Code A PACE on stop and search Breach of Code B PACE on searching of premises and seizure of property Breach of Code C PACE on detention, treatment and questioning Breach of Code D PACE on identification procedures Breach of Code E PACE on tape recording Multiple or unspecified breaches of PACE which cannot be allocated to a specific code Number of substantiated allegations 10 6 108 93 71 46 11 59 25 50 111 2 1 6 Continued

    177

    The Prohibition on Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment HRA, Article 3

    Table 78: Outcome of completed investigations by allegation category (substantiated complaint cases only), England and Wales, 2008-09 (continued)
    Allegation category Lack of fairness and impartiality Discriminatory behaviour Other neglect or failure in duty Incivility, impoliteness and intolerance Traffic irregularity Other irregularity in procedure Improper disclosure of information Other sexual conduct Other Total British Transport Police Total including British Transport Police Number of substantiated allegations 40 15 693 235 25 68 88 6 41 1,810 30 1,840

    Source: IPCC (2009b), Table 4.5.

    178

    Table 79: Number of complaint allegations made against Scottish police officers that were substantiated, by region, Scotland, 2006-07
    Fife 2 0 5 4 0 4 0 2 5 8 2 6 20 18 4 5 14 0 0 0 14 3 7 21 0 0 0 0 3 2 Grampian Lothian & Borders Northern Strathclyde Tayside Scotland 7 58 50 49 13

    Complaints related to 0 8 0 4 1

    Central

    Dumfries & Galloway

    Assaults

    Incivility

    Neglect of duty

    Irregularity of procedure

    Traffic irregularity

    Oppressive conduct or harassment 1 4 4 1 2

    17

    The Prohibition on Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment HRA, Article 3

    179
    0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 14 23 49 2 0 4 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 11

    Unlawful or unnecessary arrest

    Racial or discriminatory behaviour

    1 0 4 1 28

    1 0 9 11 89

    0 0 4 1 9

    3 0 24 16 242

    Corrupt practice

    Other crime

    Other

    Total

    19

    Source: The Scottish Government (2009b).

    Notes: Data from: HM Inspectorate of Constabulary for Scotland (HMICS) Statistics. Definitions available at: www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/260965/0078601.pdf

    The Prohibition on Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment HRA, Article 3

    Indicator 14: Public policy framework


    Table 80: The prohibition on torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment policy guidance and training guidelines UK Government Guidance on Torture, July 2010 see Table 83 in relation to criticisms of the guidance by the Equality and Human Rights Commission (the Commission). Prison and Secure Training Centre (STC) context Prisons Services Policy (Prison Service Order (PSO) 1600 Use of Force218) and Use of Force Training Manual. The Secure Training Centre (Amendment) Rules, which amended the Secure Training Centre Rules 1998, amend the existing rules to permit STCs to use force against detained children and young people to ensure good order and discipline. The Amendment Rules were criticised for widening the scope for restraint in STCs (Joint Committee on Human Rights (JCHR), 2008b).219 PSO 2855 (the management of prisoners with physical, sensory or mental disabilities) requires prisons to abide by the duties contained in the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, in particular the Section 21 duty to make reasonable adjustments.220

    Police context Criminal Law Act 1967 Part 1 Section 3, use of force in making an arrest.221 Guidance on the Safer Detention & Handling of Persons in Police Custody (National Centre for Policing Excellence, 2006).222 Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) Code C, setting out the requirements for the detention, treatment and questioning of suspects not related to terrorism in police custody.223 PACE Code H on the detention, treatment and questioning by police officers of persons under Section 41 of, and Schedule 8 to, the Terrorism Act 2000.224

    Health and social care context England and Wales Mental Health Act 1983 Section 136, relating to the police powers to detain a person suffering from a mental disorder in a public place in a place of safety.225 Mental Capacity Act 2005: Code of Practice226 Sections 6.40-6.48 set out the definition of restraint and the conditions that have to be satisfied in order for it to be legally justified, particularly if the person being restrained does not have the capacity to consent (Qureshi, 2009).227

    180

    The Prohibition on Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment HRA, Article 3

    NICE Clinical Guideline 42 Health and social care staff should be trained to anticipate behaviour that challenges and how to manage violence, aggression and extreme agitation, including de-escalation techniques and methods of physical restraint (National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE)-Social Care Institute for Excellence (SCIE), 2006).228 Rights, risks and restraints: An exploration into the use of restraint in the care of older people (Commission for Social Care Inspection (CSCI ), 2007a).229 Guidance for inspectors: How to move towards restraint free care (CSCI, 2007b). Mental Capacity Act 2005 Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards code of practice230 this code of practice provides safeguards for people who lack capacity specifically to consent to treatment or care in either a hospital or a care home that, in their own best interests, can only be provided in circumstances that amount to a deprivation of liberty (as opposed to a restriction of liberty), and where detention under the 1983 Mental Health Act is not appropriate for the person at that time (Qureshi, 2009).231 Guidance on Restraint and Seclusion in Health and Personal Services (Human Rights Working Group on Restraint and Seclusion, 2005).232 Guidance for the care of older people (Nursing and Midwifery Council, 2009).233 SCIE Guide 15: Dignity in Care (SCIE, 2006 (updated 2010)).234 Managing Risk, Minimising Restraint: challenges, dilemmas and positive approaches for working with older people in care homes (SCIE, 2009).235 Restraint: How to move towards restraint free care (CQC, 2009d).236 Walk a mile in my shoes: scrutiny of dignity and respect for individuals in health and social care services: a guide (Centre for Public Scrutiny ,2009).237 Essence of Care (Department of Health, 2010a).238

    Scotland Rights, risks and limits to freedom: principles and good practice guidance for practitioners considering restraint in residential care settings (Mental Welfare Commission for Scotland, 2006).239

    181

    The Prohibition on Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment HRA, Article 3

    Table 81: Violence against women strategies Safer lives: changed lives. A shared approach to tackling violence against women in Scotland (Scottish Government, 2009c).240 Together we can end violence against women and girls: a strategy (Home Office,2009).241 The Right to be Safe (Welsh Assembly Government, 2010).242

    NB for identifiable expenditure on child and adult protection (personal social services), see Tables 352 and 353.

    Outcome indicators Indicator 15: Outcomes of key judicial, regulatory and investigative processes
    Table 82: The prohibition on torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment case law outcomes Deportations Vilvarajah and others v UK nos. 13163/87; 13164/87; 13165/87; 13447/87; 13448/87[1991] ECHR243 No violation of Article 3 (see Table 66). Chahal v UK (GC) no. 22414/93 [1996] ECHR244 Violation of Article 3 (see Table 66). Koci v Secretary of State for Home Department [2003] EWCA Civ 1507245 Finding that there would be a violation of Articles 2 and 3, were the appellant to be sent back to Albania (see Table 66). D v UK no 30240/96 [1997] ECHR246 The deportation of a terminally ill man to his home country where no medical treatment or social support available would be a breach of Article 3 (see Table 66 and 252). N v UK (GC) no. 26565/05 [2008] ECHR247 No violation of Article 3 in the event of the applicant being removed to Uganda. Naseer & Ors v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2010] UKSIAC 77/2009.248

    Corporal punishment Tyrer v UK no. 5856/72 [1978] ECHR249 Violation of Article 3 (see Table 66). Costello-Roberts v UK no. 13134/87 [1993] ECHR250 No violation of Article 3 (see Table 66). A v UK no. 25599/94 [1998] ECHR251 Violation of Article 3 (see Table 66).

    182

    The Prohibition on Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment HRA, Article 3

    Threshold for Article 3 cases Ireland v UK no. 5310/71 [1978] ECHR252 Violation of Article 3 (see Table 66).

    Deprivation in basic needs can meet Article 3 threshold R v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Limbuela [2005] UKHL 66253 Refusal to give financial support to asylum seekers and to prohibit them working may breach Article 3 (see Table 66).

    Protection from violations by third parties Z and others v UK (GC) no. 29392/95 [2001] ECHR254 Violation of Article 3 (see Table 66). E and others v UK no. 33218/96 [2002] ECHR255 Violation of Article 3 (see Table 66).

    Medical treatment Pretty v UK no. 2346/02 [2002] ECHR256 No violation of Article 3 (see Table 66).

    Discrimination East African Asians v UK (1973) 3 EHRR 76257 No violation of Article 3 (see Table 66).

    Disability Price v UK no. 33394/96 [2001] ECHR258 Violation of Article 3 (see Table 66). R v East Sussex County Council Ex parte A, B, X and Y [2003] EWHC 167 (Admin) (DRC Intervener)259 The England and Wales High Court found that a breach of Article 3 may occur if the applicants are left in their own bodily waste or on the lavatory for a long time because care workers are banned from lifting them (see Table 66). R (B) v Director of Public Prosecutions [2009] EWHC 106 (Admin)260 There had been a breach of the positive obligation under Article 3 (see Table 66).

    Extraterritorial dimensions of Article 3 and immunity from prosecution R v Bartle and the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis, ex parte Pinochet [1999] UKHL 147261 Holding that the state partys courts have jurisdiction over acts of torture committed abroad and that a former head of state does not have immunity from such crimes (see Table 66).

    183

    The Prohibition on Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment HRA, Article 3

    Prison conditions and Article 3 Carson [2005] NIQB 80262 No violation of Article 3 (see Table 68). Napier v the Scottish Ministers [2004]263 the court considers that the condition of the applicant detention...amounted to degrading treatment within the meaning of Article 3 of the Convention (see Table 68).

    Segregation Somerville v Scottish Ministers [2007] UKHL 44264 The routine use of segregation with no proper tier of review or appeal amounted to a breach of Article 3 (see Table 68).

    Table 83: The prohibition on torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment key concerns raised by human rights monitoring bodies Domestic NPM Annual Report Monitoring Places of Detention. First Annual Report of the UKs National Preventive Mechanism, 2009-2010 (NPM, 2011)265. The report noted concerns about detainees with mental health problems as the most significant and recurring concern across all types of detention; and concerns about the use of restraint on detainees, particularly whether restraint is being used safely, only when absolutely necessary and whether appropriate methods are used on children. The report also notes a significant gap in monitoring, in potential breach of the requirements of the OPCAT Gaps in coverage have so far been identified in relation to military detention facilities and court custody in England and Wales. While HMIP is invited to inspect some places of military detention (most notably the Military Corrective Training Centre, the main detention facility for military personnel), the right of access is not statutory. Moreover, there are other places of military detention which are not currently inspected, such as service custody facilities (sometimes known as guardhouses). HMIP is currently in discussion with the government about extending its inspection programme of military detention facilities, as well as an extension of its mandate so that it may inspect court custody (NPM, 2011). Equality and Human Rights Commission torture guidelines In 2010 the Commission advised the Government that its new guidance on torture may violate UK and international law, writing to the prime minister and the heads of the UKs intelligence agencies expressing serious concerns about the lawfulness of the guidance and providing advice on how it can be brought within the law. It questioned whether the guidance did enough to protect officers in the field because it may leave them with the erroneous expectation that they will be protected from personal criminal liability in situations where they may, unwittingly, be liable for crimes committed and condoned by others. It also suggested that the failure to amend the guidance as requested may result in judicial review proceedings being issued. Details of the steps the Government can take to

    184

    The Prohibition on Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment HRA, Article 3

    bring the guidance into line with the law, including prohibiting an officer from proceeding where there is a serious or real risk of torture, and making the guidance more explicit to indicate factors that will be taken into account when a situation is referred to a minister for a decision, were also provided.266 JCHR, Allegations of UK Complicity in Torture, 2009267 accountability gaps relating to torture allegations In 2009 the JCHR (2009d) examined a number of reports that UK security services have been complicit in the torture of UK nationals held in Pakistan and elsewhere. The JCHR suggested that complicity in torture exists where a state: asks a foreign intelligence service known to use torture to detain and question an individual provides information to a foreign intelligence service known to use torture, enabling that intelligence service to apprehend an individual gives questions to a foreign intelligence service to put to a detainee who has been, is being or is likely to be tortured sends interrogators to question a detainee who is known to have been tortured by those detaining and interrogating them has intelligence personnel present at an interview with a detainee in a place where they are being, or might have been tortured systematically receives information known or thought likely to have been obtained from detainees subjected to torture.

    The JCHR also found that states are complicit when they act in these ways in circumstances where they should have known about the use of torture. Further, it found that the Government appeared to have been determined to avoid parliamentary scrutiny on this issue. It recommended that, in order to restore public confidence and to improve compliance with human rights obligations, the Government should take measures to improve the system of accountability for the intelligence and security services. It found that the Government should: aim to make the Intelligence and Security Committee a proper parliamentary select committee, with independent advice, and reporting to parliament not the prime minister publish all versions of guidance given to intelligence and security service personnel about detaining and interviewing individuals overseas, to allow others to ensure that it complies with the UKs human rights obligations make public all relevant legal opinions provided to ministers.

    185

    The Prohibition on Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment HRA, Article 3

    The JCHR recommended that the Government should set up an independent inquiry into the allegations about the UKs complicity in torture. The inquiry should make recommendations to improve the Governments accountability for the security and intelligence services (JCHR, 2009d)268. Allegations of torture involving the UK key cases summarised by the JCHR Pakistan MSS, a UK-born doctor of Pakistani origin, arranged to spend some time working in a hospital in Pakistan in 2005. He claims to have been abducted, questioned about the bombings in London on 7 July 2005, tortured, and forced to witness the torture of others. He says that towards the end of his detention and torture he was questioned by two British intelligence officers. Rangzieb Ahmed, a UK-born convicted terrorist, was detained in Pakistan between 2006 and 2007. He claims to have been tortured, including by having his fingernails removed, and that during this process he was interviewed by UK officials who specified that they were not consular officials. During his trial, the assertion that the police and security services passed questions to the Pakistani intelligence agency was heard in closed session. This issue was not addressed by the judge in his open judgement, but the judge concluded that although Mr Ahmed was kept in inhumane conditions before he was interviewed by UK officials he was not physically injured. Zeeshan Siddiqui, a UK-born man with some history of mental illness is associated with a number of terrorists. He was held in Pakistan between 2005 and 2006 and claims to have been severely mistreated before being interviewed six times by British intelligence officers and once by a consular official. Salahuddin Amin, a UK-born terrorist, was convicted in 2007 of planning to attack numerous targets in the UK, including the Bluewater shopping centre. Mr Amin alleged that he was tortured during his detention in Pakistan between 2004 and 2005 and that British intelligence officials interviewed him several times in between periods of torture. Before his trial began, the judge ruled that Amins treatment had been oppressive but said he did not believe his allegations of torture. Tariq Mahmood, a UK-born man,disappeared in Pakistan in 2003 and is now thought to be living in Dubai. Family members claim Mr Mahmood was tortured while held in Pakistan in between 2003 and 2004 and that the UK was involved. Tahir Shah, a UK-born man,was detained in Pakistan for 16 days, shortly after the July 2005 bombings in London. Mr Shah claims to have been treated inhumanely and that, on his return to the UK, his passport was returned by an unnamed official who Mr Shah assumed to have been from the security service.

    186

    The Prohibition on Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment HRA, Article 3

    Rashid Rauf, a Pakistan-born man with UK nationality,was detained in Pakistan in 2006 on terrorism charges. Mr Rauf claimed to family members that he was tortured in the presence of people speaking in English and American accents. Mr Rauf was later cleared of the charges before being subject to extradition proceedings. He later disappeared in somewhat mysterious circumstances before it was announced that he was killed, on 22 November 2008, following a US missile strike close to the Afghan-Pakistan border.269

    Egypt Azar Khan, an associate of several terrorists and terrorism suspects, claimed, via an intermediary, that he was questioned, under torture, on the basis of information that must have been supplied by the UK authorities during a visit to Egypt in July 2008. A further unidentified man was possibly also being detained by Egyptian authorities on the basis of information supplied by UK authorities and subsequently at risk of torture.270

    The case of Binyam Mohamed Binyam Mohamed is an Ethiopian national who was resident in the UK before being arrested in Pakistan as a terrorism suspect in 2002. He was transferred to Guantanamo Bay in 2004 before being released in February 2009. The US brought terrorism charges against Mr Mohamed in May 2008, as a result of which he brought proceedings against the UK Government seeking disclosure of potentially exculpatory material. This led to a series of high court judgements relating to the case, which is still continuing. In August 2008, the high court found that the UK security services facilitated interviews in Pakistan of Binyam Mohamed by providing information and questions while he was being detained unlawfully and without access to a lawyer. The high court found that by seeking to interview BM in the circumstances described and supplying information and questions for his interviews, the relationship of the United Kingdom Government to the United States authorities in connection with BM was far beyond that of a bystander or witness to the alleged wrongdoing.271

    Uzbekistan Mr Craig Murray, the UK ambassador to Uzbekistan from 2002 to 2004, alleged that: the Uzbek authorities used torture to a staggering extent against suspected political or religious dissidents the information provided under torture was largely planted by the Uzbek authorities, to exaggerate the scale of the terrorist threat in central Asia and provide a firm link to Al-Qaida the CIA intelligence from Tashkent was giving precisely the same narrative and therefore may also have been derived from torture and be inaccurate, and the US embassy confirmed to Mr Murrays deputy that the CIA intelligence probably did come from torture but, in the War on Terror, this was not considered to be a problem. 187

    The Prohibition on Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment HRA, Article 3

    Mr Murrays allegations are significantly different to those relating to the possible use of torture in Pakistan and Egypt outlined already. He said there was no evidence of British nationals or residents being mistreated in Uzbekistan and no suggestion that British agents were meeting detainees in Uzbekistan or passing on questions for use by interrogators. His claim, supported by the memorandum from Sir Michael Wood, is that the UK Government turned a blind eye to the provenance of intelligence which was almost certainly derived from torture in Uzbekistan, partly because it might have been useful but principally to preserve a valuable intelligence sharing agreement with the US. The importance of this agreement to the UK Government has also been a factor in the litigation involving Binyam Mohamed.272 JCHR use of pain compliance techniques on young people in detention The JCHR(2009c) expressed strong concerns that pain compliance is still used as a tactic against young people in detention, and used disproportionately against vulnerable girls. We are particularly concerned that this remains the case, even though the independent review recognised that the use of pain compliance techniques would be irreconcilable with the UN Convention. We find this situation to be alarming and to go against the Governments espoused commitment to the best interests of the child. The Minister failed to persuade us that such techniques are necessary or consistent with the Convention. We reiterate our previous conclusions that techniques which rely on the use of pain are incompatible with the UNCRC. (JCHR, 2009c:57).273 EHRC call for independent review into 24 allegations that the Government knew of, and was complicit in, the torture of Britons held abroad274 In its response to the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) joint study on secret detention (see below), the Commissioncalls on the UK Government to urgently put in place a review process to assess the truth, or otherwise, of allegations of UK complicity in torture. Any independent review needs to be robust, open and thorough and satisfy the Commission that: those carrying out the review are given complete access to all relevant materials the review team are completely independent of Government and appointed via a transparent and independent process the review will be as open and transparent as possible, put as much material in the public domain as possible and hold as many evidence sessions in public as possible, and the findings of the review will be published as soon as possible with as little concealed for national security reasons as is practical.

    188

    The Prohibition on Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment HRA, Article 3

    Payment ofcompensation to settle cases involving accusations of British security forces involvement in rendition The BBC reported in November 2010 that Around a dozen men who accused British security forces of colluding in their transfer overseas are to get millions in compensation from the UK government.275

    Treatment of older people in health and social care The JCHR (2007), The Human Rights of Older People in Healthcare, Eighteenth Report of Session 2006-07, raised concerns about poor treatment, neglect, abuse, discrimination , malnutrition and dehydration and ill-considered discharge.276

    International The UNCRC (2008) The Committee notes that the State party has reviewed the use of physical restraint and solitary confinement to ensure that these measures are not used unless absolutely necessary and as a measure of last resort. However, the Committee remains concerned at the fact that, in practice, physical restraint on children is still used in places of deprivation of liberty.277 The United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (UNCEDAW) voiced its concern in 2008 that Britain still lacks a comprehensive strategy to combat violence against women, including rape, domestic violence, forced marriage, female genital mutilation (FGM) and trafficking (UNCEDAW, 2008).278 The European Committee for the Prevention of Torture (CPT) condemned the conjunction of slopping out, overcrowding and poor regime (being incarcerated within the cell for 23 hours a day) in English and Scottish prisons as amounting, in its view, to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.279 Joint Study of Global Practices in relation to Secret Detention (UNHRC, 2010) The UNHRC, detailed allegations, on 19 February 2010, that the UK knowingly took advantage of the situation of secret detention, including in the cases of Binyam Mohamed, Salahuddin Amin, Zeeshan Siddiqui, Rangzieb Ahmed and Rashid Rauf.280 Reprieve notes that the report includes: Confirmation that the UK knew about US renditions practices from 2002, yet continued to hand vulnerable prisoners to US custody with no process until well into 2004; Confirmation that the UK knowingly received information obtained from prisoners being interrogated in US ghost detention; Numerous cases showing that the UK took advantage of illegal secret detention practices over at least three continents by colluding in torture; Unanswered questions in relation to the number of prisoners held by torturous Arab regimes at the request of the UK.281

    189

    The Prohibition on Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment HRA, Article 3

    The UK response to the joint study notes that By mid-2003 suspicions arose regarding the operation of black sites, so the UK agencies sought Ministerial approval and assurances from foreign liaison agencies if there was a risk of rendition operations arising from their operations. After April 2004 (Abu Ghraib revelations), in view of the known risk of mistreatment in operations which may result in US custody of detainees, the UK agencies sought assurances of humane treatment in any operation which may involve rendition/US custody. The Joint Study notes that Secret detention as such may constitute torture or ill-treatment for the direct victims as well as for their families. The very purpose of secret detention, however, is to facilitate and, ultimately, cover up torture and inhuman and degrading treatment used either to obtain information or to silence people.282

    Table 84: The prohibition on torture and inhuman or degrading treatment EHRC case law interventions R(C) v Secretary of State for Justice, EWCA Civ 882 Court of Appeal Concerning the use of restraint in STCs and children in custody(2008). This case challenged the use of restraint in STCs following the deaths of two young people, Adam Rickwood and Gareth Myatt, in separate centres in 2004.The Court agreed with the Commissions argument that the restraint rules violated Article 3 which prohibitedinhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, and that the Ministry of Justice failed to determine the impact of the rule change for ethnic minority STC residents via an equality impact assessment. Morrison v IPCC, Court of Appeal What is required to satisfy the investigative duty under Art 3 ECHR This case was discontinued but raised important issues around the requirements of the duty to investigate under Article 3. Weaver v London and Quadrant Housing Trust Concerning Registered Social Landlords(RSLs) and interpretation of public function under the HRA 2009. The Commission argued that RSLs should be treated as a public authority for the purposes of the HRA 1998 (HRA). This was accepted by the Court of Appeal. Source: EHRC (2010c, 2011).

    190

    The Prohibition on Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment HRA, Article 3

    Table 85: The prohibition on torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment summary of the outcomes of key inspection, regulation and complaints procedures; independent investigations that engage Article 3; and other official investigations, inquiries and reviews engaging Article 3 that result in serious criticism of actions of the state, its agents or bodies fulfilling a public function Torture, inhuman or degrading treatment Independent Inquiry into UK involvement with detainees in overseas counterterrorism operations chaired by Sir Peter Gibson, was established in July 2010 to examine whether, and if so to what extent, the UK Government and its intelligence agencies were involved in improper treatment of detainees held by other countries in counter-terrorism operations overseas, or were aware of improper treatment of detainees in operations in which the UK was involved. The particular focus is the immediate aftermath of the attacks of 11 September 2001 and particularly cases involving the detention of UK nationals and residents in Guantanamo Bay. The Inquiry is of course free to examine any of these cases it wishes, consistent with reaching general conclusions on the above within the set timescale. Allegations relating to military detention operations in Iraq and Afghanistan post-2003 are being addressed by separate arrangements made by the Ministry of Defence.283 The outcome is pending. The Handling of detainees by UK Intelligence Personnel in Afghanistan, Guantanamo Bay and Iraq, March 2005284 (Intelligence and Security Committee, 2005), found no evidence that UK intelligence personnel abused detainees, but that The SIS and Security Service personnel deployed to Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay were not sufficiently trained in the Geneva Conventions, nor were they aware which interrogation techniques the UK had specifically banned in 1972. There were also deficiencies identified in notification of concerns about inhumane or degrading treatment, the lack of a comprehensive approach towards instances of potential abuse, and the failure to follow-up subsequent concerns being notified to US officials.

    Rendition UK Agencies and Rendition, 25 July 2007 (Intelligence and Security Committee,2007), reported on rendition and recommended strengthening procedures and safeguards in relation to rendition: First, where despite the use of caveats and assurances there remains a real possibility that sharing intelligence with foreign liaison services might result in torture or mistreatment, current procedure requires that the case is referred to senior management or Ministers for consideration of the risks involved we recommend that Ministerial approval should be sought in all such cases.

    191

    The Prohibition on Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment HRA, Article 3

    Secondly, the Committee considers that secret detention, without legal or other representation, is of itself mistreatment. Therefore, where there is a real possibility of Rendition to Detention to a secret facility, even if it would be for a limited time, we consider that approval must never be given. Use of restraint against detainees with mental health problems Monitoring Places of Detention. First Annual Report of the UKs National Preventive Mechanism, 2009-2010, February 2011286 (NPM, 2011), noted concerns about detainees with mental health problems as the most significant and recurring concern across all types of detention; and concerns about the use of restraint on detainees, particularly whether restraint is being used safely, only when absolutely necessary and whether appropriate methods are used on children.The report also noted a significant gap in monitoring, in potential breach of the requirements of the OPCAT: Gaps in coverage have so far been identified in relation to military detention facilities and court custody in England and Wales. While HMIP is invited to inspect some places of military detention (most notably the Military Corrective Training Centre, the main detention facility for military personnel), the right of access is not statutory. Moreover, there are other places of military detention which are not currently inspected, such as service custody facilities (sometimes known as guardhouses). HMIP is currently in discussion with the Government about extending its inspection programme of military detention facilities, as well as an extension of its mandate so that it may inspect court custody.

    Conditions for segregated prisoners HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales Annual Report 2008-2009287, February 2010 (HMIP, 2010c), found under the category segregation and the use of force that:In the great majority of cases, we found little more than a basic regime for segregated prisoners and worryingly there were more units where prisoners did not have daily access to washing facilities and telephones.... Accommodation was sometimes poor and inadequate.In womens prisons, it remained evident that segregation and the use of force were inadequate ways of dealing with challenging and often self-harming women.288 Conditions in Scottish Prisons, Research Note 00/34289, 16 May 2000 (Scottish Parliament, 2000), provided some statistical briefing on conditions in Scottish prisons in relation to the practice of slopping out, overcrowding, suicide rates, drugs misuse and violence by prisoners. It noted that: At the start of the Twenty First Century there remain concerns over the living conditions prevailing in some Scottish prisons. In particular, the practice of slopping out has been described as inhumane and degrading to prisoners. The report notes improvements in the proportion of prisoners slopping out (reduced from 29 per cent to 25 per cent) and significant improvements in the extent of prison overcrowding.

    192

    The Prohibition on Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment HRA, Article 3

    Managing increasing prisoner numbers in Scotland, May 2008290 (Audit Scotland, 2008), found that: Scotland has one of the highest imprisonment rates in Western Europe, and Scottish prisons are among the most overcrowded. Overcrowding negatively affects prisoners accommodation and access to rehabilitation activities, with remand and short-term prisoners most affected. Slopping Out? A report on the lack of in-cell sanitation in Her Majestys Prisons in England and Wales, August 2010291 (National Council for Independent Monitoring Boards,2010), found that: in-cell sanitation does not exist in some 2,000 prison cells across 10 prisons an electronic unlocking system exists in these prisons but excessive queuing and limited access time cause further unplanned problems the use of buckets continues at night-time causing the practice of slopping out to continue, despite the formal termination of this system some 14 years ago there are particularly serious concerns where elderly and disabled prisoners are placed in these cells there is evidence that some prisons cope with the management of this issue better than others in many instances, the night sanitation system is unreliable and frequent breakdowns are reported.

    Use of restraint in elderly care services Rights, Risks and Restraints study (Commission for Social Care Inspection (CSCI) (2007a), found that the use of restraint in elderly care services is unacceptable and denies the human right to dignity and choice. The study looked at the experiences of elderly people not at the prevalence of restraint methods in residential care homes, nursing homes and individuals homes. The incidents in the study were taken from CSCI inspection reports, reviews of concerns and complaints made to CSCI, and the Rights, Risks and Restraints survey.

    193

    The Prohibition on Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment HRA, Article 3

    Failure to protect anti-social behaviour context In 2010 the Commission undertook a formal inquiry into the actions of public authorities to eliminate disability-related harassment and its causes. ACPO (2010b) responded to the call for evidence in September 2010, noting that: The inquest into the deaths of Fiona Pilkington and Francecca Hardwick focused public attention on the impact that anti-social behaviour (ASB) has on the lives of victims and families. In March 2010 Her Majestys Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC) published a National Overview of Police Performance which identified weaknesses in the quality and scrutiny of data relating to less serious offences. HMIC made a further statement on anti-social behaviour acknowledging the extent of public concern about the issue. HMIC identified a number of areas for improvement including the lack of an agreed operating framework, inadequacies in police information about ASB and inconsistencies and weaknesses in the ability of police systems to identify vulnerability and repeat victimisation. HMICs findings highlight the major impact of repeated ASB on victims quality of life. Importantly, HMIC identified that disability was a significant issue and found that one in five of repeat victims identified themselves as disabled. HMIC have identified this as an issue that requires further work. In making assessments of risk and vulnerability police officers need to take account of a wide range of factors including health and disability as disability related harassment cuts across a wide range of crime types.292 Protection against rape The Stern Review (Stern, 2010)293 examined how rape complaints are dealt with by public authorities in England and Wales, and made detailed recommendations to police and prosecution services on how to make the implementation of existing rape policies more effective. In making its recommendations, the review noted that: The policies are not the problem. The failures are in the implementation. We received evidence from over 300 people and have read a number of assessments of the way policies are being implemented. In some areas the policies are applied consistently and with commitment by all involved. In others this is not yet the case and that is where progress needs to be made. There are still public authorities where the staff have dismissive attitudes, police forces where the investigations are badly done, prosecutors who do not see the point of building a difficult case, and areas where the help and support for victims are sparse.

    194

    The Prohibition on Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment HRA, Article 3

    A short brief setting out human rights standards and binding norms which apply in the handling, investigation and prosecution of rape complaints was prepared for the review and included in the report in an Appendix. According to this advice: Substantively, rape engages three main ECHR rights: Article 3 (prohibition on torture), Article 8 (right to private life), and Article 14 (prohibition on discrimination). On the procedural side, the investigation and prosecution of rape also engages the right to an effective remedy (Article 13). Article 1 of the Convention is also highly relevant here, as it requires States to secure to everyone within their jurisdiction the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention. This implies, and has been taken by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) to mean, that Convention rights not only limit state action, but also require the State to take action to protect the rights of citizens in respect of the acts of private individuals. As rape is normally perpetrated by private individuals in the United Kingdom, this requirement is crucial to the development of safeguards in respect of the handling, investigation and prosecution of rape complaints. The development of the positive duties principle under European human rights law is traced and the implications for protection of individuals for rape is evaluated. The conclusion is reached that the states positive duties in respect of victimwitnesses and the fair trial rights of defendants are multi-faceted relating to the context of the investigation and trial as a whole, the particular vulnerability of the witness-victim and the countervailing measures adopted by the judicial authorities in protecting the defendants fair trial rights. In its broader conclusions, the review recommended the adoption of broader measures of successful outcomes in relation to rape than the rape conviction rate, however it is defined, including indicators relating to the treatment of victims. Measures of conviction rates, including complex issues around the measurement of attrition, were considered in detail. The importance of incorporating sexual assault referral centres and sexual violence advisers within the mainstream provision of responses to rape cases were finally highlighted.

    195

    The Prohibition on Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment HRA, Article 3

    Safeguarding vulnerable adults Safeguarding adults: report on the consultation on the review of No Secrets: Guidance on developing and implementing multi-agency policies and procedures to protect vulnerable adults from abuse294 (Department of Health, 2009), identified concerns about the definitions no secrets and vulnerable adult. The consultation identified strong support for the development of safeguarding legislation. The CQC undertook a review of service (CQC, 2011b) after issues were identified on BBCs Panorama programme in relation to Winterbourne View, a provider of healthcare and support for adults with learning disabilities, complex needs and challenging behaviours (see Table 86). The CQCs report identified that Winterbourne View was not meeting essential standards, and amongst a number of serious findings of poor practice concluded that The registered provider did not take reasonable steps to identify the possibility of abuse and prevent it before it occurred; and did not respond appropriately to allegations of abuse.295

    Treatment of older people in health and social care Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO), Care and Compassion. Report of the Health Services Ombudsman on 10 investigations into NHS care of older people296, February 2011. Dignity and nutrition reports. The CQC (CQC, 2011c) published 12 reports from an inspection programme which examined whether elderly people were receiving essential standards of care in 100 hospitals across England. The inspection programme has identified recurring concerns in relation to both nutrition and dignity, including people not being given assistance to eat, not having their nutritional needs monitored and not being given enough to drink; and staff not treating patients in a respectful way or involving them in their own care.297

    196

    The Prohibition on Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment HRA, Article 3

    Table 86: The prohibition on torture, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment Key concerns and allegations raised by private individuals and civil society organisations/reports in the media Amnesty International Europe: Open Secret: Mounting Evidence of Europes Complicity in Rendition and Secret Detention, November 2010 (Amnesty International, 2010a), detailed a number of notorious cases of alleged abuse involving the UK: Guantanamo Bay: Seven former Guantanamo Bay detainees, all UK nationals or residents Jamil al-Banna, Bisher al-Rawi, Richard Belmar, Moazzam Begg, Omar Deghayes, Binyam Mohamed, and Martin Mubanga brought a civil claim for damages against the UK government in 2008, alleging that UK state actors had been involved in their apprehensions, unlawful detentions, and abusive interrogations, including torture and illtreatment, in various locations (e.g. Afghanistan, Morocco, Pakistan) before their transfers to the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay. Six of the men continue to seek damages over alleged acts or omissions by MI5, MI6, the Foreign Office and the Home Office for the alleged abuse. Shaker Aamer, a Saudi national and former UK resident, remains detained at Guantanamo Bay and has alleged that he was severely beaten during interrogations at Bagram Theater Internment Facility in Afghanistan, including by men who claimed to be from MI5. A number of other former Guantanamo detainees who are not party to any legal proceedings have also made similar allegations against the UK government. Diego Garcia: After years of denials, in February 2008, then UK Foreign Minister David Miliband acknowledged that planes operating in the context of the CIAs rendition programme had landed at Diego Garcia. The UK-based NGO, Reprieve, alleged in 2009 that Diego Garcia had been a transit stop and/or secret prison location in the rendition and/or secret detention of former Guantanamo Bay detainee, Pakistani national Mohammed Saad Iqbal Madni. Pakistan: In addition to Binyam Mohamed, a number of UK nationals including Salahuddin Amin, Zeeshan Siddiqui, Rangzieb Ahmed and Rashid Rauf (Rauf was reportedly killed in a drone attack in 2008) have claimed that UK state actors were complicit in their detentions and interrogations under torture and ill-treatment between 2004 and 2007 at the hands of the Pakistani security agencies, including the Inter-Services Intelligence agency (ISI). Other countries: In addition to the cases above, individuals held in other countries, including Bangladesh, Egypt, Kenya, Somalia, United Arab Emirates, and Yemen have made similar claims against the UK government.298

    197

    The Prohibition on Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment HRA, Article 3

    Submission for the Review of Counter Terrorism and Security Powers, September 2010 (Amnesty International, 2010b), outlined Amnesty Internationals primary concerns in relation to the control orders regime; the use of diplomatic assurances in the context of national security deportations; the 28-day limit for pre-charge detention of people suspected of terrorism-related activity; and the use of stop and search powers under Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000.299 Dangerous Deals: Europes Reliance on Diplomatic Assurances Against Torture, April 2010 (Amnesty International, 2010c), noted that Serious concerns have been raised domestically about the UK governments policy of seeking assurances from states that practise torture as a means of circumventing its obligations under the prohibition against torture. At the international level, the UKs policy of deportation with assurances has been criticized by the UN Human Rights Committee and the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights who concluded, after a visit to the UK in 2008, that diplomatic assurances should never be relied on, where torture or ill-treatment is condoned by Governments and is widely practised. Manfred Nowak, the UNs Special Rapporteur on torture, has said that the plan of the United Kingdom to request diplomatic assurances for the purpose of expelling persons in spite of a risk of torture reflects a tendency in Europe to circumvent international obligations.300 United Kingdom: Time for an inquiry into the UKs role in human rights violations overseas since September 11 2001, March 2010 (Amnesty International, 2010d), detailed Amnesty Internationals belief that Credible allegations implicate the UK in torture or other ill-treatment, unlawful detentions and renditions including UK personnel were present at and participated in interrogations of detainees held unlawfully overseas in circumstances in which the UK knew or ought to have known that the detainees concerned had been or were at risk of being tortured and/or whose detention was unlawful; UK personnel provided information (e.g. telegrams sent by UK intelligence personnel to intelligence services of other countries) that led the USA and other countries to apprehend and detain individuals when the UK knew or ought to have known that these people would be at risk of torture and/or unlawful detention; The UK was involved in the US-led programme of renditions and secret detentions through, for example, the use of UK territory (e.g. Diego Garcia) and/or airspace;

    198

    The Prohibition on Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment HRA, Article 3

    UK personnel forwarded questions to be put to individuals detained by other countries in circumstances in which the UK knew or ought to have known that the detainees concerned had been or were at risk of being tortured and/or whose detention was unlawful; and The UK systematically received information extracted from people detained overseas in circumstances in which it knew or ought to have known that the detainees concerned were being, had been or would be tortured and/or whose detention was unlawful.301 Scottish Involvement in Extraordinary Rendition, 9 November 2009 (Reprieve, 2009),alleged that:Glasgow Prestwick Airport functioned as a crucial staging point in renditions circuits where planes stopped to refuel en route to and from the United States and the various nations hosting secret prisons... Reprieve argued that This raises serious issues of criminal complicity in these acts by those who knew, or should have known, of the significance of these notorious jets refuelling on Scottish soil.302

    Elder abuse UK study of abuse and neglect of older people Prevalence Survey Report, 2007303 (OKeeffe et al., 2007 for Action on Elder Abuse), found that 2.6 per cent of people aged 66 and over living in private households reported that they had experienced mistreatment involving a family member, close friend or care worker (ie those in a traditional expectation of trust relationship) during the past year.

    Treatment of older people in health and social care Still hungry to be heard (Age UK, 2010), the most recent report from the campaign Malnutrition in hospitals: Hungry to be heard, described the lack of detection and treatment of malnutrition in hospital as a national disgrace, and called on the Government to introduce compulsory monitoring of malnutrition.304 Patients Association report (2011) Weve been listening, have you been learning? details sixteen accounts of poor hospital care heard by its Helpline focusing on care-communication, access to pain relief, assistance with toileting and help with eating and drinking.

    199

    The Prohibition on Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment HRA, Article 3

    Homophobic hate crime Homophobic hate crimes and hate incidents305 (Stonewall 2009 for the EHRC, Dick, 2009), found that there remain a number of operational and strategic obstacles to successfully responding to and preventing homophobic hate crime. To date, the work by the CJS [criminal justice system] in tackling hate crimes and incidents, and specifically homophobic hate crimes, is not consistent across England, Wales and Scotland. There are continuing disparities in the law. Racially aggravated crimes are an offence under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 while homophobia is considered under the law as an aggravating factor rather than an offence in its own right. Such disparity has an impact on the recording and response to different incidents by police forces. The reports recommendations include initiatives to increase the reporting of hate crimes; the development of resources to educate lesbian, gay, and bisexual people about their rights in relation to hate crime; measures to increase investigation and conviction rates for hate crime; and improved data collection.

    Transphobic bullying and hate crime Engendered Penalties: Transgender and Transsexual Peoples Experiences of Inequality and Discrimination306 (Whittle et al., 2007 for the Equalities Review), found that 40 per cent of transgender respondents had experienced verbal abuse, 30 per cent had experienced threatening behaviour, 25 per cent had experienced physical abuse and four per cent had experienced sexual abuse. Gender Variance in the UK: Prevalence, Incidence, Growth and Geographic Distribution307 (Reed et al., 2009 for the Gender Identity Research and Education Society (GIRES)), noted that the lack of reliable data on transgender people in the UK has resulted in UK policy makers and service providers largely flying blind in providing protection against transphobic bullying and crime.

    Adults with learning disabilities Panoramas allegations that severely disabled and vulnerable patients suffered physical assaults, systematic brutality, and torture by carers at the Winterbourne View care home.308 The CQC has published a report of the inspection of care provided at Winterbourne view; the report concludes that there was a systemic failure to protect people or to investigate allegations of abuse309 (see Table 85).

    200

    The Prohibition on Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment HRA, Article 3

    Indicator 16: Spotlight statistics: The use of restraint, punishment and conditions of detention
    Table 87: Overcrowding in prisons: definitions and national key performance indicator results, England and Wales, 2009 Overcrowding is measured as the percentage of prisoners who, at unlock on the last day of the month, are held in a cell, cubicle or room where the number of occupants exceeds the uncrowded capacity of the cell, cubicle or room. This includes the number of prisoners held two to a single cell, three prisoners in a cell designed for one or two and any prisoners held overcrowded in larger cells or dormitories. For example, if 12 prisoners occupy a dormitory with an uncrowded capacity of ten, then the 12 prisoners are counted as overcrowding. Target: To ensure the number of prisoners held in accommodation units intended for fewer prisoners does not exceed 26 per cent of the population in 2008-09. Result: Target met the average rate of overcrowding was 25 per cent. The rate of overcrowding has remained steady at around 25 per cent for the past three years. The rates of overcrowding vary by prison function. The rate of overcrowding in male local establishments is twice the national rate. Source: National Offender Management Service (NOMS) (2010). Table 88: Overcrowding in prisons by function, England and Wales, 2009
    Function name Male category B Male category C Male dispersal Female closed Female local Female open Male closed young offenders institute Male young offenders institute young people Male local Male open Male open young offenders institute Semi open Cluster National totals Overcrowding target N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 26.0* Overcrowding rate 5.6 12.3 0.0 0.0 8.0 0.0 12.4 0.7 49.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 26.6 24.7

    Source: NOMS (2010). Notes: * The overcrowding target is set at a national level only. 201

    The Prohibition on Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment HRA, Article 3

    Table 89: Average rate of overcrowding in prisons, England and Wales, 1998-99 2008-09
    Year 1998-99 1999-2000 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 Average rate 20.0 20.1 18.2 19.2 23.3 24.8 24.3 24.0 24.6 25.3 24.7

    Source: HM Prisons Service (2010). Notes: Average rate of overcrowding within all prisons, expressed as a percentage of the prisoner population. Table 90: Slopping out Parliamentary question on in-cell sanitation 2010 David Howarth: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what his most recent estimate is of the number of prison cells without in-cell sanitation; and what plans his Department has to install in-cell sanitation in those cells. [319481] Maria Eagle: There are about 2,000 cells on normal location across the prison estate that do not have integral sanitation but which have electronic unlocking facilities, which permits a prisoner to leave the cell to access sanitation and washing facilities on a call system. This system was approved as a method of ending slopping out, as set out in the Judge Tumin report of 1989. There are also some further cells on the prison estate without integral sanitation but which permit prisoners to have open access to central sanitation facilities via their privacy locks This was also acceptable to Judge Tumin as a method of ending of ending slopping out.Cells with the current electronic unlocking facilities are too small for the installation of integral sanitation. Source: www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmhansrd/cm100303/ text/100303w0014.htm

    202

    The Prohibition on Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment HRA, Article 3

    Table 91: Number of prison cells that do not have access to in-cell sanitation, England and Wales, 2011
    Establishment Albany Blundeston Bullwood Hall Bristol Brockhill Coldingley Glouster Grendon Long Lartin Total Places 440 188 144 99 139 350 81 225 307 1,973

    Source: NOMS (2011). Notes: Arrangements are in place to enable prisoners to access sanitation facilities throughout the day and night.

    203

    Table 92: In-cell sanitation recommendations made by HMIP since September 2009, England and Wales
    Publication Date 13/03/2010 Announced Recommendation Prisoners on D wing should have the same access to toilets over lunchtime periods as at night. (2.23) Adequate hygiene standards should be maintained on all units, and all prisoners should have 24-hour access to toilet and washing facilities. (2.28) Inspection type Main recommendation Text of recommendation

    Name of Establishment

    Gender

    Functional type

    Exeter

    Male

    Local and young offender 18/11/2009 Announced Recommendation

    Portland

    Male

    Young offenders

    Source: HMI Prisons for England and Wales (2011).

    Note: This table contains recommendations made following full inspections by HMI Prisons inspectors. Five of those inspected were given recommendations regarding time out of cell as a Main Recommendation.

    The Prohibition on Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment HRA, Article 3

    204

    Table 93: Time out of cell recommendations made by HMIP since September 2009, England and Wales
    Publication Date 15/06/2010 Announced Main recommendation Inspection type Main recommendation Text of recommendation Time out of cell should be ten hours on weekdays and in particular association should be available daily, and at least twice during the week in the evening for all prisoners. (HP54) Prisoners should have evening association on four evenings a week. (HP55) Time out of cell arrangements should be improved for all prisoners. (HP55, see paragraph HP35) Prisoners should be able to have an hours exercise in the open air daily. (HP54) All young people should have at least one hour in the open air each day in a suitably equipped area with seating and good recreational facilities. (HP44) All prisoners should be offered the opportunity to spend one hour in the open air every day. (6.43) Recommendation Recommendation Monday evening association should be provided on all wings. (5.62) Daily exercise should be included in the published regime of F wing, and prisoners on this wing should be encouraged to spend time outdoors. (5.63) Continued

    Name of Establishment

    Gender

    Functional type

    Bristol

    Male

    Local

    Norwich 13/07/2010 Announced Main recommendation Main recommendation Main Recommendation

    Male

    Local

    25/06/2010

    Unannounced

    Main recommendation

    Stoke Heath

    Male

    Young offender 18/11/2009 15/12/2009 Announced Announced

    Portland

    Male

    Young Offenders

    The Prohibition on Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment HRA, Article 3

    205
    25/05/2010 Unannounced Recommendation 09/09/2009 09/09/2009 Announced Announced

    Werrington

    Male

    Young Offenders

    Altcourse

    Male

    Local

    Bedford

    Male

    Local

    Bedford

    Male

    Local

    Table 93: Time out of cell recommendations made by HMIP since September 2009, England and Wales (continued)
    Publication Date 15/06/2010 15/06/2010 02/09/2010 Full unannounced Full unannounced Full unannounced Recommendation Recommendation Recommendation Announced Recommendation Announced Recommendation All prisoners should spend at least 10 hours out of their cells on weekdays. (6.44) All prisoners should have access to adequate association areas. (6.47) The number of women locked in their rooms during activity periods should be reduced significantly. (6.47, see paragraph 6.42) The published regime should be adhered to consistently. (6.48, see paragraph 6.43) Inspection type Main recommendation Text of recommendation

    Name of Establishment

    Gender

    Functional type

    Bristol

    Male

    Local

    Bristol

    Male

    Local

    Holloway

    Female

    Local

    Holloway 02/09/2010

    Female

    Local

    02/09/2010

    Holloway

    Female

    Local

    The Prohibition on Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment HRA, Article 3

    206
    02/02/2010 02/02/2010 Announced Announced Recommendation Recommendation 02/02/2010 Announced Recommendation 25/06/2010 Unannounced Recommendation 25/06/2010 Unannounced Recommendation

    All women prisoners should have the opportunity for at least one hour of exercise in the open air every day. (6.49, see paragraph 6.44) All prisoners should have daily association. (6.48) All prisoners should have the opportunity for at least one hours exercise in the open air everyday. (6.49) Prisoners without allocated activities should have more time out of their cells during the day. (6.50) There should be an increase in time out of cell available to prisoners in the main prison. (6.46) The requirements of the published core day should be fully adhered to. (6.47) Continued

    Liverpool

    Male

    Local

    Liverpool

    Male

    Local

    Liverpool

    Male

    Local

    Norwich

    Male

    Local

    Norwich

    Male

    Local

    Table 93: Time out of cell recommendations made by HMIP since September 2009, England and Wales (continued)
    Publication Date 25/06/2010 25/06/2010 Unannounced Recommendation Unannounced Recommendation There should be a general unlock each morning with access to domestic time. (6.48) The cancellation of exercise should be properly authorised in accordance with reasonable published criteria. (6.49) All prisoners, other than those segregated for disciplinary reasons, should be allowed daily association for at least one hour and all should have sufficient time out of cell daily to shower and make a telephone call. (6.46) Inspection type Main recommendation Text of recommendation

    Name of Establishment

    Gender

    Functional type

    Norwich

    Male

    Local

    Norwich

    Male

    Local

    Nottingham

    Male

    Local

    28/10/2010

    Announced

    Recommendation

    Nottingham

    Male

    Local

    28/10/2010

    Announced

    Recommendation

    The Prohibition on Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment HRA, Article 3

    207
    20/10/2009 Announced Recommendation 20/10/2009 Announced Recommendation 05/03/2010 05/03/2010 Announced Announced Recommendation Recommendation

    All prisoners should be able to access time in the fresh air without forgoing other activities and be offered suitable outdoor clothing when necessary. (6.47) Time out of cell should be increased, particularly at weekends and evenings and for unemployed prisoners. (5.50) Prisoners involved in activities should have equal access to showers and telephones. (5.51) Unemployed prisoners on basic should receive adequate time out of cell. (6.45) All prisoners should have the opportunity to take outdoor exercise. (6.46) Continued

    Pentonville

    Male

    Local

    Pentonville

    Male

    Local

    Preston

    Male

    Local

    Preston

    Male

    Local

    Table 93: Time out of cell recommendations made by HMIP since September 2009, England and Wales (continued)
    Publication Date 20/10/2009 Announced Recommendation A system for ensuring fair access to association should be devised and records kept of cancellations, stating who has cancelled it, why and which prisoners this has affected. (5.56) Association should not coincide with corporate worship. (5.57) Association should conclude at the advertised time. (5.58) Time in the fresh air should be offered, even during inclement weather. (5.60) Note should be taken of prisoners who do not participate in association, and this should be monitored for potential information about vulnerability. (5.61) Prisoners should be allowed access to their cells during association. (6.56) All prisoners should spend at least 10 hours out of their cell on weekdays. (6.50) Recommendation The prison should ensure, in conjunction with the Strategy and Performance Group at Prison Service Headquarters, that time spent out of cell is recorded accurately. This should be validated by the regional custodial manager. (6.51) Continued Inspection type Main recommendation Text of recommendation

    Name of Establishment

    Gender

    Functional type

    Wandsworth

    Male

    Local

    Wandsworth 20/10/2009 20/10/2009 20/10/2009 Announced Recommendation Announced Recommendation Announced Recommendation

    Male

    Local

    20/10/2009

    Announced

    Recommendation

    Wandsworth

    Male

    Local

    Wandsworth

    Male

    Local

    Wandsworth

    Male

    Local

    The Prohibition on Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment HRA, Article 3

    208
    07/02/2011 13/03/2010 Announced Full unannounced Recommendation Recommendation 13/03/2010 Announced

    Holme House

    Male

    Local and trainer

    Exeter

    Male

    Local and young offender

    Exeter

    Male

    Local and young offender

    Table 93: Time out of cell recommendations made by HMIP since September 2009, England and Wales (continued)
    Publication Date 13/03/2010 Announced Recommendation Routines for each wing, and where necessary for each landing, should be published for prisoners and staff clearly in a simple format. (6.52) All prisoners should have the opportunity for one hours evening association. (6.53) The reasons for cancellations of association and exercise should be recorded on all occasions and where possible notified to prisoners in advance. (6.54) All prisoners should have the opportunity for at least one hours exercise in the open air every day. (6.55) Prisoners should be able to return to their cells to smoke or use the toilet during association periods without removing themselves from association for the entire period. (6.42) Recommendation Prisoners should be given the opportunity for at least one hour of exercise in the open air every day. (6.43) Recommendation Recommendation Accurate records of time out of cell should be kept. (6.42) Announced Prisoners on G wing should not have to remain in their rooms during the patrol state. (6.43) Continued Inspection type Main recommendation Text of recommendation

    Name of Establishment

    Gender

    Functional type

    Exeter

    Male

    Local and young offender 13/03/2010 Announced Recommendation

    Exeter

    Male

    Local and young offender 13/03/2010 Announced Recommendation

    Exeter

    Male

    Local and young offender 13/03/2010 Announced Recommendation

    Exeter

    Male

    The Prohibition on Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment HRA, Article 3

    209
    11/08/2010 Announced Recommendation 11/08/2010 Announced 30/11/2010 30/11/2010 Announced

    Local and young offender

    Swansea

    Male

    Local and young offender

    Swansea

    Male

    Local and young offender

    Ashwell

    Male

    Trainer

    Ashwell

    Male

    Trainer

    Table 93: Time out of cell recommendations made by HMIP since September 2009, England and Wales (continued)
    Publication Date 30/11/2010 27/10/2010 Announced Recommendation Announced Recommendation Prisoners should have daily opportunity for at least one hour in the open air. (6.44) Prisoners should spend at least 10 hours a day out of their cells. (6.43, see paragraph 6.41) The nationally calculated time out of cell figure should more accurately reflect the actual experience in prisons. (6.42, see paragraph 6.38) Prisoners should be offered a full hour of exercise in the fresh air daily at a later time in the day. (6.43, see paragraph 6.40) All prisoners should be guaranteed the opportunity of at least one hour of exercise every day, taking into account any other commitments they might have, including meal times. (6.47) There should be open access through the day to the exercise yard at Usk. (6.41, see paragraph 6.40) Recommendation Recommendation Association start and finish times should be adhered to. (5.53) All prisoners should have access to one hour a day in the fresh air. (5.56) Continued Inspection type Main recommendation Text of recommendation

    Name of Establishment

    Gender

    Functional type

    Ashwell

    Male

    Trainer

    Coldingley

    Male

    Trainer

    Gartree

    Male

    Trainer

    22/09/2010

    Announced

    Recommendation

    Gartree

    Male

    Trainer

    22/09/2010

    Announced

    Recommendation

    The Prohibition on Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment HRA, Article 3

    210
    30/03/2010 Announced Recommendation 29/09/2010 Announced Recommendation 23/12/2009 23/12/2009 Announced Announced

    The Mount

    Male

    Trainer

    Prescoed/Usk

    Male

    Trainer and Open

    Manchester

    Male

    High Security

    Manchester

    Male

    High Security

    Table 93: Time out of cell recommendations made by HMIP since September 2009, England and Wales (continued)
    Publication Date 31/03/2010 Announced Recommendation The prison should ensure the delivery of the core day as published. (6.61) Prisoners beyond the age of retirement should not be locked up during the day. (6.62) All prisoners should be given an hours exercise outside. (6.63) Prisoners on house block 8 should be allowed to exercise during association. (6.65) All prisoners should have access to evening association every evening. (6.77) More time unlocked and domestic time should be permitted in the morning and at meal times. (6.78) The daily time out of cell for unemployed young adults should be increased. (6.81) Continued Inspection type Main recommendation Text of recommendation

    Name of Establishment

    Gender

    Functional type

    Hewell cluster

    Male

    Cluster Local, trainer and open 31/03/2010 Announced Recommendation

    Hewell cluster

    Male

    Cluster Local, trainer and open 31/03/2010 Announced Recommendation

    Hewell cluster

    Male

    Cluster Local, trainer and open 31/03/2010 Announced Recommendation

    Hewell cluster

    Male

    Cluster Local, trainer and open 03/06/2010 03/06/2010 Announced Recommendation Announced Recommendation

    The Prohibition on Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment HRA, Article 3

    211
    09/07/2010 Announced Recommendation

    Brinsford

    Male

    Young offender

    Brinsford

    Male

    Young offender

    Feltham

    Male

    Young Offender

    Table 93: Time out of cell recommendations made by HMIP since September 2009, England and Wales (continued)
    Publication Date 09/07/2010 Announced Recommendation Young adults should be guaranteed a period of evening association at least twice a week. (6.82) There should be more than one exercise period a day so that it is available to all young adults. (6.84) Juveniles on the basic level of the incentives and earned privileges scheme should receive adequate time out of their cell. (6.94) All young people should spend a minimum of 10 hours each day out of their cell. (5.55) All young people should have an hours exercise in the open air which does not coincide with other activities. (5.56) All young people should be out of their cells for at least 10 hours every day. (5.59) A broad and varied programme of evening and weekend activities should be developed which enables young people to make constructive use of their leisure time. (5.60) Recommendation Young adults should be offered time to exercise in the open air daily. (6.107, see paragraph 6.105) Recommendation Announced Recommendation Association should last for the full one-hour period. (6.108, see paragraph 6.106) All prisoners should have 10 hours out of their cell each day. (6.55) Continued Inspection type Main recommendation Text of recommendation

    Name of Establishment

    Gender

    Functional type

    Feltham

    Male

    Young Offender 09/07/2010 Announced Recommendation

    Feltham

    Male

    Young Offender 09/07/2010 Announced Recommendation

    Feltham

    Male

    Young Offender 26/03/2010 26/03/2010 Announced Recommendation Announced Recommendation

    Hindley

    Male

    Young Offender

    Hindley

    Male

    Young Offender 02/12/2009 02/12/2009 Announced Announced Recommendation Recommendation

    The Prohibition on Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment HRA, Article 3

    212
    13/07/2010 Announced 13/07/2010 23/03/2010 Announced

    Parc (young peoples unit)

    Male

    Young offender

    Parc (young peoples unit)

    Male

    Young offender

    Stoke Heath

    Male

    Young offender

    Stoke Heath

    Male

    Young offender

    Glen Parva

    Male

    Young Offenders

    Table 93: Time out of cell recommendations made by HMIP since September 2009, England and Wales (continued)
    Publication Date 23/03/2010 18/11/2009 18/11/2009 Announced Recommendation Announced Recommendation Time out of cell should be recorded accurately. (5.42) The prison should conform to the unlock and lock up timings and the other requirements listed in its published core day. (5.43) An hours outdoor exercise should be provided for all prisoners. (6.52, see paragraph 6.47) There should be a period of general unlock in the morning before activity. (6.53, see paragraph 6.48) All prisoners should receive evening association every day. (6.54, see paragraph 6.49) Core day routines should be adhered to. (6.55, see paragraph 6.50) Recommendation A system for ensuring fair access to association should be devised and records kept of cancellations, stating who has cancelled it, why and which prisoners this has affected. (5.56) Announced Recommendation Association should not coincide with corporate worship. (5.57) Continued Announced Recommendation All prisoners should receive one full hour in the open air every day. (6.56) Inspection type Main recommendation Text of recommendation

    Name of Establishment

    Gender

    Functional type

    Glen Parva

    Male

    Young Offenders

    Portland

    Male

    Young Offenders

    Portland

    Male

    Young Offenders 04/11/2010 Announced Recommendation

    Swiffen Hall

    Male

    Young Offenders 04/11/2010 Announced Recommendation

    Swiffen Hall

    Male

    Young Offenders 04/11/2010 Announced Recommendation

    The Prohibition on Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment HRA, Article 3

    213
    04/11/2010 20/10/2009 Announced Announced Recommendation 20/10/2009

    Swiffen Hall

    Male

    Young Offenders

    Swiffen Hall

    Male

    Young Offenders

    Wandsworth

    Male

    Local

    Wandsworth

    Male

    Local

    Table 93: Time out of cell recommendations made by HMIP since September 2009, England and Wales (continued)
    Publication Date 20/10/2009 20/10/2009 20/10/2009 20/10/2009 Announced Recommendation Announced Recommendation Announced Recommendation Announced Recommendation Inspection type Main recommendation Text of recommendation Association should conclude at the advertised time. (5.58) The activities available for those on association should be expanded. (5.59) Time in the fresh air should be offered, even during inclement weather. (5.60) Note should be taken of prisoners who do not participate in association, and this should be monitored for potential information about vulnerability. (5.61) The daily programme should be organised so that all young people have the opportunity to take an hour of outdoor exercise some time during the day. (5.47) All young people should spend at least 10 hours a day out of their cells. (5.54) Young women should be allowed out of their cell for at least 10 hours at the weekend. (6.36) Recommendation The daily programme should be organised so that all young people have the opportunity to take an hour of outdoor exercise some time during the day. (5.47)

    Name of Establishment

    Gender

    Functional type

    Wandsworth

    Male

    Local

    Wandsworth

    Male

    Local

    Wandsworth

    Male

    Local

    Wandsworth

    Male

    Local

    Warren Hill

    Male

    Juvenile

    17/03/2010

    Announced

    Recommendation

    The Prohibition on Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment HRA, Article 3

    214
    15/12/2009 02/06/2010 Announced Announced Recommendation Recommendation 17/03/2010 Announced

    Werrington

    Male

    Young Offenders

    DownviewJosephine Butler Unit

    Female

    Children and Young People

    Warren Hill

    Male

    Juvenile

    Source: HMIP for England and Wales (2011)

    Note: This table contains recommendations made following full inspections by HMI Prisons inspectors. Five of those inspected were given recommendations regarding time out of cell as a Main Recommendation.

    Table 94: Standardised ratio of proportion of patients who had recorded incidents hands-on restraint, England and Wales, 2009
    Males 95% confidence interval Upper Observed 105 130 134 95 121 96 150 81 32 146 104 200 39 116 114 1,435 101 95 107 1,168 100 Standardised ratio Lower Upper Observed Standardised ratio Lower 96 90 98 95% confidence interval 95% confidence interval Upper Observed 104 146 133 2,603 71 176 Females Persons

    Ethnic category code

    Census Census groups categories 94 63 88

    Standardised ratio

    Lower

    White

    British

    99

    White

    Irish

    92

    White

    Other White

    109

    Mixed

    White and Black Caribbean 108 202 43 84 45 144 13

    150

    127

    96

    164

    56

    The Prohibition on Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment HRA, Article 3

    215
    42 61 55 163 15 132 80 197 13 98 39 193 8 111 30 285 202 207 78 152 37 56 29 98 62 127 32 76 39 133

    Mixed

    White and Black African

    98

    4 7 19

    102 109 115

    53 66 80

    178 168 161

    12 20 34

    Mixed

    White and Asian

    115

    Mixed

    Other mixed

    99

    Asian or Asian British Indian

    110

    12

    89

    66

    118

    49

    Asian or Asian British Pakistani

    90

    12

    86

    62

    115

    44 Continued

    Table 94: Standardised ratio of proportion of patients who had recorded incidents hands-on restraint, England and Wales, 2009 (continued)
    Males 95% confidence interval Upper Observed Standardised ratio Lower Upper Observed Standardised ratio Lower 95% confidence interval 95% confidence interval Upper Observed Females Persons

    Ethnic category code

    Census Census groups categories

    Standardised ratio

    Lower

    Asian or Asian British Bangladeshi 41 139 12 15 0 83 1 60

    80

    32

    102

    13

    Asian or Asian British Other Asian 79 175 27 38 12 90 5

    120

    90

    62

    128

    32

    The Prohibition on Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment HRA, Article 3

    216
    64 97 96 88 65 117 94 149 78 92 66 125 60 127 30 110 64 176

    Black or Black British Caribbean

    80

    48

    82

    69

    97

    144

    Black or Black British African

    119

    41

    108

    90

    130

    119

    Black or Black British Other Black

    89

    17

    96

    70

    127

    47 Continued

    Table 94: Standardised ratio of proportion of patients who had recorded incidents hands-on restraint, England and Wales, 2009 (continued)
    Males 95% confidence interval Upper Observed Standardised ratio Lower Upper Observed Standardised ratio Lower 95% confidence interval 95% confidence interval Upper Observed Females Persons

    Ethnic category code

    Census Census groups categories

    Standardised ratio

    Lower

    Other ethnic groups 14 202 3 44 9 129 3 54

    Chinese

    69

    20

    117

    Other ethnic groups 78 164 30 90 47 158 12

    Other

    115

    107

    77

    144

    42

    The Prohibition on Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment HRA, Article 3

    217
    1,986 100

    Grand total

    100

    1,482

    100

    3,468

    Source: CQC (2011a).

    Notes: England and Wales ratio = 100. Recorded incidents: How many of the following kinds of incident have been recorded for this patient during this hospital spell, or within the last three months (if hospital spell is longer): hands on restraint. The colour coding highlights instances where the standardised ratio was found to be statistically significant: dark grey where it is lower, light grey where it is higher.

    Figures derived from the Count Me In census 2009 including inpatients in mental health and learning disability services, and those who were subject to a community treatment order (CTO) on the day of the census (CQC, 2011d).

    The Prohibition on Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment HRA, Article 3

    Table 95: Use of hands-on restraints in mental health institutions in England and Wales, 2009
    Number of times N England Wales 26,191 2,056 0 % 88.7 91.3 N 1,437 93 1 % 4.9 4.1 N 1,047 50 2-4 % 3.5 2.2 N 431 30 5-9 % 1.5 1.3 N 429 22 10+ % 1.5 1.0

    Source: CQC (2010a, 2010b, 2010c). Notes: Figures derived from the Count Me In census 2009 including inpatients in mental health and learning disability services, and those who were subject to a CTO on the day of the census (CQC, 2010a). Approximately 11 per cent of patients (a) on mental health wards and independent healthcare organisations had experienced one or more episodes of hands-on restraint. When exploring the differences between groups, Count Me In reported that the only ethnic difference observed was the 28 per cent lower than average rate among the Black Caribbean group. However, they note that ethnic differences have not shown a consistent pattern over the five censuses. Twenty-seven per cent of inpatients in learning disability services had experienced one or more episodes of hands-on restraint. No differences by ethnic minority were observed. Table 96: Detained people who self-report they have been physically restrained in the last six months, England and Wales
    Type of prison/establishment Local N=4,323 Young offenders (18-21) N=1,858 Category C trainers N=4,167 Female N=1352 Immigration removal centres N=1,019 N 132 77 51 10 123 % 7 16 5 4 15

    Source: HMIP for England and Wales (2010a).

    218

    The Prohibition on Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment HRA, Article 3

    Notes: Data was not available for all types of prison as a result of changes made to the surveys or the re-coding of questions, leading to a loss of comparator data. The n-value refers to the total number of respondents for each survey. Percentages may vary in regard to the n-value as all comparator data is weighted. Local comparator from 2006 onwards. Offender Institutes comparator from 2005 onwards. Category C trainers comparator from 2005 onwards. Opens comparator from 2005 onwards. Female comparator from 2005 onwards. Immigration removal centre comparator from 2005 onwards. [See source document for comparators] Percentages are calculated only from those who answered the question; missing data has been excluded. See Appendix 2. Table 97: Detained children and young people who self-report that they have ever been physically restrained while in this establishment, England and Wales
    Type of prison/establishment Children and young people (under 18) N=776 N 221 % 30

    Source: HMIP for England and Wales (2010a). Notes: The n-value refers to the total number of respondents for each survey. Percentages may vary in regard to the n-value as all comparator data is weighted. Children and young people comparator from 2009 onwards. Data for children and young people only includes responses from males because of the small number of female respondents. Percentages are calculated only from those who answered the question; missing data has been excluded. See Appendix 2. Table 98: Respondents who self-report that they were handcuffed or restrained whilst in the police custody suite, England and Wales
    Type of prison/establishment Police Custody N=1,011 N 445 % 47

    Source: HMIP for England and Wales (2010a). Notes: The n-value refers to the total number of respondents for each survey. Percentages may vary in regard to the n-value as all comparator data is weighted. Police Custody comparator from 2008 onwards. Percentages are calculated only from those who answered the question; missing data has been excluded. See Appendix 2.

    219

    Indicator 17: Spotlight statistics: Physical violence, physical and sexual abuse, and victimisation within miscellaneous establishments

    Table 99: Standardised ratio of proportion of patients who had recorded incidents physical assault on the patient, England and Wales, 2009
    Males 95% confidence interval Upper Observed 106 126 134 92 100 76 129 57 34 127 88 179 33 1,465 100 94 106 1,073 Standardised ratio Lower Upper Observed Standardised ratio 100 105 105 Lower 97 82 89 95% confidence interval Females Persons 95% confidence interval Upper Observed 104 134 124 2,538 67 149

    Ethnic category code

    Census Census groups categories 96 63 88

    Standardised ratio

    Lower

    White

    British

    101

    White

    Irish

    90

    White

    Other White

    109

    The Prohibition on Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment HRA, Article 3

    220
    114 226 36 130 69 222 37 49 42 160 10 67 204 9 153 221 6 39 1 61 25 219 314 147 50 119 23 77 41 131 60 135 26 106 55 185

    Mixed

    White and Black Caribbean

    163

    13

    153

    113

    202

    49

    Mixed

    White and Black African

    102

    1 7 6

    83 124 78

    33 71 45

    171 201 127

    7 16 16

    Mixed

    White and Asian

    108

    Mixed

    Other mixed

    87

    Asian or Asian British Indian

    79

    13

    78

    55

    108

    36

    Asian or Asian British Pakistani

    92

    12

    96

    68

    132

    38 Continued

    Table 99: Standardised ratio of proportion of patients who had recorded incidents physical assault on the patient, England and Wales, 2009 (continued)
    Males 95% confidence interval Upper Observed Standardised ratio Lower Upper Observed Standardised ratio Lower 95% confidence interval 95% confidence interval Upper Observed Females Persons

    Ethnic category code

    Census Census groups categories

    Standardised ratio

    Lower

    Asian or Asian British Bangladeshi 43 164 10 21 1 114 1 68

    89

    34

    122

    11

    Asian or Asian British Other Asian 76 183 22 58 19 136 5

    121

    101

    67

    147

    27

    The Prohibition on Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment HRA, Article 3

    221
    67 102 88 107 79 142 81 141 54 92 60 133 48 120 21 156 89 253

    Black or Black British Caribbean

    83

    48

    90

    76

    107

    136

    Black or Black British African

    108

    27

    102

    81

    127

    81

    Black or Black British Other Black

    78

    16

    100

    70

    137

    37 Continued

    Table 99: Standardised ratio of proportion of patients who had recorded incidents physical assault on the patient, England and Wales, 2009 (continued)
    Males 95% confidence interval Upper Observed Standardised ratio Lower Upper Observed Standardised ratio Lower 95% confidence interval 95% confidence interval Upper Observed Females Persons

    Ethnic category code

    Census Census groups categories

    Standardised ratio

    Lower

    Other ethnic groups 7 200 2 66 14 191 3 61

    Chinese

    55

    20

    142

    Other ethnic groups 54 140 19 79 34 155 8

    Other

    89

    86

    57

    125

    27

    The Prohibition on Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment HRA, Article 3

    222
    1,917 100

    Grand total

    100

    1,323

    100

    3,240

    Source: CQC (2011a).

    Notes:

    England and Wales ratio = 100. Recorded incidents: How many of the following kinds of incident have been recorded for this patient during this hospital spell, or within the last three months (if hospital spell is longer): assault. The colour coding highlights instances where the standardised ratio was found to be statistically significant: dark grey where it is lower, light grey where it is higher.

    Figures derived from the Count Me In census 2009 including inpatients in mental health and learning disability services, and those who were subject to a CTO on the day of the census (CQC, 2011d).

    The Prohibition on Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment HRA, Article 3

    Table 100: Incidences of physical assaults on inpatients within mental health and learning difficulties services, England and Wales, 2009
    0 N England Wales 26,409 2,080 % 89.4 92.4 N 1,649 88 1 % 5.6 3.9 2-4 N 870 42 % 2.9 1.9 5-9 N 328 19 % 1.1 0.8 10+ N 279 22 % 0.9 1.0

    Source: CQC (2010b, 2010c). Notes: Figures derived from the Count Me In census 2009 including inpatients in mental health and learning disability services, and those who were subject to a CTO on the day of the census (CQC, 2010a). Number of recorded incidents since 1 January 2009 or during this hospital spell (if shorter) (CQC, 2010b, 2010c: spreadsheet figures). Table 101: Assault summary statistics, England and Wales, 2004-08
    2004 Prison population Assault incidents1, 2 Male establishments Female establishments Three-year rolling average annual assault incidents per 1,000 prisoners 74,657 12,558 11,702 856 2005 75,979 14,406 13,317 1,089 2006 78,127 15,054 13,893 1,161 2007 80,216 15,231 14,227 1,004 2008 82,572 15,847 14,942 905

    164.31

    173.28

    183.50

    190.72

    191.49

    Source: Ministry of Justice (MoJ) (2010a), Table 7. Notes: 1 It is now expected that all assaults, including fights, should be reported whether or not there was an injury. As this was not the case in the past, care needs to be taken when interpreting changes over the years. 2 In prisons, as in the community, it is not possible to count assault incidents with absolute accuracy. In prison custody, however, such incidents are more likely to be detected and counted. Care needs to be taken when comparing figures shown here with other sources where data may be less complete.

    223

    The Prohibition on Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment HRA, Article 3

    Table 102: Assault incidents by role and age, England and Wales, 2004-08
    2004 Prisoner victims 15-17 years 18-20 years 21-25 years 26-29 years 30-39 years 40-49 years 50-59 years 60 years and over 4,261 518 936 964 596 902 252 75 18 2005 5,301 926 1,199 1,056 693 1,038 316 55 18 2006 5,633 967 1,235 1,168 715 1,070 364 85 29 2007 5,783 999 1,248 1,226 739 1,084 392 73 22 2008 6,380 1,242 1,475 1,257 785 1,067 450 78 26

    Source: MoJ (2010a), Table 8. Notes: a This table only includes figures for prisoner victims. The prisoner assailants and prisoner fighters categories are not included here. The prisoner fighter category arises from assault incidents where no clear victim can be identified. Both the prisoner victims and prisoner assailant categories arise from Actual Bodily Harm (ABH) and Grievous Bodily Harm (GBH) assault incidents where there is a clear victim (MoJ, 2010a: 13). 1 Reported incidents before 2000 and prisoner involvements arising from them are not directly comparable with later figures and have, therefore, been excluded. Although figures for 2000 to 2002 have been included they are under-reported by modern standards. It is now expected that all assaults, including fights, should be reported whether or not there was an injury. As this was not the case in the past, care needs to be taken when interpreting changes over the years.

    224

    The Prohibition on Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment HRA, Article 3

    Table 103: Detained people who self-report that they have been victimised by a member of staff, England and Wales, 2009
    Type of prison/establishment Local N=4323 High secure N=418 Young offenders (18-21) N=1858 Category B trainers N=855 Category C trainers N=4167 Open N=1254 Female N=1352 Children and young people (under 18)* N=776 Immigration removal centres* N=1019 N 1,001 178 404 233 854 173 257 172 215 % 26 44 23 28 22 16 21 25 28

    Source: HMIP for England and Wales (2010a). Notes: * The children and young people survey and the Immigration Detention Centre survey asks about another prisoner/detainee or group of prisoners/detainees. The n-value refers to the total number of respondents for each survey. Percentages may vary in regard to the n-value as all comparator data is weighted. Local comparator from 2006 onwards. High secure comparator from 2007 onwards. Youth offender institutes comparator from 2005 onwards. Category B trainers comparator from 2005 onwards. Category C trainers comparator from 2005 onwards. Opens comparator from 2005 onwards. Children and young people comparator from 2009 onwards. Female comparator from 2005 onwards. Immigration removal centre comparator from 2005 onwards. Data for children and young people only includes responses from males because of the small number of female respondents. Percentages are calculated only from those who answered the question; missing data has been excluded. See Appendix 2.

    225

    The Prohibition on Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment HRA, Article 3

    Table 104: Adult male prisoners who self-report that they have been victimised by a member of staff, by ethnicity, religion and disability, England and Wales, 2008-09
    Black and minority ethnic prisoners Number of completed questionnaires Percentage who said that they have been victimised by a member of staff Consider themselves to have a disability Do not consider themselves to have a disability

    White

    Muslim prisoners

    NonMuslim prisoners

    1,037

    2,890

    422

    3,435

    559

    3,170

    32%

    23%

    38%

    24%

    33%

    25%

    Source: HMIP for England and Wales (2010b). Notes: Light grey boxes denote where the group is significantly worse than the comparator. (Emphasis as in publication).

    226

    Table 105: Detained people who self-report that they have experienced physical or sexual abuse or been victimised by a member of staff*, England and Wales

    Locals N=4,323 N %

    High security N=418 N % Open N=1,254 N % Female N=1,352 N %

    Young offenders (18-21) N=1,858 N % Category B trainers N=855 N % Category C trainers N=4,167 N %

    Children and young people (under 18) N=776 N %

    Immigration removal centres N=1,019 N %

    448 9 2 72 18 4 1 26 5 3 1 102 30 3 1 5 7 1 1 26 7 2 1

    12

    91

    23

    199

    12

    105

    13

    369

    10

    75

    116

    102 33 9

    15 5 1

    82 29 21

    11 4 3

    167 40

    5 1

    36 6

    The Prohibition on Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment HRA, Article 3

    227
    13 72 4 66 8 190 5 36 4 3 24 1 17 2 123 3 11 1 8 112 7 41 5 159 4 47 4 2 9 1 8 1 24 1 3 0

    196

    57

    28

    27

    49

    33

    14 24

    2 3

    68 10 -

    9 1 -

    178

    12

    Made insulting remarks about you, your family or friends Hit, kicked or assaulted Sexually abused* Victimised because of race or ethnic origin Victimised because of nationality Victimised because of drugs Taken canteen/ property Victimised because of being new Victimised because of their sexuality 54 4 23 24 2

    204

    34

    38

    25

    9 1 Continued

    Table 105: Detained people who self-report that they have experienced physical or sexual abuse or been victimised by a member of staff*, England and Wales (continued)

    Locals N=4,323 N %

    High security N=418 N % Open N=1,254 N % Female N=1,352 N %

    Young offenders (18-21) N=1,858 N % Category B trainers N=855 N % Category C trainers N=4,167 N %

    Children and young people (under 18) N=776 N %

    Immigration removal centres N=1,019 N %

    95

    18

    19

    25

    53

    16

    10

    12

    110

    36

    33

    38

    100

    21

    21

    14

    28

    The Prohibition on Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment HRA, Article 3

    228
    11 2 15 1 4 1 12 84 5 51 6 166 4 22 2

    Victimised because of their disability Victimised because of their religion/religious beliefs Victimised because of their age Victimised because they were from a different part of the country 7 3 36 3 16

    43

    155

    46

    Source: HMIP for England and Wales (2010a).

    Notes: * In the immigration detention centre survey, the question asks if the respondent has experienced unwanted sexual attention from staff rather than the other surveys which ask if the respondent has been sexually abused. Gaps in the above table denote where the question is not asked in that survey. The n-value refers to the total number of respondents for each survey. Percentages may vary in regard to the n-value as all comparator data is weighted. Local comparator from 2006 onwards. High security comparator from 2007 onwards. Young offender institutions comparator from 2005 onwards. Data for children and young people only includes responses from males because of the small number of female respondents. Percentages are calculated only from those who answered the question; missing data has been excluded. [For comparators and data from previous years see source document.] See Appendix 2.

    The Prohibition on Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment HRA, Article 3

    Table 106: Adult male prisoners who self-report that they have been victimised by a member of staff, by ethnicity, religion and disability, England and Wales, 2008-09
    Black and minority ethnic prisoners Number of completed questionnaires Percentage who report that they have been victimised because of their race or ethnic origin Percentage who report that they have been victimised because of a disability Percentage who report that they been victimised because of their religion/ religious beliefs Consider themselves to have a disability Do not consider themselves to have a disability

    White

    Muslim prisoners

    NonMuslim prisoners

    1,037

    2,890

    422

    3,435

    559

    3,170

    15%

    2%

    20%

    3%

    6%

    5%

    2%

    3%

    1%

    2%

    12%

    1%

    9%

    2%

    17%

    2%

    5%

    4%

    Source: HMIP for England and Wales (2010b). Notes: Light grey boxes denote where the group is significantly worse than the comparator. Dark grey boxes denote where the group is significantly better than the comparator. (Emphasis as in publication).

    229

    The Prohibition on Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment HRA, Article 3

    Table 107: Detained people who self-report that they have been victimised by another prisoner/detainee, England and Wales
    Type of prison/establishment Local N=4,323 High security N=418 Young offenders (18-21) N=1,858 Category B trainers N=855 Category C trainers N=4,167 Open N=1,254 Female N=1,352 Children and young people (under 18) N=776 Immigration removal centres N=1,019 N 854 140 364 211 775 96 340 180 272 % 22 35 21 25 20 8 26 24 34

    Source: HMIP for England and Wales (2010a). Notes: The n-value refers to the total number of respondents for each survey. Percentages may vary in regard to the n-value as all comparator data is weighted. Local comparator from 2006 onwards. High security comparator from 2007 onwards. Young offender institutions comparator from 2005 onwards. Category B trainers comparator from 2005 onwards. Category C trainers comparator from 2005 onwards. Opens comparator from 2005 onwards. Children and young people comparator from 2009 onwards. Female comparator from 2005 onwards. Immigration removal centre comparator from 2005 onwards. Data for children and young people only includes responses from males because of the small number of female respondents. Percentages are calculated only from those who answered the question; missing data has been excluded. [For comparators and data from previous years see source document.] See Appendix 2.

    230

    Table 108: Detained people who self-report that they have experienced physical or sexual abuse or been victimised by another prisoner/detainee, England and Wales

    Locals N=4,323 N %

    High security N=418 N % Open N=1,254 N % Female N=1,352 N %

    Young offenders (18-21) N=1,858 N % Category B trainers N=855 N % Category C trainers N=4,167 N %

    Children and young people (under 18) N=776 N %

    Immigration removal centres N=1,019 N %

    411 11 2 161 17 9 1 57 13 7 1 207 37 5 1 17 6 1 0 68 17 5 1

    11

    67

    16

    202

    11

    122

    15

    386

    10

    55

    210

    16

    100 71 7

    14 11 1

    108 62 30

    14 8 4

    282 42

    7 1

    46 9

    The Prohibition on Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment HRA, Article 3

    231
    7 64 4 49 6 146 4 23 2 5 6 96 5 43 5 125 40 2 30 4 99 3 3 4 9 0 1 5 120 7 36 4 166 4 26 2 3 17 1 15 2 29 1 4 0

    143

    30

    50

    17

    62

    38 66

    3 5

    20 34

    3 5

    67 19 63

    9 3 8

    134

    20

    191

    25

    Made insulting remarks about you, your family or friends Hit, kicked or assaulted Sexually abused* Victimised because of race or ethnic origin Victimised because of nationality Victimised because of drugs Taken canteen/ property Victimised because of being new Victimised because of their sexuality 85 7 61 18 2

    214

    21

    49

    32

    11

    15 2 Continued

    Table 108: Detained people who self-report that they have experienced physical or sexual abuse or been victimised by another prisoner/detainee, England and Wales (continued)

    Locals N=4,323 N %

    High security N=418 N % Open N=1,254 N % Female N=1,352 N %

    Young offenders (18-21) N=1,858 N % Category B trainers N=855 N % Category C trainers N=4,167 N %

    Children and young people (under 18) N=776 N %

    Immigration removal centres N=1,019 N %

    99

    10

    19

    30

    65

    29

    15

    17

    91

    27

    27

    34

    89

    11

    22

    37

    The Prohibition on Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment HRA, Article 3

    232
    13 2 19 2 2 0 7 114 6 54 7 181 5 17 1

    Victimised because of their disability Victimised because of their religion/religious beliefs Victimised because of their age Victimised because they were from a different part of the country 9 4 47 4 38

    30

    158

    28

    Source: HMIP for England and Wales (2010a).

    Notes: * In the immigration detention centre survey, the question asks if the respondent has experienced unwanted sexual attention from staff rather than the other surveys which ask if the respondent has been sexually abused. Gaps in the above table denote where the question is not asked in that survey. The n-value refers to the total number of respondents for each survey. Percentages may vary in regard to the n-value as all comparator data is weighted. Local comparator from 2006 onwards. High security comparator from 2007 onwards. Young offender institutions comparator from 2005 onwards. Data for children and young people only includes responses from males because of the small number of female respondents. Percentages are calculated only from those who answered the question; missing data has been excluded. [For comparators and data from previous years see source document.] See Appendix 2.

    The Prohibition on Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment HRA, Article 3

    Table 109: Adult male prisoners who self-report that they have been victimised by another prisoner because of their ethnicity, religion or disability, England and Wales, 2008-09
    Black and minority ethnic prisoners Number of completed questionnaires Percentage who report that they have been victimised by another prisoner Percentage who report that they have been victimised because of their race or ethnic origin Percentage who report that they have been victimised because of a disability Percentage who report that they been victimised because of their religion/ religious beliefs Consider themselves to have a disability Do not consider themselves to have a disability

    White

    Muslim prisoners

    NonMuslim prisoners

    1,037

    2,890

    422

    3,435

    559

    3,170

    25%

    24%

    25%

    24%

    37%

    21%

    10%

    2%

    10%

    3%

    5%

    4%

    1%

    3%

    1%

    3%

    12%

    1%

    6%

    2%

    9%

    2%

    5%

    3%

    Source: HMIP for England and Wales (2010b). Notes: Light grey boxes denote where the group is significantly worse than the comparator. Dark grey boxes denote where the group is significantly better than the comparator. (Emphasis as in publication.)

    233

    The Prohibition on Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment HRA, Article 3

    Table 110: People in police custody who self-report that they were victimised by another detainee or member of staff, England and Wales
    Type of prison/establishment Police custody N=1,011 N 398 % 42

    Source: HMIP for England and Wales (2010a). Notes: The n-value refers to the total number of respondents for each survey. Percentages may vary in regard to the n-value as all comparator data is weighted. Police custody comparator from 2008 onwards. Percentages are calculated only from those who answered the question; missing data has been excluded. See Appendix 2. Table 111: People in police custody who self-report that they were victimised by another detainee or member of staff by type of victimisation, England and Wales
    Police custody N=1,011 N Made insulting remarks (about you, your family or friends) Physical abuse (being hit, kicked or assaulted) Sexual abuse Victimised because of race or ethnic origin Victimised because of drugs Victimised because of their crime Victimised because of their sexuality Victimised because of their disability Victimised because of their religion/religious beliefs Victimised because they were from a different part of the country 203 131 17 54 145 166 7 34 26 43 % 21 14 2 6 15 17 1 3 3 5

    Source: HMIP for England and Wales (2010a). Notes: The n-value refers to the total number of respondents for each survey. Percentages may vary in regard to the n-value as all comparator data is weighted. Police Custody comparator from 2008 onwards. Percentages are calculated only from those who answered the question; missing data has been excluded. See Appendix 2.

    234

    The Prohibition on Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment HRA, Article 3

    Indicator 18: Positive duties and effective protection from sexual violence, domestic violence, hate crime and abuse within families, communities and society: Spotlight statistics on prevalence, detection and prosecution
    Table 112: Prevalence of intimate violence by category among adults aged 16 to 59, England and Wales, 2009-10
    Since the age of 16 Men Any domestic abuse (partner or family non-physical abuse, threats, force, sexual assault or stalking) Any partner abuse (non-physical abuse, threats, force, sexual assault or stalking) Any family abuse (non-physical abuse, threats, force, sexual assault or stalking) Partner abuse (nonphysical abuse, threats or force) nonsexual Non-physical abuse (emotional, financial) Threats or force Threats Force - Minor - Severe Women All Men In the last year Women All

    Percentage who were victims once or more

    15.8

    29.4

    22.6

    4.2

    7.5

    5.8

    12.7

    26.0

    19.3

    3.1

    5.8

    4.4

    6.7

    10.1

    8.4

    1.6

    2.6

    2.1

    11.2 7.4 6.2 1.0 6.0 2.8 5.0

    22.6 15.4 17.4 9.8 15.9 12.6 11.7

    16.9 11.4 11.8 5.4 10.9 7.7 8.4

    2.6 1.9 1.1 0.2 1.0 0.5 0.8

    4.6 2.9 2.8 1.5 2.3 1.6 1.5

    3.6 2.4 2.0 0.8 1.7 1.0 1.1 Continued

    235

    The Prohibition on Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment HRA, Article 3

    Table 112: Prevalence of intimate violence by category among adults aged 16 to 59, England and Wales, 2009-10 (continued)
    Since the age of 16 Men Family abuse (nonphysical abuse, threats or force) nonsexual Non-physical abuse (emotional, financial) Threats or force Threats Force - Minor - Severe Any sexual assault (including attempts) Serious sexual assault including attempts Serious sexual assault excluding attempts Rape including attempts Rape excluding attempts Assault by penetration including attempts Assault by penetration excluding attempts Less serious sexual assault Stalking Unweighted base1 Women All Men In the last year Women All

    Percentage who were victims once or more

    6.2 3.5 3.7 1.1 3.3 1.4 2.7 2.3 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 2.2 9.3 9,971

    8.9 5.4 6.0 2.5 5.2 3.5 3.7 19.7 5.1 4.3 4.7 3.8 1.8 1.5 19.0 18.7 11,988

    7.6 4.4 4.8 1.8 4.2 2.5 3.2 10.9 2.7 2.2 2.5 2.0 0.9 0.8 10.5 14.0 21,959

    1.4 1.0 0.6 0.2 0.5 0.1 0.4 0.5 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 2.9 9,892

    2.3 1.4 1.2 0.5 0.9 0.5 0.6 2.3 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.1 0.1 2.1 4.4 11,728

    1.9 1.2 0.9 0.4 0.7 0.3 0.5 1.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 1.3 3.6 21,620

    Source: Smith (2011). Notes: Data from the British Crime Survey. 1 Bases given are for any domestic abuse; bases for other measures will be similar. 2 See User Guide to Home Office Crime Statistics for definitions of different categories of intimate violence. 3 Figures for any domestic abuse, any partner abuse, any family abuse, partner abuse (nonsexual) and any sexual assault differ from those originally published in Crime in England and Wales 2009/10 due to revisions in analysis. 236

    The Prohibition on Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment HRA, Article 3

    Table 113: Estimated numbers of victims of intimate violence in the last year by category among adults aged 16 to 59, England and Wales, 2009-10
    Numbers (000s) Estimate Any domestic abuse (partner or family non-physical abuse, threats, force, sexual assault or stalking) Any partner abuse (nonphysical abuse, threats, force, sexual assault or stalking) Any family abuse (nonphysical abuse, threats, force, sexual assault or stalking) Partner abuse (non-physical abuse, threats or force) non-sexual Family abuse (non-physical abuse, threats or force) non-sexual Any sexual assault (including attempts) Men Women All Men Women All Men Women All Men Women All Men Women All Men Women All Stalking Men Women All 677 1,207 1,881 510 931 1,438 263 414 676 424 751 1,175 234 370 604 74 364 435 464 704 1,167 600 1,115 1,760 444 849 1,332 215 359 602 364 679 1,080 188 318 535 48 313 376 401 634 1,073 Range 754 1,299 2,002 577 1,013 1,544 311 469 750 485 823 1,270 279 421 672 99 416 494 527 774 1,262

    Source: Smith (2011). Notes: Data from the British Crime Survey. 1 See User Guide for definitions of different categories of intimate violence. 2 Numbers are derived by mutliplying the prevalence rate by the 2009 population aged 16 to 59 in England and Wales (based on mid-2006 estimates from the Office for National Statistics). Lower and higher estimates of the range are derived using the 95% confidence interval.

    237

    The Prohibition on Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment HRA, Article 3

    Table 114: Percentage of adults who have had a partner since the age of 16 or who have had a partner or contact with an ex-partner in the last 12 months, who have experienced partner abuse by age and gender, Scotland, 2009-10
    Experienced any psychological abuse Since the age of 16 Male(total) 16-24 25-44 45-59 60 or over Female(total) 16-24 25-44 45-59 60 or over Victim Non-victim 15% most deprived Rest of Scotland All 9 15 14 8 2 17 20 26 18 6 24 11 21 12 13 Age 9 9 13 10 3 14 15 22 15 5 Victim status 21 10 Deprivation 18 11 12 13 18 19 13 4 19 23 28 21 7 28 14 24 15 16 5 6 9 5 1 12 13 19 13 4 16 7 15 8 9 Continued Experienced any physical abuse Experienced any psychological/ physical abuse Row percentages Experienced both psychological and physical abuse

    238

    The Prohibition on Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment HRA, Article 3

    Table 114: Percentage of adults who have had a partner since the age of 16 or who have had a partner or contact with an ex-partner in the last 12 months, who have experienced partner abuse by age and gender, Scotland, 2009-10 (continued)
    Row percentages Experienced any psychological abuse In the last 12 months Male (total) 16-24 25-44 45-59 60 or over Female(total) 16-24 25-44 45-59 60 or over Victim Non-victim 15% most deprived Rest of Scotland All 2 9 3 1 0 3 8 4 2 1 7 2 4 3 3 Experienced any physical abuse Experienced any psychological/ physical abuse Experienced both psychological and physical abuse

    Age 2 5 2 1 0 2 5 2 1 0 Victim status 4 1 Deprivation 3 2 2

    3 11 3 1 1 4 10 5 2 1 8 2 5 3 3

    1 3 2 0 0 1 4 1 1 0 3 1 2 1 1

    Source: MacLeod and Page (2010a). Notes: Data from the Scottish Crime and Justice Survey (SCJS). Base: Adults who have had a partner since the age of 16 (12,729). Base: Adults who have had a partner or contact with an ex-partner in the last 12 months (9,471). 1 Partner abuse as measured by the SCJS in 2009-10 is any psychological or physical abuse undertaken against a man or a woman carried out by a male or female partner or ex-partner (including any boyfriend, girlfriend, husband, wife or civil partner). 2 Psychological partner abuse includes emotional, financial and other forms of psychological abuse. 3 Physical partner abuse includes sexual and other forms of physical force or violence. 4 Experienced any psychological/physical abuse means that a respondent had experienced at least one of the forms of psychological or at least one of the forms of physical partner abuse presented to respondents. 5 Experienced both psychological and physical abuse means that a respondent has experienced at least one of the forms of psychological and at least one of the forms of physical partner abuse presented to respondents.

    239

    Table 115: Percentage of adults who had experienced each form of psychological or physical abuse since the age of 16 by age and gender, Scotland, 2009-10
    Male All 16-24 25-44 45-59 60+ All 16-24 25-44 45-59 Female 60+

    Age

    Form of abuse: psychological 42 21 17 21 9 15 6 20 13 8 19 1 13 7 7 23 16 16 29 23 14 9 33 43 10 21 18 11 41 26 47 34 21 20 18 22 24 17 53 40 60 49 48 34 15 58 63 61 56 50 41 30 26 21 45 51 36 21 34 14

    Behaved in a jealous/controlling way e.g. restricting what you can do, who you can see, what you wear

    Repeatedly put you down so that you felt worthless

    Threatened to hurt you

    Stopped you from seeing friends and relatives

    Stopped you having your fair share of the household money/taken money from you

    Threatened you with a weapon e.g. ashtray/bottle

    Threatened to/attempted to/actually hurt themselves as a way of making you do something/ stopping you doing something 16 7 7 8 7 5 17 21 9 4 17 20

    The Prohibition on Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment HRA, Article 3

    240
    10 7 4 7 8 8 12 8 8 4 3 0 71 28 13 83 2 4 3 0 75 25 3 0 61 37 2 51 48

    21 16

    17 24

    16 15

    11 14

    Threatened to hurt your other/previous partner

    Threatened to kill/attempt to kill themselves as a way of making you do something/stopping you from doing something

    16 17

    19 11

    16 18

    15 18

    13 22

    Threatened to kill you

    Threatened to hurt someone close to you, for example, your children, family members, friends or pets

    16 2 89 10

    14 5 88 11

    17 1 91 8

    16 2 87 12

    15 4 86 13 Continued

    Forced you to view material which you considered to be pornography

    Experienced any psychological abuse

    Experienced no psychological abuse

    Table 115: Percentage of adults who had experienced each form of psychological or physical abuse since the age of 16 by age and gender, Scotland, 2009-10 (continued)
    Male All 53 31 11 15 2 2 2 70 28 43 26 22 27 53 71 77 73 74 24 2 2 1 7 8 67 30 2 3 1 19 11 3 4 23 15 6 18 18 8 16 11 17 24 20 7 77 22 11 12 12 50 47 55 21 35 32 25 38 24 42 34 56 60 59 42 39 47 40 38 48 19 26 22 6 75 24 16-24 25-44 45-59 60+ All 16-24 25-44 45-59 Female 60+ 31 39 39 15 20 22 7 71 28

    Age

    Form of abuse: physical

    Thrown something at you

    Kicked, bitten, or hit you

    Pushed you/held you down

    Used a weapon against you, e.g. ashtray/bottle

    Choked/tried to strangle/smother you

    Forced you/tried to force you to have sexual intercourse when you did not want to

    Forced you/tried to force you to take part in another sexual activity when you did not want to

    Experienced any physical abuse

    Experienced no physical abuse

    The Prohibition on Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment HRA, Article 3

    241

    Source: MacLeod and Page (2010a).

    Notes: Data from the SCJS. Base: Adults who had experienced partner abuse since the age of 16 (2,156).

    1 Psychological partner abuse is psychological abuse undertaken against a man or a woman carried out by a male or female partner or ex-partner (including any boyfriend, girlfriend, husband, wife or civil partner).

    2 Any psychological abuse includes any of the emotional, financial and other forms of psychological abuse listed above.

    3 The question used to identify psychological partner abuse was: Since you were 16, has any partner or ex-partner ever done any of the following things to you? By partner, we mean any boyfriend or girlfriend, as well as a husband, wife or civil partner.

    4 Physical partner abuse is physical abuse undertaken against a man or a woman carried out by a male or female partner or expartner (including any boyfriend, girlfriend, husband, wife or civil partner).

    5 Physical partner abuse includes any of the sexual or other forms of physical force or violence listed above.

    6 The question used to identify physical partner abuse was: Since you were 16, has any partner or ex-partner ever done any of the following things to you? By partner, we mean any boyfriend or girlfriend, as well as a husband, wife or civil partner.

    The Prohibition on Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment HRA, Article 3

    Table 116: Percentage who had experienced any stalking/harassment or sexual victimisation1 since the age of 16/in the last 12 months by demographic variables, Scotland, 2009-10
    Any stalking and harassment in last year 10 7 3 1 5 Any less serious sexual assault since age 16 6 3 2 1 3 Any less serious sexual assault in last year 4 0 0 0 1 Any serious sexual assault since age 16 1 1 0 0 1 Any serious sexual assault in last year 0 0 0

    Age Male 16-24 24-44 45-59 60+ Total male Female 16-24 24-44 45-59 60+ Total female Victim status Victim Non-victim Multiple deprivation2 15% most deprived areas Rest of Scotland All

    15 8 4 2 6

    14 19 16 7 14

    6 2 1 0 2

    4 7 5 2 4

    1 0 0 0 0

    11 4

    13 8

    3 1

    5 2

    0 0

    7 5 6

    9 9 9

    2 1 1

    4 2 3

    0 0 0

    Source: MacLeod and Page (2010b). Notes: Data from the SCJS. 1 Victim status indicates whether a respondent was the victim of a crime as measured by the SCJS in 2009-10 (for further details of the crimes included, see Annex 3 of the SCJS (www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Statistics/Browse/Crime-Justice/Publications/ publications). 2 Multiple deprivation is measured by the Scottish Index of Multiple. Deprivation (SIMD). Breakdowns are for those living in the 15% most deprived areas and those living in the rest of Scotland. See the Scottish Government website for further information: www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Statistics/SIMD

    242

    Table 117: Incidents of domestic abuse recorded by the police, by type of crime/offence and financial year, Scotland, 2000-01 to 2009-10
    2002-03 35,877 41,235 43,633 45,331 48,808 49,949 53,931 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 51,926 35,248

    2000-01

    2001-02

    Total incidents1

    35,113

    Incidents resulting in the recording of a crime/offence 13,926 15,669 21,593 21,829 23,506 23,804 25,127

    13,942

    29,526

    32,066

    (of which reported to the procurator fiscal) 9,354 9,313 11,013 14,176 14,857 15,565

    9,436

    15,843

    18,828

    21,660

    Non-sexual crimes of violence 544 11 335 198 258 314 245 269 367 364 351 351 9 4 11 5 634 682 607 625

    613

    646 6 361 279

    606 10 356 240

    643 17 387 239

    593 16 349 228 Continued

    The Prohibition on Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment HRA, Article 3

    243

    Homicide

    19

    Serious assault

    345

    Other

    249

    Table 117: Incidents of domestic abuse recorded by the police, by type of crime/offence and financial year, Scotland, 2000-01 to 2009-10 (continued)
    2002-03 79 77 2 3 3 2 1 2 1 3 1 4 95 105 101 99 117 135 99 108 106 101 123 135 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 165 159 2 4 71 69 1 1

    2000-01

    2001-02

    Crimes of indecency

    72

    Sexual assault

    67

    Lewd and libidinous practices

    Other

    Crimes of dishonesty 95 978 6 972 616 580 27 8 1 4 8 14 27 29 50 48 34 5 840 1,217 1,897 887 1,302 1,984 2,180 2,052 66 58 4 1,037 1,327 1,636 1,590 11 15 17 21 1,048 1,342 1,653 1,611 1,745 20 1,725 2,288 2,170 69 48 1 169 187 327 354 451

    65

    460 1,734 21 1,713 2,716 2,606 80 26 4

    515 1,918 23 1,895 3,205 3,097 67 40 1

    639 1,793 21 1,772 3,440 3,333 58 49 Continued

    Fire-raising, vandalism, etc.

    941

    Fire-raising

    The Prohibition on Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment HRA, Article 3

    244

    Vandalism, etc.

    934

    Other crimes

    603

    Crimes against public justice

    550

    Handling an offensive weapon

    43

    Drugs

    10

    Other

    Table 117: Incidents of domestic abuse recorded by the police, by type of crime/offence and financial year, Scotland, 2000-01 to 2009-10 (continued)
    2002-03 12,852 7,221 5,389 3 239 249 320 572 511 536 4 8 3 7,962 7,265 8,088 7,475 7,808 9,761 9,548 9,941 10,566 11,116 12,622 9,704 9 754 17,976 17,141 18,601 18,555 19,460 23,089 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 25,418 13,740 10,489 3 1,186

    2000-01 11,621 6,567 4,980 4 70

    2001-02

    Miscellaneous offences

    11,647

    Minor assault

    6,353

    Breach of the peace

    5,230

    Drunkenness

    Other

    63

    Motor vehicle offences 1 5 9 29 18

    28

    21

    18

    The Prohibition on Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment HRA, Article 3

    245
    21,322 20,208 19,642 21,804 21,825

    Behaviour not leading to recording a crime or offence

    21,163

    25,004

    24,822

    24,405

    19,860

    Not recorded

    Source: Scottish Government (2010).

    Notes:

    1 Different police forces record domestic abuse information in differing ways. Police practice in deciding when a behaviour justifies the recording of a crime or offence may also differ. These differences influence the proportion of incidents which lead to the recording of a crime or offence, as well as the proportion of crimes and offences reported to the procurator.

    The Prohibition on Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment HRA, Article 3

    Table 118: Rapes recorded by the police between 2003 and 20081, Scotland
    Year Number of rapes recorded 2003-04 845 2004-05 900 2005-06 975 2006-07 922 2007-08 908

    Source: Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS) (2009). Notes: 1 Figures taken from Scottish Government publication Statistical Bulletin Crime and Justice Series: Recorded Crime in Scotland, available on the Scottish Government website at www.scotland.gov.uk/publications

    246

    Table 119: Sanction detection rates for rape, recorded crime, England and Wales, 2008-09 and 2009-101, 2, 3
    2008-09 2009-10

    Offence 170 7,780 2,538 1,652 12,140 22 317 218 407 964 291 166 41 30 71 33 52 16 2 9 .. 372 241 561 1,174 3,116 26 13,991 649 39 1,963 742 29 2,926 1,665 21 9,102 1,781 840 798 3,419 .. 71 94 207 372 60 35 .. ..

    Number of offences

    Number of sanction detections Number of offences .. 20 29 41 24 .. 19 39 37 32

    Sanction detection rate (%)

    Number of sanction detections

    Sanction detection rate (%)

    Percentage point change in sanction detection rate between 2008-09 and 2009-10 .. -2 -1 1 -1 0 .. 3 6 -4 1

    Rape of a female (19A)

    Rape of a female aged 16 and over (19C)

    Rape of a female child under 16 (19D)

    Rape of a female child under 13 (19E)

    Rape of a female

    The Prohibition on Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment HRA, Article 3

    247

    Rape of a male (19B)

    Rape of a male aged 16 and over (19F)

    Rape of a male child under 16 (19G)

    Rape of a male child under 13 (19H)

    Rape of a male

    Source: Flatley (2010).

    Notes:

    1 Offences detected in the current year may have been initially recorded in an earlier year and for this reason some percentages may exceed 100. 2. Numbers of recorded crimes and percentages will be affected by changes in reporting and recording. 3. Some forces have revised their 2008-09 data and totals may not agree with those previously published.

    The Prohibition on Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment HRA, Article 3

    Table 120: Action taken by the police against identified perpetrators of crimes or offences of domestic abuse cleared up by the police, by financial year, Scotland, 2000-01 to 2009-10
    2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 Referral to procurator fiscal Police warning Other action1 No further action Not recorded Total 1,415 1,710 41 13,950 1,977 1,571 33 13,926 3,269 1,824 348 15,669 4,967 3,165 1,265 21,593 5,007 1,180 293 21,829 4,781 2,908 73 23,506 4,692 2,466 243 23,804 5,399 2,935 244 25,127 6,761 3,637 7 29,526 7,037 3,290 7 32,066

    9,436 1,348

    9,354 991

    9,313 915

    11,013 1,183

    14,176 1,173

    14,857 887

    15,565 838

    15,843 706

    18,828 293

    21,660 72

    Source: Scottish Government (2010). Notes: 1 Other action includes such action as referrals to support groups such as victim support. Table 121: Current levels of hate crime in England and Wales, 2008-09
    Type of incident Racial Religious Age Disability Sexual orientation Percentage of population 0.4 0.1 0.4 0.1 0.1

    Source: EHRC analysis of unpublished 2008-09 British Crime Survey data (EHRC, 2010c). Note: Incidents relating to age are not officially recognised as hate crimes.

    248

    The Prohibition on Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment HRA, Article 3

    Table 122: Racially or religiously aggravated offences recorded by police forces by offence type, with clear up rates for England and Wales, 2007-08
    Less serious wounding 1.1 4,746 39 40 Criminal damage 0.4 3,983 21 14 Common assault 2.0 4,158 37 37

    Harassment Percentage racially or religiously aggravated1 Total (for England and Wales) Percentage cleared-up Racially or religiously aggravated Non-racially or religiously aggravated 42 68 11.1 25,440

    Total 2.1 38,327 39 29

    Source: MoJ (2009a), Table 3.2. Notes: 1 Percentage of the overall total of the racially and religiously aggravated offence and the equivalent non-aggravated offence. 2 Numbers of non-racially aggravated offences are not shown in this table. 3 Figures exclude the British Transport Police. 4 The figures in this table have been supplied by the Home Office from the database used to produce Crime in England and Wales 2007/08.

    249

    The Prohibition on Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment HRA, Article 3

    Table 123: Recorded hate crime from regional forces in England, Wales and Northern Ireland*, January to December 2009
    All monitored Disability hate crimes Antisemitic (included in previous total)

    Race England, Wales and Northern Ireland totals

    Religion/ faith

    Sexual orientation

    Transgender

    43,426

    2,083

    4,805

    312

    1,402

    52,028

    703

    Source: Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) (2010a). Notes: a Due to technical issues, two police forces were unable to submit data for Quarter 2 (ACPO, 2010). b Hate crimes are included and not in addition to general crime (ie all of these crimes are also recorded in the figures of the relevant crime categories, such as robbery, assault, etc.) (ACPO, 2010). c Collating data for the five strands of hate crime has only been going on since 1 April 2008 (ACPO, 2010). d Data for non-crime incidents is held locally and not included in this data (ACPO, 2010). e *Calculated by the CASE research team: without the figures for the Police Service of Northern Ireland, totals for Race = 42,634; totals for Religion/faith = 2,007; totals for Sexual orientation = 4,711; Transgender = 305; Disability = 1,319; totals for All monitored hate crime = 50,976; totals for Antisemitic = 701.

    250

    Table 124: Recorded crime statistics on racially and religiously aggravated crime, England and Wales, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10

    Year (8J) .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 2,391 2,376 26,495 .. 28,485 .. .. .. 23,354 23,235 26,605 .. .. 23,363 .. .. 3,866 3,945 4,351 4,323 4,182 4,330 20,975 .. .. 4,161 1,982 1,845 1,742 1,543 1,150 999 850 16,910 .. .. 4,602 2,044 (8E) (8M) (9B) 105B (58E) (58F) 1,160 1,185 1,137 1,274 1,079 833 780 662

    Inflicting GBH without intent Harassment7/ Public fear, etc. Harassment7 Assault without injury5, 7

    Less serious wounding7

    ABH or other injury

    Public fear, alarm or distress

    Criminal damage to a dwelling7

    Criminal damage to a building other than a dwelling7 Criminal damage to a vehicle7 (58G) 1,525 1,603 1,640 1,899 1,711 1,339 1,306 1,133

    Other criminal damage7 (58H) 780 838 837 975 953 681 727 604

    HO code

    (8H)

    (8D)

    2002031, 2

    ..

    4,415

    200304

    ..

    4,930

    The Prohibition on Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment HRA, Article 3

    251

    200405

    ..

    5,426

    200506

    ..

    6,107

    200607

    ..

    5,620

    200708

    ..

    4,826

    200809

    383

    ..

    3,923

    200910

    223

    ..

    3,515

    Source: Home Office (2010a) Recorded Crime Statistics (online Excel file)

    Notes [taken directly from original source, some do not apply to the table presented here]:

    1 The National Crime Recording Standard (NCRS) was introduced in April 2002 but some forces adopted it prior to this date. Broadly, the NCRS had the effect of increasing the number of crimes recorded by the police. Therefore, following its introduction, numbers of recorded crimes are not comparable with previous years.

    2 Includes the British Transport Police from 2002-03 onwards.

    3 The homicide figure for 2002-03 includes 173 murders committed by Harold Shipman in previous years but coming to light in the official inquiry in 2002. The homicide figure in 2005-06 of 766 includes 52 homicide victims of the 7 July London bombings.

    4 The 7 July London bombings also accounted for approximately one-quarter of the total 920 attempted murders in 2005-06.

    5 The change in definition relating to resultant injury in common assault and less serious wounding, which applied from 1 April 2002, is described in Chapter 5 of Crime in England and Wales 2005/06.

    6 Possession of weapons offences can also be included in other offence classifications.

    7 Religiously aggravated offences were added to the series from April 2002.

    The Prohibition on Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment HRA, Article 3

    252

    8 The Sexual Offences Act 2003, introduced in May 2004, altered the definition and coverage of sexual offences. This means that sexual offences data for 2004-05 are not comparable with those for previous years.

    9 The increase in 2005-06 was accounted for by a large number of offences that were dealt with by the Norfolk Constabulary.

    10 This offence consists solely of the former offence of Indecent Exposure for years prior to 2004-05. This became the offence of Exposure and is included within Other miscellaneous sexual offences from May 2004.

    11 Includes tampering with a motor vehicle.

    12 These offences were added to the series from 1 April 2003.

    13 The large increase in this offence in 2005-06 was due to one large-scale fraud recorded by the Cambridgeshire Constabulary and the large rise in 2007-08 due to a fraud recorded by the North Yorkshire Police. The large increases in 2008-09 were due to largescale frauds recorded in Gwent, Leicestershire and the Metropolitan Police areas.

    14 The Fraud Act 2006, introduced in January 2007, altered the definition, coverage and some counting rules for fraud offences (see Chapter 4 in Crime in England and Wales 2006/07 for further details).

    15 This table includes the fraud offences used prior to the commencement of the Fraud Act 2006 on 15 January 2007.

    16 Possession of controlled drug offences were split with effect from April 2004 into possession of cannabis and possession of other drugs other than cannabis.

    17 These are offences under the Firearms Act 1968 and other Firearms Acts connected with licensing and certification of firearms. Such offences are not included in the firearms offences statistics which are discussed in Chapter 3 of Crime in England and Wales 2006/07.

    The Prohibition on Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment HRA, Article 3

    253

    18 Following two independent reviews of crime statistics, several changes have been made to offence categories. The offence concealment of birth has been moved from violence against the person group to the other miscellaneous offence group that is used for offences not allocated to a specific offence type. The offence of bigamy has been moved from the sexual offences group to other miscellaneous offences group. The former offence of indecent exposure (replaced by exposure under the Sexual Offences Act 2003 which came into force in May 2004) has retrospectively been moved from other offences to be part of other miscellaneous sexual offences. A new group of offences against vehicles, has been created, bringing together the offences of theft of and from vehicles with vehicle interference the rationale for the change is that vehicle interference largely consists of attempted offences very similar in character to theft of, and from, vehicles. A further group has been created of other thefts, comprising offences such as theft by an employee, shoplifting and handling stolen goods.

    19 This offence consists solely of the former offence of Indecent Exposure for years prior to 2004-05. This became the offence of Exposure and is included within Other miscellaneous sexual offences from May 2004.

    The Prohibition on Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment HRA, Article 3

    Table 125:Number of rapes charges reported to the procurator fiscal, Scotland, April 2006 to 31 March 2007
    Number of reports submitted to the procurator fiscal including at least one charge of rape1 Number of charges of rape reported to the procurator fiscal. Number of charges of rape which were indicted for trial. 515 656 172

    Source: COPFS (2009). Notes: 1 In the period, 515 reports, including at least one charge or rape, were reported to the procurator fiscal. A police report can contain more than one charge and can relate to more than one accused. This is why the number or reports submitted by the police is fewer than the number of charges received by the procurator fiscal in any given period. Table 126: The conviction rate of sexual offences, England and Wales, 2008
    Conviction rate (%) Sexual offences All offences 61 83

    Source: MoJ (2010c). Notes: The conviction rate is defined as the proportion of defendants proceeded against who are found guilty (MoJ, 2010c: 58). Table 127: Reports, prosecutions and convictions for rape,Scotland, 1997-2006
    1997 Reports Prosecutions Percentage of cases leading to prosecution Convictions Percentage of prosecutions leading to conviction Conviction rate (convictions as a percentage of reports) 570 68 12 31 46 5 2000 562 51 9 28 55 5 2003 794 86 11 47 55 6 2006 981 69 7 29 42 3

    Source: Walby et al. (2010: Table 5.6). Notes: Figures calculated by Walby et al. from Burman et al. (2009). Analysis is based on a calendar year.

    254

    The Prohibition on Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment HRA, Article 3

    Table 128: Serious sexual offences brought to justice, England and Wales, 2009-101 Serious sexual offences brought to justice compared with the volume of serious sexual recorded crime2. Latest data3: year ending June 2010.
    Recorded crime4 12 months ending September 2009 Number 37,040 12 months ending September 2010 40,142 Offences brought to justice (OBTJ)5, 6 12 months ending September 2009 11,768 12 months ending September 2010 12,303

    Source: MoJ (2011c). Notes: 1 Serious sexual offences includes: rape, sexual activity involving a child under 13, sexual assault on a male, sexual assault on a female, causing sexual activity without consent, sexual activity, etc. with a person with a mental disorder, abuse of children through prostitution and pornography, trafficking for sexual exploitation. 2 Comparing the volume of OBTJ with the volume of recorded crime provides a proxy measure of the effectiveness of the criminal justice system in bringing crime to justice. However, there are differences in how recorded crime and OBTJ are measured that mean caution must be taken when comparing the two. For example: an offence may be brought to justice in a different period to the corresponding recorded crime; one crime could result in a number of offenders brought to justice (for example, a gang committing a burglary), and a crime recorded by the police as one offence may, once all the evidence has been considered, be subsequently brought to justice as an alternative offence. 3 Recorded crime data shown as available at 21 January 2011 and OBTJ data shown as available at 2 February 2011. 4 England and Wales data excludes British Transport Police. 5 OBTJ numbers are in part affected by the number of recorded crimes in an area. If recorded crime in an area falls there will be fewer offences which can potentially be brought to justice. 6 OBTJ numbers for 2010 are provisional unvalidated data from the courts and police. These are provided as management information and are likely to change. Bringing offences to justice is one measure of the effectiveness of the CJS. An offence is said to have been brought to justice when a recorded crime results in an offender being convicted, cautioned, issued with a penalty notice for disorder or a cannabis warning, or having an offence taken into consideration at court. The number of Offences Brought to Justice (OBTJs) is in part affected by the number of recorded crimes in an area. If recorded crime in an area falls there will be fewer offences which can potentially be brought to justice. Comparing the volume of OBTJs with the volume of recorded crime provides a proxy measure of the effectiveness of the CJS in bringing crime to justice. However, there are differences in how recorded crime and OBTJs are measured that mean caution must be taken when comparing the two. For example: an offence may be brought to justice in a different period to the corresponding recorded crime; one crime could result in a number of offenders brought to justice (e.g. a gang committing a burglary); and a crime recorded by the police as one crime (e.g. Grievous Bodily Harm) may, once all the evidence has been considered, be subsequently brought to justice as an alternative offence (e.g. Actual Bodily Harm). England and Wales data excludes British Transport Police. 255

    Table 129: Violence against the person and sexual offences brought to justice, offence type, England and Wales, 1998-99 2009-101, 2, 3
    19992000 Number of offences (thousands) 215 16 Percentage of all offences brought to justice (%) 20 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 21 21 22 15 14 15 15 15 16 17 17 17 223 213 216 236 259 329 412 464 460 407 17 369 18 200001 200102 200203 200304 200405 200506 200607 200708 200809 200910

    Type of offence

    199899

    Violence against the person

    Sexual offences

    Violence against the person

    23
    24 29 31

    33 1

    32 1

    29 1

    29 1

    Sexual offences

    Source: MoJ (2010f).

    Notes:

    The Prohibition on Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment HRA, Article 3

    256

    1 Figures for 2009-10 are provisional.

    2 Excludes British Transport Police.

    3 Excludes Lincolnshire Cautions data for January to March 2010.

    Bringing offences to justice is one measure of the effectiveness of the CJS. An offence is said to have been brought to justice when a recorded crime results in an offender being convicted, cautioned, issued with a penalty notice for disorder or a cannabis warning, or having an offence taken into consideration at court. OBTJ numbers are in part affected by the number of recorded crimes in an area. If recorded crime in an area falls there will be fewer offences which can potentially be brought to justice. Comparing the volume of OBTJ with the volume of recorded crime provides a proxy measure of the effectiveness of the criminal justice system in bringing crime to justice. However, there are differences in how recorded crime and OBTJ are measured that mean caution must be taken when comparing the two. For example: an offence may be brought to justice in a different period to the corresponding recorded crime; one crime could result in a number of offenders brought to justice (for example, a gang committing a burglary); and a crime recorded by the police as one crime (for example, GBH) may, once all the evidence has been considered, be subsequently brought to justice as an alternative offence (for example, ABH). England and Wales data excludes British Transport Police.

    The Prohibition on Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment HRA, Article 3

    Table 130: Pre-charge decisions: the percentage of defendants who were charged with domestic violence or rape, by crime type, England and Wales, 2007-08 2009-101, 2
    2007-08 Volume Domestic violence Rape 47,115 2,220 % 63.6 38.8 2008-09 Volume 52,418 2,565 % 65.2 38.9 2009-10 Volume 57,256 2,798 % 62.8 36.4

    Source: CPS (2010a). Notes: 1 Pre-charge decisions are shown inclusive of cases in which the outcome of the decision was not fully captured in CPS records. The present figures therefore differ from those in the 2007-08 report. 2 CPS records include no indication of pre-charge decisions regarding sexual offences, as a principal offence category is allocated to cases only at the conclusion of prosecution proceedings. Table 131: Reports and convictions for rape, Scotland, 1999-2000-2006-07
    19992000 Reported rape and attempted rape Convictions for rape and attempted rape Percentage of reported rapes resulting in convictions 2000-01 200102 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07

    755

    690

    788

    924

    1,037

    1,109

    1,161

    1,123

    48

    52

    67

    55

    58

    70

    61

    58

    6.4

    7.5

    8.5

    6.0

    5.6

    6.3

    5.3

    5.2

    Source: Walby et al. (2010), Table 5.7. Notes: Data from the Scottish Government. This data was constructed by Walby et al. (2010) from data on the number of reports and convictions published by the Scottish Government. This method of estimating the percentage of reported rapes resulting in convictions has been used by Walby in a previous report.

    257

    The Prohibition on Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment HRA, Article 3

    Table 132: Number and outcomes in rape charges reported from 2006-07, Scotland
    Reports submitted to the procurator fiscal including at least one charge of rape Number of charges of rape reported to the procurator fiscal Number of charges of rape indicted for trial Charges incited as a percentage of charges reported to the procurator fiscal Outcomes in rape charges Found guilty of charge Pled guilty to charge Pled guilty to an alternative sexual charge Found guilty of an alternative sexual charge Found guilty of alternative non-sexual charge Total convictions Convictions as a percentage of rape charges indicted Convictions as a percentage of rape charges reported by the police Found not proven Found not guilty No further action by prosecution Withdrawn from jury by judge or prosecutor Plea of not guilty accepted by prosecutor No case to answer Total non-convictions Non-convictions as a percentage of rape charges indicted Non-convictions as a percentage of rape charges reported by police Total not concluded Total 12 172 45 31 17 7 4 3 107 62% 16% 32 13 6 1 1 53 31% 8% 515 656 172 26%

    Source: Walby et al. (2010: Table 5.8) based on data from the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service. Notes: Rape charges (any charge containing allegation of rape, not including charges of attempted rape or assault with intent to rape) reported by police to the procurator fiscal by outcome. The number of reports is smaller than the number of charges since a report can contain more than one charge and relate to more than one accused.

    258

    The Prohibition on Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment HRA, Article 3

    Table 133: Completed prosecutions by outcomes: percentage convicted of domestic violence, sexual offences excluding rape, or rape, by crime type, England and Wales, 2007-08 2009-10
    2007-08 Volume Domestic violence Sexual offences excluding rape Rape 43,977 5,976 2,021 % 68.9 73.5 57.7 2008-09 Volume 48,465 5,955 2,018 % 72.2 75.1 57.7 2009-10 Volume 53,347 6,060 2,270 % 72.0 76.0 59.4

    Source: CPS (2010a). Table 134: Pre-charge decisions: the percentage of defendants charged with a hate crime, by hate crime type, England and Wales, 2007-08 2009-101
    2007-08 Volume Racially and religiously aggravated Homophobic and transphobic Disability 9,115 758 187 % 70.1 62.2 67.0 2008-09 Volume 8,673 710 292 % 73.2 65.1 65.8 2009-10 Volume 9,214 907 506 % 71.3 66.1 70.3

    Source: CPS (2010b). Notes: 1 Figures included in the 2007-08 report are exclusive of those cases in which the outcome of the decision was not fully captured in CPS records. For the sake of completeness, these outcomes have been added in the present report. The above figures therefore differ from those in the 2007-08 report. Table 135: Completed prosecutions by outcomes: Percentage convicted of a hate crime, by hate crime type, England and Wales, 2007-08 2009-10
    2007-08 Volume Racially and religiously aggravated Homophobic and transphobic Disability 10,398 778 141 % 79.9 78.2 77.0 2008-09 Volume 9,576 815 299 % 82.4 80.5 76.1 2009-10 Volume 9,993 929 483 % 82.4 80.6 75.7

    Source: CPS (2010b).

    259

    The Prohibition on Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment HRA, Article 3

    Table 136: Race crime statistics, Scotland, 2003-04 2008-09


    2003-04 Number of charges Percentage of charges where courts proceedings taken Percentage of charges dealt with by alternative direct measure (eg warning, fine) Percentage not proceeding or awaiting decision 3,322 2004-05 4,019 2005-06 4,287 2006-07 4,367 2007-08 4,394 2008-09 4,319

    85

    85

    86

    89

    88

    88

    Source: Walby et al. (2010: Table 5.17) based on data from the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service. Notes: * Missing. This information is taken from police reports submitted to procurators fiscal in Scotland. The figures relate to the number of charges. Table 137: Religiously aggravated crime statistics, Scotland, 2003-04 2008-09
    2003-04 Number of charges Percentage of charges where courts proceedings taken Percentage of charges dealt with by alternative direct measure (eg warning, fine) Percentage not proceeding or awaiting decision 272 2004-05 479 2005-06 704 2006-07 699 2007-08 608 2008-09 669

    96

    96

    96

    95

    91

    93

    Source: Walby et al. (2010: Table 5.18) based on data from the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service. Notes: * Missing. This information is taken from police reports submitted to procurators fiscal in Scotland. The figures relate to the number of charges.

    260

    The Prohibition on Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment HRA, Article 3

    Table 138: Elder abuse and neglect in the private household population The National Centre for Social Research (NatCen) and Kings College London (KCL) were commissioned to conduct a piece of qualitative research into the abuse and neglect of older people in the UK.310 The sample was weighted to be representative of older adults across the UK; over 2,100 adults aged 66 and over living in private households (including sheltered accommodation) in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland participated in the survey. The research was conducted through faceto-face interviews. There are five definitions of mistreatment in the report, taken from a Department of Health sponsored review of the research literature (McCreadie, 1996): Neglect repeated deprivation of assistance needed by the older person for important activities of daily living (McCreadie, 1996), for example, repeated failure of a designated care-giver to provide help with personal care and day to day activities. Financial abuse the unauthorised and improper use of funds, property or any resources of an older person (McCreadie, 1996), for example, theft, fraud or misuse of power of attorney. Psychological abuse the persistent use of threats, humiliation, bullying, swearing and other verbal conduct, and/or of any other form of mental cruelty that results in mental or physical distress (McCreadie, 1996), for example, persistent insults, threats and belittlement. Physical abuse the non-accidental infliction of physical force that results in a bodily injury, pain or impairment (McCreadie, 1996), for example, physical violence, physical restraint or over-medication. Sexual abuse direct or indirect involvement in sexual activity without consent (McCreadie, 1996), for example, verbal harassment, touching in a sexual way or intercourse without consent.

    261

    The Prohibition on Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment HRA, Article 3

    Results Overall, 2.6 per cent of participants reported that they had experienced mistreatment involving a family member, friend or care worker during the reference year, which equates to approximately 227,000 people aged 66 and over in the UK. When mistreatment is expanded to include incidents with neighbours and acquaintances, the prevalence rises from 2.6 per cent to 4.0 per cent, increasing the population figure to about 342,400 older people being subject to some form of mistreatment. The most common type of mistreatment reported was neglect (1.1 per cent). Of those, 85 per cent had not received help with a day to day activity, 41 per cent had not received help with personal care and 20 per cent had not received help with taking their medication at the right time. Neglect dominates the prevalence figures for those who are aged 85 and over, especially for women. Although numbers are small, spouses or partners emerge as the main perpetrators of neglect (with family members following closely). The authors suggest that this might not be deliberate neglect but the consequence of two people with increasing disabilities trying to support each other. The other categories of mistreatment were reported as follows: financial abuse (0.7 per cent), psychological abuse (0.4 per cent), physical abuse (0.4 per cent) and sexual abuse (reported cases were classified as harassment due to their nature being the less serious end of abuse (OKeeffe et al., 2007: 42). Recorded reports included being spoken to in a sexual way that made the person feel uncomfortable and being touched sexually against their will (0.2 per cent) (OKeeffe et al., 2007: 42).). Fifty-one per cent of mistreatment in the reference year involved a spouse/partner, 49 per cent another family member, 13 per cent a care worker and five per cent a close friend. Mistreatment varied significantly by gender (3.8 per cent of women compared to 1.1 per cent of men had experienced mistreatment), marital status (9.4 per cent of those who were separated or divorced compared to 1.4 per cent of those who were widowed) and whether the individual had a declining health status, depression and/or loneliness. Three-quarters of those asked said the effect of the mistreatment was either serious (43 per cent) or very serious (33 per cent). Full details of the report can be obtained online from the NatCen website at: www.elderabuse.org.uk/AEA%20Services/Useful%20downloads/Prevalence/ Prevalence%20Report-Full.pdf (accessed October 2011). Source: OKeeffe et al. (2007).

    Indicator 19: Denial of basic needs


    Treatment of older people in health and social care. For relevant statistical evidence on malnutrition and dehydration by place, and variations in support for eating by age during hospital stays, see Tables 28, 29, 30, 31, 304, and 305.

    262

    Indicator 20: Spotlight statistics: Public attitudes, understanding and experiences


    Age Social grade Region

    Table 139: Public attitudes toward the right not to be tortured or degraded: Liberty polling exercise

    Gender

    Total Male 93 120 116 93% 98% 97% 93% 88% 183 260 272 178 196 96% 232 91% 122 134 192 76% 50 56 62 40 16% 12 6% 5 4% 10 5% 4 2% 4 1% 10 3% 4 1% 17 8% 11 5% 8 3% 18 8% 12 5% 7 3% 152 178 161 144 195 265 282 195 204 244 160 190 170 150 210 270 290 210 230 254 264 252 96% 238 90% 177 67% 61 23% 14 5% 8 3% 163 194 184 159 207 376 198 157 269 259 252 253 251 233 93% 224 89% 173 69% 51 20% 9 4% 13 5%

    Female

    1824 65+ AB C1 C2 DE Midlands

    2534

    3544

    4554

    5564

    South East

    North England

    Wales and South West Scotland 145 144 135 94% 132 92% 102 71% 30 21% 3 2% 4 3% 91 87 82 95% 80 92% 49 57% 31 35% 2 2% 4 4% Continued

    Unweighted base

    1,000

    434

    566

    Weighted base

    1,000

    490

    510

    Net: Of use at all

    946

    457

    489

    Net: Of use at all 108 148 173 156 139

    The Prohibition on Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment HRA, Article 3

    263
    87% 96% 94% 85% 85% 135 216 223 86 115 132 120 105 64% 80% 77% 58% 58% 48 45 21 32 41 35 34 23% 17% 17% 27% 27% 9 7% 3 3% 2% 3% 4 6 7 4% 3% 3% 3% 3% 4 5 5 5

    95%

    93%

    96% 97% 95% 94% 94% 96%

    Net: Vital/ important

    906

    434

    473

    Net: Vital/ important

    91%

    89%

    93% 90% 92% 91% 92% 93%

    Vital4

    694

    340

    354

    69%

    69%

    69% 72% 72% 70% 71% 70%

    Important3

    213

    94

    118

    21%

    19%

    23% 18% 20% 22% 21% 23%

    Useful2

    40

    23

    17

    4%

    5%

    3%

    Unnecessary1

    36

    24

    12

    4%

    5%

    2%

    Table 139: Public attitudes toward the right not to be tortured or degraded: Liberty polling exercise (continued)
    Age Social grade Region

    Gender

    Total Male 4 3.50 3.76 3.72 3.40 3.41 0.81 0.55 0.59 0.85 0.89 0.06 0.03 0.04 0.07 0.06 0.04 0.70 0.74 0.05 3.66 3.57 3% 3% 1% 1% 3% * 1% 2% 4% 1% 1% 2% 3.56 0.80 0.05 5 2 1 5 1 4 4 9 3 4 5

    Female

    1824 65+ AB C1 C2 DE Midlands 5 3% 3.66 0.66 0.06

    2534

    3544

    4554

    5564

    South East

    North England

    Wales and South West Scotland 1 1% 3.46 0.75 0.08

    Dont know

    18

    2%

    2%

    2%

    Mean

    3.59

    3.56

    3.63 3.59 3.67 3.62 3.60 3.60

    Standard deviation

    0.74

    0.80

    0.67 0.75 0.65 0.71 0.75 0.73

    Standard error

    0.02

    0.04

    0.03 0.08 0.05 0.05 0.06 0.06

    Base: All respondents

    The Prohibition on Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment HRA, Article 3

    264

    Note: Respondents were asked the following question [several rights were actually listed and respondents responses to each right are shown in the relevant chapter]: In modern Britain, would you say each of the following rights are vital, important, useful, or unnecessary? The right not to be tortured or degraded.

    Source: Liberty (2011).

    The Prohibition on Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment HRA, Article 3

    Chapter notes
    172

    Libertys definition is deliberate transfer of detainees to foreign countries for interrogation, in the knowledge that they may be tortured, including use of UK airspace and territory, and compliance by UK security forces The status of UN treaty ratification is drawn from the UN Treaty Database, www.unhchr. ch/tbs/doc.nsf/Statusfrset?OpenFrameSet (accessed 4 November 2010). The status of European treaty ratification is drawn from the Council of Europe Treaty Office website, conventions.coe.int/ (accessed 4 November 2010). When a state signs an international treaty this signals its preliminary endorsement of the treaty, it does not create a binding legal obligation. A state which ratifies or accedes to a treaty is asserting that it considers itself to be legally bound by the treaty. Ratification requires the state to have previously signed the treaty, whereas accession is a single step which does not require previous signing. It should be noted that a treaty which has been acceded to or ratified by the UK does not automatically become part of domestic law; separate legislative action is required to incorporate international law into domestic law (for example, the HRA making the ECHR enforceable in the UK). Nonetheless, ratification or accession is a states expression that it consents to be legally bound by the treaty, including respecting and implementing its provisions. www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/Pays?ReadForm&c=GB cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentId=695590&portal=hbkm&sourc e=externalbydocnumber&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649 cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentId=695881&portal=hbkm&sourc e=externalbydocnumber&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649 www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2003/1507. html&query=Koci&method=boolean www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2003/1507. html&query=Koci&method=boolean cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentId=695912&portal=hbkm&sourc e=externalbydocnumber&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649 cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentId=835780&portal=hbkm&sourc e=externalbydocnumber&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/SIAC/2010/77_2009.html cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentId=695464&portal=hbkm&sourc e=externalbydocnumber&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649 cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentId=695681&portal=hbkm&sourc e=externalbydocnumber&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649 cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentId=696109&portal=hbkm&sourc e=externalbydocnumber&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649 cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentId=695383&portal=hbkm&sourc e=externalbydocnumber&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649 www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldjudgmt/jd051103/adam-1.htm cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentId=697332&portal=hbkm&sourc e=externalbydocnumber&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649 cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentId=851046&portal=hbkm&sourc e=externalbydocnumber&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649 cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentId=698658&portal=hbkm&sourc e=externalbydocnumber&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649 cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentId=699398&portal=hbkm&sourc e=externalbydocnumber&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649 The cases highlighted in this section are drawn from The Stern Review, beneaththewig.com/ wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Stern_Review_acc_FINAL4.pdf, pp 126-128 cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentId=696248&portal=hbkm&sourc e=externalbydocnumber&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649

    173

    174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192

    265

    The Prohibition on Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment HRA, Article 3

    193 194 195 196 197 198 199

    200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216

    217 218 219 220 221

    cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentId=695480&portal=hbkm&sourc e=externalbydocnumber&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649 cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentId=698325&portal=hbkm&sourc e=externalbydocnumber&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649 cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentId=695658&portal=hbkm&sourc e=externalbydocnumber&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649 cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentId=725056&portal=hbkm&sourc e=externalbydocnumber&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649 www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/1973/2.html cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentId=697442&portal=hbkm&sourc e=externalbydocnumber&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649 www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2003/167.html&query=title+( +R+)+and+title+(+v+)+and+title+(+East+)+and+title+(+Sussex+)+and+title+(+County+)+and +title+(+Council+)&method=boolean www.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/R_(B)_v_DPP_(2009)_EWHC_106_(Admin) www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld199899/ldjudgmt/jd990324/pino1.htm cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentId=699319&portal=hbkm&sourc e=externalbydocnumber&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649 cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentId=696138&portal=hbkm&sourc e=externalbydocnumber&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649 cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentId=876980&portal=hbkm&sourc e=externalbydocnumber&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649 cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentId=870103&portal=hbkm&sourc e=externalbydocnumber&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649 www.courtsni.gov.uk/en-GB/Judicial%20Decisions/PublishedByYear Documents/2005/2005%20NIQB%2080/j_j_GIRF5249.htm cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentId=725269&portal=hbkm&sourc e=externalbydocnumber&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649 cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentId=725056&portal=hbkm&sourc e=externalbydocnumber&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649 www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/P739.html cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentId=697485&portal=hbkm&sourc e=externalbydocnumber&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649 cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentId=852284&portal=hbkm&sourc e=externalbydocnumber&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649 www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200607/ldjudgmt/jd071024/somerv.pdf www.taylorkelly.co.uk/prison-law/segregation/ cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentId=845733&portal=hbkm&sourc e=externalbydocnumber&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649 www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt200506/jtselect/jtrights/185/185-ii.pdf The Optional Protocol of the Convention Against Torture requires that states designate an NPM to carry out visits to places of detention, to monitor the treatment of and conditions for detainees and to make recommendations regarding the prevention of ill-treatment. The UKs NPM is currently made up of 18 visiting or inspecting bodies in the four different nations of the UK, covering all forms of detention such as prisons, police custody, immigration detention centres, childrens secure accommodation and mental health institutions. The NPM is coordinated by HMIP. www.justice.gov.uk/about/hmi-prisons/preventive-mechanism.htm www.justice.gov.uk/guidance/prison-probation-and-rehabilitation/psipso/psos.htm (accessed 3 October2011). www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt200708/jtselect/jtrights/65/6503.htm (accessed 3 February 2011). www.justice.gov.uk/guidance/prison-probation-and-rehabilitation/psipso/psos.htm www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1967/58/section/3 (accessed 3 February 2011).

    266

    The Prohibition on Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment HRA, Article 3

    222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252

    www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/police/operational-policing/safer-detentionguidance?view=Binary www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/police/operational-policing/pace-codes/pace-code-c (accessed 3 February 2011). www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/police/operational-policing/pace-codes/pace-code-h (accessed 3 February 2011). www.mentalhealthalliance.org.uk/policy/documents/LordsCtteeStage_136_Briefing.pdf (accessed 3 February 2011). www3.imperial.ac.uk/pls/portallive/docs/1/51771696.pdf www.scie.org.uk/publications/reports/report26.pdf (accessed 3 February 2011). www.scie.org.uk/publications/misc/dementia/dementia-guideline.pdf (accessed 3 February 2011). www.cambridgeshire.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/46979CAB-51B2-4305-B64B-E520165D56D7/0/ Restraint.pdf November 2007 (accessed 3 February 2011). www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/PublicationsPolicyAndGuidance/ DH_085476 (accessed 3 February 2011). www.scie.org.uk/publications/reports/report26.pdf, p 35 (accessed 3 February 2011). www.dhsspsni.gov.uk/restraint_and_seclusion_august_2005.pdf (accessed 3 February 2011). www.nmc-uk.org/Documents/Guidance/Guidance-for-the-care-of-older-people.pdf www.scie.org.uk/publications/guides/guide15/index.asp www.scie.org.uk/publications/elearning/restraint/index.asp Downloadable from: www.rcn.org.uk/development/practice/dignity/uk_wide_dignity_ resources/standards_and_guidance www.dignityincare.org.uk/_library/Resources/Dignity/OtherOrganisation/Walk_a_mile_in_my_ shoes.pdf www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/PublicationsPolicyAndGuidance/ DH_119969 www.mwcscot.org.uk/web/FILES/Publications/Rights_Risks.pdf www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/273938/0081867.pdf (accessed 6 July 2010). webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20100418065544/http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/ documents/vawg-strategy-2009/ (accessed 6 July 2010). wales.gov.uk/docs/dsjlg/publications/commsafety/100325besafefinalenv1.pdf (accessed 6 July 2010). cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentId=695590&portal=hbkm&sourc e=externalbydocnumber&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649 cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentId=695881&portal=hbkm&sourc e=externalbydocnumber&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649 www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2003/1507. html&query=Koci&method=boolean cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentId=695912&portal=hbkm&sourc e=externalbydocnumber&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649 cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentId=835780&portal=hbkm&sourc e=externalbydocnumber&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/SIAC/2010/77_2009.html cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentId=695464&portal=hbkm&sourc e=externalbydocnumber&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649 cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentId=695681&portal=hbkm&sourc e=externalbydocnumber&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649 cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentId=696109&portal=hbkm&sourc e=externalbydocnumber&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649 cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentId=695383&portal=hbkm&sourc e=externalbydocnumber&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649

    267

    The Prohibition on Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment HRA, Article 3

    253 254 255 256 257 258 259

    260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287

    www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldjudgmt/jd051103/adam-1.htm cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentId=697332&portal=hbkm&sourc e=externalbydocnumber&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649 cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentId=698658&portal=hbkm&sourc e=externalbydocnumber&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649 cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentId=698325&portal=hbkm&sourc e=externalbydocnumber&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649 www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/1973/2.html cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentId=697442&portal=hbkm&sourc e=externalbydocnumber&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649 www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2003/167.html&query=title+( +R+)+and+title+(+v+)+and+title+(+East+)+and+title+(+Sussex+)+and+title+(+County+)+and +title+(+Council+)&method=boolean www.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/R_(B)_v_DPP_(2009)_EWHC_106_(Admin) www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld199899/ldjudgmt/jd990324/pino1.htm www.courtsni.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/5E5FD8F0-33D2-4ED6-BEFC-67ACF9A371EA/0/j_j_ GIRF5249.htm www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/P739.html www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200607/ldjudgmt/jd071024/somerv.pdf www.justice.gov.uk/inspectorates/hmi-prisons/docs/National_Preventive_Mechanism_ Annual_report_2009-2010(web).pdf (accessed 8 February 2011). www.equalityhumanrights.com/news/2010/september/commission-advises-government-thattorture-guidance-may-breach-the-law/ www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt200809/jtselect/jtrights/152/15202.htm (accessed 3 February 2011). www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt200809/jtselect/jtrights/152/15203.htm www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt200809/jtselect/jtrights/152/15205.htm www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt200809/jtselect/jtrights/152/15205.htm www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt200809/jtselect/jtrights/152/15205.htm www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt200809/jtselect/jtrights/152/15205.htm www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt200809/jtselect/jtrights/157/157.pdf www.equalityhumanrights.com/uploaded_files/humanrights/hrc13_torture_statement.pdf www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11762636 www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt200607/jtselect/jtrights/156/156i.pdf (accessed 9 November 2011). www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/crc/docs/AdvanceVersions/CRC.C.GBR.CO.4.pdf daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N09/555/92/PDF/N0955592.pdf?OpenElement www.taylorkelly.co.uk/prison-law/slopping-out/ (accessed 25 January 2011). www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/13session/A-HRC-13-42.pdf, p 82. www.reprieve.org.uk/2010_01_27_un_report www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/13session/A-HRC-13-42.pdf (accessed 15 February 2011). download.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/intelligence/pm-letter-gibson.pdf (accessed 15 February 2011). www.mi5.gov.uk/output/intelligence-and-security-committee-special-reports.html (accessed 3 October 2011). www.statewatch.org/news/2007/jul/uk-intel-sec-cttee-rendition-prel.pdf (accessed 15 February 2010). www.justice.gov.uk/inspectorates/hmi-prisons/docs/National_Preventive_Mechanism_ Annual_report_2009-2010(web).pdf (accessed 8 February 2011). www.justice.gov.uk/inspectorates/hmi-prisons/docs/HMIP_AR_2008-9_web_published_rps.pdf (accessed 10 February 2011).

    268

    The Prohibition on Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment HRA, Article 3

    288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310

    Ibid, p 24. www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/research/pdf_res_notes/rn00-34.pdf www.audit-scotland.gov.uk/docs/central/2008/nr_080508_prisoner_numbers.pdf webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.imb.gov.uk/docs/In-Cell_Sanitation_Report_ V2_Aug_10.pdf (accessed 18 October 2011). www.acpo.police.uk/documents/edhr/2010/201010EDHREHR01.pdf (accessed 10 February 2011). beneaththewig.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Stern_Review_acc_FINAL4.pdf www.dh.gov.uk/prod_consum_dh/groups/dh_digitalassets/documents/digitalasset/ dh_102981.pdf (accessed 27 June 2011). caredirectory.cqc.org.uk/_db/_documents/1-116865865_Castlebeck_Care_(Teesdale)_Ltd_1138702193_Winterbourne_View_RoC_20110517_201107183026.pdf, p 5 (accessed 20 July 2011). www.ombudsman.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0016/7216/Care-and-Compassion-PHSO0114web.pdf (accessed 9 November 2011). www.cqc.org.uk/newsandevents/newsstories.cfm?widCall1=customWidgets.content_ view_1&cit_id=37384 (accessed 5 July 2011). www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/4ce139192.html, pp 35-6 (accessed 15 February 2011). www.amnesty.org/en/library/info/EUR45/015/2010/en www.amnesty.org/en/library/info/EUR01/012/2010/en www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/EUR45/001/2010/en/6b65c47e-c1a1-42e6-b382eae6a948b42a/eur450012010en.pdf (accessed 15 February 2011). www.reprieve.org.uk/static/downloads/2009_11_09REPORTONSCOTTISHINVOLVEME NT.__.pdf (accessed 16 February 2011). www.elderabuse.org.uk/AEA%20Services/Useful%20downloads/Prevalence/Prevalence%20 Report-Full.pdf (accessed 27 June 2011). www.ageuk.org.uk/Documents/EN-GB/ID9489%20HTBH%20Report%2028ppA4. pdf?dtrk=true, p24 (accessed 5 July 2011). www.stonewall.org.uk/documents/sexual_orientation_hate_crimes_paper.pdf (accessed 17 March 2011). www.spectrum-lgbt.org/downloads/reports/equality_review_trans.pdf www.gires.org.uk/assets/Medpro-Assets/GenderVarianceUK-report.pdf www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b011pwt6 (accessed 5 July 2011). www.cqc.org.uk/newsandevents/pressreleases.cfm?cit_id=37463&FAArea1=customWidgets. content_view_1&usecache=false (accessed 20 July 2011). www.elderabuse.org.uk/AEA%20Services/Useful%20downloads/Prevalence/Prevalence%20 Report-Full.pdf

    269

    Chapter 7
    The Right to Liberty and Security of the Person (Human Rights Act, Article 5)

    Please read Part II Guidance on using and interpreting the Human Rights Measurement Framework first.

    The Right to Liberty and Security of the Person (Human Rights Act (HRA), Article 5)

    Panel and indicators


    Effective and speedy review of deprivation of liberty by courts Other

    Protection of the right to liberty and security of the person by the state, its agents or bodies fulfilling a public function Administrative

    Indicators

    Exercise of powers of arrest and/or detention

    Police and criminal justice system

    The Right to Liberty and Security of the Person HRA, Article 5

    Structural (indicators of commitment in principle)

    Indicator 21: Legal and constitutional framework Protection of the right to liberty and security of the person in domestic law (including constitutional/higher law) Status of ratification of relevant international treaties

    Indicator 22: Legal precedents, gaps and standard-setting Principles established in key cases (domestic and ECHR) and international standard-setting processes Gaps in protection and non-implementation of legal judgements and recommendations

    272

    Process (indicators of steps taken including legal, regulatory and public policy measures)

    Indicator 23: Regulatory framework Key regulators, inspectorates, ombudsmen and other mechanisms for complaints handling Relevant responsibilities and powers, national minimum standard frameworks and inspection/complaints-handling criteria

    Indicator 24: Public policy framework Primary law Codes and guidance (for example, training, guidance and strategies provided to military, police, medical and other personnel who have powers of detention, Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE)) Other relevant policies, plans, targets and goals Spotlight resource allocations

    Outcome (indicators of the position of individuals and groups in practice/ emergence of a human rights culture)

    Indicator 25: Outcomes of key judicial, regulatory and investigative processes The right to liberty and security of the person: Case law outcomes Detention covering formal and informal detention mechanisms: Judicial review of deprivation of liberty (the number of cases where the right of appeal has overturned a decision to detain using deprivation of liberty safeguards (England and Wales) and outcomes for other bodies for example, parole boards, mental health review tribunals, asylum and immigration tribunals. Also extraterritorial dimensions detention in an armed forces context and where the UKs armed forces are in effective control Key concerns raised by human rights monitoring bodies Outcomes of inspection, regulation and complaints procedures that engage Article 5 Outcomes of independent inquiries and investigations that engage Article 5 Wrongful convictions and criminal appeals Key allegations by private individuals and civil society organisations/reports in the media

    273

    Indicator 26: Spotlight statistics: Deprivation of liberty custodial context Criminal cases decisions on bail/remand: timings, number of applications granted/refused Numbers held in detention pre-charge for over 24 and 48 hours, including numbers eventually released and charged Use of informal detention powers Number of applications for compensation and percentage of successful applications for compensation for deprivation of liberty Numbers released on bail by the court after arrest, having initially being denied bail by the police Length of time from charge to eventual determination of case, for those in custody and on bail

    The Right to Liberty and Security of the Person HRA, Article 5

    Indicator 27: Spotlight statistics: Deprivation of liberty noncustodial context Use of Anti-Social Behaviour Orders (ASBOs), control orders, bind-overs, house detention and other noncustodial measures and administrative orders(NB Intro Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures ) Numbers held in detention following breach of the above Exercise of stop and search powers: Administrative source (broken down by powers/legislation) and general population source for prevalence, numbers of subsequent arrests/charges and convictions Number of substantiated complaints made to the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) due to a breach of PACE (England and Wales) Containment/kettling Awards of damages for unlawful arrest/detention(includes criminal justice, police, prisons, health)

    Panel and indicators (continued)

    Outcome (indicators of the position of individuals and groups in practice/ emergence of a human rights culture)

    Indicator 28:Spotlight statistics: Administrative detention mental health detention and issues of capacity/consent Number of people detained or sectioned under the Mental Health Act/Mental Health (Care and Treatment)(Scotland) Act Consent status of those in mental health or learning difficulties services Number of people resident in a care home or hospital as a result of the deprivation of liberty safeguards (England and Wales) Variations in the routes to mental health and learning difficulties institutions

    Indicator 29: Spotlight statistics: Detention within the asylum and immigration system Numbers entering and leaving immigration and asylum detention centres (with separate reporting for children and young people)

    Indicator 30: Spotlight statistics: Public attitudes, understanding and experiences Public attitudes towards the right to liberty and security of the person as a right you do have and you should have

    The Right to Liberty and Security of the Person HRA, Article 5

    Indicators should be systematically disaggregated Key disaggregation characteristics include ethnicity/race, gender, disability, sexual orientation, transgender, religion and belief, age, social class, area (region, urban/rural, remoteness) with separate reporting of the non-private household population and at risk/vulnerable groups including individuals staying in/resident/detained in public and private institutions; individuals living in poverty; refugees/asylum seekers, vulnerable children and young people (for example, children in need, looked after children, children who are carers), Gypsies and Travellers, etc.

    274

    The Right to Liberty and Security of the Person HRA, Article 5

    Evidence base
    Structural indicators Indicator 21: Legal and constitutional framework
    Table 140: Protection of the right to liberty and security of the person (including constitutional/higher law) UK HRA, Article 5. Table 141: Status of ratification of relevant international treaties311 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) Article 9 ratified. ICCPR First Optional Protocol not ratified (individual complaints mechanism). ECHR and Protocols 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 10, 11, 13 and 14 ratified. Convention on the Rights of the Child ratified.

    Indicator 22: Legal precedents, gaps and standard-setting


    Table 142: Principles established in key cases (domestic and ECHR) Detention must have a clear legal basis and must be proportionate S v Miller (No 2) [2001] SLT 1304 The Court ruled that a secure accommodation order made under the Children (Scotland) Act 1995, following upon determination that a child had committed an offence, was regarded as falling under the heading of educational supervision, thus emphasising that juvenile justice proceedings are considered to be essentially welfare rather than criminal in nature (Miller et al., 2004).312

    Entitlement to have detention reviewed by a court or independent tribunal. Brogan v UK no. 11209/84 [1988] ECHR313 the European Court of Human Rights found that under Article 5, prompt appearance before a court requires periods of detention to be reviewed by a judicial officer before they are reviewed and extended by a member of the executive. Stafford v UK (GC) no. 46295/99 [2002] ECHR314 The European Court of Human Rights determined that once the penal element of a life sentence had been served, namely the minimum term set by the court at sentence, detention must and can only then be justified on the grounds of ongoing danger to the public; risk of further violent offending. Whether or not such a justification existed must be determined by a judicial body. Detention could not be justified on the grounds of a risk of nonviolent reoffending.

    275

    The Right to Liberty and Security of the Person HRA, Article 5

    Right of review of lawfulness of deprivation of liberty; requirement for speedy review De Wilde Ooms and Versyp v Belgium nos. 2832/66, 2835/66, 2899/66 [1971] ECHR315 The European Court of Human Rights found a violation of Article 5.4 as the applicants had no remedy open to them before a court against the decisions ordering their detention. HL v UK no. 45508/99 [2004] ECHR316 The European Court of Human Rights found that there had been a violation of Article 5.1 as regards the lack of protection against arbitrary detention; and that the applicant had not had available to him a procedure which satisfied the requirements of Article 5.4. Sanchez-Reisse v Switzerland no. 9862/82 [1986] ECHR317 The European Court of Human Rights found that there had been a violation of Article 5.4 on account of the failure to take decisions speedily. The court noted that the requirement for decisions to be taken speedily cannot be defined in abstract, and must be determined in light of the circumstances of each case.

    Deprivation of liberty and access to bail Caballero v UK no. 32819/96 [2000] ECHR318 The European Court of Human Rights found that the removal of right to bail constituted a violation of Article 5.

    Detention of people on mental health grounds R v Mental Health Review Tribunal, North and East London Region, ex parte H [2001] EWCA Civ 415319 The Court of Appeal reversed the burden of proof to the effect that it is for the mental health review tribunal to discharge a patient if it cannot be shown that they are currently suffering from a mental disorder which warrants detention otherwise there is a breach of Article 5(1)(e) and the need for detention in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law. Anderson v Scottish Ministers (Scotland) [2001] UKPC D5320 The Privy Council upheld the provisions of the Mental Health Public Safety and Appeals (Scotland) Act 1999 against a challenge that they were beyond the competence of the Scottish Parliament because they were inconsistent with Article 5. The Act provides for the continuing detention of people in hospital where the Scottish ministers are satisfied that detention is necessary to protect the public from serious harm (Miller et al., 2004).321

    276

    The Right to Liberty and Security of the Person HRA, Article 5

    HL v the UK no. 45508/99 [2005] ECHR322 (the Bournewood Case) The European Court of Human Rights found that the practice of informal admission of compliant but incapacitated adults was, de facto, detention but without recourse to the protection set out in mental health law for formally detained patients. This practice was not in accordance with a procedure described by law and thus breached Article 5. The Court distinguished between the doctrine of necessity which applies only in an emergency and de facto detention beyond the period which can strictly be called an emergency where the procedural safeguards that apply to formal detention should be accorded.

    Care arrangements and deprivations of liberty RK & YB v BCC [2010] EWHC 3355 (COP) (Fam)323 In a case determining whether the placement in a care home of a 17 year old with severe disabilities constituted a deprivation of liberty, the High Court held that there was no deprivation of liberty, either on the facts, or as a matter of law. Where a child is placed under Section 20 of the Childrens Act 1989 and the parents have a right under Section 20(8) of the Childrens Act 1989 to refuse consent to the placement, there can be no deprivation of liberty.

    Stop and search R (on the application of Gillan) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2004] EWCA Civ 1067324 The Court of Appeal found that the power to stop and search under terrorism legislation did not generally involve a deprivation of liberty. However, the European Court ruled in Gillan and Quinton v UK no. 4158/05 [2010] ECHR325 that the coercive element of the search was indicative of deprivation of liberty.

    Policing of protests Austin v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis [2009] UKHL 5326 In a case concerning the police tactic of kettling, the House of Lords considered the dividing line between deprivation of liberty and restriction of liberty, determining that Article 5 only protects the former. The House of Lords found that the use of the tactic of containment by the police in respect of policing demonstrations did not engage Article 5 as it was not a deprivation of liberty. The House of Lords emphasised that whether or not a situation amounted to a deprivation of liberty as opposed to a restriction of movement was a matter of degree and intensity and was highly fact-sensitive. See also R (on the application of Joshua Moos and Hannah McClure v Commissioner of the Police for the Metropolis [2011] EWHC 957 (Admin).327

    277

    The Right to Liberty and Security of the Person HRA, Article 5

    Control orders deprivation of liberty aspects Secretary of State for Home Department v JJ & Others [2007] UKHL 45328 The House of Lords found that the terms of a control order were incompatible with the individuals right to liberty under Article 5 The effect of the 18-hour curfew, coupled with the effective exclusion of social visitors, meant that the controlled persons were in practice in solitary confinement for this lengthy period every day for an indefinite duration, with very little opportunity for contact with the outside world, with means insufficient to permit provision of significant facilities for selfentertainment and with knowledge that their flats were liable to be entered and searched at any time. Their lives were wholly regulated by the Home Office, as a prisoners would be, although breaches were much more severely punishable. A & others v UK (GC) no. 3455/05 [2009] ECHR329 The European Court of Human Rights found that the applicants had been unlawfully detained in breach of their rights under Article 5. The European Court of Human Rights also found that the use of special advocates, closed hearings and lack of full disclosure in the proceedings before a special immigration appeals commission did not enable the applicants to effectively address the charges against them, in breach of the requirements of Article 5.4.

    Non-discrimination A & others v UK (GC) no. 3455/05 [2009] ECHR330 The European Court of Human Rights held that the detention of foreign terror suspects under a derogating measure permitting their indefinite detention discriminated unjustifiably between nationals and non-nationals in breach of Article 5.1 [Note: this is a leading case on liberty and non-discrimination].

    Sentencing Thynne, Wilson and Gunnell v UK nos. 11787/85; 11978/86; 12009/86 [1990] ECHR331 The European Court of Human Rights held that there must be periodic reviews of the lawfulness of detention during the post-tariff (minimum term) stage of a life sentence, which was later also recognised to be necessary in cases of mandatory life sentenced prisoners (see Stafford v UK, above). Also in the case of R (on the application of Sim) v Parole Board & Anor [2003] EWHC 152 Admin332 it was found that in cases of extended sentences where a person is detained on the grounds of ongoing dangerousness there must, likewise, be periodic reviews.

    Jurisdiction R (on the application of Al-Jedda) v Secretary of State for Defence [2007] UKHL 58333 The House of Lords found that where British forces were detaining people overseas, they had to ensure that the detainees rights under the ECHR were not infringed.

    278

    The Right to Liberty and Security of the Person HRA, Article 5

    Table 143: Principles established in international standard setting processes UNHRC General Comment 8334 Applicable to all deprivations of liberty, including mental illness, vagrancy, drug addiction, educational purposes, immigration control, etc. Some provisions of Article 9 are only applicable to those against whom a criminal charge has been made. However, the right to control by a court of the legality of detention is applicable to all. Preventative detention for reasons of public security must not be arbitrary and must be subject to legal and procedural controls.

    ASBOs The United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) expressed concern at the application to children of the Anti-Social Behaviour Orders (ASBOs), which are civil orders posing restrictions on childrens gathering, which may convert into criminal offences in case of their breach. The Committee is further concerned: At the ease of issuing such orders, the broad range of prohibited behaviour and the fact that the breach of an order is a criminal offence with potentially serious consequences; That ASBOs, instead of being a measure in the best interests of children, may in practice contribute to their entry into contact with the criminal justice system; That most children subject to them are from disadvantaged backgrounds.335 The UNCRC recommended that the UK conduct an independent review of ASBOs, with a view to abolishing their application to children. Table 144: Gaps in legal protection Individual complaint under ICCPR First Optional Protocol. Table 145: The right to right to liberty and security of the person nonimplementation of legal judgments and recommendations Gillan and Quinton v UK no. 4158/05 [2010] ECHR336 The European Court of Human Rights found that stop and search powers under Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 were too broadly drawn and there were inadequate protections against abuse. The legislation is currently under review by the UK Government.337

    279

    The Right to Liberty and Security of the Person HRA, Article 5

    Process indicators Indicator 23: Regulatory framework


    Table 146: List of key regulators, inspectors, complaint handling mechanisms, etc. IPCC Police Complaints Commissioner for Scotland (PCCS) Care Quality Commission (CQC) (detention under the Mental Health Act) Authorisation of Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards Court of Protection (England and Wales) Office of the Public Guardian Criminal Cases Review Commission Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission Parole Board for England and Wales National Mental Health Development Unit Independent Mental Health Advocacy services

    Indicator 24: Public policy framework


    Table 147: The right to the right to liberty and security of the person policy guidance and training guidelines Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and PACE Code of Practice338 PACE Code A Stop and Search (updated 6 March 2011). Mental Capacity Act 2005: Deprivation of liberty safeguards339 Code of Practice to supplement the main Mental Capacity Act 2005 Code of Practice. Mental Health (Care and Treatment) (Scotland) Act 2003340 Code of Practice.

    280

    The Right to Liberty and Security of the Person HRA, Article 5

    Outcome indicators Indicator 25: Outcomes of key judicial, regulatory and investigative processes
    Table 148: Violations of the right to liberty and security of the person: case law outcomes Detention must have a clear legal basis and must be proportionate S v Miller (No 2) [2001] SLT 1304341 No violation of Article 5 (see Table 142).

    Entitlement to have detention reviewed by a court or independent tribunal Brogan v UK no. 11209/84 [1988] ECHR342 Violation of Articles 5.3 and 5.5; no violation of Articles 5.1 and 5.4 (see Table 142). Stafford v UK (GC) no. 46295/99 [2002] ECHR343 Violation of Articles 5.1 and 5.4 (see Table 142).

    Right of review of lawfulness of deprivation of liberty; requirement for speedy review HL v UK no. 45508/99 [2004] ECHR344 Violation of Articles 5.1 and 5.4 (see Table 142).

    Deprivation of liberty and access to bail Caballero v UK no. 32819/96 [2000] ECHR345 Violation of Articles 5.3 and 5.5 (see Table 142).

    Detention of people on mental health grounds R v Mental Health Review Tribunal, North and East London Region, ex parte H [2001] EWCA Civ 415346 Violation of Article 5.1(e) as there is a need for detention to be in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law (see Table 142). Anderson v Scottish Ministers (Scotland) [2001] UKPC D5347 No violation of Article 5 (see Table 142).

    Care arrangements and deprivations of liberty RK & YB v BCC [2010] EWHC 3355 (COP) (Fam)348 No deprivation of liberty (see Table 142).

    281

    The Right to Liberty and Security of the Person HRA, Article 5

    Stop and search R (on the application of Gillan) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2004] EWCA Civ 1067349 The power to stop and search under terrorism legislation did not generally involve a deprivation of liberty. However, Gillan and Quinton v UK no. 4158/05 [2010] ECHR350 Whilst noting that the coercive element of the search was indicative of deprivation of liberty the European Court of Human Rights did not make a ruling on Article 5; however,it ruled that the stop and search measures were a violation of Article 8 (see Indicator 22 and Table 142).

    Policing of protests Austin v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis [2009] UKHL 5351 The containment of protesters was held to be lawful (see Indicator 22 and Table 142). R (on the application of Joshua Moos and Hannah McClure v Commissioner of the Police for the Metropolis [2011] EWHC 957 (Admin)352 The Court found that the containment of the Climate Camp and the pushing operation to move the crowd were not lawful police operations (see Indicator 22 and Table 142).

    Control orders deprivation of liberty aspects Secretary of State for Home Department v JJ & Others [2007] UKHL 45353 The terms of a control order were incompatible with the individuals right to liberty under Article 5 (see Indicator 22 and Table 142).

    Non-discrimination A & others v UK (GC) no. 3455/05 [2009] ECHR354 Violation of Articles 5.1), 5.4 and 5.5 (see Indicator 22 and Table 142).

    Sentencing Thynne, Wilson and Gunnell v UK nos. 11787/85; 11978/86; 12009/86 [1990] ECHR355 Violation of Articles 5.4 and 5.5 (see Table 142). R (Sim) v Parole Board & Anor [2003] EWHC 152 Admin356 No violation of Article 5 (see Table 142).

    Jurisdiction R (on the application of Al-Jedda) v Secretary of State for Defence [2007] UKHL 58357 No violation of Article 5.1 (see Table 142).

    282

    The Right to Liberty and Security of the Person HRA, Article 5

    Table 149: Key concerns raised by human rights monitoring bodies Domestic Joint Committee on Human Rights (JCHR) (2010c), Counter-Terrorism Policy and Human Rights (Seventeenth Report): Bringing human rights back in358, 9 March 2010, documented concerns about the implementation of counter-terrorism policy including the use of secret evidence, control orders and pre-charge detention. The report noted the JCHRs longstanding concerns that the current arrangements for judicial authorisation of extended pre-charge detention are not compatible with the right to a judicial determination of the lawfulness of detention and will lead in practice to breaches of the right to liberty in Article 5 ECHR in individual cases. The JCHR recommended that: (1) Schedule 8 of the Terrorism Act 2000 is amended to make clear that the extension judge must apply an evidential test when deciding whether or not to extend pre-charge detention; and (2) Code H of the PACE Codes of Practice be amended to explain to police why Article 5 ECHR is relevant to extensions of pre-charge detention and what its requirements are, and to make clear that continued detention of terrorism suspects is likely to become unlawful if the suspects are not told clearly the offences they are suspected of committing and the reasons for the suspicions leading to their arrests. JCHR (2009), Childrens Rights359, October 2009, noted its concerns about the high numbers of children in detention in the UK: We would like to see a real reduction in the numbers of children being detained in the UK each year. There is a lack of clarity about the trends in the incidence of child detention, both on remand and sentenced. We are also concerned that some very vulnerable children are significantly more likely to be detained than others. We urge the Government to comply fully with its obligations under the Convention, in particular to ensure that custody is only used as a measure of last resort and to address the reasons for the over-representation of certain groups of children in detention. JCHR (2010a), Legislative Scrutiny: Crime and Security Bill; Personal Care at Home Bill; Children, Schools and Families Bill. Twelfth Report of Session 2009-10360, recommended that specific guidance be introduced on the use of stop and search powers in relation to children. Mental Welfare Commission for Scotland, Autonomy, benefit and protection. How human rights can protect people with mental health conditions or learning disabilities from unlawful deprivation of liberty361, argued that the establishment of a human rights culture could help ensure that respect for dignity and autonomy becomes embedded in care practice.

    283

    The Right to Liberty and Security of the Person HRA, Article 5

    International The UNCRC expressed concern that: As also acknowledged recently by the Human Rights Committee,asylumseeking children continue to be detained, including those undergoing an age assessment, who may be kept in detention for weeks until the assessment is completed; There is a lack of data on the number of children seeking asylum; There is no independent oversight mechanism, such a guardianship system, for an assessment of reception conditions for unaccompanied children who have to be returned; Section 2 of the 2004 Asylum and Immigration Act permits the prosecution of children over the age of 10 if they do not possess valid documentation upon entry to the United Kingdom.362 UNHRC (2010), Joint study on global practices in relation to secret detention in the context of countering terrorism, of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism, Martin Scheinin; the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Manfred Nowak; the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention represented by its Vice-Chair, Shaheen Sardar Ali; and the Working Group on enforced or involuntary disappearances represented by its chair, Jeremy Sarkin, 19 February 2010363, detailed allegations that the UK knowingly took advantage of the situation of secret detention, including in the cases of including Binyam Mohamed, Salahuddin Amin, Zeeshan Siddiqui, Rangzieb Ahmed and Rashid Rauf.364 Reprieve notes that the report includes: Confirmation that the UK knew about US renditions practices from 2002, yet continued to hand vulnerable prisoners to US custody with no process until well into 2004; Confirmation that the UK knowingly received information obtained from prisoners being interrogated in US ghost detention; Numerous cases showing that the UK took advantage of illegal secret detention practices over at least three continents by colluding in torture; Unanswered questions in relation to the number of prisoners held by torturous Arab regimes at the request of the UK.365 See Table 83 for further details.

    284

    The Right to Liberty and Security of the Person HRA, Article 5

    Disproportionate detention by ethnicity HM Inspectorate of Prisons (HMIP) Youth Justice Board (2008), Children and Young People in Custody 2006-2008, noted that the disproportionate representation of black and minority ethnic young people in custody had worsened: 29% of young men and 23% of young women were from black and minority ethnic backgrounds.366

    Table 150: Outcomes of inspection, regulation and complaints procedures that engage Article 5 The Independent Review of Counter-Terrorism Legislation Lord Carliles Operation Pathway Report Following Review (Carlile, 2009)367, November 2009. The JCHR (2010b) noted that the report, incorporating a detailed review of the way in which the procedures for extending pre-charge detention operated in practice, confirms many of our concerns about the adequacy of the safeguards in that process and the risk of breaches of Article 5 ECHR unless the procedures are reformed to ensure that suspects are told clearly the offences they are suspected of having committed and the reasons for the suspicions leading to their arrest.368 The reports recommendations include: that the police and the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) should take immediate steps to ensure that their procedures reflect the need for legal advice to the police at an early stage expert CPS lawyers should be informed, well before arrests take place, of ongoing inquiries likely to result in arrests, and asked to advise on the state of the intelligence, information and evidence as the inquiry progresses and all police officers involved in counter-terrorism policing should be trained in the law of arrest and its potential effect on detentions under the Terrorism Act there should be better recording of custody officers reviews and their decisions consideration should be given to amending the Terrorism Act 2000 to allow the granting of bail by a judge for a period up to the 28th day following arrest, subject to the full range of conditions available in general crime and in relation to control orders.

    285

    The Right to Liberty and Security of the Person HRA, Article 5

    The Governments Review of Counter-Terrorism and Security Powers. Review Report and Recommendations369 was presented to parliament in January 2011 (HM Government, 2011). The review considered six key counter-terrorism and security powers, and found that in some areas our counter-terrorism and security powers are neither proportionate nor necessary. The recommendations included a return to 14 days as the standard maximum period that a terrorism suspect can be detained before they are charged or released; an end to the indiscirminate use of terrorism stop and search powers provided under Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000; and the end of control orders and their replacement with a less intrusive and more focused regime (p 5). Mental Health Commission Report (2009), Coercion and Consent. Monitoring the Mental Health Act 2007-2009370, 2009, detailed a number of issues and recommendations in relation to the detention of patients under the Mental Health Act. CQC (2010d), Monitoring the use of the Mental Health Act in 2009/10. The Care Quality Commissions first report on the exercise of its functions in keeping under review the operation of the Mental Health Act 1983371, included the CQCs finding on three key areas: use of control, restraint and seclusion; consent to treatment; and community treatment orders.

    For further relevant evidence under this Indicator see Table 78. Table 151: Key concerns and allegations raised by private individuals and civil society organisations/reports in the media Liberty Liberty (July 2010), Terrorism pre-charge detention. Comparative law study372, noted that Detaining people for 28 days without charge inevitably leads to injustice, and undermines our ability to fight terrorism by winning hearts and minds. It also flies in the face of the British tradition of liberty and justice. This report presents comparative evidence to show that 28 day pre-charge detention is unnecessary.

    Amnesty International Amnesty International (2010a), Europe: Open Secret: Mounting Evidence of Europes Complicity in Rendition and Secret Detention, November 2010, detailed a number of notorious cases of alleged abuse involving the UK (see Table 86 for details). Amnesty International (2010b), Submission for the Review of Counter Terrorism and Security Powers, September 2010, outlined Amnesty Internationals primary concerns in relation to the control orders regime; the use of diplomatic assurances in the context of national security deportations; the 28 day limit for pre-charge detention of people suspected of terrorism-related activity; and the use of stop and search powers under Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000.373

    286

    The Right to Liberty and Security of the Person HRA, Article 5

    Indicator 26: Spotlight statistics: Deprivation of liberty Custodial context


    Table 152: Average waiting times in the crown court for cases committed for trial1 by remand status, weeks,England and Wales, 2005-092
    Remand status3 Year 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Custody 13.1 14.0 12.8 12.4 12.3 Bail 17.1 18.4 18.2 17.2 17.0 All cases4 15.7 16.9 16.3 15.4 15.4

    Source: Ministry of Justice (MoJ) (2010f). Notes: 1 From committal by magistrates courts to the start of the main crown court hearing. 2 The use of different counting rules impacts on the tables issued in previous editions of criminal statistics and means that the data for earlier years are not directly compatible. 3 The defendants remand status at the start of the first crown court hearing. 4 Excludes bench warrant issued, no plea recorded, indictment to lie on file, found unfit to plead, and other. Table 153: Defendants proceeded against at magistrates courts average time for criminal cases from offence to completion by offence type, England and Wales, 2005-09
    Offence type Indictable offences (including triable either way) 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 122 123 118 112 111 Average number of days

    Source: MoJ (2010j). Notes: See the original data source for details of changes in survey methodology affecting the consistency and interpretation of the data in this table.

    287

    Table 154: Population in prison establishments, by type of custody, sentence length and gender: total for age group 15-17 year olds, England and Wales, 2002-2008
    2003 Male 2,176 452 316 136 1,724 0 401 251 923 134 15 0 1 1 1 1 15 0 4 139 5 143 17 3 37 871 25 886 30 1 0 2 4 265 9 254 3 254 911 138 43 1 11 416 19 481 21 468 13 6 29 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 57 1,706 58 1,780 55 1,814 50 1,827 0 457 258 923 120 69 2 8 169 9 145 4 188 5 164 12 322 10 326 11 367 14 361 20 491 18 471 15 555 19 525 19 14 5 56 0 20 3 26 4 3 0 78 2,198 77 2,254 72 2,370 70 2,354 75 2,456 580 360 219 1,876 0 467 277 906 144 81 1 Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Female 70 14 6 8 57 0 20 7 24 6 0 0

    2002

    Male 115 13 5 8 103 0 22 20 55 5 1 0

    Female

    Total 15-17 year olds in prison, of which:

    2,477

    Remand

    490

    Untried

    304

    Convicted unsentenced

    186

    Under sentence

    1,986

    The Right to Liberty and Security of the Person HRA, Article 5

    Fine defaulter

    Less than or equal to 6 months

    413

    288

    Greater than 6 months to less than 12 months

    282

    12 months to less than 4 years

    1,105

    4 years or more (excluding Indeterminate)

    159

    Indeterminate sentences

    27

    Non-criminal prisoners

    Source: MoJ (2008b), derived from Table 7.1.

    Notes:

    1 Data sources and quality: These figures have been drawn from administrative IT systems. Care is taken when processing and analysing the returns, but the detail collected is subject to the inaccuracies inherent in any large scale recording system, and so although shown to the last individual, the figures may not be accurate to that level. See Technical appendix of report for fuller information.

    The Right to Liberty and Security of the Person HRA, Article 5

    Table 155: Number of children accommodated in secure childrens homes 2002-2010 by gender, age, length of stay, and type of placement
    Coverage: England only numbers At 31 March Number of places approved Number of children accommodated Occupancy rate (%) Number of places contracted to Youth Justice Board Gender Male Female Age Aged under 12 Aged 12 Aged 13 Aged 14 Aged 15 Aged 16 Aged 17 Aged 18 and over x x 65 105 125 70 20 0 x 15 65 120 125 65 x 0 5 25 60 130 100 60 15 0 10 20 40 120 100 50 5 x x 10 40 100 90 45 10 0 x x 35 95 90 55 5 0 x x 35 90 90 40 10 0 0 5 30 95 80 45 15 0 x 5 30 65 85 35 15 0 0 x 19 43 68 56 x 0 285 115 275 125 270 130 215 130 190 105 195 90 175 90 175 100 145 95 134 68 2002 425 2003 425 2004 435 2005 385 2006 370 2007 370 2008 325 2009 320 2010 295 2011 292

    395

    400

    400

    345

    300

    290

    265

    275

    240

    202

    93

    94

    92

    90

    80

    78

    81

    85

    80

    69

    235

    230

    270

    220

    220

    220

    210

    205

    175

    173

    Continued

    289

    The Right to Liberty and Security of the Person HRA, Article 5

    Table 155: Number of children accommodated in secure childrens homes 2002-2010 by gender, age, length of stay, and type of placement (continued)
    Coverage: England only numbers At 31 March Length of stay Under 1 month 1 to < 3 months 3 to < 6 months 6 to < 12 months 12 to < 24 months 24 months or more Type of placement Child detained or sentenced and placed by the Youth Justice Board Child placed by local authority in a criminal justice context Child placed by local authority on welfare grounds 90 130 90 65 x x 100 120 65 90 x x 90 130 110 50 20 x 90 115 85 45 15 x 85 85 70 45 10 x 85 90 65 35 15 x 60 105 50 40 10 x 65 95 65 40 10 0 50 80 50 45 15 x 41 71 47 28 x x 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

    ..

    ..

    ..

    ..

    ..

    180

    180

    160

    115

    129

    ..

    ..

    ..

    ..

    ..

    30

    20

    25

    30

    13

    ..

    ..

    ..

    ..

    ..

    75

    60

    90

    95

    60

    Source: Department for Education (2011c) www.education.gov.uk/rsgateway/DB/SFR/ s001027/index.shtml (accessed 21 September 2011). Notes: .. Unavailable. Collected for the first time in 2007. For 2010 and earlier: x represents less than or equal to 5 Numbers have been rounded to the nearest 5 For 2011: x represents a number between 1 and 5 inclusive To protect the number, secondary suppression may be required in some cases.

    290

    The Right to Liberty and Security of the Person HRA, Article 5

    Indicator 27: Spotlight statistics: Deprivation of liberty Noncustodial context


    Table 156: Stop and search of people under Section 1 of PACE, and other legislation, (total numbers and per 1,000 population) by self-defined ethnicity, England and Wales, 2007-08
    Self-defined ethnicity White British Irish Other Mixed White and Black Caribbean White and Black African White and Asian Other Asian or Asian British Indian Pakistani Bangladeshi Other Black or Black British Caribbean African Other Chinese or other Chinese Other Not stated Total 15 49 -22 3,028 9,814 72,388 1,035,438 121 88 380 62,694 39,008 33,587 20 42 61 95 19,011 27,420 15,781 21,172 62 35 15 53 13,530 2,557 2,581 7,594 16 12 39 649,424 7,217 48,632 Per 1,000 population Number

    Source: MoJ (2009a), Tables 4.1b and 4.2b. Notes: 1 Refers to the Metropolitan Police (but includes the City of London). 2 Caution should be exercised when using these per 1,000 population figures as they rely on estimates of the black and minority ethnic (BME) population based on the ethnicity breakdown of the population from the 2001 census.

    291

    The Right to Liberty and Security of the Person HRA, Article 5

    Table 157: Percentage of stop and search under Section 1 of PACE and other legislation resulting in an arrest, ethnic appearance, England and Wales, 2006-07 2007-08
    Ethnic appearance of person searched White 2006-07 2007-08 Black 2006-07 2007-08 Asian 2006-07 2007-08 Other 2006-07 2007-08 Total1 2006-07 2007-08 12 11 14 13 10 10 12 12 12 12 Stop and searches (%)

    Source: MoJ (2009a), Table 4.4a. Notes: 1 Includes cases where ethnicity is unknown.

    292

    The Right to Liberty and Security of the Person HRA, Article 5

    Table 158: Percentage of stop and search under Section 1 of PACE and other legislation resulting in an arrest, by self-defined ethnicity, England and Wales, 200708
    Self-defined ethnicity White British Irish Other Mixed White and Black Caribbean White and Black African White and Asian Other Asian or Asian British Indian Pakistani Bangladeshi Other Black or Black British Caribbean African Other Chinese or other Chinese Other Not stated Total 19 12 9 11 13 13 10 10 9 10 10 13 15 12 12 12 15 12 Stop and searches (%)

    Source: MoJ (2009a), Table 4.4b.

    293

    The Right to Liberty and Security of the Person HRA, Article 5

    Table 159: Stop and search of people under Section 60 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, by ethnic appearance, England and Wales, 2007-08
    Self-defined ethnicity White Black Asian Other Unknown Total Stop and searches 35,973 11,837 4,125 433 757 53,125

    Source: MoJ (2009a), Table 4.5a. Table 160: Stop and search of people under Section 60 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, by self-defined ethnicity, England and Wales, 2007-08
    Self-defined ethnicity White British Irish Other Mixed White and Black Caribbean White and Black African White and Asian Other Asian or Asian British Indian Pakistani Bangladeshi Other Black or Black British Caribbean African Other Chinese or other Chinese Other Not stated Total 181 324 3,620 53,125 4,341 2,935 1,989 671 1,484 494 1,149 800 149 114 323 33,132 206 1,213 Stop and searches

    Source: MoJ (2009a), Table 4.5b.

    294

    The Right to Liberty and Security of the Person HRA, Article 5

    Table 161: Stop and search of people under Section 44 (1) and (2) of the Terrorism Act 2000, by ethnic appearance, England and Wales, 2006-07 2007-08
    Ethnic appearance of person searched White 2006-07 2007-08 Black 2006-07 2007-08 Asian 2006-07 2007-08 Other 2006-07 2007-08 Unknown 2006-07 2007-08 Total 2006-07 2007-08 37,197 117,278 490 1,398 1,638 5,927 5,505 20,768 3,602 15,218 25,962 73,967 Stop and searches

    Source: MoJ (2009a), Table 4.6a.

    295

    The Right to Liberty and Security of the Person HRA, Article 5

    Table 162: Stop and search of people under Section 44 (1) and (2) of the Terrorism Act 2000, by self-defined ethnicity, England and Wales, 2007-08
    Self-defined ethnicity White British Irish Other Mixed White and Black Caribbean White and Black African White and Asian Other Asian or Asian British Indian Pakistani Bangladeshi Other Black or Black British Caribbean African Other Chinese or other Chinese Other Not stated Total 1,558 3,527 12,700 117,278 3,969 5,844 2,809 6,080 3,713 2,364 6,461 564 293 516 1,417 42,886 1,296 21,281 Stop and searches

    Source: MoJ (2009a), Table 4.6b.

    296

    The Right to Liberty and Security of the Person HRA, Article 5

    Table 163: Stop and search of vehicle occupants under Section 441 of the Terrorism Act 2000 and resultant arrests, by ethnic appearance, England and Wales, 2007-08
    Ethnic appearance White Black Asian Other Unknown Total Searches N 42,006 8,753 10,878 2,773 807 65,217 % 64.4 13.4 16.7 4.3 1.2 100.0 Arrests in connection with terrorism N 13 9 10 1 1 34 % 38.2 26.5 29.4 2.9 2.9 100.0 Arrests for other reason N 293 165 130 64 13 665 % 44.1 24.8 19.5 9.6 2.0 100.0

    Source: MoJ (2009a), Table 4.7a. Table 164: Stop and search of vehicle and occupants under Section 441 of the Terrorism Act 2000 and resultant arrests, by self-defined ethnicity, England and Wales, 2007-08
    Self-defined ethnicity White British Irish Other Mixed White and Black Caribbean White and Black African White and Asian Other 27,641 672 9,649 42.4 1.0 14.8 4 0 5 11.8 0.0 14.7 148 12 94 22.3 1.8 14.1 Searches N % Arrests in connection with terrorism N % Arrests for other reason N %

    281

    0.4

    0.0

    0.9

    143 225 644

    0.2 0.3 1.0

    0 0 2

    0.0 0.0 5.9

    3 3 10

    0.5 0.5 1.5 Continued

    297

    The Right to Liberty and Security of the Person HRA, Article 5

    Table 164: Stop and search of vehicle and occupants under Section 441 of the Terrorism Act 2000 and resultant arrests, by self-defined ethnicity, England and Wales, 2007-08 (continued)
    Self-defined ethnicity Asian or Asian British Indian Pakistani Bangladeshi Other Black or Black British Caribbean African Other Chinese or Other Chinese Other Not stated Total 601 1,707 6,396 65,217 0.9 2.6 9.8 100.0 0 2 4 34 0.0 5.9 11.8 100.0 13 35 72 665 2.0 5.3 10.8 100.0 2,431 3,400 1,607 3.7 5.2 2.5 7 1 0 20.6 2.9 0.0 43 78 21 6.5 11.7 3.2 2,916 2,201 1,248 3,455 4.5 3.4 1.9 5.3 1 4 1 3 2.9 11.8 2.9 8.8 29 33 12 53 4.4 5.0 1.8 8.0 Searches N % Arrests in connection with terrorism N % Arrests for other reason N %

    Source: MoJ (2009a), Table 4.7b.

    298

    The Right to Liberty and Security of the Person HRA, Article 5

    Table 165: Stop and search of pedestrians under Section 442 of the Terrorism Act 2000 and resultant arrests by ethnic appearance, England and Wales, 2007-08
    Ethnic appearance White Black Asian Other Unknown Total Searches N 31,961 6,465 9,890 3,154 591 52,061 % 61.4 12.4 19.0 6.1 1.1 100 Arrests in connection with terrorism N 9 7 11 9 2 38 % 23.7 18.4 28.9 23.7 5.3 100 Arrests for other reason N 225 123 85 75 7 515 % 43.7 23.9 16.5 14.6 1.4 100

    Source: MoJ (2009a), Table 4.8a. Table 166: Stop and search of pedestrians under Section 442 of the Terrorism Act 2000 and resultant arrests, by self-defined ethnicity, England and Wales, 2007-08
    Self-defined ethnicity White British Irish Other Mixed White and Black Caribbean White and Black African White and Asian Other 15,245 624 11,632 29.3 1.2 22.3 3 0 4 7.9 0.0 10.5 85 5 81 16.5 1.0 15.7 Searches N % Arrests in connection with terrorism N % Arrests for other reason N %

    283

    0.5

    0.0

    0.6

    150 291 773

    0.3 0.6 1.5

    0 0 2

    0.0 0.0 5.3

    1 3 10

    0.2 0.6 1.9 Continued

    299

    The Right to Liberty and Security of the Person HRA, Article 5

    Table 166: Stop and search of pedestrians under Section 442 of the Terrorism Act 2000 and resultant arrests, by self-defined ethnicity, England and Wales, 2007-08 (continued)
    Self-defined ethnicity Asian or Asian British Indian Pakistani Bangladeshi Other Black or Black British Caribbean African Other Chinese or Other Chinese Other Not stated Total 957 1,820 6,304 52,061 1.8 3.5 12.1 100 2 3 6 38 5.3 7.9 15.8 100 14 37 97 515 2.7 7.2 18.8 100 1,538 2,444 1,202 3.0 4.7 2.3 3 2 0 7.9 5.3 0.0 32 44 23 6.2 8.5 4.5 3,164 1,512 1,116 3,006 6.1 2.9 2.1 5.8 4 3 0 6 10.5 7.9 0.0 15.8 22 12 9 37 4.3 2.3 1.7 7.2 Searches N % Arrests in connection with terrorism N % Arrests for other reason N %

    Source: MoJ (2009a), Table 4.8b.

    300

    The Right to Liberty and Security of the Person HRA, Article 5

    Table 167: Stop and accounts, total numbers and per 1,000 population aged 10 and over, by ethnic appearance, England and Wales, 2006-07 and 2007-08
    Ethnic appearance White 2006-07 2007-08 Black 2006-07 2007-08 Asian 2006-07 2007-08 Other 2006-07 2007-08 Unknown 2006-07 2007-08 Total 2006-07 2007-08 39 49 1,868,703 2,353,918 35,719 42,131 32 42 21,431 23,470 41 57 92,395 129,541 89 114 117,962 152,487 37 46 1,601,196 2,006,289 Per 1,000 population aged 10 and over Total numbers

    Source: MoJ (2009a), Tables 4.9 and 4.10. Notes: 1 Refers to the Metropolitan Police (but includes the City of London). 2 Caution should be exercised when using these per 1,000 population figures as they rely on estimates of the BME population based on the ethnicity breakdown of the population from the 2001 census.

    301

    The Right to Liberty and Security of the Person HRA, Article 5

    Table 168: Stop and search of people under Section 1 of the PACE, and other legislation, by ethnic appearance, England and Wales, 2007-08
    England and Wales Ethnic appearance White 738,505 Black 172,393 Asian 89,781 Other 17,755 Unknown 17,004 Total 1,035,438

    Source: MoJ (2009a),Table 4.1a. Table 169: Stop and search of people under Section 1 of PACE and other legislation per 1000 population, by ethnic appearance, 2006-07 2007-08
    Ethnic appearance of person searched England and Wales White 200607 16 200708 17 Black 200607 114 200708 129 Asian 200607 35 200708 40 Others 200607 27 200708 32 Total 200607 20 200708 22

    Source: MoJ (2009a), Table 4.2a. Notes: 1 Refers to the Metropolitan Police (but includes the City of London). 2 Caution should be exercised when using these per 1,000 population figures as they rely on estimates of the BME population based on the ethnicity breakdown of the population from the 2001 census.

    302

    The Right to Liberty and Security of the Person HRA, Article 5

    Table 170: Percentage of the population that self-report being stopped on foot or in vehicles, and are stopped and searched, in the last year, by age, gender, ethnicity, disability, religion and social class
    Percentage stopped on foot or in vehicle in last year (weighted) 28.1 12.4** 8.1** 3.3** 1.113.1 6.7** 9.4 12.3 9.4 17.4** 9.3 11.9 9.4** Percentage stopped in last year that were searched (weighted) 21.0 10.9** 6.2** 0** 17.6 4.5** 12.3 22.215.6 17.7 12.3

    Sample size Age 16-24 25-44 45-64 65-74 75+ Gender Male Female Ethnicity White Mixed Asian or Asian British Black or Black British Chinese/other Non-white White Disability No limiting longstanding illness or disability Limiting longstanding illness or disability 10,907 65 341 207 139 755 10,907 5,316 6,346 952 3,766 3,808 1,629 1,507

    Sample size 263 464 320 53 20A 694 426 1030 8A 32 36 13 90 1030

    9,190

    10.5

    968

    13.3

    2,458

    6.1**

    151

    9.5 Continued

    303

    The Right to Liberty and Security of the Person HRA, Article 5

    Table 170: Percentage of the population that self-report being stopped on foot or in vehicles, and are stopped and searched, in the last year, by age, gender, ethnicity, disability, religion and social class (continued)
    Percentage stopped on foot or in vehicle in last year (weighted) 9.9 9.9 14.0 9.512.98.1 8.9 16.3** Percentage stopped in last year that were searched (weighted) 9.9 17.2

    Sample size Religion Christian Buddhist Hindu Jewish Muslim Sikh Other No religion Social class Managerial and professional occupations Intermediate occupations Small employers and own account workers Lower supervisory and technical Semi-routine and routine Never worked and long-term unemployed Full-time student Not classified 9,156 65 98 41 206 42 64 1,969

    Sample size 777 9A 13A 6A 26A 2A 6A 279

    3,817 1,245

    9.9 9.2

    359 96

    6.6 7.7

    14.9** 12.7 9.3**

    12.2 12.0 12.1

    7.1 22.8** 2.4

    26.3

    Source: Alkire et al. (2009). Note: Authors preliminary calculations from the British Crime Survey England and Wales, 200708. ** Denotes statistical difference in percentage by group using ANOVA test.

    304

    Table 171: ASBOs issued1 at all courts, as reported to the Ministry of Justice2 by the Court Service, by age at date of issue, England and Wales, 1 April 1999 to 31 December 2009
    ASBOs issued

    Age group .. .. .. .. .. 41 64 104 104 137 350 427 1,349 3,479 11 6 6 8 53 72 4,122 151 170 713 2,086 2,469 89 125 503 1,541 1,839 23 62 45 210 545 630 430 1,195 1,625 27 2,705 62 193 251 628 1,340 1,581 1,053 40 130 174 466 1,013 1,168 775 709 920 374 988 1,362 17 2,299 18 52 72 144 299 378 265 200 4 11 5 18 28 35 13 11

    Total issued 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 8 181 530 719 341 963 1,304 4 2,027

    April 1999 May 2000

    June December 2000

    2009 8 113 380 501 294 875 1,169 1 1,671

    10-11

    141

    12-14

    1,722

    15-17

    5,385

    10-17 sub total

    7,248

    18-20

    2,954

    21+

    8,159

    18+ subtotal

    11,113

    305

    Age not known

    309

    Total all ages

    18,670

    Source: Home Office (2011), Table 1 (prepared by Justice Statistics Analytical Services within the MoJ).

    Notes:

    1 Includes ASBOs issued on application by magistrates courts acting in their civil capacity and county courts, which became available on 1 April 1999; and ASBOs made following conviction for a relevant criminal offence at the crown court and at magistrates courts (acting in their criminal capacity), which became available on 2 December 2002.

    2 Prior to the creation of the Ministry of Justice on 9 May 2007, the numbers of ASBOs issued were reported to the Home Office by the Court Service.

    The Right to Liberty and Security of the Person HRA, Article 5

    3 Not available; from 1 April 1999 to 31 May 2000 no details of the ages of ASBO recipients were collected.

    4 Note: Every effort is made to ensure that the figures presented are accurate and complete. However, it is important to note that these data have been extracted from large administrative data systems generated by the courts. As a consequence, care should be taken to ensure data collection processes and their inevitable limitations are taken into account when those data are used.

    Table 172: ISOs1 issued at all magistrates courts, in addition to an ASBO, as reported to the Ministry of Justice2 by the Court Service, England and Wales, 1 April 1999 to 31 December 2009
    All individuals aged 15-17 All individuals aged 10-17

    All individuals aged 10-14

    Year .. 22 * * 40 * * * * .. * *

    ISOs

    ASBOs issued on application 10-14 year olds at magistrates courts Percentage of ASBOs with an ISO attached ISOs ISOs Percentage of ASBOs with an ISO attached .. 62

    ASBOs issued on application 15 -17 year olds at magistrates courts

    ASBOs issued on application 10-17 year olds at magistrates courts

    Percentage of ASBOs with an ISO attached * *

    April 1999 May 2000

    The Right to Liberty and Security of the Person HRA, Article 5

    June 2000 December 2000 63 77 106 172 179 128 118 96 78 1,039 11 37 42 172 18 24 19 28 18 52 12 20 456 292 335 243 194 2,575 1 6 425 * * 287 * * 173 * * 130 * * * 1 4 18 8 10 22 7

    306

    2001

    * * * 7 42 75 50 41 71 286

    193 250 393 597 635 420 453 339 272 3,614

    * * * 1 7 18 11 12 26 8

    2002

    2003

    2004

    2005

    22

    2006

    23

    2007

    22

    2008

    17

    2009

    29

    Total

    114

    Source: Home Office (2011), Table 5 (prepared by Justice Statistics Analytical Services within the Ministry of Justice).

    Notes:

    1 ISOs are court orders only available for 10-17 year olds which can be attached to ASBOs made on application. ISOs impose positive conditions on the young person to address the underlying causes of the behaviour that led to their ASBO being issued. ISOs are available at magistrates courts only for juveniles (aged 10-17) with ASBOs issued on application. Commencement date 1 May 2004.

    2 Prior to the creation of the Ministry of Justice on 9 May 2007, numbers of ASBOs issued were reported to Home Office by the Court Service.

    3 Every effort is made to ensure that the figures presented are accurate and complete. However, it is important to note that these data have been extracted from large administrative data systems generated by the courts. As a consequence, care should be taken to ensure data collection processes and their inevitable limitations are taken into account when those data are used.

    4 * Not applicable ISOs became available from 1 May 2004.

    307
    The Right to Liberty and Security of the Person HRA, Article 5

    The Right to Liberty and Security of the Person HRA, Article 5

    Table 173: ASBOs issued at all courts1, as reported to the Ministry of Justice2 by the Court Service, by duration of order3, England and Wales, 2009
    ASBOs and percentages Duration of order 4 years and fewer Until Duration than 5 5 years further not years and over order reported Total5 2 8 5 1 1 113 5 9 10 380 10 12 11 501 4 23 9 294 35 154 77 875 39 177 86 1,169 49 189 97 1,671 4 1 2 1 4 3 3 25 1 2 2 8 18 15 11 1 3 2 3 9 7 6 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

    Period 2009

    Age group 10-11 12-14 15-17 10-17 18-20 21+ 18+ Total5

    2 years and fewer than 3 years 4 88 310 402 214 475 689 1,092 50 78 82 80 73 54 59 65

    3 years and fewer than 4 years 2 18 46 66 44 134 178 244 25 16 12 13 15 15 15 15

    per cent

    10-11 12-14 15-17 10-17 18-20 21+ 18+ Total5

    Source: Home Office (2011), Table 4 (prepared by Justice Statistics Analytical Services within the Ministry of Justice). Notes: 1 Includes ASBOs issued on application by magistrates courts acting in their civil capacity and county courts, which became available on 1 April 1999 and ASBOs made following conviction for a relevant criminal offence at the Crown Court and at magistrates courts (acting in their criminal capacity), which became available on 2 December 2002. 2 Prior to the creation of the Ministry of Justice on 9 May 2007, numbers of ASBOs issued were reported to Home Office by the Court Service. 3 ASBOs are made for a minimum duration of two years. 4 Totals include those ASBO recipients whose age was not reported to the Ministry of Justice (309 to the end of 2009).
    5 Not available. 6 Note: Every effort is made to ensure that the figures presented are accurate and complete. However, it is important to note that these data have been extracted from large administrative data systems generated by the courts. As a consequence, care should be taken to ensure data collection processes and their inevitable limitations are taken into account when those data are used.

    308

    The Right to Liberty and Security of the Person HRA, Article 5

    Table 174: ASBOs proven at all courts to have been breached, by type of sentence received, age group1 and sex, England and Wales, 1 June 2000 to 31 December 20092
    Individuals Age and gender 10-11 All offenders Males Females 12-14 All offenders Males Females 15-17 All offenders Males Females 18-20 All offenders Males Females 21+ All offenders Males Females 10-17 All offenders Males Females 3,298 2,982 316 83 68 15 158 143 15 1,505 1,343 162 1,332 1,233 99 220 195 25 Continued 4,638 3,853 785 78 59 19 380 309 71 668 509 159 2,950 2,512 438 562 464 98 2,444 2,265 179 36 30 6 178 170 8 547 495 52 1,237 1,179 58 446 391 55 2,675 2,418 257 65 52 13 144 129 15 1,191 1,063 128 1,111 1,025 86 164 149 15 592 534 58 14 12 2 13 13 291 258 33 221 208 13 53 43 10 31 30 1 4 4 1 1 23 22 1 3 3 Total ASBOs breached By severest type of sentence received during period Discharge Fine Community sentence Custody Other3

    309

    The Right to Liberty and Security of the Person HRA, Article 5

    Table 174: ASBOs proven at all courts to have been breached, by type of sentence received, age group1 and sex, England and Wales, 1 June 2000 to 31 December 20092 (continued)
    Individuals Age and gender 18+ All offenders Males Females All ages All offenders Males Females 10,380 9,100 1,280 197 157 40 716 622 94 2,720 2,347 373 5,519 4,924 595 1,228 1,050 178 7,082 6,118 964 114 89 25 558 479 79 1,215 1,004 211 4,187 3,691 496 1,008 855 153 Total ASBOs breached By severest type of sentence received during period Discharge Fine Community sentence Custody Other3

    Source: Home Office (2011), Table 12 (prepared by Justice Statistics Analytical Services within the Ministry of Justice). Notes: 1 Age group is determined by age at the date of appearance in court, on which the severest penalty for breach of an ASBO was received, not the date on which the ASBO was issued. 2 Excludes data for Cardiff magistrates court for April, July, and August 2008. 3 The category other includes: one day in police cells, disqualification order, restraining order, confiscation order, travel restriction order, disqualification from driving, and recommendation for deportation and other miscellaneous disposals. 4 Some figures may not sum due to rounding. 5 ASBO breach data are compiled by matching records of ASBOs issued with ASBOs breached. The nature of this matching process means that previously published ASBO breach data are subject to minor revision. Every effort is made to ensure that the figures presented are accurate and complete. However, it is important to note that these data have been extracted from large administrative data systems generated by the courts and police forces. As a consequence, care should be taken to ensure data collection processes and their inevitable limitations are taken into account when those data are used.

    310

    Indicator 28: Spotlight statistics: Administrative detention Mental health detention and issues of capacity/consent

    Table 175: Number of authorisations granted or not granted under the deprivation of liberty safeguards assessments, by age, gender, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, disability, length of authorisation, England,2010
    65-74 Not granted Granted 393 16.85% Female Not granted 520 22.29% 29.66% 23.23% Mixed Other White background Not granted Granted 41 1.76% 1.29% 30 Granted 4 0.17% 13 0.56% Not granted

    18-64 Not granted Granted 343 14.7% 10.46% 244 325 13.93% Not granted

    75-84

    85+

    Age 170 6.09% 142

    Granted

    Not granted

    Granted

    England total

    365

    351

    15.65% Male Granted 692 542 Not granted

    15.05%

    7.29%

    Gender

    Granted

    311
    White and Black Caribbean Not granted 2 0.09% Granted 2 0.09%

    England total

    579

    24.82%

    White

    Ethnicity

    British

    Irish

    White and Black African Not granted 0 0.0%

    White and Asian Granted 1 0.04% Not granted 0 0.0%

    Other Mixed background Granted 2 0.09% Not granted 1 0.04% Continued

    Granted

    Not granted

    Granted

    England total

    1110

    918

    24

    The Right to Liberty and Security of the Person HRA, Article 5

    47.58%

    39.35%

    1.03%

    Table 175: Number of authorisations granted or not granted under the deprivation of liberty safeguards assessments, by age, gender, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, disability, length of authorisation, England, 2010 (continued)
    Black or Black British Bangladeshi Granted 3 0.13% 0.26% 0.3% 0.09% 0.69% 0.6% 0.34% 6 7 2 16 14 8 Not granted Granted Granted Granted 10 0.43% Not granted Not granted Not granted Other Asian background Caribbean African Other Black background Granted 1 0.04% Not granted 2 0.09%

    Asian or Asian British

    Ethnicity Not granted 5 0.21%

    Indian

    Pakistani

    Granted

    Not granted

    Granted

    England total

    15

    0.21%

    0.64%

    0.34%

    Other ethnic groups Other ethnic group Granted 4 0.17% Buddhist Granted 5 0.21% 3 0.13% Not granted Hindu Granted 4 0.17% Not granted 12 0.51% Continued 0.17% 1.5% 4 35 39 1.67% Not granted Granted Not granted Not stated2

    The Right to Liberty and Security of the Person HRA, Article 5

    Chinese

    312
    1 Christian Not granted 569 24.39% 720

    Ethnicity

    Granted

    Not granted

    England total

    0.0%

    0.04%

    None

    Religion

    Granted

    Not granted

    Granted

    England total

    110

    95

    4.71%

    4.07%

    30.86%

    Table 175: Number of authorisations granted or not granted under the deprivation of liberty safeguards assessments, by age, gender, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, disability, length of authorisation, England, 2010 (continued)
    Muslim Not granted Granted 2 0.09% Bisexual Granted 2 0.09% 0.0% 0.13% 0.04% 1.76% 0 3 1 41 Not granted Granted Granted 30 1.29% Not granted Not granted Other Prefer not to say 0.09% 0.73% 0.56% 16.5% 14.66% Not stated Granted 482 20.66% Not granted 437 18.73% 2 17 13 385 342 Granted Granted 16 0.69% Not granted Not granted Not granted Sikh Other religion Not stated

    Jewish

    Religion 15

    Granted

    Not granted

    Granted

    England total

    13

    10

    0.56%

    0.43%

    0.64%

    Heterosexual Not granted 4 0.17%

    Lesbian or gay

    Sexual orientation 2

    Granted

    Not granted

    Granted

    England total

    741

    590

    313
    Physical disability, frailty and/or sensory impairment of which: visual impairment Granted 7 Not granted 21 of which: dual sensory loss Granted 6 Not granted 11 Not granted 10 6

    31.76%

    25.29%

    0.09%

    of which: physical disability, frailty and/or temporary illness

    of which: hearing impairment

    Total Granted 222 Not granted 239 Continued

    Disability

    Granted

    Not granted

    Granted

    The Right to Liberty and Security of the Person HRA, Article 5

    England total

    203

    197

    Table 175: Number of authorisations granted or not granted under the deprivation of liberty safeguards assessments, by age, gender, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, disability, length of authorisation, England, 2010 (continued)
    Mental health Total Granted 855 668 194 155 Not granted Granted Not granted Total Learning disability

    of which: dementia Granted 161 152 Not granted

    of which: any other health problem

    Disability

    Granted

    Not granted

    England total

    694

    516

    The Right to Liberty and Security of the Person HRA, Article 5

    Length of authorisation (calendar days) 181 to 270 days Total 1,291 100.0% 155 12.01% 7.13% 6.97% 92 90 271 to 364 days 343

    0 to 90 days

    91 to 180 days

    365+ days (cumulative total)

    England total

    611

    314

    47.33%

    26.57%

    Source: The Health and Social Care Information Centre (2011).

    Notes:

    Quarterly data from 1 July 2010 and 30 September 2010. Data from the Mental Capacity Act 2005 Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (MCA DOLS) monitoring omnibus collection.

    1 Transgendered individuals are recorded as their acquired gender not birth gender.

    2 A person may have more than one disability. As such, they may appear in more than one column.

    3 The maximum period for a single authorisation is 365 days. Full year authorisations which lapse and are followed up immediately with a new authorisation should be recorded in the 365+ category. Similarly, multiple shorter authorisations which have a cumulative authorisation period of over one year would be recorded in the 365+ category.

    The Right to Liberty and Security of the Person HRA, Article 5

    Table 176: Numbers of cases where authorisation is not granted by a Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards Assessment but the best interests assessor advises that deprivation of liberty is actually occurring, England, 2010
    Total England total 23

    Source: The Health and Social Care Information Centre (2011). Notes: Quarterly data from 1 July 2010 and 30 September 2010. Table 177: Number of cases where authorisation is granted and not granted by a Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards Assessment, total applications by local authority, England, 2010
    Total authorisations granted N 1,003 % 57 Total authorisations not granted N 758 % 43 Total authorisations completed N 1,761 % 100

    Table 178: Number of cases where authorisation is granted and not granted by a Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards Assessment, total applications by Primary Care Trust (PCT), England, 2010
    Total authorisations granted N 268 % 47 Total authorisations not granted N 304 % 53 Total authorisations completed N 572 % 100

    315

    The Right to Liberty and Security of the Person HRA, Article 5

    Table 179: Restricted patients detained in hospital by legal category1, England and Wales, 2004-08
    Number of patients Legal category Transferred from a Prison Service establishment after sentence Transferred from a Prison Service establishment while unsentenced or untried All transferred from prison Hospital order with restriction order Recalled after conditional discharge Transferred from Scotland, Northern Ireland, etc. Unfit to plead Not guilty by reason of insanity Hospital and limitation direction Other All legal categories 2004 505 189 694 1,978 351 3 205 35 10 6 3,282 20052 561 218 779 2,344 -2 212 42 11 5 3,395 20062 627 175 802 2,492 -3 234 51 14 5 3,601 20072 684 284 968 2,624 -8 244 46 16 0 3,906 20082 703 234 937 2,678 -7 255 47 13 0 3,937

    Source: MoJ (2010b), Table 2. Notes: a This source only includes mentally disordered offenders who are in contact with the criminal justice system. b An offender can become a restricted patient by one of two ways: If convicted for a serious offence, there may be an order to receive hospital treatment instead of a prison sentence. The court has the option of adding a restriction order for offenders posing a risk of serious harm to others when issuing the hospital order. Second, if the court decides on a prison sentence, it can simultaneously direct the offender to hospital, or the offender can be transferred to hospital by the secretary of state, where the prisoner is subject to restrictions. There are also other groups of restricted patients, such as offenders transferred from a Prison Service establishment while unsentenced or untried, or offenders who are unfit to plead (MoJ, 2010b: 2). 1 See Note 7 for details of the legislation: Explanatory Note 7: Legislative framework: Includes the Mental Health Act 1959, the Mental Health Act 1983, as amended by the Mental Health Act 2007 and the Criminal Procedure (Insanity) Act 1964 as amended by the Criminal Procedure (Insanity and Unfitness to Plead) Act 1991 and the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004 (which came into force on 31 March 2005). The 1959 Act was amended by the Mental Health (Amendment) Act 1982 and was then consolidated by the 1983 Act which was largely implemented on 30 September 1983. The provisions of the two Mental Health Acts are similar and references below are to the 1983 Act only. In terms of admissions, the 1983 Act provides for:

    316

    The Right to Liberty and Security of the Person HRA, Article 5

    the diversion to hospital by the courts of convicted offenders who satisfy certain conditions (Sections 37(1) & (2)) by making a hospital order. This may be with or without a restriction order under Section 41, which has the effect of requiring the Secretary of States consent on all matters relating to leave of absence, transfer or discharge, except where the Tribunal orders discharge; the admission of an unconvicted offender to hospital by the magistrates courts where they are satisfied that the person concerned meets the criteria for admission and has done the act or made the omission with which charged (Section 37(3)); the imposition of a hospital order on unsentenced prisoners in their absence and without conviction for an offence (Section 51(5)); the recall to hospital, by order of the Secretary of State, of patients subject to restriction orders who were conditionally discharged (Section 42(3)); the court to impose a prison sentence on a convicted offender together with a direction for immediate admission to hospital, subject to restrictions (hospital and limitation direction under Section 45A); the transfer to hospital, by order of the Secretary of State, of prisoners serving a sentence in a Prison Service establishment (Section 47). Under Section 49 these patients can be made subject to a restriction direction, which has the same effect as a restriction order under Section 41;

    ii

    iii iv v

    vi

    vii the transfer to hospital, by order of the Secretary of State, of an unsentenced or untried defendant in criminal proceedings who is held in a Prison Service establishment (Section 48). In this case a restriction direction is mandatory. Civil prisoners and persons detained under the Immigration Act 1971 may also be admitted under this section, but restrictions are not mandatory; viii the transfer of patients from one part of the United Kingdom, Channel Islands or the Isle of Man to another. Those transferred to England and Wales are treated as if they had been admitted to hospital under the Act, so that some of them will, in effect, be subject to restricted hospital orders (part VI). 2 Detained figures for 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008 do not show the category of Recalled after conditional discharge. Figures are now included under the appropriate legal category which resulted in the majority of patients being included under Hospital order with restriction order. This category cannot, therefore,be compared to previous years and trends cannot be measured. (It should not be assumed that the recalled category can be added to the hospital order category for previous years figures as they cannot be backdated).

    317

    The Right to Liberty and Security of the Person HRA, Article 5

    Table 180: Restricted patients detained in hospital by sex, England and Wales, 2004-083
    Number of patients Sex Male Female All patients 2004 2,886 396 3,282 20051 2,984 411 3,395 20061 3,159 442 3,601 20071 3,448 458 3,906 20081 3,460 477 3,937

    Source: MoJ (2010b), Table 1. Notes: 1 Figures for 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008 were derived from a manual matching procedure (See Note 10). This source only includes mentally disordered offenders who are in contact with the criminal justice system. An offender can become a restricted patient by one of two ways: If convicted for a serious offence, there may be an order to receive hospital treatment instead of a prison sentence. The court has the option of adding a restriction order for offenders posing a risk of serious harm to others when issuing the hospital order. Second, if the court decides on a prison sentence, it can simultaneously direct the offender to hospital, or the offender can be transferred to hospital by the secretary of state, where the prisoner is subject to restrictions. There are also other groups of restricted patients, such as offenders transferred from prison service establishment while unsentenced or untried, or offenders who are unfit to plead (MoJ, 2010b: 2).

    318

    Table 181: Standardised ratio of proportion of informally admitted patients deemed incapable of consenting, England and Wales, 2009
    Males 95% confidence interval Upper Observed 106 134 122 87 100 79 124 80 50 97 71 130 46 100 99 1,704 100 95 105 1,776 101 Standardised ratio Lower Upper Observed Standardised ratio Lower 97 81 85 95% confidence interval 95% confidence interval Upper Observed 104 122 115 3,480 96 167 Females Persons

    Ethnic category code

    Census Census groups categories 97 76 79

    Standardised ratio

    Lower

    White

    British

    101

    White

    Irish

    102

    White

    Other White

    99

    Mixed

    White and Black Caribbean 45 230 7 124 40 290 5

    111

    116

    60

    203

    12

    319
    17 1 7 210 2 66 14 289 1 266 86 621 193 516 2 0 337 58 160 17 122 75 189 43 154 11 13 0 75

    Mixed

    White and Black African

    143

    0 5 3

    80 158 63

    10 58 20

    290 343 146

    2 6 5

    Mixed

    White and Asian

    52

    Mixed

    Other mixed

    58

    Asian or Asian British Indian

    100

    20

    111

    78

    153

    37

    Asian or Asian British Pakistani

    86

    59

    31

    104

    12 Continued

    The Right to Liberty and Security of the Person HRA, Article 5

    Table 181: Standardised ratio of proportion of informally admitted patients deemed incapable of consenting, England and Wales, 2009 (continued)
    Males 95% confidence interval Upper Observed Standardised ratio Lower Upper Observed Standardised ratio Lower 95% confidence interval 95% confidence interval Upper Observed Females Persons

    Ethnic category code

    Census Census groups categories

    Standardised ratio

    Lower

    Asian or Asian British Bangladeshi 67 344 7 128 26 375 3 153

    167

    73

    282

    10

    The Right to Liberty and Security of the Person HRA, Article 5

    Asian or Asian British Other Asian 24 143 6 77 21 197 4

    66

    70

    33

    128

    10

    320
    54 98 46 102 74 136 24 111 8 111 62 183 27 140 7 64 13 187

    Black or Black British Caribbean

    73

    46

    85

    69

    104

    92

    Black or Black British African

    56

    15

    83

    53

    125

    23

    Black or Black British Other Black

    68

    67

    32

    123

    10 Continued

    Table 181: Standardised ratio of proportion of informally admitted patients deemed incapable of consenting, England and Wales, 2009 (continued)
    Males 95% confidence interval Upper Observed Standardised ratio Lower Upper Observed Standardised ratio Lower 95% confidence interval 95% confidence interval Upper Observed Females Persons

    Ethnic category code

    Census Census groups categories

    Standardised ratio

    Lower

    Other ethnic groups 36 516 3 133 27 387 3 151

    Chinese

    176

    56

    329

    Other ethnic groups 71 218 14 122 65 208 13

    Other

    130

    126

    83

    183

    27

    321
    1,972 100

    Grand total

    100

    2,023

    100

    3,995

    Source: CQC (2011).

    Notes: England and Wales ratio = 100.

    The colour coding highlights instances where the standardised ratio was found to be statistically significant: dark grey where it is lower, light grey where it is higher.

    a Figures derived from the Count Me In census 2009.

    The Right to Liberty and Security of the Person HRA, Article 5

    b The Count Me In census 2009 includes inpatients in mental health and learning disability services, as well as those who were subject to a community treatment order (CTO) on the day of the census (CQC, 2011d).

    Table 182: Standardised ratio of proportion of formally detained patients who are capable but refusing consent, England and Wales, 2009
    Males 95% confidence interval Upper Observed 94 156 141 50 132 95 179 42 17 124 72 199 17 109 117 667 92 84 100 520 89 Standardised ratio Lower Upper Observed Standardised ratio Lower 84 76 94 95% confidence interval 95% confidence interval Upper Observed 94 153 144 1,187 34 92 Females Persons

    Ethnic category code

    Census Census groups categories 81 57 79

    Standardised ratio

    Lower

    White

    British

    87

    White

    Irish

    97

    White

    Other White

    107

    The Right to Liberty and Security of the Person HRA, Article 5

    Mixed 98 219 26 178 89 318 11

    White and Black Caribbean

    150

    157

    111

    217

    37

    322
    101 71 47 193 9 36 4 272 10 146 40 387 10 72 2 399 373 129 98 216 27 126 65 220 89 194 28 45 9 133

    Mixed

    White and Black African

    210

    1 4 2

    179 147 76

    89 81 38

    320 247 136

    11 14 11

    Mixed

    White and Asian

    148

    Mixed

    Other mixed

    102

    Asian or Asian British Indian

    148

    12

    141

    100

    192

    39

    Asian or Asian British Pakistani

    134

    113

    77

    160

    31 Continued

    Table 182: Standardised ratio of proportion of formally detained patients who are capable but refusing consent, England and Wales, 2009 (continued)
    Males 95% confidence interval Upper Observed Standardised ratio Lower Upper Observed Standardised ratio Lower 95% confidence interval 95% confidence interval Upper Observed Females Persons

    Ethnic category code

    Census Census groups categories

    Standardised ratio

    Lower

    Asian or Asian British Bangladeshi 62 221 11 36 1 198 1 102

    124

    53

    179

    12

    Asian or Asian British Other Asian 44 158 11 96 31 223 5

    89

    91

    52

    147

    16

    323
    121 182 98 187 137 250 103 180 53 124 78 188 114 238 31 153 70 291

    Black or Black British Caribbean

    150

    46

    160

    135

    188

    144

    Black or Black British African

    138

    22

    133

    105

    167

    75

    Black or Black British Other Black

    168

    164

    117

    224

    40 Continued

    The Right to Liberty and Security of the Person HRA, Article 5

    Table 182: Standardised ratio of proportion of formally detained patients who are capable but refusing consent, England and Wales, 2009 (continued)
    Males 95% confidence interval Upper Observed Standardised ratio Lower Upper Observed Standardised ratio Lower 95% confidence interval 95% confidence interval Upper Observed Females Persons

    Ethnic category code

    Census Census groups categories

    Standardised ratio

    Lower

    The Right to Liberty and Security of the Person HRA, Article 5

    Other ethnic groups 1 232 1 158 43 406 4 101

    Chinese

    42

    33

    237

    Other ethnic groups 62 176 16 174 83 320 10

    Other

    108

    127

    83

    186

    26

    324
    1,065 100

    Grand total

    100

    709

    100

    1,774

    Source: CQC (2011).

    Notes: England and Wales ratio = 100.

    The colour coding highlights instances where the standardised ratio was found to be statistically significant: dark grey where it is lower, light grey where it is higher.

    Figures derived from the Count Me In census 2009 including inpatients in mental health and learning disability services, as well as those who were subject to a CTO on the day of the census (CQC, 2011d).

    Table 183: Standardised ratio of proportion of formally detained patients deemed incapable of consenting, England and Wales, 2009
    Males 95% confidence interval Upper Observed 99 134 140 94 118 88 154 53 32 128 83 187 26 107 115 1,293 92 86 99 767 93 Standardised ratio Lower Upper Observed Standardised ratio Lower 89 81 97 95% confidence interval 95% confidence interval Upper Observed 97 139 136 2,060 58 147 Females Persons

    Ethnic category code

    Census Census groups categories 89 65 92

    Standardised ratio

    Lower

    White

    British

    94

    White

    Irish

    95

    White

    Other White

    114

    Mixed 87 176 34 101 44 199 8

    White and Black Caribbean

    126

    121

    87

    163

    42

    325
    31 75 67 190 16 170 88 229 14 201 81 413 296 185 6 216 59 554 48 114 23 107 58 179 77 152 36 149 79 255

    Mixed

    White and Black African

    85

    4 7 12

    112 153 135

    54 94 90

    207 233 195

    10 21 28

    Mixed

    White and Asian

    136

    Mixed

    Other mixed

    117

    Asian or Asian British Indian

    76

    14

    85

    60

    117

    37

    Asian or Asian British Pakistani

    110

    13

    118

    87

    156

    49 Continued

    The Right to Liberty and Security of the Person HRA, Article 5

    Table 183: Standardised ratio of proportion of formally detained patients deemed incapable of consenting, England and Wales, 2009 (continued)
    Males 95% confidence interval Upper Observed Standardised ratio Lower Upper Observed Standardised ratio Lower 95% confidence interval 95% confidence interval Upper Observed Females Persons

    Ethnic category code

    Census Census groups categories

    Standardised ratio

    Lower

    Asian or Asian British Bangladeshi 52 166 13 270 129 496 10 134

    97

    85

    201

    23

    The Right to Liberty and Security of the Person HRA, Article 5

    Asian or Asian British Other Asian 93 203 28 133 61 253 9

    140

    139

    98

    191

    37

    326
    102 144 135 145 108 192 113 175 84 140 96 197 69 146 30 131 63 242

    Black or Black British Caribbean

    122

    50

    127

    110

    147

    185

    Black or Black British African

    141

    32

    141

    116

    169

    116

    Black or Black British Other Black

    102

    10

    108

    77

    147

    40 Continued

    Table 183: Standardised ratio of proportion of formally detained patients deemed incapable of consenting, England and Wales, 2009 (continued)
    Males 95% confidence interval Upper Observed Standardised ratio Lower Upper Observed Standardised ratio Lower 95% confidence interval 95% confidence interval Upper Observed Females Persons

    Ethnic category code

    Census Census groups categories

    Standardised ratio

    Lower

    Other ethnic groups 89 405 8 152 49 355 5 181

    Chinese

    206

    96

    310

    13

    Other ethnic groups 97 198 33 76 28 166 6

    Other

    141

    125

    89

    171

    39

    327
    1,879 100

    Grand total

    100

    1,026

    100

    2,905

    Source: CQC (2011).

    Notes: England and Wales ratio = 100.

    The colour coding highlights instances where the standardised ratio was found to be statistically significant: dark grey where it is lower, light grey where it is higher.

    The Right to Liberty and Security of the Person HRA, Article 5

    Figures derived from the Count Me In census 2009 including inpatients in mental health and learning disability services, as well as those who were subject to a CTO on the day of the census (CQC, 2011d).

    Table 184: Standardised ratio of proportion of patients referred by criminal justice routes, England and Wales, 2009
    Males 95% confidence interval Upper Observed 95 175 106 90 64 37 102 17 81 48 74 32 146 8 119 1,503 93 84 102 423 91 Standardised ratio Lower Upper Observed Lower 87 90 67 Standardised ratio 95% confidence interval 95% confidence interval Upper Observed 95 154 98 1,926 56 107 Females Persons

    Ethnic category code

    Census Census groups categories 86 97 69

    Standardised ratio

    Lower

    White

    British

    90

    White

    Irish

    132

    White

    Other White

    86

    Mixed 100 171 57 202 108 346 13

    The Right to Liberty and Security of the Person HRA, Article 5

    White and Black Caribbean

    132

    141

    110

    178

    70

    Mixed 69 70 98 202 32 115 46 177 20 70 8 252 237 204 15 229 47 669

    328
    69 130 42 79 32 164 91 153 62 114 46 234

    White and Black African

    124

    3 2 7

    134 108 137

    79 68 98

    212 164 188

    18 22 39

    Mixed

    White and Asian

    115

    Mixed

    Other mixed

    143

    Asian or Asian British Indian

    96

    93

    69

    123

    49

    Asian or Asian British Pakistani

    119

    119

    92

    150

    69 Continued

    Table 184: Standardised ratio of proportion of patients referred by criminal justice routes, England and Wales, 2009 (continued)
    Males 95% confidence interval Upper Observed Standardised ratio Lower Upper Observed Lower Standardised ratio 95% confidence interval 95% confidence interval Upper Observed Females Persons

    Ethnic category code

    Census Census groups categories

    Standardised ratio

    Lower

    Asian or Asian British Bangladeshi 87 189 28 116 24 340 3 129

    131

    88

    184

    31

    Asian or Asian British Other Asian 79 156 37 102 33 237 5

    113

    111

    80

    151

    42

    329
    126 164 221 171 120 236 128 177 148 217 154 297 69 129 42 121 49 249

    Black or Black British Caribbean 37

    144

    147

    130

    167

    258

    Black or Black British African

    151

    39

    161

    139

    186

    187

    Black or Black British Other Black

    96

    99

    73

    130

    49 Continued

    The Right to Liberty and Security of the Person HRA, Article 5

    Table 184: Standardised ratio of proportion of patients referred by criminal justice routes, England and Wales, 2009 (continued)
    Males 95% confidence interval Upper Observed Standardised ratio Lower Upper Observed Lower Standardised ratio 95% confidence interval 95% confidence interval Upper Observed Females Persons

    Ethnic category code

    Census Census groups categories

    Standardised ratio

    Lower

    Other ethnic groups 26 190 5 143 39 367 4 101

    Chinese

    81

    46

    191

    The Right to Liberty and Security of the Person HRA, Article 5

    Other ethnic groups 83 155 43 96 31 224 5

    Other

    115

    113

    83

    149

    48

    330
    2,393 100

    Grand total

    100

    587

    100

    2,980

    Source: CQC (2011).

    Notes: England and Wales ratio = 100. Includes the following referral routes: police, courts, Probation Service, prison, and the Courts Liaison and Diversion Service.

    The colour coding highlights instances where the standardised ratio was found to be statistically significant: dark grey where it is lower, light grey where it is higher.

    Figures derived from the Count Me In census 2009 including inpatients in mental health and learning disability services, as well as those who were subject to a CTO on the day of the census (CQC, 2011d).

    The Right to Liberty and Security of the Person HRA, Article 5

    Indicator 29: Spotlight statistics: Detention within the asylum and immigration system
    Table 185: Persons entering detention1, 2 held solely under Immigration Act powers, by age3 and sex, UK, 20094, 5
    Sex Total detainees Adults3 Under 5 yrs Male Female Total of whom: asylum detainees6 15,580 14,865 275 285 125 30 715 22,625 5,380 28,005 22,075 4,860 26,940 260 240 495 5-11 yrs 165 205 370 Children3 12-16 yrs 100 65 160 17 yrs 25 10 40 Total 550 520 1,065

    Source: Home Office (2010a), Table 9.2. Notes: 1 These figures are based on management information and are not subject to the detailed checks that apply for national statistics. They are provisional and may be subject to change. 2 Some detainees may be recorded more than once if, for example, the person has been detained on more than one separate occasion in the time period shown, such as a person who has left detention, but has subsequently been re-detained. 3 Recorded age at the start of their period of detention. Figures for children will overstate if any applicants aged 18 or over claim to be younger. 4 Figures rounded to the nearest 5 (- = 0, * = 1 or 2) and may not sum to the totals shown because of independent rounding. Figures exclude people recorded as entering Harwich Short Term Holding Facility, police cells and Prison Service establishments, those recorded as detained under both criminal and immigration powers and their dependants. 5 Figures include dependants. 6 People detained under Immigration Act powers who are recorded as having sought asylum at some stage.

    331

    The Right to Liberty and Security of the Person HRA, Article 5

    Table 186: Persons removed from the United Kingdom on leaving detention1, held solely under Immigration Act powers, by age2, 20093, 4, 5, P
    Total detainees Adults2 Under 5 yrs Grand total of whom: asylum detainees6 6,710 6,425 115 120 45 5 285 16,070 15,545 260 5-11 yrs 180 Children2 12-16 yrs 70 17 yrs 10 Total 520

    Source: Home Office (2010a), Table 14.2. Notes: 1 Some detainees may be recorded more than once if, for example, the person has been detained on more than one separate occasion in the time period shown, such as a person who has left detention for the purpose of a removal, but who has subsequently been re-detained. 2 Recorded age at the end of their period of detention. Figures for children will overstate if any applicants aged 18 or over claim to be younger. 3 Figures rounded to the nearest 5 (- = 0, * = 1 or 2) and may not sum to the totals shown because of independent rounding. Figures exclude persons recorded as leaving detention from police cells and Prison Service establishments, those recorded as detained under both criminal and immigration powers at time of removal and their dependants. 4 Not necessarily removed in the same quarter as leaving detention. 5 Figures include dependants. 6 Persons detained under Immigration Act powers who are recorded as having sought asylum at some stage. P Provisional figures. Table 187: Number of children entering and leaving immigration and asylum detention centres In 2009, 1,065 children entered detention, held solely under Immigration Act powers. Of these, 715 (67 per cent of the total) were asylum detainees. In 2009, 1,105 children left detention. Of these, 745 (67 per cent of the total) were asylum detainees. In total, 520 children were removed from the UK upon leaving detention. Source: Home Office (2010a).

    332

    The Right to Liberty and Security of the Person HRA, Article 5

    Table 188: Persons in detention in the United Kingdom solely under Immigration Act powers, by length of detention as at 31 December 20091, 2
    Number of persons Length of detention3, 4 Total detainees5 Adults
    5

    Children6 of whom: asylum of whom: asylum Total ----detainees7 -----

    Total 12 months to less than 18 months 18 months to less than 24 months 24 months or more Total 95 65 50 2,595 95 65 50 2,595

    detainees7 60 50 30 1,770

    Source: Home Office (2010a), Table 12. Notes: 1 Figures rounded to the nearest 5 (- = 0, * = 1 or 2), may not sum to the totals shown because of independent rounding and exclude persons detained in police cells, Prison Service establishments and those detained under both criminal and immigration powers. 2 Figures include dependants. 3 Relates to most recent period of sole detention. The period of detention starts when a person first enters the UK Border Agency estate. If the person is then moved from a removal centre to a police cell or Prison Service establishment, this period of stay will be included if the detention is solely under Immigration Act powers. 4 2 months is defined as 61 days; 4 months is defined as 122 days; 6 months is defined as 182 days; 18 months is defined as 547 days. 5 These figures are based on management information and are not subject to the detailed checks that apply for national statistics. They are provisional and may be subject to change. 6 People recorded as being under 18 on 31 December 2009. These figures will overstate if any applicants aged 18 or over claim to be younger. 7 Persons detained under Immigration Act powers who are recorded as having sought asylum at some stage.

    333

    The Right to Liberty and Security of the Person HRA, Article 5

    Indicator 30: Spotlight statistics: Public attitudes, understanding and experiences


    Table 189: Public attitudes towards only being arrested if there are reasonable grounds of suspicion
    Which of the following, if any, would you say are the most important values for living in Britain today? Only being arrested if there are reasonable grounds of suspicion And which four of five, if any, are most important to you personally? And which, if any, do you consider to be fundamental human rights?

    41 %

    7%

    27 %

    Source: Kaur-Ballagan et al. (2009), Charts 1, 2 and 3. Notes: This data is based on a demographically representative, face-to-face omnibus survey with 1,994 British adults over the age of 16 undertaken in August 2008.

    334

    Table 190: Public attitudes towards the right not to be detained without reason: Liberty polling exercise
    Age Social Grade Region

    Gender

    Total 93 120 110 93% 95% 89% 87% 95% 94% 150 79% 89% 77% 78% 86% 84% 79 42% 51% 48% 51% 55% 53% 71 64 44 56 86 88 87 71 107 148 155 82 78 76% 75% 93 80 39% 41% 151 115 163 233 243 160 173 205 81% 119 47% 87 34% 23 29 8% 10% 15 7% 11 4% 11 4% 29 14% 18 21 9% 28 8% 12% 29 11% 16 6% 90% 84% 92% 145 177 162 134 184 256 272 189 194 234 235 89% 199 76% 120 46% 79 30% 35 13% 24 9% 160 190 170 150 210 270 290 210 230 254 264 163 194 184 159 207 376 198 157 269 259 252 253 251 233 93% 214 85% 130 52% 84 33% 19 8% 12 5%

    Male

    Female

    1824 65+ AB Cl C2 DE Midlands

    2534 35-44

    4554

    5564

    South East

    North England

    Wales and South West Scotland 145 144 130 90% 119 83% 82% 73 51% 46 32% 11 8% 9 7% 35 41% 37 42% 7 8% 5 6% Continued 91 87 79 91% 72

    Unweighted base

    1,000

    434

    566

    Weighted base

    1,000

    490

    510

    Net: Of use at all

    911

    441

    470

    Net: Of use at all 98 132

    91%

    90%

    92% 92% 91%

    Net: Vital/ important

    809

    381

    428

    335
    63 35 62 70 38% 38% 29% 27% 32% 30% -37% 35% 26 14% 11 6% 3% 5 13 9% 6% 13% 10% 11 19 21 12 8% 15 9% 13 8 6%

    Net: Vital/ important

    81%

    78%

    84% 82% 83%

    Vital

    477

    237

    241

    Vital

    48%

    48%

    47% 53% 44%

    Important3

    332

    145

    187

    33%

    30%

    37% 29% 39%

    Useful2

    101

    60

    42

    10%

    12%

    8% 10%

    Unnecessary1

    67

    37

    30

    The Right to Liberty and Security of the Person HRA, Article 5

    7%

    7%

    6%

    Table 190: Public attitudes towards the right not to be detained without reason: Liberty polling exercise (continued)
    Age Social Grade Region

    Gender

    Total 2 2% 3.16 3.39 3.18 3.29 3.39 3.37 3.08 3.08 0.88 0.75 0.97 0.93 0.81 0.82 0.94 1.01 0.06 0.06 0.08 0.07 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.06 0.06 0.89 0.98 0.06 3.23 3.14 1% 2% 2% 5% 1% 2% 2% 4% 2% 2% 3% 3.36 0.82 0.05 2 3 3 11 3 7 3 9 4 5 6

    Male

    Female

    1824 65+ AB Cl C2 DE Midlands 5 3% 3.31 0.89 0.08

    2534 35-44

    4554

    5564

    South East

    North England

    Wales and South West Scotland 3 3% 3.21 0.84 0.09

    Dont know

    22

    12

    10

    2%

    3%

    2%

    Mean

    3.25

    3.22

    3.28 3.31 3.17

    Standard deviation

    0.90

    0.94

    0.86 0.90 0.93

    The Right to Liberty and Security of the Person HRA, Article 5

    Standard error

    0.03

    0.05

    0.04 0.09 0.07

    Base: All respondents

    336

    Source: Liberty (2011).

    Notes: Respondents were asked the following question [several rights were actually listed and respondents responses to each right are shown in the relevant chapter]: In modern Britain, would you say each of the following rights are vital, important, useful, or unnecessary? The right not to be detained without reason.

    The Right to Liberty and Security of the Person HRA, Article 5

    Chapter notes
    311

    The status of UN treaty ratification is drawn from the UN Treaty Database, www.unhchr. ch/tbs/doc.nsf/Statusfrset?OpenFrameSet (accessed 4 November 2010). The status of European treaty ratification is drawn from the Council of Europe Treaty Office website, conventions.coe.int/ (accessed 4 November 2010). When a state signs an international treaty this is signals its preliminary endorsement of the treaty, it does not create a binding legal obligation. A state which ratifies or accedes to a treaty is asserting that it considers itself to be legally bound by the treaty. Ratification requires the state to have previously signed the treaty, whereas accession is a single step which does not require previous signing. It should be noted that a treaty which has been acceded to or ratified by the UK does not automatically become part of the domestic law; separate legislative action is required to incorporate international law into domestic law (for example, the HRA making the ECHR enforceable in the UK). Nonetheless, ratification or accession is a states expression that it consents to be legally bound by the treaty, including respecting and implementing its provisions. www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2004/11/20181/45877 (accessed 3 October 2011). cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentId=695327&portal=hbkm&sourc e=externalbydocnumber&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649 cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentId=698363&portal=hbkm&sourc e=externalbydocnumber&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649 cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentId=695483&portal=hbkm&sourc e=externalbydocnumber&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649 cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentId=704930&portal=hbkm&sourc e=externalbydocnumber&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649 cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentId=695448&portal=hbkm&sourc e=externalbydocnumber&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649 cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentId=696335&portal=hbkm&sourc e=externalbydocnumber&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649 www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2001/415.html&query=title+(+R +)+and+title+(+v+)+and+title+(+Mental+)+and+title+(+Health+)+and+title+(+Tribunal+)&meth od=boolean www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/uk/cases/UKPC/2001/d5.html&query=title+(+Anderso n+)&method=boolean www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2004/11/20181/45877 (accessed 27 January 2011). cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentId=704930&portal=hbkm&sourc e=externalbydocnumber&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649 www.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/Re_RK;_YB_v_BCC_(2010)_EWHC_3355_(COP) (accessed 10 March 2011). www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2004/1067. html&query=gILLAN&method=all cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentId=860909&portal=hbkm&sourc e=externalbydocnumber&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/2009/5.html www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2011/957.html www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200607/ldjudgmt/jd071031/homejj-1.htm cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentId=847470&portal=hbkm&sourc e=externalbydocnumber&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649 cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentId=847470&portal=hbkm&sourc e=externalbydocnumber&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649 cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentId=695523&portal=hbkm&sourc e=externalbydocnumber&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649

    312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319

    320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331

    337

    The Right to Liberty and Security of the Person HRA, Article 5

    332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346

    347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361

    www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2003/152.html&query=title+( +Sim+)&method=boolean www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/2007/58.html www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/(Symbol)/f4253f9572cd4700c12563ed00483bec?Opendocument UNCRC daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N09/555/92/PDF/N0955592. pdf?OpenElement (accessed 24 November 2010). cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentId=860909&portal=hbkm&sourc e=externalbydocnumber&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649 www.parliament.uk/documents/joint-committees/human-rights/HRJGillan_HomeSec_090910. pdf www.homeoffice.gov.uk/police/powers/pace-codes/ (accessed 10 March 2011). www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/PublicationsPolicyAndGuidance/ DH_085476 (accessed 9 March 2011). www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Health/health/mental-health/mhlaw/codeofpractice (accessed 27June 2011). Miller et al., 2004. The Use of Human Rights Legislation in the Scottish Courts, www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2004/11/20181/45877 (accessed 27 January 2011). cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentId=695327&portal=hbkm&sourc e=externalbydocnumber&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649 cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentId=698363&portal=hbkm&sourc e=externalbydocnumber&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649 cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentId=704930&portal=hbkm&sourc e=externalbydocnumber&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649 cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentId=696335&portal=hbkm&sourc e=externalbydocnumber&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649 www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2001/415.html&query=title+(+R +)+and+title+(+v+)+and+title+(+Mental+)+and+title+(+Health+)+and+title+(+Tribunal+)&meth od=boolean www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/uk/cases/UKPC/2001/d5.html&query=title+(+Anderso n+)&method=boolean www.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/.../Re_RK%3B_YB_v_BCC_(2010)_EWHC_3355_(COP).doc (accessed 10 March 2011). www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2004/1067. html&query=gILLAN&method=all cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentId=860909&portal=hbkm&sourc e=externalbydocnumber&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/2009/5.html www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2011/957.html www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200607/ldjudgmt/jd071031/homejj-1.htm cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentId=847470&portal=hbkm&sourc e=externalbydocnumber&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649 cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentId=695523&portal=hbkm&sourc e=externalbydocnumber&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649 www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2003/152.html&query=title+( +Sim+)&method=boolean www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/2007/58.html www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt200910/jtselect/jtrights/86/86.pdf www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt200809/jtselect/jtrights/157/157.pdf www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt200910/jtselect/jtrights/67/67.pdf (accessed 15 March 2011). Patrick (no date given), Autonomy, benefit and protection. How human rights can protect people with mental health conditions or learning disabilities from unlawful deprivation of liberty, Mental Welfare Commission for Scotland, www.mwcscot.org.uk/web/FILES/ Publications/Autonomy%2C_benefit_and_protection_FULL.pdf (accessed 5 July 2011).

    338

    The Right to Liberty and Security of the Person HRA, Article 5

    362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373

    UNCRC daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N09/555/92/PDF/N0955592. pdf?OpenElement (accessed 24 November 2010). www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/13session/A-HRC-13-42.pdf www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/13session/A-HRC-13-42.pdf, p 82. www.reprieve.org.uk/2010_01_27_un_report www.justice.gov.uk/inspectorates/hmi-prisons/docs/children_and_young_people-rps.pdf, p 7. www.irr.org.uk/pdf2/Carliles_report_Pathway.pdf www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt200910/jtselect/jtrights/86/86.pdf, p 26. www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/counter-terrorism/review-of-ct-security-powers/reviewfindings-and-rec?view=Binary (accessed 5 July 2011). www.cqc.org.uk/_db/_documents/MHAC_Biennial_Report_0709_final.pdf (accessed 10 March 2011). www.cqc.org.uk/_db/_documents/CQC_Monitoring_the_use_of_the_Mental_Health_Act_ in_200910_Main_report_Tagged.pdf www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/policy/reports/comparative-law-study-2010-pre-chargedetention.pdf www.amnesty.org/en/library/info/EUR45/015/2010/en

    339

    Chapter 8
    The Right to a Fair Trial (Human Rights Act, Article 6)

    Please read Part II Guidance on using and interpreting the Human Rights Measurement Framework first.

    The Right to The Right to a Fair Trial (Human Rights Act (HRA), Article 6)

    Panel and indicators


    Actions/inactions by the state, its agents or bodies fulfilling a public function Public hearings and public pronouncements (note both may be limited, for example, for national security or to protect young peoples privacy) Criminal Civil Criminal Civil Nature of the hearing/ overall fairness; effective participation in hearing; equality of arms; representation Specific to criminal proceedings: presumption of innocence; information on charge; time and resources to prepare defence; legal aid; examination of witness; interpretation Responsiveness of the criminal justice system and the civil justice system to all complainants

    The Right to a Fair Trial HRA, Article 6

    Effective protection of the right to a fair trial by the state, its agents or bodies fulfilling a public function

    Timely determination of disputes by, and access to, an impartial and independent court

    Indicators

    Criminal

    Civil

    342

    Structural (indicators of commitment in principle)

    Indicator 31: Legal and constitutional framework Protection of the right to a fair trial and fair hearing in domestic law (including constitutional/higher law) Status of ratification of relevant international treaties

    Indicator 32: Legal precedents, gaps and standard-setting Principles established in key cases (domestic and ECHR) and international standard-setting processes Gaps in protection and non-implementation of legal judgements and recommendations

    Process (indicators of steps taken including legal, regulatory and public policy measures)

    Indicator 33: Regulatory framework Key regulators, inspectorates, ombudsmen and other mechanisms for complaints handling Relevant responsibilities and powers, national minimum standard frameworks and inspection/complaints-handling criteria

    Indicator 34: Public policy framework Primary legislation, policies, plans, targets and goals (including policies relating to special measures for vulnerable and intimidated victims and witnesses) Codes and guidance spotlight resource allocations (including public expenditure on legal aid) Spotlight resource allocations

    Outcome (indicators of the position of individuals and groups in practice/ emergence of a human rights culture)

    Indicator 35: Outcomes of key judicial, regulatory and investigative processes Violations of the right to a fair trial Key concerns raised by human rights monitoring bodies Outcomes of inspection, regulation and complaints procedures that engage Article 6 Complaints handled, for example, by the relevant ombudsman service and reviews by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission Outcomes of independent inquiries and investigations that engage Article 6 Key allegations by private individuals and civil society organisations/reports in the media

    343

    Indicator 36: Spotlight statistics: Access to courts and tribunals Access to criminal and civil justice Provision of interpreters and information in alternative languages, particularly for those detained in an immigration removal centre Access to Welsh as a language of choice and interpreters within Wales Number of cases taken by the official solicitor on behalf of those deemed to not have capacity Percentage of detained people who report that they find it easy or very easy to communicate with their solicitor or legal representative The average number of days taken from offence to completion of a criminal case in the magistrates courts (sheriffs courts for Scotland), with separate reporting for all defendants and youth defendants The number/outcome of civil cases involving the HRA (HM Court Services self-reported N1 form)

    Indicator 37: Spotlight statistics: Special prosecution Use of special advocates when information is withheld Closed cases with a separate report for why it was a closed case, i.e. to protect young people, for reasons of national security, etc.) terrorism and other proceedings, including family Consideration of evidence not put before jury for example, intercept evidence
    The Right to a Fair Trial HRA, Article 6

    Indicator 38: Spotlight statistics: Appropriate justice for children and young people Number of children whose case proceeds in the crown court rather than the Youth youth Court court (England and Wales) Number of 15-17 year olds in adult prisons

    Panel and indicators (continued)

    The Right to a Fair Trial HRA, Article 6

    Outcome (indicators of the position of individuals and groups in practice/ emergence of a human rights culture)

    Indicator 39:Spotlight statistics: Treatment of victims and witness protection Indicator 40: Spotlight statistics: Public attitudes, understanding and experiences Public attitudes towards the right to liberty and security of the person as a right you do have and you should have Perceptions of fair treatment by the criminal justice system Confidence in the criminal justice system

    Indicators should be systematically disaggregated Key disaggregation characteristics include ethnicity/race, gender, disability, sexual orientation, transgender, religion and belief, age, social class, area (region, urban/rural, remoteness) with separate reporting of the non-private household population and at risk/vulnerable groups including individuals staying in/resident/detained in public and private institutions; individuals living in poverty; refugees/asylum seekers, vulnerable children and young people (for example, children in need, looked after children, children who are carers), Gypsies and Travellers, etc.

    344

    The Right to a Fair Trial HRA, Article 6

    Evidence base
    Structural indicators Indicator 31: Legal and constitutional framework
    Table 191: Protection of the right to a fair trial in domestic law (including constitutional/higher law) UK HRA Article 6. Table 192: Status of ratification of relevant international treaties374 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) Article 14 ratified. ICCPR First Optional Protocol not ratified (individual complaints mechanism). ECHR and Protocols 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 10, 11, 13 and 14 ratified.

    Indicator 32: Legal precedents, gaps and standard-setting


    Table 193: Principles established in key cases (domestic and ECHR) Right to a trial within a reasonable time Bullen and Soneji v UK no. 3383/06 [2009] ECHR375 The European Court of Human Rights found that the length of the criminal proceedings contravened reasonable time requirements and was therefore in violation of Article 6.

    Right to an independent and impartial judge or tribunal G v The Governors of X School and Y Local Authority [2010] EWCA Civ 1376 In a case relating to the right to a fair trial in employment disciplinary proceedings, the Court of Appeal ruled that Article 6 rights were engaged in a disciplinary proceedings which could lead to a teacher being statutorily barred from practising his profession. Starrs v Ruxton [2000] JC 208 The High Court of Justiciary found that in relation to the requirement for an independent and impartial tribunal, the position of temporary sheriffs, appointed by the lord advocate for periods of one year, was found to be incompatible with Article 6 owing to their lack of security of tenure.377 McMichael v UK no. 16424/90 [1995] ECHR378 The European Court of Human Rights found that the applicant did not receive a fair hearing, within the meaning of Article 6.1 at either of the two stages in the care proceedings concerning her son because, as a matter of practice, documents lodged with the sheriffs court were not made available to her, placing her at a substantial disadvantage, both in respect of bringing an appeal and in the subsequent presentation of any appeal (Miller et al., 2004).

    345

    The Right to a Fair Trial HRA, Article 6

    Right to a public judgement R (Mohamed) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs [2010] EWCA Civ 65379 The Court of Appeal found that the principles of freedom of expression, democratic accountability and the rule of law were integral to the principle of open justice, so that, where litigation had occurred and judgment given, any disapplication of the open justice principle (which included the ordinary right of all the parties to the litigation to know the reasons for the courts decision) had to be rigidly contained. It should be rare for the court to order that any part of the reasoning in its judgment which had led it to its conclusion should be redacted, and any such order should be made only in extreme cases.

    Right to compensation in cases of miscarriage of justice Osman v UK no. 87/1997/871/1083 [1998] ECHR380 The European Court of Human Rights found that the applicants loss of the right to take legal proceedings against the police for negligence and to argue the justice of their case due to a blanket immunity being granted to police from civil actions constituted a disproportionate restriction on the applicants right of access to a court.

    Right to a fair hearing in determining legal capacity Salontaji-Drobnjak v Serbia no. 36500/05[2009] ECHR381 The European Court of Human Rights found that individuals have a right to a fair hearing (including right to participate in decisions and access to a court to challenge decisions) in relation to a determination of their legal capacity. The ECtHR found a violation of Articles 6.1 and 8.

    Right to effective participation T v UK (GC) no. 24724/94 [1999] ECHR382 The European Court of Human Rights found that the applicant, a child, was unable to participate effectively in the criminal proceedings against him and was, in consequence, denied a fair hearing in breach of Article 6.1.

    Limitations on the right of access to court Golder v UK no. 4451/70 [1975] ECHR383 The European Court of Human Rights held that there are legitimate limitations on the right to access to a court; however in Stubbings v UK no. 22083/93 [1995] ECHR384, the European Court held that any limitation on access must be proportionate.

    346

    The Right to a Fair Trial HRA, Article 6

    For criminal proceedings: right to presumption of innocence; right to be informed of accusations against you; right not to be forced to answer questions; right to adequate time to prepare your defence; right to legal aid if you cannot afford a lawyer and it is in the interests of justice for you to have one; right to be present at your trial; right to put your side of the case at trial; right to question witnesses against you and to call your own witnesses; right to an interpreter if you need one John Murray v UK (GC) 18731/91 [1996], ECHR385 In a key case on the right to remain silent and not to incriminate oneself, the European Court of Human Rights found that the applicants lack of access to a lawyer in the first 48 hours of his detention was a violation of Article 6. Edwards and Lewis v UK (GC) nos. 39647/98 and 40461/98 [2003] ECHR386 The European Court of Human Rights found that the procedure employed to determine the issues of disclosure of evidence and entrapment did not comply with the requirements to provide adversarial proceedings and equality of arms or incorporate adequate safeguards to protect the interests of the accused. Cadder v HM Advocate [2010] UKSC 43387 The Supreme Court found that an accused persons rights are breached if the prosecution leads and relies on evidence from the accuseds interview by police, if a solicitor was not present at that interview. Salduz v Turkey (GC) no. 36391/02 [2008] ECHR388 The European Court of Human Rights determined that, even if the primary purpose of Article 6, as far as criminal proceedings are concerned, is to ensure a fair trial by a tribunal competent to determine any criminal charge, it does not follow that the Article has no application to pre-trial proceedings. Thus, Article 6 especially paragraph 3 may be relevant before a case is sent for trial if and so far as the fairness of the trial is likely to be seriously prejudiced by an initial failure to comply with its provisions. The European Court of Human Rights found a violation of Articles 6.1 and 6.3. Wright v Secretary of State for Health [2009] UKHL 3389 the House of Lords found that the interim listing of a care worker as someone who could not have contact with vulnerable adults (protection of vulnerable adults order) without the right to be heard violated Article 6 and that the subsequent fairness of appellate proceedings could not cure the defect in this case where the interim listing effectively made Wright unemployable. Saunders v UK no. 19187/91 [1994] ECHR390 The European Court of Human Rights found that the right to presumption of innocence was violated where a criminal trial included evidence contained in interviews that the applicant had been compelled to give during a Department of Trade and Industry investigation.

    347

    The Right to a Fair Trial HRA, Article 6

    Cases concerning unlawfully obtained evidence Austria v Italy no. 788/60 [1961] ECHR The European Court of Human Rights held that evidence obtained in breach of absolute rights, such as protection from inhuman and degrading treatment or torture, must always be excluded from trial. Khan v UK no. 35394/97 [2000] ECHR391; Schenk v Switzerland no. 10862/84 [1987] ECHR392 The European Court of Human Rights found that the mere fact that evidence has been obtained in breach of other rights under the ECHR does not automatically lead to its exclusion. The question which must be answered is whether the proceedings as a whole, including the way the evidence was obtained, were fair.

    Reverse onus cases Salabiaku v France no. 10519/83 [1988] ECHR393 In finding no violation of Article 6, the European Court of Human Rights accepted that reverse onus provisions do not inevitably give rise to a breach of the right to a fair trial. However, whether there is a breach or not will depend on whether the modification or limitation of the right to be presumed innocent pursues a legitimate aim and whether it satisfies the principle of proportionality (see Ashingdane v UK (GC) no. 8225/78 [1985] ECHR394; Brown v Stott [2000] UKPC D3395).

    The rights of witnesses X v UK (1993) 15 EHRR CD 113 The European Court of Human Rights held that if necessary, screens and other equipment can be used in court to protect vulnerable witnesses.

    Table 194: Principles established in international standard setting processes United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) General Comment 13396 on equality before the courts and the right to a fair and public hearing by an independent court established by law. UN Human Rights Committee General Comment 32397 on the right to equality before courts and tribunals and to a fair trial.

    Table 195: Gaps in legal protection Individual complaint under ICCPR First Optional Protocol not ratified.

    348

    The Right to a Fair Trial HRA, Article 6

    Process indicators Indicator 33: Regulatory framework


    Table 196: List of key regulators, inspectorates and ombudsmen Criminal Cases Review Commission Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission Legal Services Commission Legal Ombudsman for England and Wales Office of Legal Complaints Royal Courts of Justice Advice Bureau Miscarriages of Justice Support Service Her Majestys Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate (HMCPSI) Professional self-regulatory bodies Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) Legal Complaints Service Legal Services Board Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal Bar Standards Board Conduct Committee of the Bar Council

    Indicator 34: Public policy framework


    Table 197: Public expenditure on legal aid,
    Expenditure in Departmental Spending Limits 2007-08 outturn (000) Criminal Defence Service Community Legal Services 1,178,271 843,970 2008-09 outturn (000) 1,187,750 912,797 2009-10 (000) 1,208,825 940,340

    Source: Ministry of Justice (MoJ) (2009b, 2010h). Notes: Information from the Ministry of Justices resource accounts. Figures do not include the resources spent on administration for the Legal Services Commission. The Legal Services Commission is the public body responsible for administering legal aid in England and Wales. It delivers legal services through two schemes: the Community Legal Service and the Criminal Defence Service. Legal aid funds the provision of legal advice and representation for people who would otherwise be denied access to justice because they could not afford to pay. 349

    The Right to a Fair Trial HRA, Article 6

    Outcome indicators Indicator 35: Outcomes of key judicial, regulatory and investigative processes
    Table 198: Violations of the right to a fair trial: case law outcomes Bullen and Soneji v UK no. 3383/06 [2009] ECHR398 Violation of Article 6 (see Table 193). G v The Governors of X School and Y Local Authority [2010] EWCA Civ 1399 Where an individual was subject to two or more sets of proceedings, or phases of a single proceeding, and a civil right or obligation enjoyed or owed by him would be determined in one of them, he could (but not necessarily would), by force of Article 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms , enjoy appropriate procedural rights in relation to another of them if its outcome would have a substantial influence or effect on the determination of the civil right or obligation. Accordingly, disciplinary proceedings which could lead to a teacher being statutorily barred from working with children were determinant of an individuals right to practice his profession and art 6 was engaged by those proceedings (see Table 193). Starrs v Ruxton [2000] JC 208 The position of temporary sheriffs, appointed by the lord advocate for periods of one year, was found to be incompatible with Article 6 owing to their lack of security of tenure400 (see Table 193). McMichael v UK no. 16424/90 [1995] ECHR401 Violation of Articles 6 and 8 (see Table 193). R (Mohamed) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs [2010] EWCA Civ 65402 The Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal by the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, arguing that five paragraphs in the judgement should be redacted, on the basis that the principles of freedom of expression, democratic accountability and the rule of law were integral to the principle of open justice, so that, where litigation had occurred and judgement given, any disapplication of the open justice principle (which included the ordinary right of all the parties to the litigation to know the reasons for the courts decision) had to be rigidly contained. It should be rare for the court to order that any part of the reasoning in its judgement which had led it to its conclusion should be redacted, and any such order should be made only in extreme cases (see Table 193). Osman v UK no. 87/1997/871/1083 [1998] ECHR403 No violation of Articles 2 and 8; violation of Article 6 (see Table 193). T v UK (GC) no. 24724/94 [1999] ECHR404 Violation of Article 6.1 (see Table 193). Golder v UK no. 4451/70 [1975] ECHR405 Violation of Articles 6.1 and 8 (see Table 193).

    350

    The Right to a Fair Trial HRA, Article 6

    Stubbings v UK no. 22083/93 [1995] ECHR406 No violation of Article 6.1 (see Table 193). John Murray v UK (GC) no. 18731/91 [1996] ECHR407 Violation of Articles 6.1 and 6.3 as regards the applicants lack of access to a lawyer during the first 48 hours of his police detention (see Table 193). Edwards and Lewis v UK (GC) nos. 39647/98 and 40461/98 [2003] ECHR408 Violation of Article 6 as the procedure employed to determine the issues of disclosure of evidence and entrapment did not comply with the requirements to provide adversarial proceedings and equality of arms or incorporate adequate safeguards to protect the interests of the accused (see Table 193). Cadder v HM Advocate [2010] UKSC 43409 Leading and relying on the evidence of the appellants interview by the police without the presence of his lawyer was a violation of his rights under Article 6.3(c) read in conjunction with Article 6.1 (see Table 193). Wright v Secretary of State for Health [2009] UKHL 3410 Violation of Article 6 (see Table 193). Saunders v UK no. 19187/91 [1994] ECHR411 Violation of Article 6.1 (see Table 193). Khan v UK no. 35394/97 [2000] ECHR412 No violation of Article 6.1; violation of Article 8 (see Table 193). X v the UK (1993) 15 EHRR CD 113.

    Table 199: Key concerns raised by human rights monitoring bodies Domestic Joint Committee on Human Rights (JCHR) (2010c), Counter-Terrorism Policy and Human Rights (Seventeenth Report): Bringing human rights back in413, 9 March 2010, concluded that the use of secret evidence and special advocates in the control order regime, as that regime is currently designed in law and operated in practice, could not be made to operate in a way which is compatible with the requirements of basic fairness inherent in both the common law and Article 6 ECHR. The JCHR recommended that the Government urgently conduct a comprehensive review of the use of secret evidence and special advocates, in all contexts in which they are used, in light of the judgements of the European Court of Human Rights and the House of Lords, to ascertain how often they are used and whether their use is compatible with the minimum requirements of the right to a fair hearing.

    351

    The Right to a Fair Trial HRA, Article 6

    JCHR (2010b), Counter-Terrorism Policy and Human Rights (Sixteenth Report): Annual Review of Control Orders Legislation 2010414, 23 February 2010, found that the current system of control orders cannot be made to operate in a way that is compatible with the requirements of basic fairness which are inherent in both the common law and in Article 6 ECHR, as the current system is not capable of ensuring the substantial measure of procedural justice that is required. JCHR (2009b), Legislative Scrutiny: Policing and Crime Bill (gangs injunctions)415, 27 April 2009, expressed the JCHRs concern that the proposed introduction of gang injunctions represents the introduction of another measure of control which is outside of the criminal process and which avoid the appropriate standard of fairness. JCHR (2009c), Childrens Rights416, October 2009, noted its concerns about the degree to which ASBOs hasten childrens entry into the criminal justice system, before other strategies have been tried. The JCHR also expressed its particular concern about the high number of children from especially vulnerable and marginalised groups within the criminal justice system. The Government should review and explain why such a disproportionate number of children who are looked-after, Gypsies and Travellers or have autism, are present within the criminal justice system, and why existing strategies appear to be failing. JCHR (2010d), Work of the Committee in 2008-2009417, reported that the system of control orders, by which the activities of terrorism suspects who have not been prosecuted can be regulated and curtailed, is bound to lead to breaches of the ECHR, particularly because people subject to control orders are not given the details of the case against them. Scottish Human Rights Commission, Comments in response to the Criminal Procedure (Legal Assistance, Detention and Appeals) Scotland Bill 2010.418

    International UN Human Rights Committee (2008), The Committee is concerned about the control order regime established under the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 which involves the imposition of a wide range of restrictions, including curfews of up to 16 hours, on individuals suspected of being involved in terrorism, but who have not been charged with any criminal offence. The Committee is also concerned that the judicial procedure whereby the imposition of a control order can be challenged is problematic, since the court may consider secret material in closed session, which in practice denies the person on whom the control order is served the direct opportunity to effectively challenge the allegations against him or her. (Articles 9 and 14).419

    352

    The Right to a Fair Trial HRA, Article 6

    UN Human Rights Committee (2008), under Schedule 8 to the Terrorism Act 2000, access to a lawyer can be delayed for up to 48 hours if the police conclude that such access would lead, for instance, to interference with evidence or alerting another suspect. The Committee considers that the State party has failed to justify this power.420 United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) (2010), Joint Study on global practices in relation to secret detention in the context of countering terrorism, of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism, Martin Scheinin; the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Manfred Nowak; the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention represented by its Vice-Chair, Shaheen Sardar Ali; and the Working Group on enforced or involuntary disappearances represented by its Chair, Jeremy Sarkin, 19 February 2010421, detailed allegations that the UK knowingly took advantage of the situation of secret detention, including in the cases of including Binyam Mohamed, Salahuddin Amin, Zeeshan Siddiqui, Rangzieb Ahmed and Rashid Rauf422. Reprieve notes that the report includes: Confirmation that the UK knew about US renditions practices from 2002, yet continued to hand vulnerable prisoners to US custody with no process until well into 2004; Confirmation that the UK knowingly received information obtained from prisoners being interrogated in US ghost detention; Numerous cases showing that the UK took advantage of illegal secret detention practices over at least three continents by colluding in torture; Unanswered questions in relation to the number of prisoners held by torturous Arab regimes at the request of the UK423

    See Table 83 for further details. UN Human Rights Committee (2008), Consideration of reports submitted by States parties under article 40 of the Covenant: International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: concluding observations of the Human Rights Committee: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, 30 July 2008424, noted that in order to combat terrorist activities, the State party is considering the adoption of further legislative measures which may have potentially far-reaching effects on the rights guaranteed in the Covenant. In particular, while it is disturbed by the extension of the maximum period of detention without charge of terrorist suspects under the Terrorism Act 2006 from 14 days to 28 days, it is even more disturbed by the proposed extension of this maximum period of detention under the counterterrorism bill from 28 days to 42 days The State party should ensure that any terrorist suspect arrested should be promptly informed of any charge against him or her and tried within a reasonable time or released.

    353

    The Right to a Fair Trial HRA, Article 6

    The UN Human Rights Committee also noted its concerns about about the control order regime established under the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 which involves the imposition of a wide range of restrictions, including curfews of up to 16 hours, on individuals suspected of being involved in terrorism, but who have not been charged with any criminal offence. While control orders have been categorized by the House of Lords as civil orders, they can give rise to criminal liability if breached. The Committee is also concerned that the judicial procedure whereby the imposition of a control order can be challenged is problematic, since the court may consider secret material in closed session, which in practice denies the person on whom the control order is served the direct opportunity to effectively challenge the allegations against him or her. The State party should review the control order regime established under the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 in order to ensure that it is in conformity with the provisions of the Covenant. In particular, it should ensure that the judicial procedure whereby the imposition of a control order can be challenged complies with the principle of equality of arms, which requires access by the concerned person and the legal counsel of his own choice to the evidence on which the control order is made. The State party should also ensure that those subjected to control orders are promptly charged with a criminal offence. Table 200: Outcomes of inspection, regulation and complaints procedures that engage Article 6 Privy Council (2008), Review of Intercept as Evidence, 30 January 2008, which provided in-principle support for the introduction of intercept as evidence.425 The Hunt Review of the regulation of legal services (Hunt, 2009)426, October 2009, an independent report into the future regulation of law firms undertaken on behalf of the profession, in the hope of helping to build an effective, proportionate regulatory regime that would serve the public interest in line with the statutory regulatory objectives. Review of the Regulation of Corporate Legal Work (Smedley, 2009)427, March 2009, made a number of recommendations to strengthen the capacity of the SRA to regulate and supervise the corporate legal sector, so that the risks of regulatory failure are reduced. Ministry of Justice (2010), Review of Legal Aid Delivery and Governance (Magee, 2010)428, explored models for the delivery of legal aid; the possibility of separating the Criminal Defence Service from the Community Legal Service; and explored the effectiveness of ministerial accountability for, and policy direction of, legal aid; and of the transparency of financial management arrangements. Review of Scots criminal law and practice in light of the Cadder decision of the UK Supreme Court, Carloway.429

    354

    The Right to a Fair Trial HRA, Article 6

    Table 201: Key concerns and allegations raised by private individuals and civil society organisations/reports in the media International Commission of Jurists (2009), Assessing Damage, Urging Action, Report of the Eminent Jurists Panel on Terrorism, Counter-Terrorism and Human Rights, 17 February 2009430, expressed concern that, over the longer term, control orders could give rise to a parallel legal system and undermine the rule of law. It concluded that if control orders are to be used, it is essential to build in appropriate safeguards and that there are many important safeguards missing in the control order system currently operating in the UK. Justice (2009), Secret Evidence, based on a comprehensive survey of the use of secret evidence since the Special Immigration Appeals Commission was created in 1997, the report argues that over the last 12 years, the British traditions of open justice and the right to a fair hearing have increasingly been undermined by the use of secret evidence in closed hearings. It sets out recommendations for the reform of the current law and procedure in order to guarantee that all defendants are able to know the evidence against them. Amnesty International (2010e), Five Years On: Time to End the Control Orders Regime, August 2010431, highlighted the severe restrictions control orders place on individuals, sometimes in violation of their rights to liberty, freedom of movement, expression, association and privacy. Amnesty International found that the control order regime failed to meet the requirements of international human rights law. Sound off for justice432, the Law Societys campaign against proposed government cuts to legal aid, argues that the cuts proposed threaten the very principle of access to justice.

    Indicator 36: Spotlight statistics: Access to courts and tribunals


    Table 202: Provision of interpreters and information in alternative languages for those detained in an immigration removal centre, as self-reported by detainees, England and Wales, 2008-09
    N When being detained, were you told the reasons why in a language you could understand? Following detention, were you given written reasons why you were being detained in a language you could understand? Of those who have had a written review, was the review written in a language you could understand? 652 571 303 % 69 62 64

    Source: HM Inspectorate of Prisons (HMIP) for England and Wales (2010b). Notes: Total number of survey respondents: 1,019. Percentages may vary in regard to the n-value as all comparator data is weighted. Immigration removal centre comparator from 2005 onwards. Percentages are calculated only from those who answered the question; missing data has been excluded. See Appendix 2 for demographic information. 355

    The Right to a Fair Trial HRA, Article 6

    Table 203: Detained people who self-report that they find it easy or very easy to communicate with their solicitor or legal representative, England and Wales, 2008-09
    Type of prison Local N=4,323 High security N=418 Young offenders (18-21) N=1,858 Category B trainers N=855 Category C trainers N=4,167 Open N=1,254 Female N=1,352 Immigration removal centres N=1,019 N 1,606 223 832 377 1,839 717 457 258 % 41 58 47 57 51 62 42 43

    Source: HMIP for England and Wales (2010b). Notes: The n-value refers to the total number of respondents for each survey. Percentages may vary in regard to the n-value as all comparator data is weighted. Local comparator from 2006 onwards. High security comparator from 2007 onwards. Young offender institutions comparator from 2005 onwards. Cat B Trainers comparator from 2005 onwards. Category B trainers comparator from 2005 onwards. Opens comparator from 2005 onwards. Children and young people comparator from 2009 onwards. Female comparator from 2005 onwards. Immigration removal centre comparator from 2005 onwards. Data for children and young people only includes responses from males because of the small number of female respondents. Percentages are calculated only from those who answered the question; missing data has been excluded. See Appendix 2 for demographic information.

    356

    The Right to a Fair Trial HRA, Article 6

    Table 204: Adult male prisoners who self-report that they find it easy or very easy to communicate with their solicitor or legal representative, by ethnicity, religion and disability, England and Wales, 2008-09
    Black and minority ethnic prisoners Number of completed questionnaires Percentage who find it easy or very easy to communicate with their solicitor or legal representative Consider themselves to have a disability Do not consider themselves to have a disability

    White

    Muslim prisoners

    Non-Muslim prisoners

    1,037

    2,890

    422

    3,435

    559

    3,170

    43%

    50%

    44%

    49%

    43%

    49%

    Source: HMIP for England and Wales (2010b). Notes: Light grey boxes denote where the group is significantly worse than the comparator. (Emphasis as in publication.)

    357

    The Right to a Fair Trial HRA, Article 6

    Table 205: Percentage of those who are very satisfied with their experience of visiting court by ethnicity, age, disability, gender and religion, England and Wales, 2008-10
    Data recorded between 1 May 2008 7 April 2009 (Year 3) Overall Ethnicity White Asian Black Age 16-34 35-54 55+ Illness Longstanding illness No illness Gender Male Female Religion No religion Christian Other N/A N/A N/A 36 43 38 N/A N/A N/A 39 45 37 43 Yes No 44 42 41 40 No Yes 38 44 49 36 42 47 Yes No No 43 40 36 41 35 29 Yes No Yes 42 Data recorded between 1 May 2009 31 March 2010 (Year 4) 40 Statistically significant difference between Years 3 and 4? Yes

    Source: MoJ (2010g). Notes: Data based on the following question: Disregarding the outcome of your visit, or the result of your case, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you generally youre your experience today?. Religion was asked for the first time in Year 4. Other religions are not shown due to low base sizes. For details of the base numbers, please see the original source.

    358

    The Right to a Fair Trial HRA, Article 6

    Table 206: Percentage of civil justice problems where respondents obtained advice, England and Wales, January 2006 January 20091
    Did not obtain advice Count 18-24 25-44 45-64 65-74 75+ Female Male White Asian/Asian British Black/Black British Mixed Chinese or other Religion None Christian Buddhist Hindu Jewish Muslim Sikh Other Not ill/disabled Ill/disabled 302 1,364 1,055 245 103 1,615 1,456 2,818 99 88 34 23 1,111 1,790 22 26 10 67 10 27 2,140 931 % 57.9 48.7 49.7 53.3 58.2 48.3 53.1 49.9 56.6 61.5 61.8 59.0 51.4 49.7 59.5 57.8 43.5 53.2 76.9 52.9 51.3 48.7 Obtained advice Count 220 1,435 1,066 215 74 1,729 1,285 2,831 76 55 21 16 1,050 1,815 15 19 13 59 3 24 2,033 981 % 42.1 51.3 50.3 46.7 41.8 51.7 46.9 50.1 43.4 38.5 38.2 41.0 48.6 50.3 40.5 42.2 56.5 46.8 23.1 47.1 48.7 51.3 Continued

    359

    The Right to a Fair Trial HRA, Article 6

    Table 206: Percentage of civil justice problems where respondents obtained advice, England and Wales, January 2006 January 20091 (continued)
    Did not obtain advice Count Class Dont know Modern professional occupations Clerical and intermediate occupations Senior managers or administrators Technical and craft occupations Semi-routine manual service occupations Routine manual service occupations Middle or junior managers Traditional professional occupations Other (specify) 7 378 352 190 228 249 306 113 159 12 % 63.6 50.7 54.2 51.9 52.5 48.3 47.2 44.8 53.2 29.3 Obtained advice Count 4 368 298 176 206 267 342 139 140 29 % 36.4 49.3 45.8 48.1 47.5 51.7 52.8 55.2 46.8 70.7

    Source: Alkire et al. (2009), table provided by Legal Services Research Centre. Notes: 1 Civil and Social Justice Survey covers adults 18+. The survey question on disability refers to a longstanding illness, disability or infirmity and By longstanding I mean anything that troubled [you/them] over a period of time or that was likely to affect [you/ them] over a period of time.

    360

    The Right to a Fair Trial HRA, Article 6

    Table 207: Percentage of civil justice problems where respondents gave up or did nothing as opposed to other outcomes, England and Wales, January 2006 January 20091
    Other outcome Count 18-24 25-44 45-64 65-74 75+ Female Male White Asian/Asian British Black/Black British Mixed Chinese or other Religion None Christian Buddhist Hindu Jewish Muslim Sikh Other Not ill/disabled Ill/disabled 223 1,287 971 194 68 1,445 1,303 2,596 64 52 15 15 981 1,649 16 18 14 41 2 23 1,954 794 % 70.3 78.2 78.0 70.5 62.4 75.4 77.6 76.8 66.7 74.3 62.5 75.0 75.9 77.4 76.2 58.1 82.4 64.1 40.0 74.2 76.7 75.6 Gave up/did nothing Count 94 359 274 81 41 472 377 783 32 18 9 5 311 481 5 13 3 23 3 8 593 256 % 29.7 21.8 22.0 29.5 37.6 24.6 22.4 23.2 33.3 25.7 37.5 25.0 24.1 22.6 23.8 41.9 17.6 35.9 60.0 25.8 23.3 24.4 Continued

    361

    The Right to a Fair Trial HRA, Article 6

    Table 207: Percentage of civil justice problems where respondents gave up or did nothing as opposed to other outcomes, England and Wales, January 2006 January 20091 (continued)
    Other outcome Count Class Dont know Modern professional occupations Clerical and intermediate occupations Senior managers or administrators Technical and craft occupations Semi-routine manual service occupations Routine manual service occupations Middle or junior managers Traditional professional occupations Other (specify) 3 369 277 167 210 227 257 116 149 12 % 37.5 77.5 74.1 76.3 78.1 74.2 74.5 77.3 76.4 63.2 Gave up/did nothing Count 5 107 97 52 59 79 88 34 46 7 % 62.5 22.5 25.9 23.7 21.9 25.8 25.5 22.7 23.6 36.8

    Source: Alkire et al. (2009), table provided by Legal Services Research Centre. Notes: 1 Civil and Social Justice Survey covers adults 18+. The survey question on disability refers to a longstanding illness, disability or infirmity and By longstanding I mean anything that troubled [you/them] over a period of time or that was likely to affect [you/ them] over a period of time.

    362

    The Right to a Fair Trial HRA, Article 6

    Indicator 37: Spotlight statistics: Special prosecution Indicator 38: Spotlight statistics: Appropriate justice for children and young people
    Table 208: Number of over 10 and under 18 year old defendants appearing at the Crown Court for trial or sentence, by sex, England and Wales, 2008
    Age and reason for appearing 10 under 12 Appearing for trial Appearing for sentence Male Female Male Female 12 under 15 Appearing for trial Appearing for sentence Male Female Male Female 15 under 18 Appearing for trial Appearing for sentence Male Female Male Female Total 2,835 282 2,177 170 5,872 189 17 150 8 379 205 25 154 15 9 0 6 0 5 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 Sex England Wales

    Source: MoJ (2010c). For further relevant evidence under this Indicator, see Table 154.

    363

    The Right to a Fair Trial HRA, Article 6

    Indicator 39: Spotlight statistics: Treatment of victims and witnesses protection


    Table 209: Percentage of victims and witnesses satisfied with their treatment with the criminal justice system, measured by the Witness and Victim Experience Survey, England and Wales (2008-09 2009-10)
    Victims and witness satisfaction with the criminal justice system2 Cases closed period England and Wales October 2008 to September 2009 83 (base 37,895) October 2009 to September 20102 85* (base 37,864)

    Source: Ministry of Justice (2011b). Notes: The table shows the percentage of victims and witnesses completely/very/fairly satisfied (weighted data). * Denotes a statistically significant difference at the 5% significance level compared with the previous 12 months. Percentages have been rounded to the nearest whole percentage point. 2 Data for the period October 2009 to September 2010 are provisional and subject to change. Data for Northumbria are based on cases closed between October 2009 to June 2010 only, and should be used with caution. Table 210: Percentage of victims and witnesses satisfied with their overall contact with the criminal justice system by ethnicity, measured by the Witness and Victim Experience Survey, England and Wales, cases closed in the 12 months to June 2010
    Percentages and base sizes White Satisfied Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied Dissatisfied Base 85 2 13 13,355 Asian 84 3 13 1,938 Black 81 1 17 1,025 Mixed 81 2 17 695 Chinese or Other 86 2 12 566 Total 84 2 13 37,579

    Source: MoJ (2011b). Notes: 1 Figures may not sum to 100 due to rounding. 2 Respondents who did not state their ethnicity excluded. 3 Ministry of Justice (MoJ) analysis suggests that significantly fewer people in the Black ethnic group reported being satisfied than in the White ethnic group and significantly more people in the Black ethnic group reported being dissatisfied than in the White, Asian, and Chinese or Other ethnic groups. The difference in the proportion of Mixed and White ethnic groups reporting being dissatisfied was also significant. 364

    The Right to a Fair Trial HRA, Article 6

    Indicator 40: Spotlight statistics: Public attitudes, understanding and experiences


    Table 211: Public attitudes towards being entitled to a fair trial
    Which of the following, if any, would you say are the most important values for living in Britain today? Being entitled to a fair trial 58 %

    And which four of five, if any, are most important to you personally? 28 %

    And which, if any, do you consider to be fundamental human rights? 39 %

    Source: Kaur-Ballagan et al. (2009). Notes: This data is based on a demographically representative, face-to-face omnibus survey with 1,994 British adults over the age of 16 undertaken in August 2008.

    365

    Table 212: Public attitudes toward the right to a fair trial: Liberty polling exercise
    Age Social grade Region

    Gender

    Total Male 93 120 115 99% 99% 99% 96% 97% 201 96% 99% 97% 91% 94% 144 222 227 132 139 267 281 191 216 97% 236 93% 187 74% 53 60 77 49 19% 1 3% 2 1% 2 1% * 2 1% 7 2% 11 5% 4 2% 8 4% 4 2% 11 4% 1 1% 151 189 169 148 208 268 287 202 224 248 258 98% 250 95% 187 71% 63 24% 7 3% 5 2% 160 190 170 150 210 270 290 210 230 254 264 163 194 184 159 207 376 198 157 269 259 252 253 251 250 99% 248 99% 188 75% 60 24% 2 1%

    Female

    1824 65+ AB C1 C2 DE Midlands

    2534 35-44 45-54

    5564

    South East

    North England

    Wales and South West Scotland 145 144 142 98% 138 95% 107 74% 31 21% 4 3% 1 1% 91 87 84 97% 82 95% 51 59% 31 36% 2 2% 2 3% Continued

    The Right to a Fair Trial HRA, Article 6

    Unweighted base

    1,000

    434

    566

    Weighted base

    1,000

    490

    510

    Net: Of use at all

    981

    480

    501

    Net: Of use at all 107 98% 144 76% 43 23% 2 1% 1 . 3% 1% 4 2 7 22% 18% 37 27 57 44 75% 79% 127 119 97% 98% 148 187 165 146

    98%

    98%

    98% 96% 94% 100% 100% 99%

    366
    79 107 69% 82% 78% 63% 60% 29 41 27% 16% 18% 28% 33% 8 7% 3 2% 1% 2 2% 3

    Net: Vital/ important

    954

    463

    491

    Net: Vital/ important

    95%

    95%

    96% 89% 92%

    Vital4

    720

    361

    360

    72%

    74%

    70% 66% 67%

    Important3

    234

    103

    131

    23%

    21%

    26% 24% 25%

    Useful2

    27

    16

    10

    3%

    3%

    2%

    Unnecessary1

    10

    1%

    2%

    Table 212: Public attitudes toward the right to a fair trial: Liberty polling exercise (continued)
    Age Social grade Region

    Gender

    Total Male 2 1% 3.75 0.46 0.03 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.53 0.53 0.60 0.46 0.47 0.68 0.66 0.58 0.64 0.04 3.71 3.76 3.63 3.81 3.77 3.55 3.53 3.69 3.64 4% * 1% 2% 1% 2% * 1% 3.75 0.45 0.03 6 1 3 4 2 5 1 1

    Female

    1824 65+ AB C1 C2 DE Midlands

    2534 35-44 45-54

    5564

    South East

    North England

    Wales and South West Scotland 2 1% 3.71 0.55 0.05 3.51 0.68 0.07

    Dont know

    1%

    1%

    1%

    Mean

    3.68

    3.68

    3.68 3.55 3.65

    Standard deviation

    0.58

    0.62

    0.53 0.73 0.61

    Standard error

    0.02

    0.03

    0.02 0.08 0.05

    Base: All respondents

    367

    Source: Liberty (2011).

    Note: Respondents were asked the following question [several rights were actually listed and respondents responses to each right are shown in the relevant chapter]: In modern Britain, would you say each of the following rights are vital, important, useful, or unnecessary? The right to a fair trial. [
    The Right to a Fair Trial HRA, Article 6

    The Right to a Fair Trial HRA, Article 6

    Table 213: Percentage of people that are very or fairly confident that the criminal justice system respects the rights of individuals accused of committing a crime and treats them fairly, by age, gender, ethnicity, disability, religion and social class, England and Wales, 2007-08
    % Age 16-24 25-44 45-64 65-74 75+ Gender Male Female Ethnicity White Mixed Asian Black Chinese/other Non-white White Disability No limiting longstanding illness or disability Limiting longstanding illness or disability Religion Christian Buddhist Hindu Jewish Muslim Sikh Other No religion 80.3 80.4 75.2 70.6 78.2 80.9 81.3 78.0** Continued 80.2 77.5** 80.1 75.9 78.9 68.8** 77.9 76.0 80.1** 80.5 79.0** 75.9 80.4** 80.4** 80.4** 80.7**

    368

    The Right to a Fair Trial HRA, Article 6

    Table 213: Percentage of people that are very or fairly confident that the criminal justice system respects the rights of individuals accused of committing a crime and treats them fairly, by age, gender, ethnicity, disability, religion and social class, England and Wales, 2007-08 (continued)
    % Social class Managerial and professional occupations Intermediate occupations Small employers and own account workers Lower supervisory and technical Semi-routine and routine Never worked and long-term unemployed Full-time student Not classified 82.4 81.1 77.9** 79.7** 77.2** 77.4** 78.2** 77.5

    Source: Alkire et al. (2009) Notes: Data from British Crime Survey England and Wales, 2007-08. Authors preliminary calculations. ** Denotes statistical significance based on ANOVA test. Table 214: Proportion of those questioned in the British Crime Survey expressing confidence that the criminal justice system as a whole is fair, England and Wales (2008-09 2009-10)
    Confident that the criminal justice system as a whole is fair3 12 months to September 09 England and Wales 59 12 months to September 10 61*

    Source: MoJ (2011c). Notes: This table shows the percentage of those questioned who were very/fairly confident. Percentages have been rounded to the nearest whole percentage point. Data are provisional and subject to change. The confidence indicator is made up of two questions: 1. The criminal justice system as a whole is effective and 2. The criminal justice system as a whole is fair. A revised method to calculate survey design effects was introduced from March 2009 which is comparable with the method used by the Home Office British Crime Survey team.

    369

    The Right to a Fair Trial HRA, Article 6

    Table 215: Public confidence in the fairness of the criminal justice system, England and Wales (2008-09 2009-10)
    12 months to September 2009 Unweighted base Question1, 2 Criminal justice system gives witnesses and victims the support they need Criminal justice system treats those who have been accused of a crime as innocent until proven guilty Criminal justice system takes into account the views of victims and witnesses Criminal justice system discriminates against particular groups or individuals Total Aggregated percentage Strongly/Tend to agree 12 months to September 2010 Unweighted base Total Aggregated percentage Strongly/Tend to agree

    37,740

    56

    36,987

    57

    40,665

    78

    40,100

    78

    39,563

    71

    38,867

    72*

    38,032

    65 Very/fairly confident

    37,409 Total 43,328

    66* Very/fairly confident 61*

    Criminal justice system as a whole is fair

    43,748

    59

    Source: MoJ (2011c). Notes: * Denotes a statistically significant change (at the 5% significance level) since the 12 months to September 2009. 1 Analysis excludes dont know/refusal responses. 2 Data are provisional and subject to change. British Crime Survey respondents are given a set of seven statements covering common attitudes towards issues around fairness in order to provoke consideration of these different aspects before asking the general question on confidence in the fairness of the criminal justice system as a whole. These seven lead-in statements are not used to measure performance.

    370

    The Right to a Fair Trial HRA, Article 6

    Chapter notes
    374

    The status of UN treaty ratification is drawn from the UN Treaty Database, www.unhchr.ch/tbs/ doc.nsf/Statusfrset?OpenFrameSet (accessed 4 November 2010). The status of European treaty ratification is drawn from the Council of Europe Treaty Office website, conventions.coe. int/ (accessed 4 November 2010). When a state signs an international treaty this is signals its preliminary endorsement of the treaty, it does not create a binding legal obligation. A state which ratifies or accedes to a treaty is asserting that it considers itself to be legally bound by the treaty. Ratification requires the state to have previously signed the treaty, whereas accession is a single step which does not require previous signing. It should be noted that a treaty which has been acceded to or ratified by the UK does not automatically become part of the domestic law; separate legislative action is required to incorporate international law into domestic law (for example, the HRA making the ECHR enforceable in the UK). Nonetheless, ratification or accession is a states expression that it consents to be legally bound by the treaty, including respecting and implementing its provisions. cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentId=845092&portal=hbkm&sourc e=externalbydocnumber&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649 lexisweb.co.uk/cases/2010/january/r-on-the-application-of-g-v-governors-of-x-school-andanother-secretary-of-state-for-children-school Miller et al, www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2004/11/20181/45877 (accessed 27 January 2011). cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentId=695800&portal=hbkm&sourc e=externalbydocnumber&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649 www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2010/65.html cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentId=696134&portal=hbkm&sourc e=externalbydocnumber&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649 cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentId=855981&portal=hbkm&sourc e=externalbydocnumber&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649 cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentId=696470&portal=hbkm&sourc e=externalbydocnumber&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649 cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentId=695373&portal=hbkm&sourc e=externalbydocnumber&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649 cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentId=683621&portal=hbkm&sourc e=externalbydocnumber&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649 cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentId=695857&portal=hbkm&sourc e=externalbydocnumber&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649 cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentId=706449&portal=hbkm&sourc e=externalbydocnumber&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649 www.supremecourt.gov.uk/docs/UKSC_2010_0022_Judgment.pdf cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentId=843647&portal=hbkm&sourc e=externalbydocnumber&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/2009/3.html cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentId=683577&portal=hbkm&sourc e=externalbydocnumber&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649 cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentId=696718&portal=hbkm&sourc e=externalbydocnumber&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649 cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentId=695449&portal=hbkm&sourc e=externalbydocnumber&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649 cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentId=695447&portal=hbkm&sourc e=externalbydocnumber&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649 cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentId=695302&portal=hbkm&sourc e=externalbydocnumber&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649

    375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394

    371

    The Right to a Fair Trial HRA, Article 6

    395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432

    www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKPC/2000/D3.html www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/(Symbol)/bb722416a295f264c12563ed0049dfbd?Opendocument daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G07/437/71/PDF/G0743771.pdf?OpenElement cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentId=845092&portal=hbkm&sourc e=externalbydocnumber&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649 lexisweb.co.uk/cases/2010/january/r-on-the-application-of-g-v-governors-of-x-school-andanother-secretary-of-state-for-children-school Miller et al, www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2004/11/20181/45877 (accessed 27 January 2011). cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentId=695800&portal=hbkm&sourc e=externalbydocnumber&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649 www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2010/65.html (accessed 10 March 2011). cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentId=696134&portal=hbkm&sourc e=externalbydocnumber&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649 cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentId=696470&portal=hbkm&sourc e=externalbydocnumber&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649 cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentId=695373&portal=hbkm&sourc e=externalbydocnumber&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649 cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentId=683621&portal=hbkm&sourc e=externalbydocnumber&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649 cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentId=695857&portal=hbkm&sourc e=externalbydocnumber&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649 cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentId=706449&portal=hbkm&sourc e=externalbydocnumber&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649 www.supremecourt.gov.uk/docs/UKSC_2010_0022_Judgment.pdf www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/2009/3.html cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentId=683577&portal=hbkm&sourc e=externalbydocnumber&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649 cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentId=696718&portal=hbkm&sourc e=externalbydocnumber&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649 www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt200910/jtselect/jtrights/86/86.pdf www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt200910/jtselect/jtrights/64/64.pdf www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt200809/jtselect/jtrights/81/81.pdf www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt200809/jtselect/jtrights/157/157.pdf www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt201011/jtselect/jtrights/32/32.pdf, p 7. www.scottishhumanrights.com/news/latestnews/article/cadderlegislationcomment www.statewatch.org/news/2008/jul/uk-un-hr.pdf, pp4-5 (accessed 2 December 2010). www.statewatch.org/news/2008/jul/uk-un-hr.pdf, p 5 (accessed 2 December 2010). www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/13session/A-HRC-13-42.pdf www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/13session/A-HRC-13-42.pdf, p 82. www.reprieve.org.uk/2010_01_27_un_report www.unhcr.org/refworld/publisher,HRC,CONCOBSERVATIONS,GBR,48a9411a2,0.html www.official-documents.gov.uk/document/cm73/7324/7324.pdf www.lawcentres.org.uk/uploads/Legal_Regulation_Report_October_2009.pdf www.lawcentres.org.uk/uploads/Review_of_the_Regulation_of_Corporate_Legal_Work_03.09_.pdf www.justice.gov.uk/publications/docs/legal-aid-delivery.pdf www.scotland.gov.uk/About/CarlowayReview ejp.icj.org/IMG/EJP-Report.pdf www.amnesty.org/en/library/info/EUR45/012/2010/en soundoffforjustice.org/ (accessed 11 July 2011).

    372

    Chapter 9
    The Right to Respect for Private and Family Life (Human Rights Act, Article 8)

    Please read Part II Guidance on using and interpreting the Human Rights Measurement Framework first.

    The Right to Respect for Private and Family Life (Human Rights Act (HRA), Article 8)

    Panel and indicators


    Actions/inactions by the state, its agents or bodies fulfilling a public function Private life Personal information and surveillance Family life Home Correspondence Environmental rights

    Protection of the right to private and family life by the state, its agents or bodies fulfilling a public function

    Indicators

    The Right to Respect for Private and Family Life HRA, Article 8

    Physical and psychological integrity; personal, social and sexual identity; personal development, autonomy and participation

    374

    Structural (indicators of commitment in principle)

    Indicator 41: Legal and constitutional framework Protection of the right to respect for private and family life by the state, its agents or bodies fulfilling a public function (including constitutional/higher law) Status of ratification of relevant international treaties

    Indicator 42: Legal precedents, gaps and standard-setting Principles established in key cases (domestic and ECHR) and international standard setting processes Gaps in protection and non-implementation of legal judgements and recommendations

    Process (indicators of steps taken including legal, regulatory and public policy measures)

    Indicator 43: Regulatory framework Key regulators, inspectorates, ombudsmen Relevant responsibilities and powers, national minimum standard frameworks and inspection/complaints-handling criteria

    Indicator 44: Public policy framework Primary legislation Relevant codes and guidance Other relevant policies, plans, targets and goals Spotlight resource allocations

    Outcome (indicators of the position of individuals and groups in practice/ emergence of a human rights culture)

    Indicator 45: Outcomes of key judicial, regulatory and investigative processes Case law outcomes (covering, for example, negative obligations, positive obligations, sexual identity, respect, autonomy, support for disability) Key concerns raised by human rights monitoring bodies Outcomes of regulation, inspection,ombudsmen and complaints procedures that engage Article 6 Outcomes of independent inquiries and investigations that engage Article 6 Key allegations by private individuals and civil society organisations/reports in the media

    Indicator 46: Respect for private and family life: Privacy, identity and autonomy Interference in private life and surveillance (DNA database; Use of Radio Frequency Identification; Use of CCTV (proportionate and necessary); targeted surveillance, etc.) Gender identity and human rights

    Indicator 47: Spotlight statistics: The detention context Reporting against HM Inspectorate of Prisons (HMIP) of Expectations Criteria (cross-reference A3, which covers slopping out, overcrowding and prolonged containment in cells) for example, sanitation, correspondence, individual life, family life The number of women who have been refused a place at a mother and baby unit in prison (or alternatively the availability of unit places compared to the demand)

    375

    Indicator 48: Spotlight statistics: Unmet basic needs that may meet the Article 8 threshold Deprivation in income/other basic goods and services that may meet the Article 8 threshold Unmet support needs in health and social care that may meet the Article 8 threshold (support for disabled people, including disabled children; support for individuals to remain in their homes (rather than be moved to a private institution, for example to receive healthcare) Asylum seekers and their families- destitution and separation of asylum seekers from family ties

    Indicator 49: Spotlight statistics: Abuse, neglect, discrimination and dignity and respect Treatment and neglect of older people Bullying in schools Harassment and identity-based targeting Financial and emotional abuse

    The Right to Respect for Private and Family Life HRA, Article 8

    Indicator 50: Spotlight statistics: Public attitudes, understanding and experiences Awareness of information rights legislation Experiences of identity-based discrimination Percentage with experience of unfair treatment, harassment or bullying at work in the last two years

    Panel and indicators (continued)

    The Right to Respect for Private and Family Life HRA, Article 8

    Indicators should be systematically disaggregated Key disaggregation characteristics include ethnicity/race, gender, disability, sexual orientation, transgender, religion and belief, age, social class, area (region, urban/rural, remoteness) with separate reporting of the non-private household population and at risk/vulnerable groups including individuals staying in/resident/detained in public and private institutions; individuals living in poverty; refugees/asylum seekers, vulnerable children and young people (for example, children in need, looked after children, children who are carers), Gypsies and Travellers, etc.

    376

    The Right to Respect for Private and Family Life HRA, Article 8

    Evidence base
    Structural indicators Indicator 41: Legal and constitutional framework
    Table 216: Protection of the right to respect for private and family life in domestic law (including constitutional/higher law) UK HRA Article 8. Table 217: Status of ratification of relevant international treaties433 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) Article 17 ratified. ICCPR First Optional Protocol not ratified (individual complaints mechanism). ECHR and Protocols 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 10, 11, 13 and 14 ratified.

    Indicator 42: Legal precedents, gaps and standard-setting


    Table 218: Principles established in key cases (domestic and ECHR) Positive obligation to respect private and family life Douglas and others v Hello! Ltd [2003] EWHC 55434 There is a positive obligation on the state to protect Article 8 rights against interference by other private parties.435

    Interference in enjoyment of private and family life must be legal, necessary and proportionate Gillan and Quinton v UK no. 4158/05 [2010] ECHR436 Stop and search powers under Section 44 Terrorism Act 2000 breached the right to respect for private life because the power is so broad that it fails to provide safeguards against abuse. S & Marper v UK (GC) nos. 30562/04 and 30566/04 [2008] ECHR437 The policy of blanket DNA and fingerprint retention for all persons suspected of committing criminal acts (including those subsequently acquitted or against whom proceedings are discontinued) breached the right to private life. R (Wright and others) v Secretary of State for Health and another [2009] UKHL 3438 The procedure under legislation allowing the provisional listing of care workers as being unsuited to work with vulnerable adults after a complaint had been made about them, without giving them an opportunity to answer the allegations, and which has the effect of barring them from care work, was a breach of Articles 6.1 and 8.

    377

    The Right to Respect for Private and Family Life HRA, Article 8

    R (F and Thomson) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2010] UKSC 17 The indefinite notification requirements for sexual offenders who had been sentenced to 30 months imprisonment or more were incompatible with the right to respect for private and family life because they did not contain any mechanism for reviewing the justification for continuing the requirements in individual cases.439 A v Scottish Ministers [2007] CSOH 189, 2008 SLT 412440 Resulted in the Scottish ministers making a remedial order under Section 14 of the Convention Rights (Compliance) (Scotland) Act 2001 to amend, for Scotland, the provisions of the Sex Offenders Act 2003, introducing a mechanism whereby those subject to indefinite notification can apply for their removal from what is known as the sex offender register.441

    Private life incorporates bodily integrity, personal autonomy, sexuality, personal identity and personal information442 Right to respect for physical integrity R (Bernard) v Enfield London Borough Council [2002] EWHC 2287 (Admin) The duty to assist an elderly woman with a disability to maintain her basic physical and psychological integrity.443 R (C) v Royal Devon and Exeter NHS Foundation Trust [2004]444 An injunction granted requiring the Trust to provide female nursing staff to perform Ms Cs intimate care tasks (as had been done for over 30 years) until the High Court ruled whether this was a breach of Articles 3 and 8. Prior to the hearing, the matter was settled, with the Trust providing the guarantees that Ms C had sought. The case highlighted the need for choice, independence, autonomy and dignity for disabled people in the provision of healthcare services, particularly intimate care services. R v East Sussex County Council Ex parte A, B, X and Y [2003] EWHC 167 (Admin) (DRC Intervener)445 A blanket ban on manual lifting by carers of people with a disability is unlikely to be lawful because it does not consider a persons individual circumstances. The court acknowledged that the enhanced degree of protection which may be called for when the human dignity at stake is that of someone who is so disabled as to be critically dependent on the help of others for even the simplest and most basic tasks of day to day living. The judgement also acknowledged that the right of the disabled to participate in the life of the community and to have what has been described as access to essential economic and social activities and to an appropriate range of recreational and cultural activities is encompassed within Article 8s protection of physical and psychological integrity. The Court ordered the local authority to revisit its policy to make sure it struck a better balance between the human rights of the sisters and the rights of the carers to a safe working environment.

    378

    The Right to Respect for Private and Family Life HRA, Article 8

    Glass v UK no. 61827/00 [2004] ECHR446 The decision of authorities to override parental objection to a course of medical treatment proposed in respect of a child was a breach of Article 8. The European Court of Human Rights referred to Articles 5-9 of the Oviedo Convention (Council of Europe Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Dignity of the Human Being with regard to the Application of Biology and Medicine: Convention of human Rights and Biomedicine) as relevant to interpretation of Article 8 (despite the fact that the UK is not a party to the Oviedo Convention). The Court found that treatment without consent (of the legal guardian) is an interference with Article 8, and the key question was whether it is based on the law, necessary and proportionate, a question under Article 8.2 not 8.1. The Court found that the treatment was in accordance with the law, that it was in pursuit of a legitimate aim (of relieving pain) [having rejected at previous partial admissibility stage argument that Do Not Revive notices violated the right to life]. The case turned on the necessity of the interference. The Court found that an immediate emergency cannot be isolated from the previous discussions between medical staff and applicants on what should happen in the event of an emergency. There was no satisfactory explanation as to why there was no legal recourse to the courts to resolve the dispute. The decision of the authorities to override Cs objection to treatment without recourse to the court violated Article 8. Pretty V UK no. 2346/02 [2002] ECHR447 The European Court of Human Rights said that the concept of private life is a broad term not susceptible to exhaustive definition. It covers the physical and psychological integrity of a person The very essence of the Convention is respect for human dignity and human freedom.

    The right to treatment Bensaid v UK no.44599/98 [2001] ECHR448 Article 3 might be breached if an individual was deported to a country where no suitable treatment was available; private life, protected by Article 8, includes the preservation of the individuals mental stability. Dickson v UK (GC) no. 44362/04 [2007] ECHR449 Over-ruling an earlier decision of the chamber, the European Court of Human Rights found that in refusing to permit artificial insemination between a prisoner and his wife, a fair balance was not struck between the competing public and private interests involved, and that there had therefore been a violation of Article 8.

    379

    The Right to Respect for Private and Family Life HRA, Article 8

    North West Lancashire Health Authority v A, D & G [2000] 1 WLR 977450 In a case of refusal by a health authority to fund gender reassignment surgery, the Court of Appeal held that Health Authorities have to make hard and often invidious decisions in the allocation of avowedly inadequate resources. But those decisions must proceed from proper assessments of the conditions competing for treatment. The authoritys policies were made upon the premise that transsexualism is not a disease and that surgical treatment for it is of no proven clinical benefit, and needed to be revisited. However, the Court of Appeal noted that Article 8 imposes no positive obligations to provide treatment.

    Treatment, resource allocation and the right to health451 R (on the application of F) v (1) Oxfordshire Mental Healthcare NHS trust (2) Oxfordshire Health Authority [2001] EWHC Admin 535452 Article 8 was not breached when a health authority refused to fund a medium security placement in Manchester rather than Oxford. Whilst a decision on funding affects lives, that was not a reason to judicialise them. R (on the application of H) v Mental Health Tribunal [2002] EWHC 1522 Admin453 The decision not to recommend the transfer of a patient to a hospital closer to his home did not breach Article 8. Decisions on such transfers may also be affected by questions as to the availability of resources with which the court cannot interfere unless those resources, and the lack of them, lead to an infringement of a Convention right, for example, a right under Article 3. That is not the position in the present case. R (on the application of Haggerty) v St Helens Council [2003] EWHC 803 Admin454 In a case concerning the closure of a private residential home, the court held that the financial resources of the council were an important element to be considered in the balancing exercise required by Article 8.2. R (on the application of Dudley and others) v East Sussex County Council [2003] EWHC 1093 Admin455 The High Court ruled that the closure of a residential home did not breach Articles 2, 3 and 8. There was no evidence that Articles 2 and 3 were engaged; if Article 8.1 was engaged, this was justified under Article 8.2 by the councils needs to balance competing claims on resources. R (on the application of Yvonne Watts) v (1) Bedford Primary Care Trust (2) Secretary of State for Health [2003] EWHC 2228 (Admin)456 In the context of a patient waiting in pain for a hip operation, the court held that neither Article 3 nor Article 8 rights were engaged in the request for reimbursement of medical costs incurred in an overseas hip replacement operation undertaken to avoid an NHS waiting list to perform the procedure in the UK.

    380

    The Right to Respect for Private and Family Life HRA, Article 8

    Autonomy Evans v UK (GC)6339/05 [2007] ECHR457, Pretty v UK no. 2346/02 [2002] ECHR458 The European Court of Human Rights found that autonomy and decision making are integral to the right to private and family life. Shtukaturov v Russia no. 44009/05 [2008] ECHR459 The European Court of Human Rights found that any interference with legal capacity such as a finding of full or partial incapacity or a guardianship order is an interference with the right to private and family life and must be based on law, pursue a legitimate aim and be a proportionate means of achieving that aim. The European Court found a violation of Article 8 on account of the applicants full incapacitation. Alajos Kiss v Hungary no. 38832/06 [2010] ECHR460 The European Court of Human Rights found that blanket restrictions on a group of people to exercise capacity in a certain area simply due to the existence of a partial guardianship is disproportionate. The ECtHR found a violation of Protocol 1 Article 3. Storck v Germany no. 61603/00[2005] ECHR461 The European Court of Human Rights found that a positive duty on the state to protect an individual from interference with their capacity from others exists. The European Court found a violation of Article 8 (the placement in a private clinic from 1977 to 1979); no violation of Article 8 (a stay in a private clinic in 1981 and treatment in a university clinic). Salontaji-Drobnjak v Serbia no. 36500/05[2009] ECHR462 The European Court of Human Rights found that individuals have a right to a fair hearing (including right to participate in decisions and of access to a court to challenge decisions) in relation to a determination of their legal capacity(see Table 193). The European Court found a violation of Articles 6.1 and 8. R (McDonald) v Royal Borough of Chelsea and Kensington [2011] UKSC 33463 The Supreme Court held that the boroughs proposal for the applicant to wear incontinence pads or use special sheeting,thus avoiding the need for a night-time carer to assist her in accessing a commode was not in breach of her Article 8 rights.

    Medical treatment and consent Y.F. v Turkey no. 24209/94 [2003] ECHR464 The European Court of Human Rights found that a compulsory medical intervention, even a minor one, constitutes an interference with the right to private life. The Court found a violation of Article 8.

    381

    The Right to Respect for Private and Family Life HRA, Article 8

    Jehovahs Witnesses of Moscow and others v Russia no. 302/02 [2010] ECHR465 The European Court of Human Rights found that the right to autonomy and selfdetermination (of a competent adult patient) extends to a right to accept or refuse specific medical treatment, or to select an alternative form of treatment, even where this might lead to a fatal outcome in the absence of any indication of the need to protect a third party, the state must abstain from interfering with individual freedom of choice in healthcare. The Court found a violation of Article 9 read in the light of Article 11; a violation of Article 11 read in the light of Article 9; and a violation of Article 6.1.

    Rape X and Y v Netherlands no.8978/80 [1985] ECHR466 This decision began the process of developing positive procedural obligations in relation to the treatment of rape victims arising out of Article 8. The case turned on the need to ensure the criminal law is an effective remedy for sexual abuse .If the domestic law is unable or obstructs effective domestic investigation and prosecution this can render a remedy ineffective, even where a civil action is available. The Court found a violation of Article 8. MC v Bulgaria no. 39272/98 [2004] ECHR467 The European Court of Human Rights took the view that acquaintance rape perpetrated by private individuals could also amount to a violation of Article 3 (as well as Article 8).The Court found a violation of Article 3 where the domestic legal prohibition of rape was inadequate due to a disproportionate emphasis on the need for violence to have been used. The definition of the offence in domestic law effectively required proof of physical resistance. The Court referred to developing state practice on rape definitions as broader than in the past and found that the Bulgarian definition was inadequate as it did not protect individuals from non-consensual sexual acts.

    Sexual identity Dudgeon v UK no. 7525/76 [1983] ECHR468 Private life was held to include sexual life and laws which criminalised sexual activity between men were an interference with private life under Article 8. Christine Goodwin v UK (GC) no. 28957/95 [2002] ECHR469 National laws which discriminate against transsexual people engage Article 8. Ghaidan v Godin Mendoza [2004] UKHL 40470 A law which treated the survivors of a same sex relationship less favourably than survivors of heterosexual relationships to succeed in tenancy following the death of a partner breached Articles 8 and 14. Here the Court decided it was possible to give a Conventioncompliant meaning to the law to extend to same sex couples and thus, any discriminatory effect could be eliminated.

    382

    The Right to Respect for Private and Family Life HRA, Article 8

    Personal information Liberty and others v UK no. 58243/00 [2008] ECHR471 Interception of communications breached the right to respect for private life and correspondence and was not undertaken in accordance with the law. Szuluk v UK no. 36936/05 [2009] ECHR472 Reading of a prisoners medical correspondence with his doctor was a breach of Article 8. Potter v Scottish Ministers [2007] CSIH 67473 The addition of a message to every outgoing call from a Scottish prison that the call was emanating from a prison was a breach of Article 8. This is currently under appeal.474 R (on the application of GC) v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis; R (on the application of C) v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2011] UKSC 21475 The Supreme Court found that the indefinite retention of the biometric data of all suspects breached individuals Article 8 rights, but held that the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 could be read so as to not require indefinite retention.

    Respect for the home Connors v UK no. 66746/01 [2004] ECHR476 The lack of security of tenure of accommodation offered to Gypsy and Traveller communities in the UK was incompatible with respect for home, private and family life. The vulnerable position of gypsies as a minority means that some special consideration should be given to their needs and their different lifestyle both in the relevant regulatory framework and in reaching decisions in particular cases. To this extent, there is thus a positive obligation imposed on the Contracting States by virtue of Article 8 to facilitate the gypsy way of life. (see also Table 340). McCann v UK no. 19009/04 [2008] ECHR477 The lack of adequate procedural safeguards in possession proceedings violated the right to respect for the home. Manchester City Council v Pinnock [2010] UKSC 4478 Where a persons home is at stake, Article 8 enables the courts to review the proportionality as well as the reasonableness of that decision. [Important because previously, reasonableness focused on whether procedures had been followed not whether the procedures lead to a proportionate decision.] See also Hounslow LBC v Powell; Leeds CC v Hall; Birmingham CC v Frisby [2011] UKSC 8.479

    383

    The Right to Respect for Private and Family Life HRA, Article 8

    Ghaidan v Godin-Mendoza [2004] UKHL 30480 The House of Lords ruled that the same sex partner of a deceased statutory tenant should have the equivalent right to succeed to the tenancy of a flat as a heterosexual partner would have had. Whilst Article 8 does not require the state to provide security of tenure for members of a deceased tenants family, nor the right to be provided with a home, but if the state makes legislative provision it must not be discriminatory; it must not draw distinction on the grounds of sexual orientation unless the difference in treatment can be objectively justified. The distinction on grounds of sexual orientation in this case had no legitimate aim and was made without good reason. Therefore, the difference of treatment infringes article 14 read in conjunction with article 8 (Klug and Wildbore, no date).481

    Environmental protection Lpez Ostra v Spain no. 16798/90 [1994] ECHR482 The European Court of Human Rights found that the state did not succeed in striking a fair balance between the interest of the towns economic well-being that of having a wastetreatment plant and the applicants effective enjoyment of her right to respect for her home and her private and family life. The Court held that Article 8 could include a right to protection from severe environmental pollution, since such a problem might affect individuals well-being and prevent them from enjoying their homes in such a way as to affect their private and family life adversely, without, however, seriously endangering their health.The Court found a violation of Article 8; no violation of Article 3. Hatton v UK (GC) no. 36022/97 [2003] ECHR483 The European Court of Human Rights accepted that excessive noise could constitute a violation of Article 8. Taskin v Turkey no. 46117/99[2005] ECHR484 The European Court of Human Rights viewed Article 8 through the lens of the Aarhus Convention and therefore, introduced clear procedural rights of participation and access to information, and access to justice in environmental matters, even though Turkey is not a party to Aarhus. The Court found a violation of Articles 6.1 and 8. Powell and Rayner v UK no. 931081 [1989] ECHR485 In a case where the applicants had complained about disturbance from daytime aircraft noise, the European Court of Human Rights held that Article 8 was relevant, since the quality of [each] applicants private life and the scope for enjoying the amenities of his home [had] been adversely affected by the noise generated by aircraft using Heathrow Airport. Guerra and Others v Italy (GC) no. 14967/89 [1998] ECHR486 In a case concerning environmental pollution, the European Court of Human Rights observed that [the] direct effect of the toxic emissions on the applicants right to respect for their private and family life means that Article 8 is applicable.

    384

    The Right to Respect for Private and Family Life HRA, Article 8

    Respect for family life R (Morris) v Westminster City Council [2004] EWHC 2191 (Admin) Refusal to prioritise a claimants request for housing assistance due to the immigration status of her child infringed Article 8. Rachel Gunter (by her litigation friend and father Edwin Gunter) v South Western Staffordshire Primary Care Trust [2005]487 A disabled woman who required 24hour care wanted to be cared for at home with her family, through an extensive care package. However, her local Primary Care Trust (PCT) wanted to place her in residential care due to the high cost of home care, and because of the higher quality of care in the residential care home in the event of a crisis. The High Court found that the PCT had not properly considered the impact of this on her family life. They had not taken into account her improved quality of life at home, or her own wishes to be placed at home. The PCT was, therefore, told to remake their decision, taking her right to respect for her family life under Article 8 into account.

    The best interests of the child ZH (Tanzania) (FC) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] UKSC 4488 The Supreme Court upheld the mothers appeal against her deportation on the ground that her removal will constitute a disproportionate interference with her right to respect for her private and family life, guaranteed by Article 8. The court held that the best interests of a child must be taken into account in such cases, meaning the well-being of the child, and will involve asking whether it is reasonable to expect the child to live in another country. An important part of discovering the best interests of the child is to discover the childs own views(Wagner, 2011b).489

    Issues in prison detention Carson [2005] NIQB 80490 The lack of in-cell sanitation facilities fell within the ambit of Article 8 The prisoner is entitled to expect that there will be in place sufficient and adequate toileting and hygiene facilities to cope with her requirements and if those facilities are not adequate then her private life rights may well have been infringed.

    385

    The Right to Respect for Private and Family Life HRA, Article 8

    Napier v the Scottish Ministers [2004]491 In relation to Article 8 the Court stated: In applying this right to the situation where a public authority has responsibility for the control and care of a person in an institution, private life includes the conditions in which the person is held and the circumstances in which he has to undertake the particularly personal, regular activities of daily life, such as discharging bodily waste and maintaining a standard of cleanliness particularly where he suffers from a serious skin complaint which requires a regular regime of careIt is plain that the detention of the petitioner in the squalid conditions which I have recounted, taken together with subjecting him to the regime of slopping out as it effected his routine, necessary, personal activities amounts, on the face of it, to an infringement of Article 8. Slawomir Musial v Poland no. 28300/06 [2009] ECHR492 Regarding an alleged violation of Article 8 due to overcrowding in detention, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that having found a violation of Article 3 the Court considers that no separate issue arises under Article 8 of the Convention with regard to the conditions of the applicants detention and the medical treatment he received. Somerville v Scottish Ministers [2007] UKHL 44493 It was argued that the decision on the part of the Scottish Ministers to make provision for the effective imposition of a punishment regime in segregation as the only means of management, control and containment of prisoners involved a disproportionate interference with his rights under article 8 of the Convention to respect for his psychological integrity, personal development and autonomy and self-determination and to his physical and moral security. R (Munjaz) v Mersey Care NHS Trust and others [2003] EWCA Civ 1036494 The Court of Appeal noted that Thus far, in the prison and mental hospital cases, it seems that the court has not found it necessary to consider the conditions of imprisonment as such separately under article 8 if they have not reached the threshold of severity required by article 3 the notion of the moral and physical integrity of the person extends to situations of deprivation of liberty and [the court] does not exclude the possibility that there might be circumstances in which article 8 could be regarded as affording a protection in relation to conditions during detention which do not attain the level of severity required by article 3.

    Prescribed by law Malone v UK no. 8691/79 [1984] ECHR495 The European Court of Human Rights considered whether police intercepting telephone conversations was justified under Article 8.2. The European Court found that there was a violation as the interference was not prescribed by law. This precipitated the introduction of the Criminal Proceedings and Investigation Act 1996, which provided the necessary legal basis for the interception of communications by police.

    386

    The Right to Respect for Private and Family Life HRA, Article 8

    R (on the application of Debbie Purdy) v Director of Public Prosecutions [2009] UKHL 45496 The House of Lords found the Code for Crown Prosecutors was insufficient to satisfy the Article 8 requirements for accessibility and foreseeability in assessing how prosecutorial discretion was likely to be exercised in cases of assisted suicide under the Suicide Act 1961 Section 2(1). The Director of Public Prosecutions was required to promulgate an offence-specific policy identifying the facts and circumstances that he would take into account in deciding whether to consent to a prosecution under Section 2(1).497 See Table 252 for additional cases in relation to Article 8 and the right to the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health.

    Table 219: Principles established in international standard setting processes UNHRC General Comment 16498 No interference with privacy, family, home or correspondence can take place except in cases envisaged by law. Even interference provided for by law should be in accordance with the provisions, aims and objectives of the Covenant and should be reasonable in the particular circumstances.

    Table 220: Gaps in legal protection Individual complaint under ICCPR First Optional Protocol In March 2011 the EU Justice Commissioner announced the overhaul of the EU Data Protection Directive, identifying gaps in current legal protection. The Commissioner argued that peoples rights to the protection of personal data needed to be built on three pillars (Reding, 2011): The first is the right to be forgotten: a comprehensive set of existing and new rules to better cope with privacy risks online. When modernising the legislation, I want to explicitly clarify that people shall have the right and not only the possibility to withdraw their consent to data processing. The burden of proof should be on data controllers those who process your personal data. They must prove that they need to keep the data rather than individuals having to prove that collecting their data is not necessary.

    387

    The Right to Respect for Private and Family Life HRA, Article 8

    The second pillar is transparency. It is a fundamental condition for exercising control over personal data and for building trust in the Internet. Individuals must be informed about which data is collected and for what purposes. They need to know how it might be used by third parties. They must know their rights and which authority to address if those rights are violated. They must be told about the risks related to the processing of their personal data so that they dont loose (sic) control over their data or that their data is not misused. This is particularly important for young people in the online world. I want to make sure that greater clarity is required when signing up to social networking. Unfavourable conditions restricting control of users over their private data or making data irretrievably public are often not clearly mentioned. In particular, children should be fully aware of the possible consequences when they first sign up to social networks. All information on the protection of personal data must be given in a clear and intelligible way easy to understand and easy to find. The third pillar is privacy by default. Privacy settings often require considerable operational effort in order to be put in place. Such settings are not a reliable indication of consumers consent. This needs to be changed. The privacy by default rule will also be helpful in cases of unfair, unexpected or unreasonable processing of data such as when data is used for purposes other than for what an individual had initially given his or her consent or permission or when the data being collected is irrelevant. Privacy by default rules would prevent the collection of such data through, for example, software applications. The use of data for any other purposes than those specified should only be allowed with the explicit consent of the user or if another reason for lawful processing exists. The fourth principle is protection regardless of data location. It means that homogeneous privacy standards for European citizens should apply independently of the area of the world in which their data is being processed. They should apply whatever the geographical location of the service provider and whatever technical means used to provide the service. There should be no exceptions for third countries service providers controlling our citizens data. Any company operating in the EU market or any online product that is targeted at EU consumers must comply with EU rules (Reding, 2011).499

    388

    The Right to Respect for Private and Family Life HRA, Article 8

    Table 221: Non-implementation of legal judgements and recommendations R (F and Thomson) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2010] A declaration of incompatibility was made by the Supreme Court as the indefinite nature of the requirement of Section 82 of the Sexual Offenders Act 2003 was deemed incompatible with Article 8 rights.500 S & Marper v UK [2008] The Crime and Security Act 2010 provision for retention of DNA from innocent people and children for up to six years is in violation of the ECtHR finding that UK provision for retention of DNA and other samples from adults and children who had never been convicted of any offences is in violation of right to respect for private life.501

    Process indicators Indicator 43: Regulatory framework


    Table 222: The right to respect for private and family life identification of key regulators, ombudsmen, etc. Press Complaints Commission OFCOM Office of Information Commissioner

    Indicator 44: Public policy framework


    Table 223: Right to respect for family and private life policy guidance and training guidelines Anti-bullying strategies. Policies and codes for the regulation, collection, storage, sharing dissemination and use of all forms of personal data, including intrusive surveillance (CCTV, bugging, etc.) Policies, guidance and training on the use of entry, and seizure including phone tapping by police and other agencies. Guidance and policies to ensure planning application processes adequately take account of Article 8 rights. Guidance and processes regarding those subject to immigration control, to ensure protection of their family life. Guidance and policies in relation to children separated from their families to ensure protection of their family life (including children looked after by the state, and children in divorce or separation proceedings).

    389

    The Right to Respect for Private and Family Life HRA, Article 8

    Guidance and policies in relation to those in prison and medical detention or care (including care homes). Policies, guidance, etc. in relevant sectors (e.g. for example, schools, workplace, hospitals, police, or social services) for respect of individuals identity including sexual identity). Policies and guidance to ensure environmental impact assessments and proposals adequately take account of Article 8 rights. Policies and guidance on the functional approach to legal capacity, consent and decision making including supported decision making, advance statements, etc. Privacy and Electronic Communications Regulations 2003. Environmental Information Regulations. Data Protection Act 1998. Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC Directive) Regulations 2003.

    Outcome indicators Indicator 45: Outcomes of key judicial, regulatory and investigative processes
    Table 224: Violations of the right to respect for private and family life: case law outcomes Douglas and others v Hello! Ltd [2003] EWHC 55502 There is a positive obligation on the state to protect Article 8 rights against interference by other private parties.503 (see Table 218).

    Interference in enjoyment of family life must be legal, necessary and proportionate Gillan and Quinton v UK no. 4158/05 [2010] ECHR504 Violation of Article 8 (see Table 218). S & Marper v UK (GC) nos. 30562/04 and 30566/04 [2008] ECHR505 Violation of Article 8 (see Table 218). R (Wright and others) v Secretary of State for Health and another [2009] UKHL 3506 breach of Articles 6.1) and 8 (see Table 218). R (F and Thomson) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2010] UKSC 17 The indefinite notification requirements for sexual offenders who had been sentenced to 30 months imprisonment or more were incompatible with the right to respect for private and family life.507 (see Table 218).

    390

    The Right to Respect for Private and Family Life HRA, Article 8

    A v Scottish Ministers [2007] CSOH 189, 2008 SLT 412508 Tthe judge found that Sections 81 and 82 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, in so far as they apply to the petitioner, were compatible with Article 8 (see Table 218).

    Right to respect for physical integrity R (Bernard) v Enfield London Borough Council [2002] EWHC 2287 (Admin) The duty to assist an elderly woman with a disability to maintain her basic physical and psychological integrity509 (see Table 218). R (C) v Royal Devon and Exeter NHS Foundation Trust [2004]510 The matter was settled, with the Trust providing the guarantees that Ms C had sought (see Table 218). R v East Sussex County Council Ex parte A, B, X and Y [2003] EWHC 167 (Admin) (DRC Intervener)511 The blanket ban on manual lifting by carers of people with a disability is unlikely to be lawful in terms of Articles 3 and 8 (see Table 218). Glass v UK no. 61827/00 [2004] ECHR512 Violation of Article 8 (see Table 218). Pretty v UK no. 2346/02 [2002] ECHR513 No violation of Articles 2, 3, 8, 9 and 14 (see Table 218).

    The right to treatment Bensaid v UK no. 44599/98 [2001] ECHR514 No violation of Articles 3 and 8 (see Tables 218 and 252). Dickson v UK (GC) no. 44362/04 [2007] ECHR515 The refusal to permit artificial insemination between a prisoner and his wife was a violation of their Article 8 rights (see Tables 218 and 252). North West Lancashire Health Authority v A, D & G [2000] 1 WLR 977516 Whilst noting that Article 8 imposes no positive obligations to provide treatment, the Court held that the Health Authoritys policies on transsexualism needed to be revisited (see Tables 218 and 252).

    Treatment, resource allocation and the right to health R (on the application of F) v (1) Oxfordshire Mental Healthcare NHS trust (2) Oxfordshire Health Authority [2001] EWHC Admin 535517 No violation of Article 8 (see Tables 218 and 252). R (on the application of H) v Mental Health Tribunal [2002] EWHC 1522 Admin518 The decision not to recommend transfer of a patient to a hospital closer to his home did not breach Article 8 (see Tables 218 and 252).

    391

    The Right to Respect for Private and Family Life HRA, Article 8

    R (on the application of Haggerty) v St Helens Council [2003] EWHC 803 Admin519 The Court held that the financial resources of the council were an important element to be considered in the balancing exercise required by Article 8.2 (see Tables 218 and 252). R (on the application of Dudley and others) v East Sussex County Council [2003] EWHC 1093 Admin520 The High Court ruled that the closure of a residential home did not breach Articles 2, 3 and 8 (see Tables 218 and 252). R (on the application of Yvonne Watts) v (1) Bedford Primary Care Trust (2) Secretary of State for Health [2003] EWHC 2228 (Admin)521 The Court held that neither Article 3 nor Article 8 rights were engaged in the request for reimbursement of medical costs incurred in an overseas hip replacement operation undertaken to avoid an NHS waiting list (see Tables 218 and 252).

    Autonomy Evans v UK (GC) 6339/05 [2007] ECHR522 No violation of Article 8 (see Table 218). Pretty v UK no. 2346/02 [2002] ECHR523 No violation of Article 8 (see Table 218). R (McDonald) v Royal Borough of Chelsea and Kensington [2011] UKSC 33524 No violation of Article 8 (see Table 218).

    Sexual identity Dudgeon v UK no. 7525/76 [1983] ECHR525 Violation of Article 8 (see Table 218). Christine Goodwin v UK (GC) no. 28957/95 [2002] ECHR526 Violation of Article 8 (see Table 218). Ghaidan v Godin Mendoza [2004] UKHL 40527 A law which treated the survivors of a same sex relationship less favourably than survivors of an heterosexual relationship to succeed in tenancy following the death of a partner breached Articles 8 and 14 (see Table 218).

    Personal information Liberty and others v UK no. 58243/00 [2008] ECHR528 Violation of Article 8 (see Table 218). Szuluk v UK no. 36936/05 [2009] ECHR529 Violation of Article 8 (see Table 218). Potter v Scottish Ministers [2007] CSIH 67530 The addition of a message to every outgoing call from a Scottish prison that the call was emanating from a prison was a breach of Article 8 (see Table 218).531

    392

    The Right to Respect for Private and Family Life HRA, Article 8

    R (on the application of GC) v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis; R (on the application of C) v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2011] UKSC 21532 The indefinite retention of the biometric data of all suspects breached individuals Article 8 rights (see Table 218).

    Respect for the home Connors v UK no. 66746/01 [2004] ECHR533 Violation of Article 8 (see Table 218). McCann v UK no. 19009/04 [2008] ECHR534 Violation of Article 8 (see Table 218). Manchester City Council v Pinnock [2010] UKSC 4535 Article 8 enables the courts to review the proportionality as well as the reasonableness of that decision (see Table 218). Ghaidan v Godin-Mendoza [2004] UKHL 30536 The distinction on grounds of sexual orientation infringed Article 14 read in conjunction with Article 8 (see Table 218).

    Environmental protection Hatton v UK (GC) no. 36022/97 [2003] ECHR537 No violation of Article 8; violation of Article 13 (see Table 218). Powell and Rayner v UK no. 9310/81 [1989] ECHR538 No violation of Article 13 (see Table 218).

    Respect for family life R (Morris) v Westminster City Council [2004] EWHC 2191 (Admin) The refusal to prioritise the claimants request for housing assistance due to her childs immigration status infringed Article 8 (see Table 218). Rachel Gunter (by her litigation friend and father Edwin Gunter) v South Western Staffordshire Primary Care Trust [2005]539 The PCT was told to remake their decision, taking her right to respect for her family life under Article 8 into account (see Table 218).

    The best interests of the child ZH (Tanzania) (FC) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] UKSC 4540 The Supreme Court upheld the mothers appeal against her deportation on the ground that her removal will constitute a disproportionate interference with her right to respect for her private and family life, guaranteed by Article 8 (see Table 218).

    393

    The Right to Respect for Private and Family Life HRA, Article 8

    Prison detention Carson [2005] NIQB 80541 The lack of in-cell sanitation facilities fell within the ambit of Article 8 (see Table 218). Napier v the Scottish Ministers [2004]542 Infringement of Article 8 (see Table 218). Somerville v Scottish Ministers [2007] UKHL 44543 ...segregation as the only means of management, control and containment of prisoners involved a disproportionate interference with his rights under article 8 of the Convention to respect for his psychological integrity, personal development and autonomy and self-determination and to his physical and moral security. (see Table 218). R (Munjaz) v Mersey Care NHS Trust and others [2003] EWCA Civ 1036544 The Court of Appeal noted that the notion of the moral and physical integrity of the person extends to situations of deprivation of liberty and [the court] does not exclude the possibility that there might be circumstances in which article 8 could be regarded as affording a protection in relation to conditions during detention which do not attain the level of severity required by article 3 (see Table 218). Malone v UK no. 8691/79 [1984] ECHR545 Violation of Article 8 (see Table 218). R (on the application of Debbie Purdy) v Director of Public Prosecutions [2009] UKHL 45546 The House of Lords found the Code for Crown Prosecutors was insufficient to satisfy the Article 8 requirements for accessibility and foreseeability in assessing how prosecutorial discretion was likely to be exercised in cases of assisted suicide under the Suicide Act 1961 Section 2(1) (see Table 218).

    Prescribed by law

    Table 225: Key concerns raised by human rights monitoring bodies Domestic Equality and Human Rights Commission (2010d), Stop and think. A critical review of the use of stop and search powers in England and Wales547, detailed the Commissions concern that the current use of stop and search powers under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 may be unlawful, disproportionate, discriminatory, and damaging to relations within and between communities. The Joint Committee on Human Rights (JCHR) (2007), The Human Rights of Older People in Healthcare, Eighteenth Report of Session 2006-07, raised concerns around poor treatment, neglect, abuse, discrimination and ill-considered discharge548 (see Table 262). EHRC (2011) suggested poor treatment of older people in home care is breaching their human rights.

    394

    The Right to Respect for Private and Family Life HRA, Article 8

    Table 226: Outcomes of inspection, regulation and complaints procedures that engage Article 8 House of Commons Home Affairs Committee Inquiry House of Commons Home Affairs Committee (2008), A Surveillance Society? Fifth Report of Session 2007-08, 20 May 2008549). Recommendations of the report included: Rules for Government as a whole The Government should give an explicit undertaking to adhere to a principle of data minimisation and should resist a tendency to collect more personal information and establish larger databases. Any decision to create a major new database, to share information on databases, or to implement proposals for increased surveillance, should be based on a proven need. The Government should take responsibility for safeguarding the personal information it collects and should exercise this responsibility before collection takes place: when it is possible by obtaining consent for collecting and processing data, and when it is not possible by providing an explanation. The Government should hold information only as long as is necessary to fulfil the purpose for which it was collected. If information is to be retained for secondary purposes as well as for service delivery it should normally be anonymised and retained only for a previously specified period. Every system for collecting and storing personal information should be designed with a focus on security and privacy. This process should involve planning not only the technical aspects of access to systems but also the staff management protocols for access and information-handling. The Information Commissioner should lay before parliament an annual report on surveillance. The Government should make a formal response to his report, also to be laid before parliament. Rules for the Home Office The Home Office should explicitly address these questions in every proposal for extending or changing its powers and functions with regard to the collection and use of personal information: in the fight against crime: Where should the balance between protecting the public and preserving individual liberty lie? How should this balance shift according to the seriousness of the crime? What impact will there be on the individual and on our society as a whole? The Home Office should not routinely use the administrative information collected and stored in connection with the National Identity Register to monitor the activities of individuals.

    395

    The Right to Respect for Private and Family Life HRA, Article 8

    The Home Office should maintain plans for securing the National Identity Register databases, and contingency plans to be implemented in the event of a loss or theft of biometric information from its databases. The Home Office should take every opportunity to raise awareness of how and why the surveillance techniques provided for by the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act might be used, and should keep under review the effectiveness of the statutory oversight of RIPA powers. The Home Office should ensure that any extension of the use of camera surveillance is justified by evidence of its effectiveness for its intended purpose, and that its function and operation are understood by the public. House of Commons Home Affairs Committee (2011), Unauthorised tapping into or hacking of mobile communications, July 2011550, recommended that additional powers should be given to the Information Commissioners Office to deal with breaches of data protection, including phone hacking and blagging.551 Information Commissioners Office (ICO)552 The ICO issues information notices, undertakings, enforcements or monetary penalty notices to individuals and organisations that collect, use and keep personal information. The First-tier Tribunal (Information Rights), part of the General Regulatory Chamber (GRC),hears appeals of enforcement notices, decision notices and information notices issued by the Information Commissioner. The GRC brings together a range of previously separate tribunals that hear appeals on regulatory issues. Some recent cases include: A monetary penalty of 80,000 was issued to Ealing Council following the loss of an unencrypted laptop which contained personal information. Ealing Council breached the Data Protection Act by issuing an unencrypted laptop to a member of staff in breach of its own policies. The Identity and Passport Service has signed an undertaking which commits the organisation to taking remedial action after the ICO found it in breach of the Data Protection Act for losing the passport renewal applications of 21 individuals. NHS Blood and Transplant has signed an undertaking which commits the organisation to being more robust in checking information is accurate. This follows the discovery that due to a software error,the organ donation preferences of 444,031 people were recorded inaccurately on the Organ Donation Register, which is managed by NHS Blood and Transplant. A formal undertaking has been signed by the Scottish Court Service after the ICO discovered,following a newspaper report about a data breach by the Court Service, that papers containing personal information had been lost by the editor of a series of law reports. The Court Service had failed to check how this individual intended to keep the information secure.

    396

    The Right to Respect for Private and Family Life HRA, Article 8

    The ICO (2009) reported to parliament on the state of surveillance in September 2006 and lodged an updated report in November 2010.523 The response to the report by the Surveillance Studies Network (SSN), published as part of the ICOs update, identified a host of privacy and human-rights issues involved in, for instance, techniques for analysing data about individuals, the sharing of data among organisations often for undeclared and unconsented purposes and the flow of data across national boundaries.The SSN specifically identified body scanning, video analytics, drones and the flow of data into new domains of application as posing significant concerns. Treatment of older people in health and social care Rights, Risks and Restraints study554 (Commission for Social Care Inspection (CSCI), 2007a), found that the use of restraint in elderly care services is unacceptable and denies the human right to dignity and choice. The study looked at the experiences of elderly people not at the prevalence of restraint methods in residential care homes, nursing homes and individuals homes. The incidents in the study were taken from CSCI inspection reports, reviews of concerns and complaints made to CSCI, and the Rights, Risks and Restraints survey. Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO), Care and Compassion. Report of the Health Services Ombudsman on 10 investigations into NHS care of older people555, February 2011. Dignity and nutrition reports. Care Quality Commission (CQC) is publishing 12 reports from an inspection programme which examines whether elderly people are receiving essential standards of care in 100 hospitals across England. The inspection programme has identified recurring concerns in relation to both nutrition and dignity, including people not being given assistance to eat, not having their nutritional needs monitored and not being given enough to drink; and staff not treating patients in a respectful way or involving them in their own care.556

    397

    The Right to Respect for Private and Family Life HRA, Article 8

    Table 227: Key concerns and allegations raised by private individuals and civil society organisations/reports in the media Interference in private life and surveillance Liberty, Overlooked: Surveillance and personal privacy in modern Britain, October 2007 (Crossman et al., 2007)557, detailed a number of concerns in relation to: Targeted surveillance the framework for state sanctioned surveillance against specific targets created under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 lacks accountability and transparency. In particular, there is a need for judicial authorization for the most intrusive forms of surveillance and an improved complaints mechanism. Further, the bar on intercepted material in criminal trials needs to be lifted. Mass surveillance New data protection legislation is needed to allow better regulation of data and to improve the ability and resources of the ICO to provide effective enforcement. There should be greater accountability to parliament. Visual surveillance New legislation is required to effectively regulate CCTV. DNA detailing concerns with the National DNA Database (NDNAD), including the retention of data for people arrested (though not necessarily charged or convicted) with any recordable offence, which impacts disproportionately on black men.

    The reports recommendations included a call for updated data legislation protection; increased role and powers for the ICO; greater accountability to parliament; judicial oversight of interceptions of communications; extending the role of the Investigatory Powers Tribunal; removal of the bar on intercept; no further extension of powers to retain DNA; and making the process for deletion of samples from the NDNAD simpler. Sexual identity Stonewall, No going back. Lesbian and Gay People and the Asylum System, 2010 (Miles, 2010)558, recommended that the UK Border Agency (UKBA) urgently implement a series of measures to prevent lesbian, gay and bisexual people from being treated differently when they seek asylum. The report contains detailed recommendations in relation to UKBA policy and training; the need for Country of Origin Information Service reports to include accurate and up-to-date information about the situation on the ground for lesbians and gay men and to accurately reflect the scale and nature of anti-gay persecution in all overseas jurisdictions; and the need for judges to receive comprehensive training on the unique issues in sexual identity-based claims.

    398

    The Right to Respect for Private and Family Life HRA, Article 8

    Treatment of older people in health and social care Daily Mail, Dignity for the Elderly campaign for better standards in hospitals and care homes, which has run since 2002.559 Still hungry to be heard (Age UK, 2010), the most recent report from the campaign Malnutrition in hospitals: Hungry to be heard, described the lack of detection and treatment of malnutrition in hospital as a national disgrace, and called on the Government to introduce compulsory monitoring of malnutrition.560 Patients Association Report (2011) Weve been listening, have you been learning? details 16 accounts of poor hospital care heard by its helpline focusing on care communication, access to pain relief, assistance with toileting and help with eating and drinking.

    Indicator 46: Privacy, identity and autonomy


    Table 228: Interference in private life and surveillance See Table 226.

    399

    The Right to Respect for Private and Family Life HRA, Article 8

    Table 229: Gender identity and human rights The COE (2009, Human rights and gender identity, July 2009 (Hammarberg,2009), set out a series of recommendations to COE member states. A number of these have been identified as relating to particular concerns in England, Scotland and Wales. These are: Recommendations to Council of Europe member states Member states of the Council of Europe should: 2. Enact hate crime legislation which affords specific protection for transgender persons against transphobic crimes and incidents; 3. Develop expeditious and transparent procedures for changing the name and sex of a transgender person on birth certificates, identity cards, passports, educational certificates and other similar documents; 5. Make gender reassignment procedures, such as hormone treatment, surgery and psychological support, accessible for transgender persons, and ensure that they are reimbursed by public health insurance schemes; 6. Remove any restrictions on the right of transgender persons to remain in an existing marriage following a recognised change of gender; 9. Address the human rights of transgender persons and discrimination based on gender identity through human rights education and training programmes, as well as awareness-raising campaigns; 10. Provide training to health service professionals, including psychologists, psychiatrists and general practitioners, with regard to the needs and rights of transgender persons and the requirement to respect their dignity; 12. Develop research projects to collect and analyse data on the human rights situation of transgender persons including the discrimination and intolerance they encounter with due regard to the right to privacy of the persons concerned.

    400

    The Right to Respect for Private and Family Life HRA, Article 8

    Indicator 47: Spotlight statistics: The detention context


    Table 230: Self-reported access and problems with the use of telephones and sending/receiving mail in detention, England and Wales
    Problems sending or receiving mail N Local N=4,323 High security N=418 Young offenders (18-21) N=1,858 Category B trainers N=855 Category C trainers N=4167 Open N=1,254 Female N=1,352 Children and young people (under 18) N=776 Immigration removal centres N=1,019 1,736 214 719 % 44 52 42 Problems getting access to the telephones N 1245 127 541 % 32 31 32 Easy or very easy to receive incoming calls N % Easy or very easy to make outgoing calls N % -

    Type of prison/ establishment:

    Able to use the telephone everyday N % -

    328 1,403 249 414 278

    39 37 22 34 39

    119 753 130 281 -

    15 20 11 22 -

    533

    72

    224

    29

    432

    50

    401

    47

    Source: HMIP for England and Wales (2010a). Notes: The n-value refers to the total number of respondents for each survey. Percentages may vary in regard to the n-value as all comparator data is weighted. Local comparator from 2006 onwards. High security comparator from 2007 onwards. Young offender institutions comparator from 2005 onwards. Category B trainers comparator from 2005 onwards. Category C trainers comparator from 2005 onwards. Opens comparator from 2005 onwards. Children and young people comparator from 2009 onwards. Female comparator from 2005 onwards. Immigration removal centre comparator from 2005 onwards. [Comparators available from source document] Data for children and young people only includes responses from males because of the small number of female respondents. Percentages are calculated only from those who answered the question; missing data has been excluded. See Appendix 2 for demographic information.

    401

    The Right to Respect for Private and Family Life HRA, Article 8

    Table 231: Adult male prisoners who self-report that they have problems with access and use of telephones and sending/receiving mail, by ethnicity, religion and disability, England and Wales, 2008-09
    Black and minority ethnic prisoners Number of completed questionnaires Problems sending or receiving mail Problems getting access to the telephone Consider themselves to have a disability Do not consider themselves to have a disability

    White

    Muslim prisoners

    NonMuslim prisoners

    1,037

    2,890

    422

    3,435

    559

    3,170

    43%

    40%

    49%

    39%

    44%

    40%

    27%

    22%

    31%

    23%

    26%

    22%

    Source: HMIP for England and Wales (2010b). Notes: Light grey boxes denote where the group is significantly worse than the comparator. (Emphasis as in publication.)

    402

    The Right to Respect for Private and Family Life HRA, Article 8

    Table 232: Detained people who self-report that they are able to have a shower, England and Wales
    Able to have a shower every day Type of prison/establishment Local N=4,323 High security N=418 Young offenders (18-21) N=1,858 Category B trainers N=855 Category C trainers N=4,167 Open N=1,254 Female N=1,352 Children and young people (under 18) N=776 Immigration removal centres N=1,019 N 3191 385 1270 820 3826 1188 1169 608 859 Offered a shower N 93 % 9 % 78 94 69 98 94 98 87 81 93

    Source: HMIP for England and Wales (2010a). Notes: The n-value refers to the total number of respondents for each survey. Percentages may vary in regard to the n-value as all comparator data is weighted. Local comparator from 2006 onwards. High security comparator from 2007 onwards. Young offender institutions comparator from 2005 onwards. Category B trainers comparator from 2005 onwards. Category C trainers comparator from 2005 onwards. Opens comparator from 2005 onwards. Children and young people comparator from 2009 onwards. Female comparator from 2005 onwards. Immigration removal centre comparator from 2005 onwards. Police custody comparator from 2008 onwards. [Comparators available from source document.] Data for children and young people only includes responses from males because of the small number of female respondents. Percentages are calculated only from those who answered the question; missing data has been excluded. See Appendix 2 for demographic information.

    403

    The Right to Respect for Private and Family Life HRA, Article 8

    Table 233: Percentage of adult male prisoners who self-report that they are normally able to have a shower every day, by ethnicity, religion and disability, England and Wales, 2008-09
    Black and minority ethnic prisoners Number of completed questionnaires Percentage who report that they are normally able to have a shower every day Consider themselves to have a disability Do not consider themselves to have a disability

    White

    Muslim prisoners

    NonMuslim prisoners

    1,037

    2,890

    422

    3,435

    559

    3,170

    84%

    90%

    80%

    90%

    87%

    89%

    Source: HMIP for England and Wales (2010b). Notes: Light grey boxes denote where the group is significantly worse than the comparator. (Emphasis as in publication.)

    404

    The Right to Respect for Private and Family Life HRA, Article 8

    Table 234: Detained people who self-report that they are treated with respect by most staff, England and Wales
    Type of prison/establishment Local N=4,323 High security N=418 Young offenders (18-21) N=1,858 Category B trainers N=855 Category C trainers N=4,167 Open N=1,254 Female N=1,352 Children and young people (under 18) N=776 Immigration removal centres N=1,019 N 2,864 240 1,177 602 2,984 888 916 503 576 % 69 61 67 74 74 76 72 72 62

    Source: HMIP for England and Wales (2010a). Notes: The n-value refers to the total number of respondents for each survey. Percentages may vary in regard to the n-value as all comparator data is weighted. Local comparator from 2006 onwards. High security comparator from 2007 onwards. Young offender institutions comparator from 2005 onwards. Category B trainers comparator from 2005 onwards. Category C trainers comparator from 2005 onwards. Opens comparator from 2005 onwards. Children and young people comparator from 2009 onwards. Female comparator from 2005 onwards. Immigration removal centre comparator from 2005 onwards. [Comparators available from source document.] Data for children and young people only includes responses from males because of the small number of female respondents. Percentages are calculated only from those who answered the question; missing data has been excluded. See Appendix 2 for demographic information.

    405

    The Right to Respect for Private and Family Life HRA, Article 8

    Table 235: Adult male prisoners who self-report that they are treated with respect by most staff, by ethnicity, religion and disability, England and Wales
    Black and minority ethnic prisoners Number of completed questionnaires Percentage who feel that they are treated with respect by most staff Consider themselves to have a disability Do not consider themselves to have a disability

    White

    Muslim prisoners

    NonMuslim prisoners

    1,037

    2,890

    422

    3,435

    559

    3,170

    64%

    72%

    60%

    71%

    65%

    70%

    Source: HMIP for England and Wales (2010b). Notes: Light grey boxes denote where the group is significantly worse than the comparator. (Emphasis as in publication.)

    406

    The Right to Respect for Private and Family Life HRA, Article 8

    Table 236: Detained people who self-report that they have ever felt unsafe in their establishment, England and Wales
    Type of prison/establishment Local N=4,323 High security N=418 Young offenders (18-21) N=1,858 Category B trainers N=855 Category C trainers N=4,167 Open N=1,254 Female N=1,352 Children and young people (under 18) N=776 Police custody N=1,011 Immigration removal centres N=1,019 N 1,625 241 601 327 1,190 190 492 212 382 458 % 41 58 34 39 30 16 39 29 41 53

    Source: HMIP for England and Wales (2010a). Notes: The n-value refers to the total number of respondents for each survey. Percentages may vary in regard to the n-value as all comparator data is weighted. Local comparator from 2006 onwards. High security comparator from 2007 onwards. Young offender institutions comparator from 2005 onwards. Category B trainers comparator from 2005 onwards. Category C trainers comparator from 2005 onwards. Opens comparator from 2005 onwards. Children and young people comparator from 2009 onwards. Female comparator from 2005 onwards. Immigration removal centre comparator from 2005 onwards. [Comparators available from source document.] Data for children and young people only includes responses from males because of the small number of female respondents. Percentages are calculated only from those who answered the question; missing data has been excluded. See Appendix 2 for demographic information.

    407

    The Right to Respect for Private and Family Life HRA, Article 8

    Table 237: Adult male prisoners who self-report that they have ever felt unsafe in their establishment, by ethnicity, religion and disability, England and Wales, 2008-09
    Black and minority ethnic prisoners Number of completed questionnaires Percentage who have ever felt unsafe in their establishment Consider themselves to have a disability Do not consider themselves to have a disability

    White

    Muslim prisoners

    NonMuslim prisoners

    1,037

    2,890

    422

    3,435

    559

    3,170

    45%

    38%

    50%

    38%

    57%

    36%

    Source: HMIP for England and Wales (2010b). Notes: Light grey boxes denote where the group is significantly worse than the comparator. (Emphasis as in publication.)

    408

    The Right to Respect for Private and Family Life HRA, Article 8

    Table 238: Detained people who self-report that their religious beliefs are respected, England and Wales561
    Type of prison/establishment Local N=4,323 High security N=418 Young offenders (18-21) N=1,858 Category B trainers N=855 Category C trainers N=4,167 Open N=1,254 Female N=1,352 Children and young people (under 18) N=776 Immigration removal centres N=1,019 N 2,220 185 884 432 2,179 684 765 416 614 % 54 48 50 60 55 58 60 55 66

    Source: HMIP for England and Wales (2010a). Notes: The n-value refers to the total number of respondents for each survey. Percentages may vary in regard to the n-value as all comparator data is weighted. Local comparator from 2006 onwards. High security comparator from 2007 onwards. Young offender institutions comparator from 2005 onwards. Category B trainers comparator from 2005 onwards. Category C trainers comparator from 2005 onwards. Opens comparator from 2005 onwards. Children and young people comparator from 2009 onwards. Female comparator from 2005 onwards. Immigration removal centre comparator from 2005 onwards. [Comparators available from source document.] Data for children and young people only includes responses from males because of the small number of female respondents. Percentages are calculated only from those who answered the question; missing data has been excluded. See Appendix 2 for demographic information.

    409

    The Right to Respect for Private and Family Life HRA, Article 8

    Table 239: Adult male prisoners who self-report that their religious beliefs are respected, by ethnicity, religion and disability, England and Wales, 2008-09562
    Black and minority ethnic prisoners Number of completed questionnaires Percentage who feel their religious beliefs are respected Consider themselves to have a disability Do not consider themselves to have a disability

    White

    Muslim prisoners

    NonMuslim prisoners

    1,037

    2,890

    422

    3,435

    559

    3,170

    56%

    53%

    61%

    53%

    53%

    54%

    Source: HMIP for England and Wales (2010b). Notes: Dark grey boxes denote where the group is significantly better than the comparator.

    Indicator 48: Spotlight statistics: Unmet basic needs that may meet the Article 8 threshold
    See Treatment of older people in health and social care. For relevant statistical evidence on malnutrition and dehydration by place, and variations in support for eating by age during hospital stays, see Tables 28, 29, 30, 31, 304 and 305.

    Indicator 49: Spotlight statistics: Abuse, neglect, discrimination, lack of dignity and respect
    See Treatment of older people in health and social care. For relevant statistical evidence see Tables 28, 29, 30, 31, 302, 303, 304, and 305. Table 240: Experiences of bullying For relevant evidence under this Indicator, see Table 342.

    410

    Table 241: Experiences of harassment because of skin colour, ethnic origin or religion, by religion, percentage, England, 2008-09
    Muslim All Practising Nonpractising All Practising All Practising Nonpractising Nonpractising Hindu Sikh All

    Christian

    Practising

    Nonpractising

    Has personally experienced harassment in the last two years 4 8,562 Other religion2 All religions All Practising Nonpractising All No religion All Practising Nonpractising 1,749 367 2,117 659 235 896 19 15 18 14 21 16 15 248

    23 104

    18 352

    Respondents1

    3,605

    4,952

    Buddhist

    411
    6 150 255 163 419 9 4 7 7 6,607

    Practising

    Nonpractising

    All3

    Has personally experienced harassment in the last two years

    5 5,880 12,496

    3 1,766

    5 8,759

    Respondents1

    91

    59

    Source: Department for Communities and Local Government (CLG) (2010).

    Notes:

    1 Excludes respondents who answered dont know and those with missing answers.

    The Right to Respect for Private and Family Life HRA, Article 8

    2 Jewish respondents included in other religion due to small numbers.

    3 All column based on core sample. Other columns based on combined sample.

    The Right to Respect for Private and Family Life HRA, Article 8

    Table 242: Reasons given for discrimination in recruitment and promotion, England and Wales, 2008-09
    Discriminated against when refused a job % Gender Age Race Religion or belief Colour Disability or long-term illness Sexual orientation Where you live *Other reason Dont know All Respondents
    2

    Discriminated against with regards to promotion % 1 2 1 * 1 * * * 2 * 7 5,813

    1 3 2 * 1 1 * * 2 * 7 6,000

    Source: CLG (2010). Notes: All columns based on core sample. 1 Respondents could mention an unlimited number of reasons. 2 Figures for Discriminated against when refused a job include respondents who had been employees or had looked for work in the last five years. Figures for Discriminated against regarding promotion include respondents who had been employees in the last five years. Excludes respondents with missing answers.

    412

    The Right to Respect for Private and Family Life HRA, Article 8

    Indicator 50: Spotlight statistics: Public attitudes, understanding and experiences


    Table 243: Awareness of information rights legislation access to information, England and Wales, 2010
    What laws are you aware of, if any, that give people rights to obtain information from public authorities? (Wave 14) Percentage of respondents to the Information Rights Tracker Survey who are aware of the information rights legislation listed below % Freedom of Information Act Data Protection Act Human Rights Act Citizens Charter Open Government Code of Practice Environmental Information Regulations Privacy and Electronic Communications regulations Others Dont know 31 29 13 3 1 2 1 11 38

    Source: Ministry of Justice (MoJ) (2010e), derived from Information Rights Tracker Survey, Key Wave 14 results. Notes: Unprompted question; all applicable answers coded, so respondents could mention more than one item on the list. Wave 14 Fieldwork of the Information Rights Tracker Survey was conducted between 2128 January 2010. The sample was: 1,877 adults aged 15 and over in England and Wales (Ministry of Justice, 2010e: 3).

    413

    The Right to Respect for Private and Family Life HRA, Article 8

    Table 244: Awareness of information rights legislation holding of personal information, England and Wales, 2010
    I have the legal right to find out what personal information is held about me by businesses or public authorities (Wave 14) Respondents to the Information Rights Tracker Survey (Wave 14) % True False Dont know 85 11 3

    Source: MoJ (2010e), derived from Information Rights Tracker Survey, Key Wave 14 results. Notes: Wave 14 Fieldwork of the Information Rights Tracker Survey was conducted between 21-28 January 2010. The sample was: 1,877 adults aged 15 and over in England and Wales (MoJ, 2010e: 3). Table 245: Public attitudes towards respect for private and family life
    Which of the following, if any, would you say are the most important values for living in Britain today? Respect for private and family life 63% And which four of five, if any, are most important to you personally? 43% And which, if any, do you consider to be fundamental human rights? 53%

    Source: Kaur-Ballagan et al. (2009). Notes: This data is based on a demographically representative, face-to-face omnibus survey with 1,994 British adults over the age of 16, undertaken in August 2008.

    414

    The Right to Respect for Private and Family Life HRA, Article 8

    Table 246: Attitudes towards being treated with dignity and respect
    Which of the following, if any, would you say are the most important values for living in Britain today? Being treated with dignity and respect 75% And which four of five, if any, are most important to you personally? 63% And which, if any, do you consider to be fundamental human rights? 62%

    Notes: This data is based on a demographically representative, face-to-face omnibus survey with 1,994 British adults over the age of 16, undertaken in August 2008. Table 247: Attitudes towards being treated fairly regardless of gender, race, disability, etc.
    Which of the following, if any, would you say are the most important values for living in Britain today? Being treated fairly regardless of gender, race, disability, etc. And which four of five, if any, are most important to you personally? And which, if any, do you consider to be fundamental human rights?

    65%

    46%

    56%

    Source: Kaur-Ballagan et al. (2009). Notes: This data is based on a demographically representative, face-to-face omnibus survey with 1,994 British adults over the age of 16, undertaken in August 2008.

    415

    Table 248: Public attitudes towards the right to be treated fairly and equally by population subgroup
    p-value Highest educ. Qual. (p<0.05) Reference group = Degree or equivalent 0.524 A level or equivalent GCSE A-C or equivalent 1.944 Foreign or other qualifications No qualifications Social class (HRP nssec7) (p<0.05) 0.948 0.01* 0.445 0.117 0.865 3.667 Routine occuptations Never worked/long-term unemployed Full time students 0.278 0.117 0.202 0.169 0.237 0.265 0.288 1.244 1.390 Continued 0.280 1.309 0.267 1.158 0.258 1.478 0.333 1.623 1.198 3.859 0.442 2.145 Reference group = Higher, lower managerial and professions Intermediate occupations/small employer Lower supervisory & technical/semi-routine 0.652 0.516 0.404 0.463 0.453 0.091 0.012* 0.001* 0.021* 0.199 0.397 0.307 0.242 0.241 0.135 1.072 0.865 0.673 0.890 1.520 0.495 0.226 GCSE D-E or equivalent 0.350 0.467 0.373 0.001* 0.017* 0.010* 0.192 0.000* 0.817 1.486 Higher education below degree 0.559 0.114 0.271 0.208 0.250 0.158 0.171 0.126 1.151 0.671 0.874 0.774 1.428 0.406 95% Conf Interval p-value Odds ratio 95% Conf Interval

    Odds ratio

    Gender

    Reference group = male

    Female

    1.102

    Disability 0.154 0.900

    Reference group = no limiting longstanding illness or disability

    Limiting longstanding illness or disability

    1.322

    Ethnicity

    The Right to Respect for Private and Family Life HRA, Article 8

    Reference group = white

    Asian

    0.974

    416
    Social housing Equivalent household income

    Black

    2.150

    Mixed

    0.735

    Chinese/other

    1.781

    Age

    Reference group = 16-19

    20-24

    0.618

    Social housing (renting, landlord is LA, HA etc.) Reference group=not social housing 1.026 1.000 0.896 0.147 0.700 1.000 1.505 0.000

    25-34

    0.556

    35-49

    0.606

    50-64

    0.599

    65-70

    0.607

    Table 248: Public attitudes towards the right to be treated fairly and equally by population subgroup (continued)
    p-value IMD (quintile groups) (p<0.05) Reference group = IMD First Quintile (least deprived) 0.134 0.754 0.359 0.933 0.936 0.358 0.136 North West Yorkshire and the Humber 0.837 0.128 0.283 0.391 0.836 0.120 0.018* 0.000* 0.235 0.664 0.198 0.859 svygof: 0.875 0.849 4.126 0.330 2.452 South West 0.326 1.553 South East 0.349 1.362 East of England 0.284 1.173 West Midlands 0.287 4.668 East Midlands 0.472 1.108 North East 0.569 4.732 Reference group = London 1.256 1.076 0.969 1.710 2.134 2.547 2.394 1.856 0.513 0.802 0.943 0.104 0.013* 0.008* 0.009* 0.074 0.634 0.605 0.414 0.895 1.175 1.280 1.250 0.942 2.487 1.914 2.269 3.269 3.877 5.068 4.584 3.657 0.317 2.881 Government Office Region (p<0.05) 0.398 2.326 IMD Fifth Quintile 1.258 0.313 24.512 IMD Fourth Quintile 0.973 0.308 2.351 IMD Third Quintile 2.051 0.026* 0.930 0.507 0.736 9.950 IMD Second Quintile 1.241 0.481 0.679 1.090 0.523 0.639 2.268 3.860 1.807 2.477 95% Conf Interval p-value Odds ratio 95% Conf Interval

    Odds ratio

    Religion/belief

    Reference group = Christian

    Buddhist

    2.706

    Hindu

    0.851

    Jewish

    2.769

    Muslim

    0.963

    Sikh

    0.956

    Any other religion

    1.641

    No religion

    0.723

    Country of birth (p<0.05)

    417

    Reference group = UK

    Irish Republic

    1.157

    India

    0.577

    Pakistan

    0.689

    Bangladesh

    0.711

    Jamaica

    0.899

    East African New Commonwealth

    1.872

    Rest of New Commonwealth

    0.412

    The Right to Respect for Private and Family Life HRA, Article 8

    Other

    0.395

    Source: Vizard (2010).Notes: Authors calculations from the Citizenship Survey. The data in this table is for England only. It represents the combined sample, corrected for complex survey design. The findings are accurate to three decimal places. * Significance tests are based on logistic regression analysis controlling for gender, long-term limiting illness or disability, ethnicity, age, religion/belief, country of birth, equivalent household income, highest educational qualification, social class, social housing, index of multiple deprivation ranking, Government Office Region.

    Table 249: Attitudes towards respect for private and family life and the home: Liberty polling exercise
    Age Social Grade Region

    Gender

    Total 93 160 190 170 150 210 270 290 210 230 254 264 163 194 184 159 207 376 198 157 269 259 252 253 251

    Male

    Female

    1824 65+ AB Cl C2 DE Midlands 145 144

    2534 35-44 45-54 55-64

    South East

    North England

    Wales and South West Scotland 91 87

    Unweighted base

    1,000

    434

    566

    Weighted base 117 99% 100% 100% 97% 99% 99% 99% 96% 181 96% 98 51% 84 44% 6 3% 4% 7% 7 11 7 3% 4 2% 36% 62 48 70 96 60% 98 101 92 126 162 178 114 85 96% 93% 93% 95% 95% 95% 91% 120 88 61% 60% 60% 62% 54% 52% 163 139 196 258 276 199 208 236 93% 146 57% 90 35% 11 4% 1% 12 4% 1% 9 4% 1% 12 5% 5 2% 16 6% 1% 99% 158 187 170 150 203 268 288 209 221 252 259 98% 252 95% 145 55% 106 40% 7 3% 1 2%

    1,000

    490

    510 120

    Net: Of use at all

    986

    480

    506

    249 99% 237 95% 151 60% 87 35% 12 5% 1 *

    140 97% 132

    86 99% 85

    The Right to Respect for Private and Family Life HRA, Article 8

    Net: Of use at all 155

    99%

    98%

    99% 98% 99%

    418
    60 47 56 98 32% 33% 35% 34% 41% 38% 10 8% 1 1% 2% 4

    Net: Vital/ important

    942

    453

    488 107

    Net: Vital/ important

    98% 91% 88 61% 44 30% 8 6% 2 2% 45 52% 40 46% 1 1% 1 Continued

    94%

    93%

    96% 89% 97%

    Vital

    575

    275

    300

    Vital

    57%

    56%

    59% 50% 61%

    Important3

    367

    179

    188

    37%

    36%

    37% 39% 35%

    Useful2

    44

    27

    17

    4%

    5%

    3%

    Unnecessary1

    1%

    Table 249: Attitudes towards respect for private and family life and the home: Liberty polling exercise (continued)
    Age Social Grade Region

    Gender

    Total 2 2% 3.49 0.56 0.04 0.04 0.05 0.05 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.57 0.63 0.66 0.57 0.57 0.58 0.69 0.62 0.57 0.04 3.56 3.54 3.54 3.56 3.58 3.50 3.44 3.51 3.52 1% 1% 2% 1% 1% 1% 2% 1% 2% * 3.55 0.61 0.04 2 3 3 2 2 1 5 2 4 1

    Male

    Female

    1824 65+ AB Cl C2 DE Midlands 3 2% 3.54 0.66 0.06

    2534 35-44 45-54 55-64

    South East

    North England

    Wales and South West Scotland 3.48 0.59 0.06

    Dont know

    1%

    1%

    1%

    Mean

    3.53

    3.50

    3.55 3.41 3.60

    Standard deviation

    0.61

    0.63

    0.58 0.68 0.54

    Standard error

    0.02

    0.03

    0.02 0.07 0.04

    Base: All respondents

    419

    Source: Liberty (2011).

    The Right to Respect for Private and Family Life HRA, Article 8

    Note: Respondents were asked the following question [several rights were actually listed and respondents responses to each right are shown in the relevant chapter]: In modern Britain, would you say each of the following rights are vital, important, useful, or unnecessary? Respect for privacy, family life and the home.

    The Right to Respect for Private and Family Life HRA, Article 8

    Chapter notes
    433

    434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444

    445

    446 447 448 449 450 451

    452 453

    The status of UN treaty ratification is drawn from the UN Treaty Database, www.unhchr. ch/tbs/doc.nsf/Statusfrset?OpenFrameSet (accessed 4 November 2010). The status of European treaty ratification is drawn from the Council of Europe Treaty Office website, conventions.coe.int/ (accessed 4 November 2010). When a state signs an international treaty this is signals its preliminary endorsement of the treaty, it does not create a binding legal obligation. A state which ratifies or accedes to a treaty is asserting that it considers itself to be legally bound by the treaty. Ratification requires the state to have previously signed the treaty, whereas accession is a single step which does not require previous signing. It should be noted that a treaty which has been acceded to or ratified by the UK does not automatically become part of the domestic law; separate legislative action is required to incorporate international law into domestic law (for example, the HRA making the ECHR enforceable in the UK). Nonetheless, ratification or accession is a states expression that it consents to be legally bound by the treaty, including respecting and implementing its provisions. www.5rb.com/docs/Douglas-v-Hello!%20Ltd%20ChD%2027%20Jan%202003.pdf Joint Committee on Human Rights, 2007-08: 76. cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentId=860909&portal=hbkm&sourc e=externalbydocnumber&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649 cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentId=843941&portal=hbkm&sourc e=externalbydocnumber&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649 www.lawreports.co.uk/WLRD/2009/HLPC/Jan.0.4.html www.parliament.uk/documents/joint-committees/human-rights/HRJThomson_ HomeSec_090910.pdf www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/2007CSOH189.html (accessed 25 January 2011). www.taylorkelly.co.uk/public-law/sex-offender-notification/ (accessed 25 January 2011). Liberty, www.yourrights.org.uk/yourrights/the-human-rights-act/the-convention-rights/article8-right-to-respect-for-private-and-family-life.html www.yourrights.org.uk/yourrights/the-human-rights-act/the-convention-rights/article-8-right-torespect-for-private-and-family-life docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:yK9fchCEOdQJ:www.edf.org.uk/news/ HRCases140606.doc+R+v+Royal+Devon+and+Exeter+NHS+Foundation +Trust+ %5B2004%5D&hl=en&gl=uk&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESjyxqkBeMRCFiQmb K9N8rdePbdMsHwFBih4xG7b54ZsvU1XNjcRmGhdoR9M42VrVaO_e3Lgg3VHvIby M7wADhEj4QqB0tHvIz7z8g9Pu2ItYRbWvU3fktUW1ZUGbYk7fdFTRIt7 &sig=AHIEtbTWkbpGHQMTrTfn1gAz5pvSZBC6jg www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2003/167.html&query=title+( +R+)+and+title+(+v+)+and+title+(+East+)+and+title+(+Sussex+)+and+title+(+County+)+and +title+(+Council+)&method=boolean cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentId=699540&portal=hbkm&sourc e=externalbydocnumber&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649 cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentId=698325&portal=hbkm&sourc e=externalbydocnumber&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649 cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentId=697083&portal=hbkm&sourc e=externalbydocnumber&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649 cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentId=826595&portal=hbkm&sourc e=externalbydocnumber&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649 www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/1999/2022.html Cases in this section are drawn from the NHS Litigation Authority document, What the courts have said about Resource allocation and human rights, downloaded from: www.library.nhs.uk/healthmanagement/ViewResource.aspx?resID=267515 (accessed 28 February 2011). www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2001/535.html www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2002/1522.html

    420

    The Right to Respect for Private and Family Life HRA, Article 8

    454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485

    www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2003/803.html www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2003/1093.html www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2003/2228.html cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentId=815166&portal=hbkm&sourc e=externalbydocnumber&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649 cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentId=698325&portal=hbkm&sourc e=externalbydocnumber&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649 cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentId=830318&portal=hbkm&sourc e=externalbydocnumber&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649 cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentId=868178&portal=hbkm&sourc e=externalbydocnumber&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649 cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentId=776914&portal=hbkm&sourc e=externalbydocnumber&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649 cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentId=855981&portal=hbkm&sourc e=externalbydocnumber&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649 www.supremecourt.gov.uk/docs/UKSC_2011_0005_Judgment.pdf cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentId=699124&portal=hbkm&sourc e=externalbydocnumber&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649 cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentId=869647&portal=hbkm&sourc e=externalbydocnumber&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649 cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentId=695480&portal=hbkm&sourc e=externalbydocnumber&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649 cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentId=699398&portal=hbkm&sourc e=externalbydocnumber&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649 cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentId=695350&portal=hbkm&sourc e=externalbydocnumber&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649 cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentId=698473&portal=hbkm&sourc e=externalbydocnumber&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649 www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200304/ldjudgmt/jd040621/gha-1.htm cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentId=837278&portal=hbkm&sourc e=externalbydocnumber&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649 cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentId=850769&portal=hbkm&sourc e=externalbydocnumber&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649 www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/2007CSIH67.html www.taylorkelly.co.uk/prison-law/telephone-message/ (accessed 25 January 2011). www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSC/2011/21.html cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentId=699671&portal=hbkm&sourc e=externalbydocnumber&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649 cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentId=835163&portal=hbkm&sourc e=externalbydocnumber&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSC/2010/45.html www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSC/2011/8.html www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200304/ldjudgmt/jd040621/gha-1.htm www2.lse.ac.uk/humanRights/articlesAndTranscripts/Human_rights_equality_and_ discrimination.pdf cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentId=695782&portal=hbkm&sourc e=externalbydocnumber&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649 cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentId=835996&portal=hbkm&sourc e=externalbydocnumber&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649 cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentId=707509&portal=hbkm&sourc e=externalbydocnumber&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649 cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentId=683292&portal=hbkm&sourc e=externalbydocnumber&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649

    421

    The Right to Respect for Private and Family Life HRA, Article 8

    486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509

    510

    511

    512 513 514

    cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentId=696012&portal=hbkm&sourc e=externalbydocnumber&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649 www.equalityhumanrights.com/human-rights/what-are-human-rights/the-human-rights-act/ respect-for-your-private-and-family-life/ www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSC/2011/4.html (accessed 10 March 2011). ukhumanrightsblog.com/2011/02/01/supreme-court-bolsters-rights-of-children-in-deportationcases/ (accessed 10 March 2011). www.courtsni.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/5E5FD8F0-33D2-4ED6-BEFC-67ACF9A371EA/0/j_j_ GIRF5249.htm www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/P739.html cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentId=845733&portal=hbkm&sourc e=externalbydocnumber&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649 www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200607/ldjudgmt/jd071024/somerv.pdf www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2003/1036.html cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentId=695410&portal=hbkm&sourc e=externalbydocnumber&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/2009/45.html The guidance has been published, see: www.cps.gov.uk/publications/prosecution/assisted_ suicide_policy.html www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/(Symbol)/23378a8724595410c12563ed004aeecd?Opendocument Available at www.euractiv.com/en/infosociety/reding-defines-new-eu-data-privacy-rulesnews-503172 (accessed 17 March 2011). www.parliament.uk/documents/joint-committees/human-rights/HRJThomson_ HomeSec_090910.pdf www.parliament.uk/documents/joint-committees/human-rights/HRJMarper_ HomeSec_090910.pdf www.5rb.com/docs/Douglas-v-Hello!%20Ltd%20ChD%2027%20Jan%202003.pdf Joint Committee on Human Rights, 2007-08: 76. cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentId=860909&portal=hbkm&sourc e=externalbydocnumber&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649 cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentId=843941&portal=hbkm&sourc e=externalbydocnumber&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649 www.lawreports.co.uk/WLRD/2009/HLPC/Jan.0.4.html www.parliament.uk/documents/joint-committees/human-rights/HRJThomson_ HomeSec_090910.pdf www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/2007CSOH189.html (accessed 25 January 2011). www.yourrights.org.uk/yourrights/the-human-rights-act/the-convention-rights/article-8-right-torespect-for-private-and-family-life docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:yK9fchCEOdQJ:www.edf.org.uk/news/ HRCases140606.doc+R+v+Royal+Devon+and+Exeter+NHS+Foundation +Trust+ %5B2004%5D&hl=en&gl=uk&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESjyxqkBeMRCFiQmb K9N8rdePbdMsHwFBih4xG7b54ZsvU1XNjcRmGhdoR9M42VrVaO_e3Lgg3VHvIby M7wADhEj4QqB0tHvIz7z8g9Pu2ItYRbWvU3fktUW1ZUGbYk7fdFTRIt7 &sig=AHIEtbTWkbpGHQMTrTfn1gAz5pvSZBC6jg www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2003/167.html&query=title+( +R+)+and+title+(+v+)+and+title+(+East+)+and+title+(+Sussex+)+and+title+(+County+)+and +title+(+Council+)&method=boolean cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentId=699540&portal=hbkm&sourc e=externalbydocnumber&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649 cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentId=698325&portal=hbkm&sourc e=externalbydocnumber&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649 cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentId=697083&portal=hbkm&sourc e=externalbydocnumber&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649

    422

    The Right to Respect for Private and Family Life HRA, Article 8

    515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551

    cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentId=826595&portal=hbkm&sourc e=externalbydocnumber&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649 www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/1999/2022.html www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2001/535.html www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2002/1522.html www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2003/803.html www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2003/1093.html www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2003/2228.html cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentId=815166&portal=hbkm&sourc e=externalbydocnumber&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649 cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentId=698325&portal=hbkm&sourc e=externalbydocnumber&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649 www.supremecourt.gov.uk/docs/UKSC_2011_0005_Judgment.pdf cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentId=695350&portal=hbkm&sourc e=externalbydocnumber&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649 cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentId=698473&portal=hbkm&sourc e=externalbydocnumber&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649 www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200304/ldjudgmt/jd040621/gha-1.htm cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentId=837278&portal=hbkm&sourc e=externalbydocnumber&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649 cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentId=850769&portal=hbkm&sourc e=externalbydocnumber&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649 www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/2007CSIH67.html www.taylorkelly.co.uk/prison-law/telephone-message/ (accessed 25 January 2011). www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSC/2011/21.html cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentId=699671&portal=hbkm&sourc e=externalbydocnumber&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649 cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentId=835163&portal=hbkm&sourc e=externalbydocnumber&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSC/2010/45.html www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200304/ldjudgmt/jd040621/gha-1.htm cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentId=835996&portal=hbkm&sourc e=externalbydocnumber&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649 cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentId=683292&portal=hbkm&sourc e=externalbydocnumber&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649 www.equalityhumanrights.com/human-rights/what-are-human-rights/the-human-rights-act/ respect-for-your-private-and-family-life/ www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSC/2011/4.html (accessed 10 March 2011). www.courtsni.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/5E5FD8F0-33D2-4ED6-BEFC-67ACF9A371EA/0/j_j_ GIRF5249.htm www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/P739.html www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200607/ldjudgmt/jd071024/somerv.pdf www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2003/1036.html cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentId=695410&portal=hbkm&sourc e=externalbydocnumber&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/2009/45.html www.equalityhumanrights.com/uploaded_files/raceinbritain/ehrc_stop_and_search_report.pdf www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt200607/jtselect/jtrights/156/156i.pdf www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmselect/cmhaff/58/58i.pdf (accessed 10 March 2011). www.parliament.uk/documents/commons-committees/home-affairs/ CRCFinalReportEmbargoed.pdf (accessed 20 July 2011). www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/home-affairscommittee/news/110720-phone-hacking-report/ (accessed 20 July 2011).

    423

    The Right to Respect for Private and Family Life HRA, Article 8

    552 553 554 555 556 557 558 559 560 561

    562

    Information in this section is drawn from: www.ico.gov.uk/what_we_cover/promoting_data_ privacy/taking_action.aspx (accessed 5 October 2011). www.ico.gov.uk/about_us/research/~/media/documents/library/Corporate/Research_and_ reports/surveillance_report_for_home_select_committee.ashx (accessed 20 July 2011). www.cambridgeshire.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/46979CAB-51B2-4305-B64B-E520165D56D7/0/ Restraint.pdf (accessed 9 November 2011). www.ombudsman.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0016/7216/Care-and-Compassion-PHSO0114web.pdf (accessed 9 November 2011). www.cqc.org.uk/newsandevents/newsstories.cfm?widCall1=customWidgets.content_ view_1&cit_id=37384 (accessed 5 July 2011). www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/policy/reports/overlooked-privacy-report-december-2007.pdf Available at www.stonewall.org.uk/what_we_do/2583.asp#Asylum (accessed 17 March 2011). www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1313495/Daily-Mail-honoured-Dignity-Elderly-campaign.html www.ageuk.org.uk/Documents/EN-GB/ID9489%20HTBH%20Report%2028ppA4. pdf?dtrk=true, p24 (accessed 5 July 2011). The right to respect for religious belief is protected under Article 9. It is unlikely a case concerning religion would fall under Article 8 alone. The data here is being collated and analysed within the conditions of detention context. The right to respect for religious belief is protected under Article 9. It is unlikely a case concerning religion would fall under Article 8 alone. The data here is being collated and analysed within the conditions of detention context.

    424

    Chapter 10
    The Right to the Highest Attainable Standard of Physical and Mental Health (Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 25; International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Article 12)

    Please read Part II Guidance on using and interpreting the Human Rights Measurement Framework first.

    10 The Right to the Highest Attainable Standard of Physical and Mental Health (Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), Article 25; International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), Article 12)

    Panel and indicators


    Actions/inactions by the state, its agents or bodies fulfilling a public function Mental health Sexual and reproductive health Environmental and occupational health Community health and social care Accessibility to health services and essential medicines

    Protection of the right to the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health by the state, its agents or bodies fulfilling a public function

    Indicators

    General health

    Structural (indicators of commitment in principle)

    Indicator 51: Legal and constitutional framework Protection of the right the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health in domestic law (including constitutional/higher law) Status of ratification of relevant international treaties

    The Right to the Highest Attainable Standard of Physical and Mental Health UDHR, Article 25; ICESCR, Article 12

    426

    Indicator 52: Legal precedents, gaps and standard-setting Principles established in key cases (domestic and ECHR) and international standard setting processes Gaps in protection and non-implementation of legal judgements and recommendations

    Process (indicators of steps taken including legal, regulatory and public policy measures)

    Indicator 53: Regulatory framework Key regulators, inspectorates, ombudsmen and other mechanisms for complaints handling Relevant responsibilities and powers, national minimum standard frameworks and inspection/complaints-handling criteria

    Indicator 54: Public policy framework Primary legislation Relevant codes and guidance Other relevant policies, plans, targets and goals Spotlight resource allocations

    Outcome (indicators of the position of individuals and groups in practice/ emergence of a human rights culture)

    Indicator 55: Outcomes of key judicial, regulatory and investigative processes Violations of the right to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health: Case law outcomes Key concerns raised by human rights monitoring bodies Outcomes of inspection, regulation and complaints procedures, such as: Complaints handling by regulatory bodies and inspectorates: complaints that engage the right to health, inspection outcomes against the Care Quality Commission (CQC) minimum standards/inspection criteria Outcomes of independent inquiries, investigations and reviews that result in serious criticism of actions of the state, its agents or bodies fulfilling a public function (includes investigations into excess and avoidable deaths within healthcare establishments(also see the Human Rights Act (HRA), Article 2) Key allegations by private individuals and civil society organisations/reports in the media

    Indicator 56: Spotlight statistics: Mortality rates, healthy life expectancy and ill health Life expectancy, infant mortality, accidents, deaths through cancer/cardiovacsular disease, healthy life expectancy, self-reported ill health, longstanding illness and disability, mental health

    The Right to the Highest Attainable Standard of Physical and Mental Health UDHR, Article 25; ICESCR, Article 12

    427

    Indicator 57: Spotlight statistics: Prevalence of self-harm, access to health services and health outcomes at risk/vulnerable groups Looked after children: health protection gaps Individuals who are detained: access to health/self harm rates for detained individuals Health gaps for Gypsies and Travellers

    Indicator 58: Spotlight statistics: Non-discrimination, autonomy and dignity and respect Support for nutritional needs during hospital stays Choice, control and autonomy in healthcare decisions. Discrimination in access to healthcare (e.g. non-registration or discrimination at GP surgeries). Within Wales: access by Welsh as first language individuals to health, social care and speech therapy services Access to sexual and reproductive healthcare

    Indicator 59: Spotlight statistics: Social determinants, environmental and occupational health Poverty and income inequality Housing conditions

    Indicator 60: Spotlight statistics: Public attitudes, understanding and experiences Public attitudes towards the right to healthcare as a right you should have and you do have Perceptions of treatment with dignity and respect in healthcare

    Panel and indicators (continued)

    Indicators should be systematically disaggregated Key disaggregation characteristics include ethnicity/race, gender, disability, sexual orientation, transgender, religion and belief, age, social class, area (region, urban/rural, remoteness) with separate reporting of the non-private household population and at risk/vulnerable groups including individuals staying in/resident/detained in public and private institutions; individuals living in poverty; refugees/asylum seekers, vulnerable children and young people (for example, children in need, looked after children, children who are carers), Gypsies and Travellers, etc.

    The Right to the Highest Attainable Standard of Physical and Mental Health UDHR, Article 25; ICESCR, Article 12

    428

    The Right to the Highest Attainable Standard of Physical and Mental Health UDHR, Article 25; ICESCR, Article 12

    Evidence base
    Structural indicators Indicator 51: Legal and constitutional framework
    Table 250: Protection of the right to the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health in domestic law (including constitutional/higher law) The right to the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health is not incorporated into the HRA. Table 251: Status of ratification of relevant international treaties563 ICESCR Article 12 ratified. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) Article 7 ratified. International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination(ICERD) Article 5(e)(iv) ratified. Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) Articles 11.1(f), 12, 14.2(b) ratified. Convention on the Rights of the Child Articles 3, 23, 24, 26, 33 ratified. Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) Article 25 ratified. ECHR Articles 2 and 3 ratified. European Social Charter (revised) signed but not ratified. Additional Protocol to the European Social Charter Providing for a System of Collective Complaints not ratified.

    429

    The Right to the Highest Attainable Standard of Physical and Mental Health UDHR, Article 25; ICESCR, Article 12

    Indicator 52: Legal precedents, gaps and standard-setting


    Table 252: Principles established in key cases (domestic, ECHR and international) Domestic case law The right to treatment564 D v UK no 30240/96 [1997] ECHR565 The European Court of Human Rights found that it would breach Article 3 if the UK Government were to deport a terminallyill man suffering from AIDS to his home country of St Kitts, where no specialist medical treatment and little, if any, social support would be available. Bensaid v UK no.44599/98 [2001] ECHR566 Article 3 might be breached if an individual was deported to a country where no suitable treatment was available; private life protected by Article 8 includes the preservation of the individuals mental stability. In this case, however, the risks of such harm were too speculative for breach of Articles 3 and 8 to be found. Dickson v UK (GC) no. 44362/04 [2007] ECHR567 Over-ruling an earlier decision of the chamber, the European Court of Human Rights found that in refusing to permit artificial insemination between a prisoner and his wife, a fair balance was not struck between the competing public and private interests involved, and that there had therefore been a violation of Article 8. North West Lancashire Health Authority v A, D & G [2000] 1 WLR 977568 In a case of refusal by a health authority to fund gender reassignment surgery, the Court of Appeal held that Health Authorities have to make hard and often invidious decisions in the allocation of avowedly inadequate resources. But those decisions must proceed from proper assessments of the conditions competing for treatment. The authoritys policies were made upon the premise that transsexualism is not a disease and that surgical treatment for it is of no proven clinical benefit, and needed to be revisited. However, the Court of Appeal noted that Article 8 imposes no positive obligations to provide treatment. Briody v St Helens and Knowsley Area Health Authority [2001] EWCA Civ 1010569 In the case of a women seeking compensation to fund a surrogacy arrangement after becoming infertile, the Court found that Article 12 does not give the right to be supplied with a child. However, it might well preclude placing arbitrary or disproportionate restrictions upon access to the reproductive services which are generally available.

    430

    The Right to the Highest Attainable Standard of Physical and Mental Health UDHR, Article 25; ICESCR, Article 12

    R v Cambridge Health Authority ex p B [1995] EWCA Civ 49570 In the context of an appeal by the parents against the decision of the health authority not to fund further treatment for their child dying of leukaemia, the Court noted that Difficult and agonising judgements have to be made as to how a limited budget is best allocated to the maximum advantage of the maximum number of patients. That is not a judgement which the court can make. N v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2003] EWCA Civ 1369571 In a majority decision, the Court of Appeal held that only in extreme cases would absence of health facilities in another country prevent deportation. R (on the application of Burke) v General Medical Council [2005] EWCA Civ 1003572 The Court found that a patient cannot demand that a doctor administer a treatment which the doctor considers is adverse to the patients clinical needs. However, withdrawing artificial nutrition and hydration from a competent patient who wishes to remain alive would violate Article 2. Rachel Gunter (by her litigation friend and father Edwin Gunter) and South Western Staffordshire Primary Care Trust [2005] EWHC 1894 Admin573 When considering whether to provide a residential or home-based package of care for a severely disabled individual, the Primary Care Trust(PCT) must give proper weight to her Article 8 rights(see Table 218). R (on the application of Rogers) v Swindon NHS Primary Care Trust & Another [2006] EWCA Civ 392574 (over-ruling the earlier High Court decision) The PCTs policy regarding the funding of Herceptin was irrational and therefore unlawful. The fact that the availability of funding might be a life and death decision for Ms Rogers meant that the court should subject the PCTs decision to rigorous scrutiny. R (On the Application Of Condliff) v North Staffordshire Primary Care Trust [2011] EWHC B8 (Admin)575 The Court found that there was no Article 8 right to demand gastric banding, noting that when a PCT makes a policy decision about where to allocate its limited medical resources, assuming it does so on a rational basis, the A8 rights of any particular person who may be denied treatment as a result of a decision which applies that policy need not be considered by reason of some positive duty (Wagner, 2011a).576 This decision was upheld on appeal, see R (on the application of Condliff) v North Staffordshire Primary Care Trust [2011] EWCA Civ 910.577

    431

    The Right to the Highest Attainable Standard of Physical and Mental Health UDHR, Article 25; ICESCR, Article 12

    Resource allocation and the right to health578 R (on the application of F) v (1) Oxfordshire Mental Healthcare NHS trust (2) Oxfordshire Health Authority [2001] EWHC Admin 535579 Article 8 was not breached when a Health Authority refused to fund a medium secure placement in Manchester rather than Oxford. Whilst decisions on funding affect lives, that was not a reason to judicialise them. R (on the application of H) v Mental Health Tribunal [2002] EWHC 1522 Admin580 The decision not to recommend transfer of a patient to a hospital closer to his home did not breach Article 8. Decisions on such transfers may also be affected by questions as to the availability of resources with which the court cannot interfere unless those resources, and the lack of them, lead to an infringement of a Convention right, for example, a right under Article 3. That is not the position in the present case. R (on the application of Haggerty) v St Helens Council [2003] EWHC 803 Admin581 In a case concerning the closure of a private residential home, the Court held that the financial resources of the council were an important element to be considered in the balancing exercise required by Article 8.2. R (on the application of Dudley and others) v East Sussex County Council [2003] EWHC 1093 Admin582 The High Court ruled that the closure of a residential home did not breach Articles 2, 3 and 8. There was no evidence that Articles 2 and 3 were engaged; if Article 8.1 was engaged, this was justified under Article 8.2 by the councils needs to balance competing claims on resources. R (on the application of Yvonne Watts) v (1) Bedford Primary Care Trust (2) Secretary of State for Health [2003] EWHC 2228 (Admin)583 In the context of a patient waiting in pain for a hip operation, the Court held that neither Article 3 nor Article 8 rights were engaged in the request for reimbursement of medical costs incurred in an overseas hip replacement operation undertaken to avoid an NHS waiting list. R (Grogan) v Bexley NHS Care Trust [2006] EWHC 44 Admin584 This case concerned the difference between healthcare (which should be fully funded by the NHS) and social care (where there is no obligation to fully fund). The Court found that the criteria drawn up by the Strategic Health Authority and adopted by the NHS Trust were fatally flawed as they did not reflect the fact that those with a primary health need should be NHS funded. The Trust claimed its decision was in line with the Department of Health guidance and therefore lawful, but the Court rejected that claim.

    432

    The Right to the Highest Attainable Standard of Physical and Mental Health UDHR, Article 25; ICESCR, Article 12

    R (on the application of Condliff) v North Staffordshire Primary Care Trust [2011] EWHC B8 (Admin)585 The Court held that because the right to respect for private and family life was not generally engaged in healthcare resource allocation, a PCTs Individual Funding Request policy which provided that non-clinical, social factors could not be taken into account in determining exceptionality did not breach Article 8. For further details about this case see The right to treatment. R (on the application of Cawser) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2003] EWCA Civ 1522586 A leading case on the allocation of resources and the role of the court, considered in the context of Article 5 rights. See consideration of this case in Secretary of State for Justice v James (formerly Walker & Anor): R (on the application of Lee) v Secretary of State for Justice & one other action [2009] UKHL 22.587

    Public functions and social care YL v Birmingham City Council [2007] UKHL 27588 House of Lords considered whether a care home when providing accommodation and care to a resident pursuant to arrangements made by a local authority is performing functions of a public nature for the purposes of section 6(3)(b) of the Human Rights Act 1998 and is therefore a public authority obliged to act compatibly with Convention rights under section 6(1) of the HRA. The care and accommodation provided by Southern Cross to Mrs YL were found not to constitute a function of a public nature within the scope of section 6(3)b. For subsequent primary legislation, see Table 254.

    Dignity R (McDonald) v Royal Borough of Chelsea and Kensington [2011] UKSC 33589 The Court held that the boroughs proposal for the applicant to wear incontinence pads or use special sheeting, thus avoiding the need for a night-time carer to assist her in accessing a commode was not in breach of her Article 8 rights (see Article 8).

    International case law Paschim Banga Khet Mazdoor Samity and others v State of West Bengal and another [1996] AIR SC 2426590; Olga Tellis and Ors v Bombay Municipality Corporation and Ors [1985] 2 Supp SCR 51591 Judgements of the Supreme Court of India interpreting the right to life as giving rise to positive obligations on the state to protect basic needs such as life-saving medical treatment, the means of livelihood and the prevention of malnutrition and starvation deaths during periods of drought and famine.

    433

    The Right to the Highest Attainable Standard of Physical and Mental Health UDHR, Article 25; ICESCR, Article 12

    Minister of Health and others v Treatment Action Campaign and others (TAC) (2002) 5 SA 721 (CC)592 Clarified the nature and scope of positive human rights obligations in relation to health. The South African court found that the government had failed to devise and implement a comprehensive and coordinated program to combat mother-to-child transmission of HIV.593 Viceconte, Mariela Cecilia v Argentinian Ministry of Health and Social Welfare (1999)594 The Argentinian court found that the government had a positive duty to manufacture vaccine to prevent deaths from a virulent life-threatening disease because the disease only occurred in Argentina and there was, therefore, no commercial interest of a private pharmaceutical company in investing in research and development.

    Table 253: Principles established in international standard setting processes General evaluative criteria developed by the United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (UNCESCR) Obligations to respect, protect and fulfil human rights. Obligations of conduct versus obligations of result. Progressive realization/maximum available resources. Minimum core threshold approach/immediate obligations. Non-retrogression.

    Other key international standards UNCESCR General Comment 9 domestic application of the Covenant.595 UNCESCR General Comment 14596 principles of availability, accessibility, acceptability, quality. Framework developed by UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Health, Paul Hunt. Reasonableness of state actions (South African jurisprudence). European Committee of Social Rights.

    434

    The Right to the Highest Attainable Standard of Physical and Mental Health UDHR, Article 25; ICESCR, Article 12

    Table 254: Gaps in legal protection The ICESCR is not incorporated into domestic law. The UNCESCR (2009) has expressed concerns about the non-incorporation of the Covenant into domestic law: The Committee deeply regrets that, although the State party has adopted a certain number of laws in the area of economic, social and cultural rights, the Covenant has still not been incorporated in the domestic legal order and that there is no intention by the State party to do so in the near future. The Committee reiterates its concern about the State partys position that the provisions of the Covenant, with minor exceptions, constitute principles and programmatic objectives rather than legal obligations that are justiciable, and that consequently they cannot be given direct legislative effect.597 The Revised European Social Charter has been signed but not ratified by the UK.

    Social care and Public functions Section 146 of the Health and Social Care Act (2008) addressed the legal gap in the protection of the Human Rights Act relating to residential care provided by private and third sector providers following YL v Birmingham City Council (see Table 252). However, the Commission has identified a legal loophole which means that the majority of older people who receive care at home (if they pay for all or part of it themselves or if it is delivered by appropriate or voluntary sector organisation) are not protected by the HRA (EHRC 2011).

    Process indicators Indicator 53: Regulatory framework


    Table 255: List of key regulators, inspectorates, ombudsmen, etc. Care Quality Commission Scottish Care Commission Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman Board of Community Health Councils in Wales Health & Safety Executive HM Chief Inspector of Prisons (HMIP) for England and Wales HMIP for Scotland Prisons and Probation Ombudsman General Medical Council (self-regulated)

    435

    The Right to the Highest Attainable Standard of Physical and Mental Health UDHR, Article 25; ICESCR, Article 12

    Table 256: Spotlight responsibilities and powers of key regulators, inspectorates, ombudsmen Example 2: The CQC essential standards of quality and safety framework The CQC has introduced a new essential standards of care framework which supercedes the previous core standards and national minimum standards criteria for health and social care. Details are available at www.cqc.org.uk/_db/_documents/CQC_ Complete_2009_18.pdf/598

    Indicator 54: Public policy framework


    Table 257: Right to the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health spotlight primary legislation and regulatory mechanisms Health and Social Care Act 2008 (including Section 146, on the definition of public functions in the health and social care context).599 NHS Constitution You have the right to be treated with dignity and respect, in accordance with your human rights. Memorandum of Understanding between the Commission and the Care Quality Commission (EHRC and CQC 2011).

    Table 258: Right to the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health policy guidance and training guidelines The Care Quality Commission (Registration) Regulations 2009.600 The Scottish Human Rights Commission Care About Rights601 resources for the care and support of older people.602 Prison Service Order 3100 Clinical Governance Quality in prison healthcare.603 See also: Suicide and self harm prevention and health and social care policies and guidelines (see Table 10). Health and social care guidelines (see Table 80). Department of Health, (2010b), Human Rights Training Materials and Human Rights Resources604, was a suite of training materials designed for use in training sessions for frontline workers supporting people with a learning disability (primarily health and social care workers).

    436

    The Right to the Highest Attainable Standard of Physical and Mental Health UDHR, Article 25; ICESCR, Article 12

    Table 259: Identifiable expenditure on health services in England, Scotland and Wales, 2004-05 2009-10, million
    2004-05 outturn England Medical services Health research Central and other health services Total health Scotland Medical services Health research Central and other health services Total health Wales Medical services Health research Central and other health services Total health 4,297 22 4,575 29 4,914 34 5,178 36 5,480 39 5,776 47 7,596 29 8,438 32 8,906 37 9,603 43 9,871 106 10,381 104 66,559 169 72,092 198 75,643 230 82,053 231 88,660 295 96,932 262 2005-06 outturn 2006-07 outturn 2007-08 outturn 2008-09 outturn 2009-10 plans

    1,057 67,785

    914 73,204

    954 76,828

    944 83,227

    966 89,922

    1,073 98,267

    76 7,702

    92 8,562

    92 9,035

    81 9,727

    183 10,160

    236 10,721

    14 4,333

    45 4,649

    35 4,984

    40 5,255

    34 5,553

    43 5,867

    Source: HM Treasury (2010). Notes: 1 The level of detail required for COFOG level 2 is not yet available. Health spending is therefore presented using HM Treasurys own sub-functional classification.

    437

    The Right to the Highest Attainable Standard of Physical and Mental Health UDHR, Article 25; ICESCR, Article 12

    Table 260: Identifiable expenditure on health services in England, Scotland and Wales, 2004-05 2009-10, per head
    2004-05 outturn England Medical services Health research Central and other health services Total health Scotland Medical services Health research Central and other health services Total health Wales Medical services Health research Central and other health services Total health 1,458 7 1,549 10 1,657 12 1,738 12 1,831 13 1,926 16 1,496 6 1,656 6 1,741 7 1,869 8 1,910 20 2,001 20 1,328 3 1,429 4 1,490 5 1,606 5 1,723 6 1,871 5 2005-06 outturn 2006-07 outturn 2007-08 outturn 2008-09 outturn 2009-10 plans

    21 1,353

    18 1,451

    19 1,513

    18 1,629

    19 1,748

    21 1,896

    15 1,517

    18 1,681

    18 1,766

    16 1,893

    35 1,966

    45 2,066

    5 1,470

    15 1,574

    12 1,680

    13 1,763

    11 1,855

    14 1,956

    Source: HM Treasury (2010). Notes: 1 The level of detail required for Classification of the Functions of Government level 2 is not yet available. Health spending is therefore presented using HM Treasurys own subfunctional classification. NB for identifiable expenditure on child and adult protection (personal social services), see Tables 352 and 353.

    438

    The Right to the Highest Attainable Standard of Physical and Mental Health UDHR, Article 25; ICESCR, Article 12

    Outcome indicators Indicator 55: Outcomes of key judicial, regulatory and investigative processes
    Table 261: The right to the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health: case law outcomes Relevant domestic case law The right to treatment D v UK no 30240/96 [1997] ECHR605 The European Court of Human Rights found that the deportation of a terminally-ill man would be a violation of Article 3 (see Table 252) Bensaid v UK no.44599/98 [2001] ECHR606 No violation of Articles 3 and 8 (see Table 252). Dickson v UK (GC) no. 44362/04 [2007] ECHR607 The refusal to permit artificial insemination between a prisoner and his wife was a violation of their Article 8 rights (see Table 252). North West Lancashire Health Authority v A, D & G [2000] 1 WLR 977608 Whilst noting that Article 8 imposes no positive obligations to provide treatment, the Court held that the health authoritys policies on transsexualism needed to be revisited (see Table 252). Briody v St Helens and Knowsley Area Health Authority [2001] EWCA Civ 1010609 No violation of Article 12 (see Table 252). R v Cambridge Health Authority ex p B [1995] EWCA Civ 49610 The decision of the health authority not to fund further treatment for a child dying of leukaemia was upheld; it was not appropriate for the Court to express opinions as to the likelihood of the effectiveness of medical treatment, or as to the merits of medical judgement(see Table 252). N v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2003] EWCA Civ 1369611 In a majority decision, the Court of Appeal held that only in extreme cases would deportation to another country without adequate health facilities be a violation of Article 8 (see Table 252). R (on the application of Burke) v General Medical Council [2005] EWCA Civ 1003612 The Court found that withdrawing artificial nutrition and hydration from a competent patient who wishes to remain alive would violate Article 2 (see Table 252).

    439

    The Right to the Highest Attainable Standard of Physical and Mental Health UDHR, Article 25; ICESCR, Article 12

    Rachel Gunter (by her litigation friend and father Edwin Gunter) and South Western Staffordshire Primary Care Trust [2005] EWHC 1894 Admin613 When considering whether to provide a residential or home-based package of care for a severely disabled individual, the PCT must give proper weight to her Article 8 rights. See (Tables 218 and 252). R (on the application of Rogers) v Swindon NHS Primary Care Trust & Another [2006] EWCA Civ 392614 (over-ruling the earlier High Court decision) The PCTs policy regarding the funding of Herceptin was irrational and therefore unlawful (see Table 252). R (on the application of Condliff) v North Staffordshire Primary Care Trust [2011] EWHC B8 (Admin)615 No violation of Articles 6 or 8 in the PCTs refusal to fund a gastric banding operation (see Table 252).

    Resource allocation and the right to health616 R (on the application of F) v (1) Oxfordshire Mental Healthcare NHS trust (2) Oxfordshire Health Authority [2001] EWHC Admin 535617 No violation of Article 8 (see Table 252). R (on the application of H) v Mental Health Tribunal [2002] EWHC 1522 Admin618 The decision not to recommend transfer of a patient to a hospital closer to his home did not breach Article 8 (see Table 252). R (on the application of Haggerty) v St Helens Council [2003] EWHC 803 Admin619 The Court held that the financial resources of the council were an important element to be considered in the balancing exercise required by Article 8.2 (see Table 252). R (on the application of Dudley and others) v East Sussex County Council [2003] EWHC 1093 Admin620 The High Court ruled that the closure of a residential home did not breach Articles 2, 3 and 8 (see Table 252). R (on the application of Yvonne Watts) v (1) Bedford Primary Care Trust (2) Secretary of State for Health [2003] EWHC 2228 (Admin)621 The Court held that neither Article 3 nor Article 8 rights were engaged in the request for reimbursement of medical costs incurred in an overseas hip replacement operation undertaken to avoid an NHS waiting list (see Table 252). R (Grogan) v Bexley NHS Care Trust [2006] EWHC 44 Admin622 The Court found that the criteria drawn up by the Strategic Health Authority and adopted by the NHS Trust were fatally flawed as they did not reflect the fact that those with a primary health need should be NHS funded (see Table 252).

    Dignity R (McDonald) v Royal Borough of Chelsea and Kensington [2011] UKSC 33623 No violation of Article 8 (see Table 252). 440

    The Right to the Highest Attainable Standard of Physical and Mental Health UDHR, Article 25; ICESCR, Article 12

    Table 262: Key concerns raised by human rights monitoring bodies Joint Committee on Human Rights The Joint Committee on Human Rights (JCHR) (2007), The Human Rights of Older People in Healthcare, Eighteenth Report of Session 2006-07, raised concerns about poor treatment, neglect, abuse, discrimination , malnutrition and dehydration and ill-considered discharge.624 The JCHR considered the question of domestic incorporation of economic, social and cultural rights (JCHR, 2004a). In 2008, the JCHRs report (JCHR, 2008b) included recommendations on the inclusion of these rights in any future bill of rights. It suggested that, in the first instance, the rights to health, education, housing, and an adequate standard of living, should be included. There should subsequently be a review of experience after a period and consideration of whether to add other social and economic rights (2008b: 196). These recommendations were underpinned by a new mid-way reform model for the protection of economic and social rights combining political accountability and limited judicial review. This model was proposed as an alternative to full justiciability and legal enforcement on the one hand, and declaratory status on the other. The JCHR stated: We consider that rights to health, education and housing are part of this countrys defining commitments, and including them in a UK Bill of Rights is therefore appropriate, if it can be achieved in a way which overcomes the traditional objections to such inclusion. We also agree with the view of our predecessor Committee that rights such as the right to adequate healthcare, to education and to protection against the worst extremes of poverty touch the substance of peoples everyday lives, and would help to correct the popular misconception that human rights are a charter for criminals and terrorists. In our view, the inclusion of such rights in a UK Bill of Rights would be far more effective in countering that misperception than the Governments attempt to link rights with responsibilities in the popular imagination. (JCHR, 2008b: 191-197).

    441

    The Right to the Highest Attainable Standard of Physical and Mental Health UDHR, Article 25; ICESCR, Article 12

    Inquiry into home care of older people (EHRC, 2011) identified instances of care such as: older people not being given adequate support to eat and drink (in particular those with dementia); an unfounded belief that health and safety restrictions prevent care workers preparing hot meals; neglect due to tasks in the care package not being carried out, often caused by lack of time. Financial abuse, for example money being systematically stolen over a period of time; chronic disregard for older peoples privacy and dignity when carrying out intimate tasks; talking over older people (sometimes on mobile phones) or patronising them; little attention to older peoples choices about how and when their home care is delivered; risks to personal security, for example when care workers are frequently changed sometimes without warning; some physical abuse, such as rough handling or using unnecessary physical force. The inquiry found that a number of articles of the HRA have key relevance for people receiving home care services including Articles 2, 3 and 8 and Article 1, Protocol 1. It further highlighted possible gaps in protection under the Human Rights Act when care services are provided in peoples own homes and called for this legal loophole to be closed.

    International The UNCESCR access to healthcare for rejected asylum seekers.625 The UNCESCR is deeply concerned that persons with mental disabilities experience significantly poorer health conditions, including the higher probability to suffer from bowel cancer, breast cancer and much shorter life expectancy, than those without mental health problems.626

    The UNCRC: Health and health services: The Committee is concerned that, despite the State partys efforts to tackle inequalities in access to health services through, inter alia, substantial investments, inequalities remain a problem, as demonstrated by the widening gap in infant mortality between the most and the least well-off groups. Mental health: The Committee despite the considerable financial investment, especially in England is concerned that, while 1 in 10 children in the State party have a diagnosable mental health problem, only around 25 per cent of them have access to the required treatment and care and that children may still be treated in adult psychiatric wards. Adolescent health: The Committee remains concerned at the high rate of teenage pregnancies, especially among girls from a lower socio-economic background and in the Overseas Territories, in particular Turks and Caicos.627

    442

    The Right to the Highest Attainable Standard of Physical and Mental Health UDHR, Article 25; ICESCR, Article 12

    Table 263: Outcomes of inspection, regulation and complaints procedures that engage the right to the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO), Care and Compassion. Report of the Health Services Ombudsman on 10 investigations into NHS care of older people628, February 2011 (see Table 14). Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust Inquiry (2009) report629, identified severe failings in emergency care provided by the Trust between 2005 and mid 2008 (see Tables 14 and 16). PHSO and the Local Government Ombudsman, Six Lives, highlights failures in the quality of health and social care services for people with learning disabilities; finding, with maladministration, service failure and unremedied injustice in a number, but not all, of the 20 bodies investigated (three Councils, 16 NHS bodies and the Healthcare Commission (now the Care Quality Commission) (see Tables 14 and 17). Commission for Social Care Inspection study (2007a), Rights, Risks and Restraints630, found that the use of restraint in elderly care services is unacceptable and denies the human right to dignity and choice (see Table 85). Department of Health, the British Institute of Human Rights and five NHS Trusts produced Human Rights in Healthcare: A Framework for Local Action (2008)631, to assist NHS Trusts to develop and apply human rights based approaches in their organisations to improve service design and delivery. Care Quality Commission (CQC) has published 12 reports from an inspection programme which examined whether elderly people were receiving essential standards of care in 100 hospitals across England. The inspection programme has identified recurring concerns in relation to both nutrition and dignity, including people not being given assistance to eat, not having their nutritional needs monitored and not being given enough to drink; and staff not treating patients in a respectful way or involving them in their own care (CQC, 2011c).632

    443

    The Right to the Highest Attainable Standard of Physical and Mental Health UDHR, Article 25; ICESCR, Article 12

    Table 264: Outcomes of independent reviews that are relevant to the right to the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health The Marmot Review Team (www.marmotreview.org), Fair Society, Healthy Lives (Marmot, 2010), assembled evidence and advised on the development of a health inequalities strategy in England;included a monitoring framework on the social determinants of health and health inequalities;and suggested indicators to support monitoring of the overall strategic direction in reducing health inequalities. The London Health Observatory and the Marmot Review Team have also produced baseline figures for some key indicators of the social determinants of health, health outcomes and social inequality that correspond, as closely as is currently possible, to the indicators proposed in Fair Society, Healthy Lives. These are: male life expectancy female life expectancy slope index of inequality (SII) for male life expectancy SII for female life expectancy SII for male disability-free life expectancy SII for female disability-free life expectancy children achieving a good level of development at age five young people who are not in education, employment or training (NEET) people in households in receipt of means-tested benefits slope index of inequality for people in households in receipt of means-tested benefits.

    For further details, see: www.lho.org.uk/LHO_Topics/national_lead_areas/marmot/ marmotindicators.aspx

    444

    The Right to the Highest Attainable Standard of Physical and Mental Health UDHR, Article 25; ICESCR, Article 12

    Table 265: Health complaints accepted by the PSHO, by type of body, England, 2009-10
    Complaints accepted Type of body NHS hospital, specialist and teaching trust (acute) Of which: Foundation trusts* Non-foundation trusts General practitioners Primary care trusts Mental health, social care and learning disability trusts Of which: Foundation trusts* Non-foundation trusts Strategic health authorities Other Of which: Ambulance trusts General dental practitioners Pharmacies Healthcare Commission Special health authorities Opticians Care trusts Total 12 9 1 0 0 0 0 346 100 14 12 16 22 5 6 69 126 57 30 26 16 9 8 N 195 % 56

    Source: PHSO (2010). Notes: * The number of foundation trusts increases each year, so the changing proportion of complaints about foundation trusts reflects this.

    445

    The Right to the Highest Attainable Standard of Physical and Mental Health UDHR, Article 25; ICESCR, Article 12

    Table 266: Issues raised in complaints to the Healthcare Commission (now the Care Quality Commission)
    Issues raised % Complaints handling Communication/information to patients Treatment Diagnosis Access and waiting Effectiveness of care Patient experience Attitude of staff Records Nursing 19 12 11 9 8 7 7 6 5 4

    Source: Healthcare Commission (2009b). Notes: Of the complaints made, 29.3% (2,621) were upheld by the Healthcare Commission without recommendations and 6.7% (599) were upheld with recommendations. Table 267: Recommendations made by the Healthcare Commission (now the Care Quality Commission) where a complaint has been upheld
    Recommendations made % Safety compliance with guidance and policies Improve patient focus Communication Staff training/learning Improve delivery of services Other Hygiene and building service Clarify accountability/responsibility 24 21 14 12 11 7 6 5

    Source: Healthcare Commission (2009b). Notes: In total, 599 recommendations were made to NHS organisations.

    446

    Table 268: NHS Performance performance ratings 2008-09: Core standards compliance by trust type (acute and specialist, and primary care trusts) and nationally (England only)
    C01b 94.7% 96.7% 93.2% 95.0% C05d 97.6% 97.4% 96.6% 97.4% C11b 89.3% 86.8% 87.1% 87.6% 99.1% 98.7% 98.0% 98.6% 99.3% 97.8% 99.3% 99.3% 99.3% 99.4% 97.6% 96.4% 94.1% 100.0% 98.6% 97.2% C11c C12 C13a C13b 99.6% 97.0% 99.6% 90.5% 100.0% 98.6% 100.0% 87.8% 100.0% 100.0% C13c 96.4% 96.1% 91.8% 95.5% 99.3% 100.0% 100.0% 88.2% 100.0% 91.4% 90.5% 92.2% C14a 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 99.8% 99.4% 92.9% 99.4% 93.5% 100.0% 94.1% C06 C07a&c C07b C07e C08a C08b 90.7% 98.3% 93.5% 89.6% 88.3% 95.7% 96.5% C09 94.1% 86.8% 82.3% 88.3% C14b 100.0% 98.7% 99.3% 99.4% 91.2% 98.6% 95.2% 84.4% 88.4% 95.2% 92.5% 94.1% 98.7% 98.0% 96.1% 96.1% 96.7% 98.0% 94.1% 94.6% 95.2% C10a 96.4% 96.1% 95.2% 96.3% C14c 96.4% 100.0% 100.0% 98.5% 87.0% 98.2% 90.5% 89.3% 80.5% 97.0% 98.8% 95.9% C02 C03 C04a C04b C04c C04d C04e C05a C05b 97.6% 99.3% 95.2% 97.2% C10b 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% C15a 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 99.6% Continued

    Trust type

    C01a

    Acute and specialist trusts

    97.6%

    PCTs as commissioners of services

    96.1%

    PCTs as providers of services

    94.6%

    England

    95.1%

    Co5c

    Acute and specialist trusts

    98.2%

    PCTs as commissioners of services

    100.0%

    The Right to the Highest Attainable Standard of Physical and Mental Health UDHR, Article 25; ICESCR, Article 12

    447

    PCTs as providers of services

    98.0%

    England

    98.5%

    C11a

    Acute and specialist trusts

    98.2%

    PCTs as commissioners of services

    99.3%

    PCTs as providers of services

    99.3%

    England

    98.5%

    Table 268: NHS Performance performance ratings 2008-09: Core standards compliance by trust type (acute and specialist, and primary care trusts) and nationally (England only) (continued)
    C16 99.4% 98.7% 99.3% 98.7% 95.88% 97.43% 96.00% 96.33% 98.9% 97.2% 95.0% 96.5% 91.3% 99.8% 99.6% 99.3% 98.0% 95.2% 98.0% 93.9% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 97.4% 97.4% 100.0% 96.7% 99.3% 100.0% 99.3% 100.0% 99.3% 97.6% 96.4% 92.9% 93.5% 87.0% 100.0% 98.8% 98.2% C17 C18 C20a C20b C21 C22a&c C22b C23 C24 97.0% 95.4% 95.9% 95.9%

    Trust type

    C15b

    Acute and specialist trusts

    97.0%

    PCTs as commissioners of services

    100.0%

    PCTs as providers of services

    100.00%

    England

    98.7%

    National compliance rate

    Acute and specialist trusts

    PCTs as commissioners of services

    The Right to the Highest Attainable Standard of Physical and Mental Health UDHR, Article 25; ICESCR, Article 12

    448

    PCTs as providers of services

    England

    The Right to the Highest Attainable Standard of Physical and Mental Health UDHR, Article 25; ICESCR, Article 12

    Table 268: NHS Performance performance ratings 2008-09: Core standards compliance by trust type (acute and specialist, and primary care trusts) and nationally (England only) (continued) Key
    Domain Safety Safety Safety Safety Safety Safety Safety Safety Safety Clinical and cost effectiveness Clinical and cost effectiveness Clinical and cost effectiveness Clinical and cost effectiveness Clinical and cost effectiveness Governance Governance Governance Governance Governance Governance Governance Governance Governance Governance Governance Governance Patient focus Patient focus Patient focus Patient focus Patient focus Patient focus Patient focus Patient focus Patient focus Accessible and responsive care Accessible and responsive care Care environment and amenities Care environment and amenities Care environment and amenities Public health Public health Public health Public health Standard code C01a C01b C02 C03 C04a C04b C04c C04d C04e C05a C05b C05c C05d C06 C07a&c C07b C07e C08a C08b C09 C10a C10b C11a C11b C11c C12 C13a C13b C13c C4a C14b C14c C15a C15b C16 C17 C18 C20a C20b C21 C22a&c C22b C23 C24 Short name Incidents reporting and learning Safety alerts Safeguarding children NICE interventional procedures Infection control Safe use of medical devices Decontamination Medicines management Clinical waste NICE technology appraisals Clinical supervision Updating clinical skills and techniques Clinical audit and review Partnership Corporate and clinical Honesty and probity Discrimination Whistle-blowing Personal development Records management Employment checks Professional codes of conduct Recruitment, training and skill mix Mandatory training Professional development Research governance Dignity and respect Consent Confidentiality of patient information <6 Accessible complaints procedure Complainants and discrimination Complaints response Food provision Food individual needs Accessible information Patient and public involvement Equity and choice Safe, secure environment Privacy and confidentiality Clean, well designed environments Local health needs Public health cycles. Emergency preparedness

    Source: CQC (2009c), Appendices A and H. 449

    The Right to the Highest Attainable Standard of Physical and Mental Health UDHR, Article 25; ICESCR, Article 12

    Table 269: The independent healthcare sector: Rates of non-compliance with core national minimum standards 2007-08 (all providers)
    C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 C9 Patients receive clear and accurate information about their treatment and its likely costs The treatment and care provided are patient-centred Treatments provided to clients are in line with the relevant clinical guidelines Clients are assured that monitoring of the quality of treatment and care takes place The dying and death of patients is handled appropriately and sensitively Patients views are obtained by the establishment and used to inform the provision of treatment and care and prospective patients Appropriate policies and ensure the quality of treatment and services Clients are assured that a fit person runs the establishment Clients received care from and qualified staff 0.9% 0.2% 0.1% 1.6% 0.0% 1.2% 1.2% 1.4% 1.7% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.4% 0.5% 0.3% 0.2% 1.3% 0.5% 0.0% 1.1% 0.5% 0.76% 0.1% 0.3% 0.7% 0.2% 0.5% 0.4% 0.4% 0.6% 0.2%

    C10 Clients receive treatment from appropriately recruited, trained and qualified healthcare professionals C11 Professionals who comply with their professional code of conduct C12 Patients and healthcare blood borne viruses C13 Children receiving treatment are protected effectively from abuse C14 Patients have access to an effective complaints process C15 Patients receive appropriate information about how to make a complaint C16 Personnel are freely able to express concerns about questionable or poor practice C17 Patients receive treatment in premises that are safe and appropriate for treatment C18 Patients receive treatment using equipment and supplies that are safe and in good condition C19 Patients receive appropriate catering supplies C20 Patients, staff and anyone visiting the registered premises are assured that all risks connected with the establishment, treatment and services are identified, assessed and managed appropriately C21 The appropriate health and safety measures are in place C22 Measures are in place to ensure the safe management and secure handling of medicines C23 Medicines, dressings and medical gases are handled in a safe and secure manner C24 Controlled drugs are stored, administered and destroyed appropriately C25 Visitors acquiring a healthcare associated infection is minimised C26 Patients are not treated with contaminated medical devices C27 Patients are resuscitated appropriately C28 Contracts ensure that clients receive goods and services of the appropriate quality C29 Records are created, maintained and stored to standards which meet legal and regulatory compliance and professional practice recommendations C30 Clients are assured of appropriately completed health records C31 Clients are assured that all information is managed within the regulatory body to ensure confidentiality

    C32 Any research conducted in the establishment/agency is carried out with appropriate consent and authorisation from any patients involved, in line with published guidance on the conduct of research projects 0.0%

    Note: This table shows the levels of non-compliance for the core National Minimum Standards against which independent healthcare providers are assessed. It sets out the proportion of providers where the relevant standards were not met in assessments by the Healthcare Commission (now the Care Quality Commission) in 2007-08. Source: CQC (2008), Table A1. 450

    The Right to the Highest Attainable Standard of Physical and Mental Health UDHR, Article 25; ICESCR, Article 12

    Table 270: Quality ratings of adult social care services, England, 2008-09
    May 2008* % 0 Stars Poor 1 Star Adequate 2 Stars Good 3 Stars Excellent Not yet Rated Rating suspended 2.8 23.6 56.1 13.3 4.1 0.1 April 2009 % 1.7 16.7 59.6 17.1 4.7 0.0

    Source: CQC (2009a). Notes: * Quality ratings were first published at individual service level in May 2008. Prior to this ratings were only used to aid the practices of the regulatory body (CQCs predecessor, Commission for Social Care Inspection (CSCI)). CSCI only began publishing ratings at aggregate level once they were in the public domain for individual services. Caution should be exercised when interpreting percentage figures for adult placement schemes, non-medical care homes and the ownership types of other and NHS as the actual number of services in these categories is relatively small. Table 271: Average of national minimum standards met by social care services as at 31 March each year, England, 2009
    Private % All care homes for older people** Residential care homes*** Nursing homes All care homes for younger adults** Residential care homes*** Nursing homes Home care agencies Nursing agencies Adult placement schemes (Shared Lives) 84 84 83 86 87 83 84 Council % 87 87 86 86 87 Voluntary % 89 89 88 89 89 88 90 Total* % 84 85 84 87 87 85 88 89 93

    Source: CQC (2009a). Notes: * Total column includes private, voluntary, council, NHS and other sectors. ** Includes personal care homes, care homes with nursing and non-medical care homes. *** Includes personal care homes and non-medical care homes. Indicates no services or a very small number of services which make inclusion of a percentage not statistically meaningful. n/a indicates CSCI (CQCs predecessor) was not regulating this service type in this year.

    451

    The Right to the Highest Attainable Standard of Physical and Mental Health UDHR, Article 25; ICESCR, Article 12

    Table 272: Services meeting or exceeding individual National Minimum Standards all care homes for younger adults, England, 2008-09
    Private % Information Needs assessment Meeting needs Introductory visits Contract Service user plan Decision making Participation Risk taking Confidentiality Personal development Education and occupation Community links and social inclusion Leisure Relationships Daily routines Meals and mealtimes Personal support Healthcare Medication Ageing and death Concerns and complaints Protection Premises Space requirements Furniture and fittings Toilets and bathrooms Shared space Adaptations and equipment Hygiene and control of infection 79 93 89 97 81 79 92 91 85 91 91 93 94 88 98 94 93 94 91 76 87 92 85 77 93 86 84 89 89 90 Council % 81 93 86 96 78 82 95 90 88 91 90 93 92 84 99 96 95 96 93 78 86 92 88 74 87 81 78 85 83 90 Voluntary % 82 96 92 97 82 83 94 93 88 91 95 95 95 91 99 96 95 96 93 78 89 94 89 78 93 88 81 88 90 91 Total % 80 94 89 97 81 80 92 91 86 91 92 93 94 89 98 95 94 95 92 77 88 92 86 76 93 86 82 88 89 90 Continued

    452

    The Right to the Highest Attainable Standard of Physical and Mental Health UDHR, Article 25; ICESCR, Article 12

    Table 272: Services meeting or exceeding individual National Minimum Standards all care homes for younger adults, England, 2008-09 (continued)
    Private % Roles Qualities and qualifications Staff team Recruitment Training and development Supervision and support Day to day operations Ethos Quality assurance Policies and procedures Record keeping Safe working practices Conduct of the service 90 86 78 81 81 78 83 91 79 79 72 79 80 Council % 93 87 74 84 79 84 87 89 78 74 70 77 78 Voluntary % 95 90 77 87 86 85 87 93 84 81 73 81 83 Total % 92 87 77 83 82 81 84 92 80 80 72 79 81

    Source: CQC (2009a). Table 273: Services meeting or exceeding individual National Minimum Standards residential care homes for younger adults*, England, 2008-09
    Private % Information Needs assessment Meeting needs Introductory visits Contract Service user plan Decision making Participation Risk taking Confidentiality Personal development 79 93 89 97 81 79 92 91 85 91 92 Council % 81 93 86 96 79 82 95 90 88 91 90 Voluntary % 82 96 92 97 82 83 94 93 88 91 95 Total % 80 94 90 97 81 80 93 92 86 91 93 Continued

    453

    The Right to the Highest Attainable Standard of Physical and Mental Health UDHR, Article 25; ICESCR, Article 12

    Table 273: Services meeting or exceeding individual National Minimum Standards residential care homes for younger adults*, England, 2008-09 (continued)
    Private % Education and occupation Community links and social inclusion Leisure Relationships Daily routines Meals and mealtimes Personal support Healthcare Medication Ageing and death Concerns and complaints Protection Premises Space requirements Furniture and fittings Toilets and bathrooms Shared space Adaptations and equipment Hygiene and control of infection Roles Qualities and qualifications Staff team Recruitment Training and development Supervision and support Day to day operations Ethos Quality assurance 93 94 89 98 94 93 94 91 76 87 92 85 77 93 87 84 89 90 90 91 86 78 81 81 78 83 91 79 Council % 94 93 84 99 96 95 96 93 79 86 92 88 74 86 81 78 85 83 90 93 87 74 84 79 84 87 89 78 Voluntary % 95 96 92 99 97 95 96 93 78 88 94 89 78 93 88 81 88 89 91 95 91 78 87 86 86 87 94 84 Total % 94 95 89 98 95 94 95 92 77 87 93 86 77 93 87 82 89 89 91 92 87 78 83 82 81 84 92 80 Continued

    454

    The Right to the Highest Attainable Standard of Physical and Mental Health UDHR, Article 25; ICESCR, Article 12

    Table 273: Services meeting or exceeding individual National Minimum Standards residential care homes for younger adults*, England, 2008-09 (continued)
    Private % Policies and procedures Record keeping Safe working practices Conduct of the service 79 72 79 80 Council % 74 70 77 77 Voluntary % 81 72 81 82 Total % 80 72 79 81

    Source: CQC (2009a). * Includes personal care homes and non-medical care homes. Table 274: Services meeting or exceeding individual National Minimum Standards nursing homes for younger adults, England, 2008-09
    Private % Information Needs assessment Meeting needs Introductory visits Contract Service user plan Decision making Participation Risk taking Confidentiality Personal development Education and occupation Community links and social inclusion Leisure Relationships Daily routines Meals and mealtimes Personal support Healthcare Medication Ageing and death Concerns and complaints 76 92 85 98 80 72 88 88 82 87 88 88 90 80 95 90 89 90 86 75 89 89 Voluntary % 80 97 91 97 82 75 90 92 90 93 96 90 91 85 99 92 93 94 92 74 92 95 Total % 78 94 87 98 80 73 89 89 85 89 90 88 90 81 96 91 90 91 88 75 90 91 Continued

    455

    The Right to the Highest Attainable Standard of Physical and Mental Health UDHR, Article 25; ICESCR, Article 12

    Table 274: Services meeting or exceeding individual National Minimum Standards nursing homes for younger adults, England, 2008-09 (continued)
    Private % Protection Premises Space requirements Furniture and fittings Toilets and bathrooms Shared space Adaptations and equipment Hygiene and control of infection Roles Qualities and qualifications Staff team Recruitment Training and development Supervision and support Day to day operations Ethos Quality assurance Policies and procedures Record keeping Safe working practices Conduct of the service 83 73 89 81 80 85 83 85 86 83 77 76 78 74 81 87 78 77 67 77 79 Voluntary % 88 74 94 91 79 89 91 92 95 89 71 86 88 83 87 93 84 80 77 79 90 Total % 85 73 91 85 80 87 86 88 89 85 75 80 81 77 84 89 81 78 70 77 84

    Source: CQC (2009a). * Includes a small number of homes run by councils and NHS homes.

    456

    The Right to the Highest Attainable Standard of Physical and Mental Health UDHR, Article 25; ICESCR, Article 12

    Table 275: Services meeting or exceeding individual National Minimum Standards all care homes for older people, England, 2008-09
    Private % Information Contract Needs assessment Meeting needs Trial visits Intermediate care Service user plan Healthcare Medication Privacy and dignity Dying and death Social contact and activities Community contact Autonomy and choice Meals and mealtimes Complaints Rights Protection Premises Shared facilities Lavatories and washing facilities Adaptations and equipment Space requirements Furniture and fittings Heating and lighting Hygiene and infection control Staff complement Qualifications Recruitment Staff training 83 86 90 84 98 88 68 85 69 91 89 79 97 92 89 91 96 85 76 87 78 78 93 81 75 84 85 87 78 80 Council % 81 81 91 86 96 91 72 89 73 96 89 80 98 95 94 94 95 90 81 90 82 84 92 85 82 91 81 96 89 85 Voluntary % 87 90 92 90 99 93 71 91 73 95 93 87 99 96 93 94 98 88 87 94 89 88 95 91 85 92 86 93 85 86 Total % 83 86 91 85 98 89 69 86 70 92 89 80 98 93 89 92 96 86 78 88 79 79 93 83 76 85 84 88 79 81 Continued

    457

    The Right to the Highest Attainable Standard of Physical and Mental Health UDHR, Article 25; ICESCR, Article 12

    Table 275: Services meeting or exceeding individual National Minimum Standards all care homes for older people, England, 2008-09 (continued)
    Private % Day to day operations Ethos Quality assurance Financial procedures Service user money Staff supervision Record keeping Safe working practices 82 87 79 88 94 69 65 75 Council % 91 93 84 90 97 80 70 84 Voluntary % 90 93 87 93 97 75 72 81 Total % 83 88 80 89 94 71 67 76

    Source: CQC (2009a). Table 276: Services meeting or exceeding individual National Minimum Standards residential care homes for older people*, England, 2008-09
    Private % Information Contract Needs assessment Meeting needs Trial visits Intermediate care Service user plan Healthcare Medication Privacy and dignity Dying and death Social contact and activities Community contact Autonomy and choice Meals and mealtimes Complaints Rights Protection 82 87 90 85 97 91 68 85 69 92 91 81 97 93 90 92 96 85 Council % 81 81 92 86 96 90 73 89 73 96 90 81 98 96 94 94 95 90 Voluntary % 87 89 92 91 99 91 71 92 73 96 93 87 99 97 94 94 98 89 Total % 83 86 90 86 97 91 69 86 70 93 91 81 98 94 91 93 96 86 Continued

    458

    The Right to the Highest Attainable Standard of Physical and Mental Health UDHR, Article 25; ICESCR, Article 12

    Table 276: Services meeting or exceeding individual National Minimum Standards residential care homes for older people*, England, 2008-09 (continued)
    Private % Premises Shared facilities Lavatories and washing facilities Adaptations and equipment Space requirements Furniture and fittings Heating and lighting Hygiene and infection control Staff complement Qualifications Recruitment Staff training Day to day operations Ethos Quality assurance Financial procedures Service user money Staff supervision Record keeping Safe working practices 77 88 79 78 93 83 73 84 86 88 76 79 82 88 78 87 93 70 63 74 Council % 80 90 82 84 92 86 82 91 80 96 89 85 91 93 85 90 96 81 70 84 Voluntary % 87 94 89 88 96 92 84 91 86 93 86 86 91 93 87 93 97 77 71 81 Total % 78 89 80 80 94 84 75 85 85 89 79 81 84 89 80 88 94 72 65 76

    Source: CQC (2009a). * Includes personal care homes and non-medical care homes.

    459

    The Right to the Highest Attainable Standard of Physical and Mental Health UDHR, Article 25; ICESCR, Article 12

    Table 277: Services meeting or exceeding individual National Minimum Standards Nursing homes for older people, England, 2008-09
    Private % Information Contract Needs assessment Meeting needs Trial visits Intermediate care Service user plan Healthcare Medication Privacy and dignity Dying and death Social contact and activities Community contact Autonomy and choice Meals and mealtimes Complaints Rights Protection Premises Shared facilities Lavatories and washing facilities Adaptations and equipment Space requirements Furniture and fittings Heating and lighting Hygiene and infection control Staff complement Qualifications Recruitment Staff training Day to day operations Ethos Quality assurance Financial procedures Service user money Staff supervision Record keeping Safe working practices 83 86 91 83 98 84 68 84 70 89 86 77 98 91 86 90 96 86 76 85 77 77 92 79 78 84 83 85 81 82 81 86 81 90 94 68 68 76 Voluntary % 85 94 94 89 99 98 67 88 71 94 91 86 100 93 89 93 97 86 88 95 88 88 93 87 88 95 84 90 82 88 89 93 88 95 96 71 76 81 Total % 83 87 91 83 98 85 68 84 70 89 87 78 98 91 86 90 96 86 77 86 78 78 92 79 79 84 83 85 81 82 82 86 81 91 94 68 69 77

    Source: CQC (2009a). * Includes a small number of homes run by councils and NHS homes. 460

    The Right to the Highest Attainable Standard of Physical and Mental Health UDHR, Article 25; ICESCR, Article 12

    Table 278: Services meeting or exceeding individual National Minimum Standards home care agencies, England, 2008-09
    Private % Information Care needs assessment Meeting needs Contract Confidentiality Responsive services Service user plan Privacy and dignity Autonomy and independence Medication and health related activities Safe work practices Risk assessments Financial protection Protection of the person Security of the home Records kept in the home Recruitment and selection Requirements of the job Development and training Qualifications Supervision Business premises, management and planning Financial procedures Records keeping Policies and procedures Complaints and compliments Quality assurance 83 89 87 85 92 86 73 95 91 76 89 80 80 85 86 79 78 86 80 77 77 88 Council % 82 93 86 77 92 89 77 98 91 80 94 88 87 93 79 78 86 86 84 85 86 90 Voluntary % 90 95 93 85 95 91 83 99 95 83 95 89 87 92 84 83 87 92 91 86 88 92 Total % 84 90 87 84 92 87 75 96 92 78 91 82 82 87 84 79 80 87 82 80 80 89

    95 76 80 90 81

    94 75 81 94 85

    96 83 88 94 87

    95 77 81 91 82

    Source: CQC (2009a). 461

    The Right to the Highest Attainable Standard of Physical and Mental Health UDHR, Article 25; ICESCR, Article 12

    Table 279: Services meeting or exceeding individual National Minimum Standards nursing agencies, England, 2008-09
    Total % Information Fitness Of registered persons Recruitment process Checks on nurses Identification and qualification Competence Complaints Protection from abuse Assistance with medication Confidentiality Safe working practices Financial procedures Premises Management structure Organisational policies Agreement between the agency and staff Record keeping Quality assurance 86 82 90 90 84 84 90 85 91 95 90 93 95 93 89 94 86 84

    Source: CQC (2009a). Table 280: Services meeting or exceeding individual National Minimum Standards Shared Lives schemes, England, 2008-09
    Total % Living a normal life Referral Matching and introductions Daily life Service users plan Placement monitoring and review Carer support and review Selection and training Conduct of the scheme Protection 97 95 98 96 93 91 96 86 86 93

    Source: CQC (2009a).

    462

    The Right to the Highest Attainable Standard of Physical and Mental Health UDHR, Article 25; ICESCR, Article 12

    Table 281: Outcomes judgements adult social services by council, England and Wales, 2009
    Performance of councils (%) Poor Outcome 1 Improved health Outcome 2 Quality of life Outcome 3 Positive contribution Outcome 4 Choice and control Outcome 5 Freedom from discrimination Outcome 6 Economic well-being Outcome 7 Dignity and respect 2 Adequate 8 10 1 23 9 4 30 Well 63 65 49 59 72 66 60 Excellent 29 25 51 18 19 30 8

    Source: CQC (2009b). Table 282: Performance of councils for adult social services, England, 2009
    Performance of councils (%) Poor England 0 Adequate 5 Well 73 Excellent 22

    Source: CQC (2009b). Table 283: Key concerns and allegations raised by private individuals and civil society organisations/reports in the media Neglect and poor treatment of older people in hospitals and care homes Age UK and the British Institute of Human Rights (BIHR), Older people and human rights project633, to support older people to use human rights to challenge poor and often undignified treatment from service providers and local authorities. This project arose from a finding in a 2009 report by Age UK and the BIHR that issues for older people particularly abuse, neglect and isolation were rarely framed as human rights issues. Daily Mail, Dignity for the Elderly campaign for better standards in hospitals and care homes, which has run since 2002.634 Patients Association (2011) detailed 16 accounts of poor hospital care heard by its Helpline focusing on care-communication, access to pain relief, assistance with toileting and help with eating and drinking. Still hungry to be heard (Age UK, 2010), the most recent report from the campaign Malnutrition in hospitals: Hungry to be heard, described the lack of detection and treatment of malnutrition in hospital as a national disgrace, and called on the Government to introduce compulsory monitoring of malnutrition.635

    See also Table 86.

    463

    The Right to the Highest Attainable Standard of Physical and Mental Health UDHR, Article 25; ICESCR, Article 12

    Indicator 56: Spotlight statistics: Mortality rates, healthy life expectancy and ill health
    For relevant evidence under this Indicator see Tables 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61 and 62. Table 284: Healthy life expectancy (HLE) at birth in years, by deprivation decile by gender, Scotland, 1999-2003
    Expected period in not good health (LE-HLE) 4.0 4.5 5.1 5.5 6.1 6.8 7.7 8.5 9.5 11.3 7.0 -7.2 77.2 75.7 74.5 73.4 71.8 70.5 68.8 67.2 64.7 60.7 70.2 77.4 75.9 74.7 73.6 72.0 70.7 69.0 67.3 64.9 60.9 70.3 5.0 5.7 6.2 6.5 7.3 8.2 9.4 10.2 11.4 13.5 8.5 -8.5

    HLE 95% confidence limits Decile Males 10 (least deprived) 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 (most deprived) Scotland Quintile 10 minus quintile 1 Females 10 (least deprived) 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 (most deprived) Scotland Quintile 10 minus quintile 1 77.3 75.8 74.6 73.5 71.9 70.6 68.9 67.2 64.8 60.8 70.2 16.5 75.0 73.1 71.5 70.2 68.5 66.8 64.6 62.7 60.0 54.5 66.3 20.5 74.9 73.1 71.4 70.1 68.4 66.7 64.5 62.6 59.9 54.4 66.3 75.1 73.2 71.6 70.3 68.5 66.8 64.7 62.8 60.0 54.6 66.3 HLE Lower Upper

    Source: Scottish Public Health Observatory (2010b). Notes: The deprivation patterns in HLE at birth identified for deprivation quintiles are examined by looking at deprivation deciles. These are based on the Scottish Governments Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation (SIMD) 2006 (not weighted for population). HLE for 1999-2003 is based on five years data on deaths and populations, and a single year of data for self-assessed health from the Scotland census for 2001 (the middle year). 464

    The Right to the Highest Attainable Standard of Physical and Mental Health UDHR, Article 25; ICESCR, Article 12

    Table 285: Disability-Free Life Expectancy (DFLE) at birth by area deprivation quintile and gender, England,2001-04 and 2005-08
    2001-04 95% confidence interval 67.2-68.5 64.4-65.7 62.9-64.2 58.9-60.3 53.3-54.7 12.9-14.8 : : : 68.5-69.8 66.3-67.7 65.5-66.9 61.8-63.2 56.9-58.4 10.5-12.6 : : : Proportion of life disability free (%) 85.2 83.0 82.4 79.3 75.1 : : : : 83.3 81.6 81.4 78.2 74.1 : : : : 2005-08 95% confidence interval 68.7-69.9 66.0-67.2 64.4-65.7 61.4-62.8 53.9-55.4 13.7-15.6 : : : 69.7-70.9 67.9-69.1 65.2-66.6 62.7-64.1 57.1-58.6 11.4-13.4 : : : Proportion of life disability free (%) 85.5 83.5 83.0 81.4 74.8 : : : : 83.5 82.4 80.1 78.4 73.6 : : : :

    Deprivation quintile Male 1 Least deprived 2 3 4 5 Most deprived Range Ratio SII RII Female 1 Least deprived 2 3 4 5 Most deprived Range Ratio SII RII

    DFLE 67.9 65.0 63.5 59.6 54.0 13.8 1.26 16.5 1.24 69.2 67.0 66.22 62.5 57.6 11.6 1.20 13.7 1.20

    DFLE 69.31 66.6 1 65.1 1 62.1 1 54.7 14.6 1.27 16.2 1.23 70.3 68.51 65.9 63.4 57.9 12.4 1.21 14.6 1.20

    Source: Smith et al. (2010). Notes: 1 Significant difference in DFLE between 2001-04 and 2005-08. 2 Not significantly lower than next less deprived quintile. Differences between cells may not match due to rounding. SII is the slope index of inequality; RII is the relative index of inequality. Slope and Relative indices of inequality (SII and RII respectively) were used to assess the absolute and relative inequality in DFLE between the least and most deprived quintiles (Smith et al., 2010, p.5).

    465

    The Right to the Highest Attainable Standard of Physical and Mental Health UDHR, Article 25; ICESCR, Article 12

    Table 286: Coronary heart disease mortality under 75 years by deprivation, rate per 100,000 and age-standardised to the European population, Scotland, 2000-08
    2000 Scotland overall Most deprived 15% (SIMD) Most deprived 15% (SIMD) Scotland overall Percentage of deaths in 15% SIMD MD EASR EASR N N 91.7 151.8 1,257 5,104 2001 84.0 140.6 1,147 4,711 2002 80.3 135.8 1,108 4,537 2003 77.6 135.3 1,075 4,434 2004 70.3 123.7 974 4,055 2005 67.5 118.8 925 3,929 2006 61.8 110.2 839 3,589 2007 61.3 112.4 860 3,599 2008 56.0 103.5 781 3,333

    24.6%

    24.3%

    24.4%

    24.2%

    24.0%

    23.5%

    23.4%

    23.9%

    23.4%

    Source: Scottish Government (2010b). Notes: Data from: General Register Office for Scotland and the Analytical Services Division Health (Scottish Government).Rates are European Age-Standardised Rates (EASR) per 100,000 population aged under 75 years. The most deprived 15% areas are according to SIMD 2006 at the national level. Table 287: Cancer mortality under 75 years by deprivation, rate per 100,000 and agestandardised to the European population, Scotland, 2000-08
    2000 Scotland overall Most deprived 15% (SIMD) Most deprived 15% (SIMD) Scotland overall Percentage of deaths in 15% SIMD MD EASR EASR N N 149.7 204.7 1,678 8,219 2001 151.9 209.0 1,684 8,321 2002 149.6 205.4 1,645 8,292 2003 144.6 205.9 1,625 8,119 2004 142.5 208.0 1,633 8,104 2005 140.9 195.5 1,516 8,050 2006 137.0 200.0 1,542 7,894 2007 136.5 206.4 1,571 7,971 2008 133.6 200.3 1,521 7,924

    20.4%

    20.2%

    19.8%

    20.0%

    20.2%

    18.8%

    19.5%

    19.7%

    19.2%

    Source: Scottish Government (2010b). Notes: Data from: General Register Office for Scotland and the Analytical Services Division Health (Scottish Government). Rates are EASR per 100,000 population aged under 75 years. The most deprived 15% areas are according to SIMD 2006 at the national level.

    466

    The Right to the Highest Attainable Standard of Physical and Mental Health UDHR, Article 25; ICESCR, Article 12

    Table 288: Percentage reporting poor self-reported health(self-reported health bad or very bad) by age, sex, ethnicity, LLID and occupational group, Health Survey for England 2009 Note: preliminary data for 2006 has been calculated for the EMF and is presented in Alkire (2009). It is anticipated that the data will be updated and validated for 2009 in a forthcoming data analysis project. Table 289: Limiting longstanding illness or disability by age, sex, ethnicity, LLID and occupational group, Health Survey for England 2009 Note: preliminary data for 2006 has been calculated for the EMF and is presented in Alkire (2009). It is anticipated that the data will be updated and validated for 2009 in a forthcoming data analysis project. Table 290: Percentage reporting poor mental and psychosocial health (GHQ12 score greater than 4) by age, sex, ethnicity, LLID and occupational group, Health Survey for England 2009 Note: preliminary data for 2006 has been calculated for the EMF and is presented in Alkire (2009). It is anticipated that the data will be updated and validated for 2009 in a forthcoming data analysis project.

    Indicator 57: Spotlight statistics: Prevalence of self harm, access to health services and health outcomes at risk/vulnerable groups
    For relevant evidence, see Table 23.

    467

    The Right to the Highest Attainable Standard of Physical and Mental Health UDHR, Article 25; ICESCR, Article 12

    Table 291: Number of people self harming in prison, England and Wales, 2004-08
    2004 a. Individuals self harming By gender Male Female By age 15-17 years 18-20 years 21-24 years 25-29 years 30-39 years 40-49 years 50-59 years 60 years and over Total b. Self harm incidents By gender Male Female By time in current prison On day of arrival 1 to 2 days 3 days to 1 week 1 week to 1 month 1 month to 3 months 3 months to 6 months 6 months to 1 year Over 1 year Missing detail Total Prison population 426 696 1,402 3,687 4,748 2,979 1,778 1,798 2,036 19,550 74,657 407 731 1,572 4,110 5,802 3,700 2,864 2,681 1,909 23,776 75,979 606 742 1,444 4,401 5,932 3,690 2,739 2,422 1,419 23,395 78,127 587 758 1,433 3,750 3,463 3,774 2,521 3,000 1,589 22,875 80,216 542 755 1,418 4,078 5,949 4,392 2,710 3,625 1,217 24,686 82,572 2 3 6 17 24 18 11 15 5 9,880 9,670 10,603 13,173 12,019 11,376 11,507 11,368 11,748 12,938 48 52 318 975 1,076 1,068 1,398 419 92 19 5,365 437 1,058 1,093 1,058 1,484 517 94 17 5,758 385 1,133 1,123 1,118 1,434 582 111 18 5,904 350 1,143 1,206 1,153 1,153 572 93 34 6,059 432 1,196 1,214 1,197 1,507 685 108 22 6,361 7 19 19 19 24 11 2 0.3 4,026 1,339 4,287 1,471 4,507 1,397 4,643 1,416 4,859 1,502 76 24 2005 2006 2007 2008 N %

    Source: Ministry of Justice (MoJ) (2010a).

    468

    Table 292: Standardised ratio of proportion of patients who had recorded incidents: Self harm, England and Wales, 2009
    Males 95% confidence interval Upper Observed 125 200 153 40 104 81 131 72 16 128 88 180 33 127 107 670 112 106 119 1,288 114 Standardised ratio Lower Upper Observed Standardised ratio Lower 109 94 88 95% confidence interval 95% confidence interval Upper Observed 119 167 128 1,958 49 112 Females Persons

    Ethnic category code

    Census Census groups categories 107 71 80

    Standardised ratio

    Lower

    White

    British

    116

    White

    Irish

    123

    White

    Other White

    112

    Mixed

    White and Black Caribbean 62 183 15 50 23 95 9

    111

    76

    49

    113

    24

    The Right to the Highest Attainable Standard of Physical and Mental Health UDHR, Article 25; ICESCR, Article 12

    469
    1 63 15 142 4 103 61 290 8 129 65 138 1 52 6 186 231 163 11 80 5 35 15 70 4 53 3 57 27 105

    Mixed

    White and Black African

    25

    2 11 18

    38 136 89

    8 82 56

    111 213 135

    3 19 22

    Mixed

    White and Asian

    147

    Mixed

    Other mixed

    55

    Asian or Asian British Indian

    34

    35

    19

    60

    13

    Asian or Asian British Pakistani

    18

    10

    38

    20

    65

    13 Continued

    Table 292: Standardised ratio of proportion of patients who had recorded incidents: Self harm, England and Wales, 2009 (continued)
    Males 95% confidence interval Upper Observed Standardised ratio Lower Upper Observed Standardised ratio Lower 95% confidence interval 95% confidence interval Upper Observed Females Persons

    Ethnic category code

    Census Census groups categories

    Standardised ratio

    Lower

    Asian or Asian British Bangladeshi 15 139 4 0 51 0 27

    54

    70

    Asian or Asian British Other Asian 16 113 5 33 11 77 5

    49

    39

    19

    n 72

    10

    The Right to the Highest Attainable Standard of Physical and Mental Health UDHR, Article 25; ICESCR, Article 12

    470
    15 45 14 16 7 31 20 68 12 27 15 46 18 93 7 51 23 97

    Black or Black British Caribbean

    27

    21

    14

    32

    23

    Black or Black British African

    39

    14

    32

    21

    46

    26

    Black or Black British Other Black

    45

    48

    28

    78

    16 Continued

    Table 292: Standardised ratio of proportion of patients who had recorded incidents: Self harm, England and Wales, 2009 (continued)
    Males 95% confidence interval Upper Observed Standardised ratio Lower Upper Observed Standardised ratio Lower 95% confidence interval 95% confidence interval Upper Observed Females Persons

    Ethnic category code

    Census Census groups categories

    Standardised ratio

    Lower

    Other ethnic groups 12 370 2 25 3 92 2 41

    Chinese

    102

    11

    104

    Other ethnic groups 46 164 11 62 28 117 9

    Other

    92

    75

    46

    116

    20

    The Right to the Highest Attainable Standard of Physical and Mental Health UDHR, Article 25; ICESCR, Article 12

    471
    817 100

    Grand total

    100

    1,499

    100

    2,316

    Source: CQC (2011).

    Notes:

    England and Wales ratio = 100. Recorded incidents: How many of the following kinds of incident have been recorded for this patient during this hospital spell, or within the last three months (if hospital spell is longer): self harm. The colour coding highlights instances where the standardised ratio was found to be statistically significant: dark grey where it is lower, light grey where it is higher.

    Figures derived from the Count Me In census 2009 including inpatients in mental health and learning disability services, and those who were subject to a community treatment order (CTO) on the day of the census (CQC, 2011d).

    The Right to the Highest Attainable Standard of Physical and Mental Health UDHR, Article 25; ICESCR, Article 12

    Table 293: Recorded incidences of self harm by patients in mental health or learning difficulties services, per patient, England and Wales, 2009
    0 N England Wales 27,302 2,126 % 92.4 94.4 N 917 54 1 % 3.1 2.4 2-4 N 632 35 % 2.1 1.6 5-9 N 324 16 % 1.1 0.7 10+ N 360 20 % 1.2 0.9

    Source: CQC (2010b, 2010c). Table 294: People who have used the health service in their establishment, and who rate the overall quality of the service as good or very good, England and Wales
    Type of prison/establishment Local N=4,323 High security N=418 Young offenders (18-21) N=1,858 Category B trainers N=855 Category C trainers N=4,167 Open N=1,254 Female N=1,352 Children and young people (under 18) N=776 Police custody N=1,011 Immigration removal centres N=1,019 N 1,535 135 857 294 1,771 757 590 452 160 303 % 41 35 54 36 46 68 46 68 28 31

    Source: HMIP for England and Wales (2010a). Notes: The n-value refers to the total number of respondents for each survey. Percentages may vary in regard to the n-value as all comparator data is weighted. Local comparator from 2006 onwards. High security comparator from 2007 onwards. Young offender institutions comparator from 2005 onwards. Category B trainers comparator from 2005 onwards. Category C trainers comparator from 2005 onwards. Opens comparator from 2005 onwards. Children and young people comparator from 2009 onwards. Female comparator from 2005 onwards. Immigration removal centre comparator from 2005 onwards. Police custody comparator from 2008 onwards. [Comparators available from source document.] Data for children and young people only includes responses from males because of the small number of female respondents. Percentages are calculated only from those who answered the question; missing data has been excluded. See Appendix 2 for demographic information.

    472

    The Right to the Highest Attainable Standard of Physical and Mental Health UDHR, Article 25; ICESCR, Article 12

    Table 295: People who have drug or alcohol problems, and who self-report that they have received help or intervention whilst in this establishment, England and Wales, 2008-09
    Type of prison/establishment Local N=4,323 High security N=418 Young offenders (18-21) N=1,858 Category B trainers N=855 Category C trainers N=4,167 Open N=1,254 Female N=1,352 N 934 15 352 89 572 104 282 % 70 79 74 77 77 87 84

    Source: HMIP for England and Wales (2010a). Notes: The n-value refers to the total number of respondents for each survey. Percentages may vary in regard to the n-value as all comparator data is weighted. Local comparator from 2006 onwards. High security comparator from 2007 onwards. Young offender institutions comparator from 2005 onwards. Category B trainers comparator from 2005 onwards. Category C trainers comparator from 2005 onwards. Opens comparator from 2005 onwards. [Comparators available from source document.] Percentages are calculated only from those who answered the question; missing data has been excluded. See Appendix 2 for demographic information. Table 296: Children and young people who self-report that they have received help with an alcohol problem whilst detained, England and Wales, 2008-09
    Type of prison/establishment Children and young people (under 18) N=776 N 101 % 12

    Source: HMIP for England and Wales (2010a). Notes: The n-value refers to the total number of respondents for each survey. Percentages may vary in regard to the n-value as all comparator data is weighted. Children and young people comparator from 2009 onwards. Data for children and young people only includes responses from males because of the small number of female respondents. Percentages are calculated only from those who answered the question; missing data has been excluded. See Appendix 2 for demographic information.

    473

    The Right to the Highest Attainable Standard of Physical and Mental Health UDHR, Article 25; ICESCR, Article 12

    Table 297: Children and young people who self-report that they have received help with a drugs problem whilst detained, England and Wales
    Type of prison/establishment Children and young people (under 18) N=776 N 207 % 26

    Source: HMIP for England and Wales (2010a) Notes: The n-value refers to the total number of respondents for each survey. Percentages may vary in regard to the n-value as all comparator data is weighted. Children and young people comparator from 2009 onwards. Data for children and young people only includes responses from males because of the small number of female respondents. Percentages are calculated only from those who answered the question; missing data has been excluded. See Appendix 2 for demographic information. Table 298: People in custody who self-report that they were offered support for their drug or alcohol problem, England and Wales
    Offered the chance to see a drug or alcohol support worker Type of prison/ establishment Police custody N=1,011 N 210 % 41 Offered relief medication for immediate symptoms N 170 % 32

    Source: HMIP for England and Wales (2010a). Notes: The n-value refers to the total number of respondents for each survey. Percentages may vary in regard to the n-value as all (comparator data is weighted. Custody comparator from 2008 onwards comparators available from source document). Percentages are calculated only from those who answered the question; missing data has been excluded. See Appendix 2 for demographic information.

    474

    The Right to the Highest Attainable Standard of Physical and Mental Health UDHR, Article 25; ICESCR, Article 12

    Table 299: Healthcare of children who had been looked after continuously for at least 12 months, 12 months ending 30 September, England, 2008-09
    N 2007 Number of children looked after at 30 September who had been looked after for at least 12 months Of these: Number whose immunisations were up to date Number who had their teeth checked by a dentist Number who had their annual health assessment Number of children looked after for at least one year, and aged 5 or younger at 30 September Of these: Number whose development assessments were up to date 2008 2009 2007 % 2008 2009 PAF Indicator C191, 2 2007 2008 2009

    44,200

    43,700

    43,200

    35,300

    35,900

    36,200

    79.9

    82.3

    83.9

    38,000

    38,200

    37,300

    85.8

    87.3

    86.4

    85.1

    86.9

    85.9

    37,300

    37,800

    36,800

    84.4

    86.5

    85.4

    7,000

    7,100

    7,000

    6,100

    6,200

    6,100

    88.3

    87.5

    87.8

    Source: Department for Children Schools and Families (DCSF) (2010). Notes: 1 The average of the percentages of children looked after at 30 September who had been looked after continuously for at least 12 months, who had their teeth checked by a dentist during the previous 12 months, and had an annual health assessment during the previous 12 months. In previous years this indicator also included immunisations. The figures shown here reflect the revised definition. 2 Performance Assessment Framework (PAF) indicators are no longer used for monitoring but have been included here for information. PAF Indicator C19 related to the combination of the percentages of looked after children for whom dental checks and health assessments were up to date.

    Not applicable. 475

    The Right to the Highest Attainable Standard of Physical and Mental Health UDHR, Article 25; ICESCR, Article 12

    Table 300: Substance misuse of children who had been looked after continuously for at least 12 months, 12 months ending 30 September, England, 2008-09
    N 2007 Number of children looked after at 30 September who had been looked after for at least 12 months Of these: Number identified as having a substance misuse problem during the year1 Of these: Number who received an intervention for their substance misuse problem during the year2 Number who were offered an intervention but who refused it during the year2 800 750 780 33.4 34.9 35.3 1,500 1,400 1,300 61.7 63.0 60.2 2,400 2,200 2,200 5.4 4.9 5.1 2008 2009 2007 % 2008 2009

    44,200

    43,700

    43,200

    Source: DCSF (2010). Notes: 1 Expressed as a percentage of the number of children looked after at 30 September who had been looked after for at least twelve months. 2 Expressed as a percentage of the number of children identified as having a substance misuse problem during the year. Not applicable.

    476

    The Right to the Highest Attainable Standard of Physical and Mental Health UDHR, Article 25; ICESCR, Article 12

    Table 301: Comparisons between Gypsies and Travellers and age-sex matched comparators on standardised general health status measures, England
    Gypsy Travellers N=260 Good Fairly good Not good Long-term illness Number having accidents Health on day of interview Mobility No problems Some problems Confined to bed Self-care No problems Some problems Unable to Usual activities No problems Some problems Unable to perform Pain/ discomfort No pain Moderate pain Extreme pain Anxiety/ depression Not anxious Moderately anxious Extremely anxious Total score (EQ5D tariff) mean Standard deviation total score (EQ5D VAS) meanSD Yes 103 80 77 101 34 196 64 0 232 17 11 203 46 11 173 50 37 186 52 22 74.936.1 67.726.8 Comparators N=260 147 76 37 75 22 222 38 0 250 7 3 227 28 5 188 60 12 218 36 6 86.623.1 76.417.0 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 0.009 0.112 Age-sex matched p

    Health variable Health status over past year

    Source: Parry et al. (2004).

    477

    The Right to the Highest Attainable Standard of Physical and Mental Health UDHR, Article 25; ICESCR, Article 12

    Indicator 58: Spotlight statistics: Non-discrimination, autonomy and dignity and respect
    Table 302: Percentage reporting that they were treated with dignity and respect during their stay in hospital
    % Yes, always Yes, sometimes No 78.9 18.1 3.1

    Authors preliminary calculations using National Adult Inpatient Survey, 2006, England only. Respondents were asked Overall, did you feel you were treated with respect and dignity while you were in the hospital? and could respond (1) Yes, always; (2) Yes, sometimes; (3) No. Sampling weights not applied.

    478

    The Right to the Highest Attainable Standard of Physical and Mental Health UDHR, Article 25; ICESCR, Article 12

    Table 303: Percentage reporting that they were not always treated with dignity and respect during their stay in hospital by age, gender and disability
    % Treated with dignity and respect only sometimes/ not treated with dignity and respect1 Age 16-35 Age 36-50 Age 51-65 Aged 66-80 Age 81+ Male Female No limiting longstanding illness or disability Limiting longstanding illness or disability Those aged 81+ who do not report a limiting longstanding illness or disability Those aged 81+ who report a limiting longstanding illness or disability 36.5 28.9* 19.8* 14.7* 19.1* 17.3 24.4*

    Not treated with dignity and respect 6.3 4.6* 2.7* 1.7* 2.8* 2.4 3.6*

    19.2 27.0*

    2.5 4.8*

    14.6

    1.9

    27.3

    4.4

    Notes 1 The response Yes, sometimes is interpreted as indicating that the respondent was not always treated with dignity and respect during their hospital stay. Authors preliminary calculations using National Adult Inpatient Survey, 2006, England only. Respondents were asked Overall, did you feel you were treated with respect and dignity while you were in the hospital? and could respond: (1) Yes, always; (2) Yes, sometimes; (3) No. Sampling weights not applied. * Indicates a significant difference between the subgroup and the relevant reference group, based on one variable logistic regression analysis. Sampling weights not applied.

    479

    The Right to the Highest Attainable Standard of Physical and Mental Health UDHR, Article 25; ICESCR, Article 12

    Table 304: Percentage of those that need help who report receiving the help they need with eating from staff during their stay in hospital
    % Yes, always Yes, sometimes No 58.70 21.13 20.17

    Authors preliminary calculations using National Adult Inpatient Survey, 2006, England only. Respondents were asked Did you get enough help from staff to eat your meals? and could respond: (1) Yes, always; (2) Yes, sometimes; (3) No; (4) I did not need help to eat meals. Sampling weights not applied. The analysis in this table is restricted to those who responded (1) (2) or (3) to this question (with those who indicated that they did not need help to eat meals excluded from the sample). Sampling weights not applied. Table 305: Percentage reporting that did not always receive the help they needed with eating during their stay in hospital by age, gender and disability
    % Respondents who need help with eating1 Only sometimes received help/ didnt receive help Age 16-35 Age 36-50 Age 51-65 Aged 66-80 Age 81+ Male Female No limiting longstanding illness or disability Limiting longstanding illness or disability No limiting longstanding illness or disability, aged 81+ Limiting longstanding illness or disability, aged 81+
    2

    All respondents Only sometimes received help/ didnt receive help


    2

    Didnt receive help 23.4 19.8* 16.9* 18.7* 25.4 17.4 22.7*

    Didnt receive help 6.8 5.1* 3.7* 4.0* 7.8* 4.4 5.3*

    49.5 39.4* 35.6* 37.5* 51.7 36.9 45.4*

    14.3 10.2* 7.7* 8.0* 16.0* 9.2 10.5*

    37.1 48.6 42.1 62.0

    17.3 25.2* 19.0 33.0

    7.5 16.8* 9.9 26.3

    3.5 8.7* 4.5 14.0

    480

    The Right to the Highest Attainable Standard of Physical and Mental Health UDHR, Article 25; ICESCR, Article 12

    Authors preliminary calculations using National Adult Inpatient Survey, 2006, England only. Respondents were asked Did you get enough help from staff to eat your meals? and could respond: (1) Yes, always; (2) Yes, sometimes; (3) No; (4) I did not need help to eat meals. Sampling weights not applied. The analysis in this table is restricted to those who responded (1) (2) or (3) to this question (with those who indicated that they did not need help to eat meals excluded from the sample). * indicates a significant difference between the subgroup and the reference group, based on one variable logistic regression analysis. Sampling weights not applied. 1 Expressed as a percentage of those who indicated that they need help with eating (with participants who responded (4) I did not need help to eat meals are excluded from the sample) 2 The response (2) Yes, sometimes is interpreted here as indicating that the respondent did not always receive enough help from staff to eat their meals during their hospital stay. For relevant statistical evidence on malnutrition and dehydration by place, see Tables 28, 29, 30 and 31.

    481

    Table 306: Perceptions of the level of respect respondents are treated with when using health services, by age, sex, gender, religion, sexual orientation, social class, percentage, England, 2008-09
    Aged 35-49 All 52 40 6 1 * 8,718 All 52 41 6 1 * 52 40 6 1 * 44 47 8 1 * 2,351 Males 53 39 6 1 * Females 2,223 1,149 1,053 * * 1 1 * 5 3 3 39 30 28 55 66 69 Aged 50-64 Aged 65-74 Aged 75+

    Age

    Aged 16-24 44 46 8 1 1

    Aged 25-34

    When using health services

    All the time

    52

    Most of the time

    39

    Some of the time

    Rarely

    Never

    Respondents1

    658

    1,283

    The Right to the Highest Attainable Standard of Physical and Mental Health UDHR, Article 25; ICESCR, Article 12

    482
    3,928 4,790 8,718 Continued

    Gender

    When using health services

    All the time

    Most of the time

    Some of the time

    Rarely

    Never

    Respondents1

    Table 306: Perceptions of the level of respect respondents are treated with when using health services, by age, sex, gender, religion, sexual orientation, social class, percentage, England, 2008-09 (continued)
    Asian Black

    Ethnicity

    White Bangladeshi Other All Caribbean African Other All

    Indian

    Pakistani

    Mixed race Chinese Other

    All minority ethnic groups

    All1

    When using health services 50 43 6 1 * 982 349 246 3,111 862 952 1 * * * 2 * 1 1 2 2 2 * 9 6 7 11 9 13 10 8 1 * 556 36 43 43 42 43 36 42 44 53 51 49 46 45 49 46 47 45 45 7 3 * 172 49 42 7 1 * 596 48 43 8 1 * 52 40 6 1 * 6,293 8,718 Continued

    All of the time

    52

    47

    Most of the time

    41

    44

    Some of the time

    Rarely

    The Right to the Highest Attainable Standard of Physical and Mental Health UDHR, Article 25; ICESCR, Article 12

    483

    Never

    Respondents2

    7,909

    1,534

    44 3 1,858

    Table 306: Perceptions of the level of respect respondents are treated with when using health services, by age, sex, gender, religion, sexual orientation, social class, percentage, England, 2008-09 (continued)
    Muslim All 53 40 6 1 * 8,978 Other religion2 All Practising Nonpractising All Practising All religions Nonpractising All No religion All3 1,761 364 2,126 658 233 * 2 1 * * * 892 1 * 1 1 1 1 6 6 6 7 6 7 7 249 40 32 38 46 46 46 48 53 60 54 46 47 46 45 44 48 6 1 105 Practising Nonpractising All Practising All Practising Nonpractising Nonpractising All 45 48 7 * 354 Hindu Sikh

    Religion

    Christian

    Practising

    Nonpractising

    When using health services

    All of the time

    56

    52

    Most of the time

    38

    41

    Some of the time

    Rarely

    Never

    Respondents1

    3,766

    5,206

    The Right to the Highest Attainable Standard of Physical and Mental Health UDHR, Article 25; ICESCR, Article 12

    484
    38 51 6 4 1 150 266 3 * 3 166 12 7 37 53 45 10 2 1 433 48 37 42 55 38 6 1 * 6,792

    Religion

    Buddhist

    Practising

    Nonpractising

    When using health services 51 42 6 1 * 53 40 6 1 * 6,132 12,933 52 40 6 1 * 1,847 52 40 6 1 * 8,718 Continued

    All of the time

    39

    36

    Most of the time

    51

    52

    Some of the time

    Rarely

    Never

    Respondents1

    92

    58

    Table 306: Perceptions of the level of respect respondents are treated with when using health services, by age, sex, gender, religion, sexual orientation, social class, percentage, England, 2008-09 (continued)
    Lower supervisory and technical/ Semi-routine Routine occupations Never worked/ long-term unemployed Full- time students Not stated or classified

    Social class

    Higher/lower managerial and professions

    Intermediate occupations/ small employers

    All

    When using health services 50 42 6 1 * 1,659 2,234 1,013 400 * * * 1 1 1 5 5 9 7 1 277 39 37 38 37 55 56 52 55 55 36 4 3 2 74 52 40 6 1 * 8,718

    All of the time

    50

    Most of the time

    43

    Some of the time

    Rarely

    The Right to the Highest Attainable Standard of Physical and Mental Health UDHR, Article 25; ICESCR, Article 12

    485

    Never

    Respondents1

    3,057

    Table 306: Perceptions of the level of respect respondents are treated with when using health services, by age, sex, gender, religion, sexual orientation, social class, percentage, England, 2008-09 (continued)
    Heterosexual 52 40 6 1 * 8,280 129 3 * 8,718 3 1 10 6 45 40 39 52 Gay/lesbian/bisexual All

    Sexual orientation

    When using health services

    All of the time

    Most of the time

    Some of the time

    Rarely

    Never

    Respondents1

    Source: Department for Communities and Local Government (CLG) (2010).

    The Right to the Highest Attainable Standard of Physical and Mental Health UDHR, Article 25; ICESCR, Article 12

    486

    Notes: All columns based on core sample (England only).

    1 Excludes respondents who answered dont know and those with missing answers.

    2 Jewish respondents included in other religion due to small numbers.

    3 Please note this is a very small base size so these findings should be treated as indicative rather than significant.

    * Less than 0.5%

    0.

    The Right to the Highest Attainable Standard of Physical and Mental Health UDHR, Article 25; ICESCR, Article 12

    Table 307: Perceptions of treatment with dignity and respect in healthcare services, Wales, 2006
    Dignity and respect: Inpatient, outpatient or day case at hospital (%) 16-24 25-44 45-64 65-74 75+ Male Female Non-White White No limiting longstanding illness or disability Limiting longstanding illness or disability Higher managerial and professional occupation Lower managerial and professional occupation Intermediate occupations Small employers and own account workers Lower supervisory and technical occupations Semi-routine occupations Routine occupations Not classified None Christian Minority religion Key intersectional groups Age 16-44, no limiting longstanding illness or disability Age 16-44, limiting longstanding illness or disability Male non-white Male white 1.66 1.56 1.41** 1.36** 1.28** 1.39 1.48** 1.50 1.44 1.45 Dignity and respect in GP surgery (%) 1.77 1.59 1.48** 1.31** 1.27** 1.42 1.51** 1.39 1.48 1.49

    1.42 1.48 1.45 1.52 1.45 1.40 1.44 1.35 1.54 1.60 1.39** 1.54

    1.41** 1.43 1.47 1.53 1.43 1.44 1.49 1.49 1.52 1.63 1.43** 1.32**

    1.52 (unweighted)

    1.58 (unweighted)

    1.77 (unweighted)** 1.83 (unweighted) 1.36 (unweighted)**

    1.66 (unweighted) 1.57 (unweighted) 1.39 (unweighted)

    Source: Alkire et al. (2009), authors calculations from Living in Wales survey 2006, preliminary results. It is anticipated that the data in this table will be updated and validated in a forthcoming data analysis project.

    487

    The Right to the Highest Attainable Standard of Physical and Mental Health UDHR, Article 25; ICESCR, Article 12

    Table 308: Percentage that did not feel that they were involved as much as they wanted to be in decisions about their care and treatment It is anticipated that this table will be developed using the Adult Inpatient Survey as part of a forthcoming data analysis project.

    Indicator 59: Spotlight statistics: Social determinants, environmental and occupational health
    Social determinants of health include income inequality, poverty and housing conditions. For relevant evidence see Tables 359, 360, 361, 362, 363, 364, 365, 366, 367, 368, 369, 370, 371, 372, 373, 374, 375, 376, 377, 378, 379, 380 and 381. For evidence on life expectancy by occupational group, see Table 43. Data on the percentage who are living in an area with less favourable environmental conditions is under development for the Equality Measurement Framework based on DEFRA Sustainable Development Indicator 60 matched to household survey data, e.g. Integrated Household Survey. See Alkire et al. (2009) Measure 4.2 (E,W) for further details. Table 309: Numbersp of fatal injuries by main industry for 2010-11
    Extractive; gas and electricity supply 3 3 Water supply; sewerage, waste and All 1 Manufacturing recycling Construction Services Industries 25 2 27 10 10 32 18 50 37 10 47 120 51 171

    Main industry (SIC 2007) Employees Self employed Workers** Members of the public Total fatalities

    Agriculture 13 21 34

    8 42

    2 29

    1 11

    2 52

    305 352

    318 489

    Source: Health and Safety Executive (2011). Notes: p = Provisional * Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) 2007. ** The term workers includes employees and the self-employed combined. 1 The figures for services include railway incidents reported to the Office of Rail Regulation (ORR). Of the member of the public figures for services (305), 250 were deaths of members of the public in incidents on the railways, including suicides or trespass. These railway-related incidents come within scope of RIDDOR. 488

    The Right to the Highest Attainable Standard of Physical and Mental Health UDHR, Article 25; ICESCR, Article 12

    Table 310: Ratep of fatal injuries by main industry for 2010-11


    Extractive; gas and electricity Agriculture supply 5.6 10.8 8.0 # # # Water supply; sewerage, waste and Manufacturing recycling Construction Services1 1.1 1.1 1.1 6.8 6.5 2.6 2.1 2.4 0.2 0.3 0.2

    Main industry (SIC 2007) Employees Self employed Workers*

    All Industries 0.5 1.2 0.6

    Notes: p = Provisional # Rate not calculated * The term workers includes employees and the self-employed combined. Source: Health and Safety Executive (2011) Table 311: Average prevalence of work-related illness and non-fatal work related injury Authors calculations using Labour Force Survey (not including Annual Population Survey), Sept 2007-Oct 2008, GB
    Per 100,000 employed, based on occupation Weighted average prevalence (i) Illness All Socio-economic group higher managerial and professional lower managerial and professional intermediate small employers and own a/c lower supervisory and technical semi-routine routine Male Female 3276 3909 3137 3917 3675 3110 3277 3534 3466 350 567 762 1582 1784 1400 2037 1271 869 Continued 3,504 (ii) Injury 1,093

    489

    The Right to the Highest Attainable Standard of Physical and Mental Health UDHR, Article 25; ICESCR, Article 12

    Table 311: Average prevalence of work-related illness and non-fatal work related injury (continued) Authors calculations using Labour Force Survey (not including Annual Population Survey), Sept 2007-Oct 2008, GB
    Per 100,000 employed, based on occupation Weighted average prevalence (i) Illness Black and Black British Indian Pakistani/Bangladeshi Mixed Other Non-disabled Disabled Age 18-24 Age 25-44 Age 45-64 Age 65-74 No religion Christian Buddhist Hindu Jewish Muslim Sikh Other 3519 3395 3306 3424 3491 3505 3489 3232 3548 3543 3424 3504 3512 3568 3272 3519 3330 3409 3572 (ii) Injury 1130 981 1184 959 1046 1088 1137 1235 1058 1085 1172 1100 974 837 701 1172 1139 1045 1087

    Notes: HSE statistics 2004/05-2006/07 on occupational risk of self-reported illness caused or made worse by current or most recent job for people working in last 12 months, matched to 2-digit occupational codes by equality characteristics in October 2007 September 2008 LFS. HSE statistics 2004/5-2006/7 on occupational risk of self-reported reportable non-fatal injury to workers for people working in last 12 months, matched to 2-digit occupational codes by equality characteristics in October 2007 September 2008 LFS. The data in this table is preliminary analysis based on Alkire et al. 2009. It is anticipated that the table will be updated and validated in a forthcoming data analysis project.

    490

    Indicator 60: Spotlight Statistics: Public attitudes, understanding and experiences

    Table 312: Variations in support for the right to free healthcare if needed, by population subgroup, England, 2005
    p-value Highest educ. Qual. (p<0.05) Reference group = Degree or equivalent 0.014* A level or equivalent GCSE A-C or equivalent GCSE D-E or equivalent 0.475 No qualifications Social class (HRP nssec7) (p<0.05) 0.022* 0.121 0.583 0.434 0.470 1.384 Routine occupations Never worked/longterm unempl0yed Full time students 0.100 0.175 0.028* 0.034* 0.00* 1.672 1.037 1.058 2.660 2.518 5.915 Continued 0.867 2.185 0.918 2.666 0.520 1.445 0.445 1.099 0.394 0.930 Reference group = Higher, lower managerial and professions Intermediate occupations/small employer Lower supervisory & technical/semi-routine 0.748 0.792 0.933 1.032 0.441 0.049* 0.107 0.708 0.918 0.038* 0.560 0.596 0.647 0.563 0.203 0.998 1.052 1.344 1.893 0.955 0.826 1.505 Foreign or other qualifications 0.767 0.496 0.874 0.564 0.818 1.054 1.578 Higher education below degree 0.835 0.343 0.285 0.125 0.003* 0.725 0.001* 0.575 0.565 0.546 0.314 0.413 0.403 1.213 1.183 1.077 0.785 1.853 0.789 95% Conf Interval p-value Odds ratio 95% Conf Interval

    Odds ratio

    Gender

    Reference group = male

    Female

    1.289

    Disability

    Reference group = no limiting longstanding illness or disability

    Limiting longstanding illness or disability

    1.115

    Ethnicity

    The Right to the Highest Attainable Standard of Physical and Mental Health UDHR, Article 25; ICESCR, Article 12

    491
    Social housing Equivalent household income

    Reference group = white

    Asian

    0.605

    Black

    0.699

    Mixed

    0.867

    Chinese/other

    0.807

    Age (p<0.05)

    Reference group = 16-19

    20-24

    1.564

    Social housing (renting, landlord is LA, HA etc.) Reference group=not social housing 0.979 1.000 0.889 0.008* 0.729 1.000 1.315 1.000

    25-34

    1.377

    35-49

    1.677

    50-64

    1.616

    65-70

    3.145

    Table 312: Variations in support for the right to free healthcare if needed, by population subgroup, England, 2005 (continued)
    p-value IMD (quintile groups) (p<0.05) Reference group = IMD First Quintile (least deprived) 0.447 0.913 0.616 0.835 0.622 0.494 0.309 North West Yorkshire and the Humber 0.120 0.283 0.860 0.720 0.059 0.532 0.335 0.00* 0.284 0.624 0.473 1.291 svygof: 0.376 0.592 2.752 0.310 1.021 South West 0.472 1.680 South East 0.636 1.719 East of England 0.469 1.248 West Midlands 0.183 1.216 East Midlands 0.856 0.729 0.659 0.758 0.980 1.017 0.968 0.865 1.578 North East 0.955 0.440 1.488 Reference group = London 0.879 0.433 0.255 0.091 0.189 0.917 0.937 0.897 0.528 0.580 0.422 0.406 0.501 0.664 0.677 0.594 1.727 1.264 1.258 1.069 1.147 1.445 1.528 1.579 0.612 2.269 Government Office Region (p<0.05) 0.632 1.765 IMD Fifth Quintile 0.804 0.302 0.202 2.585 IMD Fourth Quintile 0.972 0.871 0.571 1.650 IMD Third Quintile 0.966 0.837 0.692 0.689 0.530 0.583 3.401 IMD Second Quintile 1.115 0.551 0.779 1.595 1.348 1.371 1.218 95% Conf Interval p-value Odds ratio 95% Conf Interval

    Odds ratio

    Religion/belief

    Reference group = Christian

    Buddhist

    1.407

    Hindu

    0.971

    Jewish

    0.722

    Muslim

    1.056

    Sikh

    1.179

    Any other religion

    0.809

    No religion

    1.168

    Country of birth (p<0.05)

    Reference group = UK

    Irish Republic

    0.471

    The Right to the Highest Attainable Standard of Physical and Mental Health UDHR, Article 25; ICESCR, Article 12

    492

    India

    0.765

    Pakistan

    1.046

    Bangladesh

    0.891

    Jamaica

    0.563

    East African New Commonwealth

    1.276

    Rest of New Commonwealth

    0.782

    Other

    0.421

    Source: Vizard (2010).

    Notes: Data from the Citizenship Survey. The data in this table is for England only. It represents the combined sample, corrected for complex survey design. The findings are accurate to three decimal places. Without rounding up, the confidence interval for the p-value for the equivalent household income significance test is 0.9998-0.99999 (which does not contain 1). * Significance tests are based on logistic regression analysis controlling for gender, long-term limiting illness or disability, ethnicity, age, religion/belief, country of birth, equivalent household income, highest educational qualification, social class, social housing, index of multiple deprivation ranking, Government Office Region.

    The Right to the Highest Attainable Standard of Physical and Mental Health UDHR, Article 25; ICESCR, Article 12

    Chapter notes
    563

    The status of UN treaty ratification is drawn from the UN Treaty Database, www.unhchr. ch/tbs/doc.nsf/Statusfrset?OpenFrameSet (accessed 4 November 2010). The status of European treaty ratification is drawn from the Council of Europe Treaty Office website, conventions.coe.int/ (accessed 4 November 2010). When a state signs an international treaty this is signals its preliminary endorsement of the treaty, it does not create a binding legal obligation. A state which ratifies or accedes to a treaty is asserting that it considers itself to be legally bound by the treaty. Ratification requires the state to have previously signed the treaty, whereas accession is a single step which does not require previous signing. It should be noted that a treaty which has been acceded to or ratified by the UK does not automatically become part of the domestic law; separate legislative action is required to incorporate international law into domestic law (for example, the HRA making the ECHR enforceable in the UK). Nonetheless, ratification or accession is a states expression that it consents to be legally bound by the treaty, including respecting and implementing its provisions. Cases in this section are drawn from the NHS Lititgation Authority publication, What the courts have said aboutright to treatment and human rights, downloaded from: www.library.nhs.uk/healthmanagement/ViewResource.aspx?resID=267515 (accessed 28 February 2011). cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentId=695912&portal=hbkm&sourc e=externalbydocnumber&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649 cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentId=697083&portal=hbkm&sourc e=externalbydocnumber&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649 cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentId=826595&portal=hbkm&sourc e=externalbydocnumber&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649 www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/1999/2022.html www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2001/1010.html www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/1995/49.html www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2003/1369.html www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2005/1003.html www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2005/1894.html www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2006/392.html www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2011/872.html ukhumanrightsblog.com/2011/04/13/human-rights-anti-obesity-surgery-and-the-nhs-purse/ (accessed 3 October 2011). www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2011/910.html Cases in this section are drawn from the NHS Litigation Authority document, What the courts have said about. Resource allocation and human rights, downloaded from: www.library.nhs.uk/healthmanagement/ViewResource.aspx?resID=267515 (accessed 28 February 2011). www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2001/535.html www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2002/1522.html www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2003/803.html www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2003/1093.html www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2003/2228.html www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2006/44.html www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2011/872.html www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2003/1522.html www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/2009/22.html www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/2007/27.html (accessed 24 November 2011). www.supremecourt.gov.uk/docs/UKSC_2011_0005_Judgment.pdf

    564

    565 566 567 568 569 570 571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578

    579 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 589

    493

    The Right to the Highest Attainable Standard of Physical and Mental Health UDHR, Article 25; ICESCR, Article 12

    590 591 592 593 594 595 596 597 598

    599 600 601 602 603 604 605 606 607 608 609 610 611 612 613 614 615 616

    617 618 619 620 621 622 623 624 625 626 627 628

    Case summary available at www.escr-net.org/caselaw/caselaw_show.htm?doc_id=401236 (accessed 24 October 2010). Case summary available at www.escr-net.org/caselaw/caselaw_show.htm?doc_id=401006 (accessed 24 October 2010). www.escr-net.org/caselaw/caselaw_show.htm?doc_id=403050 Joint Committee on Human Rights, 2007-8: 50. www.escr-net.org/usr_doc/Viceconte_Sentence_2_6_98.doc www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/0/4ceb75c5492497d9802566d500516036?Opendocument www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/(Symbol)/40d009901358b0e2c1256915005090be?Opendocument www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/0/619d3c786801bc2cc1256bbc00568cea?Opendocument (accessed 13 July 2011). Some of the tables include data on compliance with core standards and national minimum standards rather than the new essential standards of quality and safety adopted by the CQC. Details of compliance against the new standards will be provided in a forthcoming report by the CQC. www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Legislation/Actsandbills/HealthandSocialCareBill/ index.htm www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2009/3112/contents/made www.scottishhumanrights.com/careaboutrights (accessed 6 July 2011). www.scottishhumanrights.com/careaboutrights www.justice.gov.uk/guidance/prison-probation-and-rehabilitation/psipso/psos.htm www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/PublicationsPolicyAndGuidance/ DH_115174 cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentId=695912&portal=hbkm&sourc e=externalbydocnumber&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649 cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentId=697083&portal=hbkm&sourc e=externalbydocnumber&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649 cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentId=826595&portal=hbkm&sourc e=externalbydocnumber&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649 www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/1999/2022.html www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2001/1010.html www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/1995/49.html www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2003/1369.html www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2005/1003.html www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2005/1894.html www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2006/392.html www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2011/872.html Cases in this section are drawn from the NHS Litigation Authority document, What the courts have said about. Resource allocation and human rights, downloaded from: www.library.nhs.uk/healthmanagement/ViewResource.aspx?resID=267515 (accessed 28 February 2011). www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2001/535.html www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2002/1522.html www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2003/803.html www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2003/1093.html www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2003/2228.html www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2006/44.html www.supremecourt.gov.uk/docs/UKSC_2011_0005_Judgment.pdf www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt200607/jtselect/jtrights/156/156i.pdf daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G09/429/21/PDF/G0942921.pdf?OpenElement, p 7. daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G09/429/21/PDF/G0942921.pdf?OpenElement, p 9. daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N09/555/92/PDF/N0955592.pdf?OpenElement (accessed 24 November 2010). www.ombudsman.org.uk/care-and-compassion/home

    494

    The Right to the Highest Attainable Standard of Physical and Mental Health UDHR, Article 25; ICESCR, Article 12

    629 630 631 632 633 634 635

    www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/PublicationsPolicyAndGuidance/ DH_098660 (accessed 2 February 2011). www.cambridgeshire.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/46979CAB-51B2-4305-B64B-E520165D56D7/0/ Restraint.pdf Available at: www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/ PublicationsPolicyAndGuidance/DH_088970 www.cqc.org.uk/newsandevents/newsstories.cfm?widCall1=customWidgets.content_ view_1&cit_id=37384 (accessed 5 July 2011). www.bihr.org.uk/projects/older-people-and-human-rights-project www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1313495/Daily-Mail-honoured-Dignity-Elderly-campaign.htm www.ageuk.org.uk/Documents/EN-GB/ID9489%20HTBH%20Report%2028ppA4. pdf?dtrk=true, p24 (accessed 5 July 2011).

    495

    Chapter 11
    The Right to Education (Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 26; International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Articles 13 and 14; Convention on the Rights of the Child, Articles 28 and 29; Human Rights Act, Protocol 1 Article 2)

    Please read Part II Guidance on using and interpreting the Human Rights Measurement Framework first.

    11 The Right to Education (Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), Article 26; International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), Articles 13 and 14; Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), Articles 28 and 29; Human Rights Act (HRA), Protocol 1 Article 2)

    Panel and indicators


    Higher and further education Lifelong learning

    Protection of the right to education by the state, its agents or bodies fulfilling a public function

    Indicators

    Primary and secondary education

    Structural (indicators of commitment in principle)

    Indicator 61: Legal and constitutional framework Protection of the right to life in domestic law (including constitutional/higher law) Status of ratification of relevant international treaties

    Indicator 62: Legal precedents, gaps and standard-setting Principles established in key cases (domestic and ECHR) and international standard setting processes Gaps in protection and non-implementation of legal judgements and recommendations

    The Right to Education UDHR, Article 26; ICESCR, Article 13/14; CRC, Articles 28 and 29; HRA, Protocol 1, Article 2

    498

    Process (indicators of steps taken including legal, regulatory and public policy measures)

    Indicator 63: Regulatory framework Key regulators, inspectorates and ombudsmen Relevant responsibilities and powers, national minimum standard frameworks and inspection/complaints-handling criteria

    Indicator 64: Public policy framework Primary legislation Codes and guidance Spotlight resource allocations

    Outcome (indicators of the position of individuals and groups in practice/ emergence of a human rights culture)

    Indicator 65: Outcomes of key judicial, regulatory and investigative processes Violations of the right to life: Case law outcomes Key concerns raised by human rights monitoring bodies Outcomes of inspection, regulation and complaints procedures Outcomes of independent inquiries, investigations and reviews Key allegations by private individuals and civil society organisations/reports in the media

    Indicator 66: Spotlight statistics: Inequalities in educational attainment Percentage without functional literacy and numeracy skills Achievement at GCSE and equivalent Participation rates in university education by free school meal status

    The Right to Education UDHR, Article 26; ICESCR, Article 13/14; CRC, Articles 28 and 29; HRA, Protocol 1, Article 2

    499

    Indicator 67: Spotlight statistics: Exclusions and access to education/training and educational attainment for at risk/vulnerable groups Statistics on educational gaps for looked after children leaving care Percentage of those who are detained who are participating in either a job, vocational or skills training, education, or offending behaviour programmes Gypsy and Traveller drop-out rates Exclusions Equality of access

    Indicator 68: Spotlight statistics: Support for those with Special Educational Needs (SEN) Indicator 69: Spotlight statistics: Bullying and treatment with dignity and respect subjective measures Appropriate punishment and discipline (see Articles 2 and 3) Bullying

    Indicator 70: Spotlight statistics: Public attitudes, understanding and experiences Public attitudes towards the right to healthcare as a right you should have and you do have Perceptions of treatment with dignity and respect in healthcare

    Indicators should be systematically disaggregated Key disaggregation characteristics include ethnicity/race, gender, disability, sexual orientation, transgender, religion and belief, age, social class, area (region, urban/rural, remoteness) with separate reporting of the non-private household population and at risk/vulnerable groups including individuals staying in/resident/detained in public and private institutions; individuals living in poverty; refugees/asylum seekers, vulnerable children and young people (for example, children in need, looked after children, children who are carers), Gypsies and Travellers, etc.

    The Right to Education UDHR, Article 26; ICESCR, Article 13/14; CRC, Articles 28 and 29; HRA, Protocol 1, Article 2

    Evidence base
    Structural indicators Indicator 61: Legal and constitutional framework
    Table 313: Protection of the right to education in domestic law (including constitutional/higher law) UK HRA Part II Article 2. Table 314: Status of ratification of relevant international treaties637 ICESCR, Articles 6, 13 and 14 ratified. Optional Protocol to ICESCR (communications and inquiries) not ratified by the UK. International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD), Articles 5(e)(v) and 7 ratified. Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), Article 10 ratified. CRC, Articles 17, 2324 e-f, 28, 29 and 31 ratified. Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), Article 24. Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees. UNESCO Convention Against Discrimination in Education accepted, not ratified. ECHR reservation to Article 2 of the First Protocol in relation to expenditure on education. European Social Charter (revised) signed, not ratified. Additional Protocol to the European Social Charter Providing for a System of Collective Complaints not ratified.

    500

    The Right to Education UDHR, Article 26; ICESCR, Article 13/14; CRC, Articles 28 and 29; HRA, Protocol 1, Article 2

    Indicator 62: Legal precedents, gaps and standard-setting


    Table 315: Principles established in key cases (domestic, ECHR and international) Belgian Linguistic case ((No 2) (1968) 1 EHRR 252)638 In what is seen as the cornerstone ruling for determining a states obligations under Protocol 1 Article 2, the European Court of Human Rights found that the value of the right depended on the education system of the particular state concerned. The failure to satisfy the educational requirements of domestic law does not automatically constitute an infringement of Protocol 1 Article 2.639 Article 2 Protocol 1 does guarantees a right of access to educational institutions existing at a given time and a right to an effective education. For the right of education to be effective, there must be a right to official recognition of the studies a student has successfully completed.640 The Court found that there had been no violation of Article 2, Protocol 1. Kjeldsen, Busk, Madsen and Pedersen v Denmark nos. 5095/71, 5920/72, 5926/72 [1976] ECHR641 The European Court of Human Rights ruled that the state must take care that information or knowledge included in the curriculum is conveyed in an objective, critical and pluralistic manner. The state is forbidden to pursue an aim of indoctrination that might be considered as not respecting parents religious and philosophical convictions. The Court found no violation of Protocol 1 Article 2. Campbell and Cosans v UK nos. 7511/76; 7743/76 [1982] ECHR642 The European Court of Human Rights found the use of corporal punishment as a disciplinary measure in state schools in Scotland failed to protect parents rights to education in conformity with their philosophical convictions, and that the suspension of a child from school for failing to conform to disciplinary regulations, including corporal punishment, constituted a breach of Protocol 1 Article 2. R (Holub) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2001] 1 WLR 1359643 Whilst noting that for the right to education to be meaningful, the quality of the education must reach a minimum standard, the Court found that the refusal of permission to remain in the country cannot be regarded as an interference with the right to education, but only as a control of immigration which falls outside the scope of Article 2. A v Head Teacher and Governors of Lord Grey School [2006] UKHL 14644 The House of Lords reinforced the Belgian Linguistics principle that under Protocol 1 Article 2 a person is not entitled to some minimum level of education judged by some objective standard and without regard to the system in the particular state.645

    501

    The Right to Education UDHR, Article 26; ICESCR, Article 13/14; CRC, Articles 28 and 29; HRA, Protocol 1, Article 2

    DH v Czech Republic (GC) no. 57325/00 [2008] ECHR646 The Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights found that indirect discrimination is prohibited under the ECHR and that the statistics on the diversion of Roma children to special education shifted the burden of proof onto the state to prove that it was not discriminatory, and in the circumstances they had failed to do that. The Grand Chamber found that intent was irrelevant to a finding of discrimination (purpose or effect) and that there was a violation of Article 14 taken together with Protocol 1 Article 2. Irfan Temel and Others v. Turkey no. 36458/02 [2009] ECHR647 The European Court of Human Rights found a violation of Protocol 1 Article 2 in respect of suspension from university by the authorities of a number of students for between one and two terms as a disciplinary measure against them in response to their petition to have classes available in the Kurdish language, constituting a restriction on their right to education that was not reasonable or proportionate. Note: This case was a departure from the Courts position in Simpson v UK which stated that the Convention does not guarantee access to any particular educational institution the domestic system does provide, and that a breach of Protocol 1 Article 2 requires evidence of a systemic failure of the national educational system as a whole, resulting in the individual not having access to a minimum level of education within it.

    A v Essex County Council & National Autistic Society (Intervener) [2010] UKSC 33648 The Supreme Court found that a local education authority which took 18 months to secure a place at one of the few specialist schools which was equipped to cope with a severely disabled child with SEN, during which time he was unable to attend school at all, had not, by taking so much time, denied the childs right to education contrary to Protocol 1 Article 2. Oru v Croatia no. (GC) 15766/03 [2010] ECHR649 The Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights found a violation of Article 14 taken together with Article 2 Protocol 1. The safeguards in place for schooling arrangements for Roma children that would ensure that, in the exercise of its margin of appreciation in the education sphere, the state had sufficient regard to their special needs as members of a disadvantaged group, were in sufficient. Owing to the lack of transparency and clear criteria as regards transfer to mixed classes, the applicants stayed in Roma-only classes for substantial periods of time, sometimes even during their entire primary schooling.

    502

    The Right to Education UDHR, Article 26; ICESCR, Article 13/14; CRC, Articles 28 and 29; HRA, Protocol 1, Article 2

    Ali v UK no. 40385/06 [2011] ECHR650 The European Court of Human Rights found that the exclusion of a pupil did not violate Article 2 Protocol 1 because it was implemented in a foreseeable (reasonably clear and certain) manner and was proportionate to the aim pursued. In assessing the proportionality of an exclusion, the Court will consider a number of factors: (i) extent of applicable procedural safeguards; (ii) duration of the exclusion; (iii) extent of applicants co-operation with any re-integration efforts; (iv) steps taken to minimise the effect of the exclusion; (v) adequacy of any alternative education provided; and (vi) extent to which the rights of third parties are engaged. The last two factors will be given particular weight. Autimse Europe v France no. 13/2002 [2003 ] ECSR651 The European Committee on Social Rights found that France has failed to achieve sufficient progress in advancing the provision of education for persons with autism. The Committee found a violation of Articles 15.1 and 17.1 whether alone or read in combination with Article E of the revised European Social Charter.

    Limited nature of the right to education under the ECHR The limited nature of the right to education is highlighted by the following cases, which were deemed inadmissable: Graeme v UK no. 13887/88 [1990] ECHR652 In a case involving a mothers complaint that she was the victim of a breach of Article 2 Protocol 1 because her disabled son was not educated in conformity with her religious and philosophical convictions relating to his integration into a mainstream school, his education in a private independent school, and his education in a Christian school, the Commission held that the complaint was inadmissible, noting that there must be a wide measure of discretion left to the appropriate authorities as to how to make the best use possible of the resources available to them in the interests of disabled children generally. SP v UK no. 28915/95 [1997] ECHR653 In a case involving the refusal of a statutory assessment of the special needs of a child with dyslexia, the Commission concluded that the applicant had not been denied his right to education and that the case did not disclose any appearance of a violation of Article 2. Simpson v UK no. 14688/89 [1989] ECHR654 In deeming the complaint by a dyslexic child that his Article 2 Protocol 1 rights had been violated by the local education authoritys withdrawal of funding for him to attend a private school inadmissable, the Commission observed that Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-2) is not an absolute right which requires Contracting Parties to subsidise private education of a particular type or level. In principle, it guarantees access to public educational facilities which have been created at a given time and the possibility of drawing benefit from the education received.

    503

    The Right to Education UDHR, Article 26; ICESCR, Article 13/14; CRC, Articles 28 and 29; HRA, Protocol 1, Article 2

    McIntyre v UK no. 29046/95 [1998] ECHR655 In a case alleging disability discrimination and violation of Article 2 Protocol 1 rights to education due to the refusal of a mainstream school to install a lift to accommodate the needs of a pupil with muscular dystrophy, the Commission found that the legitimate aim of the LEAs policy is to provide the educational facilities in a manner that is consistent with a practical and efficient use of resources and public funds, and that the refusal to install the lift due to the prohibitive cost was not a disproportionate act.

    Resource allocation R (on the application of Cawser) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2003] EWCA Civ 1522656 A leading case on the allocation of resources and the role of the court, considered in the context of Article 5 rights. See also consideration of this case in Secretary of State for Justice v James (formerly Walker & Anor): R (on the application of Lee) v Secretary of State for Justice & one other action [2009] UKHL 22.657

    International cases Campaign for Fiscal Equity v State of New York et al. 719 N.Y.S 2d 475658 The Court found that the defendants method for funding education in New York State violated the Constitution because the education provided to New York City students was so deficient that it fell below the constitutional floor set by the Education Article. The judge held that the states actions were a substantial cause of this violation. Furthermore, he ruled that the state school funding system had an adverse and disparate impact on minority public school children and that this was not adequately justified by any reason related to education, resulting in a violation of the implementing regulations of the US Civil Rights Act of 1964.

    Table 316: Principles established in international standard setting processes General evaluative criteria developed by the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (UNCESCR) Obligations to respect, protect and fulfil human rights. Obligations to progressively ensure education is available, accessible, acceptable and adaptable. Obligations of conduct versus obligations of result. Progressive realization/maximum available resources. Minimum core threshold approach/immediate obligations. Non-retrogression.

    504

    The Right to Education UDHR, Article 26; ICESCR, Article 13/14; CRC, Articles 28 and 29; HRA, Protocol 1, Article 2

    Other key international standards UNCESCR General Comment 9 domestic application of the Covenant.659 UNCESCR General Comment 13660 education must be available, accessible, acceptable and adaptable. Framework developed by UN Special Rapporteur Katarina Tomasevski (availability, accessibility, affordability and adaptability). Reasonableness of state actions (South African jurisprudence). European Committee of Social Rights.

    Table 317: Gaps in legal protection The ICESCR is not incorporated into domestic law. The UNCESCR (2002) has expressed concerns about the non-incorporation of the Covenant into domestic law: The Committee deeply regrets that, although the State party has adopted a certain number of laws in the area of economic, social and cultural rights, the Covenant has still not been incorporated in the domestic legal order and that there is no intention by the State party to do so in the near future. The Committee reiterates its concern about the State partys position that the provisions of the Covenant, with minor exceptions, constitute principles and programmatic objectives rather than legal obligations that are justiciable, and that consequently they cannot be given direct legislative effect.661 The Revised European Social Charter has been signed but not ratified by the UK.

    Process indicators Indicator 63: Regulatory framework


    Office for Standards in Education, Childrens Services and Skills (OFSTED) ESTYN Childrens Commissioners for England, Scotland and Wales Pupil and Parent Guarantees662, Children, Schools and Families Act 2010 HM Inspectorate of Prisons (HMIP) for England and Wales HMIP for Scotland Prisons and Probation Ombudsman Health, Education and Social Care (HESC) Chamber, First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability)

    505

    The Right to Education UDHR, Article 26; ICESCR, Article 13/14; CRC, Articles 28 and 29; HRA, Protocol 1, Article 2

    Indicator 64: Public policy framework


    Table 318: Primary legislation protecting the right to education Education Act 1997 School Standards and Framework Act 1998 Learning and Skills Act 2000 Education Act 2002 Education Act 1996 and Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001 regulating provision for children with SEN Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009 statutory right to education for detained young offenders The Special Educational Needs (SEN) Information Act (2008) Scotland: Education (Scotland) Act 1980 Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Act 2004

    Outcome indicators Indicator 65: Outcomes of key judicial, regulatory and investigative processes
    Table 319: Violations of the right to education: case law outcomes Campbell and Cosans v UK nos. 7511/76; 7743/76 [1982] ECHR663 Violation of Article 2 Protocol 1 (see Table 315). R (Holub) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2001] 1 WLR 1359664 No violation of Article 2 Protocol 1 (see Table 315). A v Head Teacher and Governors of Lord Grey School [2006] UKHL 14665 No violation of Article 2 Protocol 1 (see Table 315). A v Essex County Council & National Autistic Society (Intervener) [2010] UKSC 33666 No violation of Article 2 Protocol 1 (see Table 315). Ali v UK no. 40385/06 [2011] ECHR667 No violation of Article 2 Protocol 1 (see Table 315). Graeme v UK no. 13887/88 [1990] ECHR668 Inadmissable(see Table 315). SP v UK no. 28915/95 [1997] ECHR669 Inadmissable (see Table 315). Simpson v UK no. 14688/89 [1989] ECHR670 Inadmissable (see Table 315). McIntyre v UK no. 29046/95 [1998] ECHR671 Inadmissable (see Table 315). 506

    The Right to Education UDHR, Article 26; ICESCR, Article 13/14; CRC, Articles 28 and 29; HRA, Protocol 1, Article 2

    Table 320: Key concerns raised by human rights monitoring bodies Domestic Joint Committee on Human Rights (JCHR) The JCHR considered the question of domestic incorporation of economic, social and cultural rights (JCHR, 2004a)). In 2008, the JCHRs report (JCHR, 2008b) included recommendations on the inclusion of economic, social and cultural rights in any future bill of rights. It suggested that, in the first instance, the rights to health, education, housing, and an adequate standard of living, should be included in a bill of rights (see Table 262). The JCHR, Childrens Rights672, October 2009 (JCHR, 2009c) The JCHR noted In its 2008 report on the UK, the UN Committee again recommended that the UK provide for a statutory right to education for all children deprived of their liberty. In our last Report on childrens rights, we recommended that, as a matter of urgency, the Government bring forward legislative proposals to provide children in custody with a statutory right to education and access to special needs provision equal to that enjoyed by all other children. International The United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) Education, including vocational training and guidance (UNCRC, 2008) The UNCRC is concerned that significant inequalities persist with regard to school achievement of children living with their parents in economic hardship. Several groups of children have problems being enrolled in school or continuing or reentering education, either in regular schools or alternative educational facilities, and cannot fully enjoy their right to education, notably children with disabilities, children of Travellers, Roma children, asylum-seeking children, dropouts and non-attendees for different reasons (sickness, family obligations etc.), and teenage mothers. Furthermore, the Committee is concerned that: (a) Participation of children in all aspects of schooling is inadequate, since children have very few consultation rights, in particular they have no right to appeal their exclusion or to appeal the decisions of a special educational needs tribunal; (b) The right to complain regarding educational provisions is restricted to parents, which represent a problem especially for looked after children for whom local authorities have, though mostly do not use, parental authority; (c) Bullying is a serious and widespread problem, which may hinder childrens attendance at school and successful learning; (d) The number of permanent and temporary school exclusions is still high and affects in particular children from groups which in general are low on school achievement.673

    507

    The Right to Education UDHR, Article 26; ICESCR, Article 13/14; CRC, Articles 28 and 29; HRA, Protocol 1, Article 2

    The UNCESCR is concerned that significant disparities in terms of school performance and dropout rates continue to exist between pupils belonging to ethnic, religious or national minorities, in particular Roma/Gypsies, Irish Travellers, and other students. (UNCESCR, 2009). The UNCESCR In line with general comment no. 13 (1999) on the right to education, the Committee encourages the State party to review its policy on tuition fees for tertiary education with a view to implementing article 13 of the Covenant, which provides for the progressive introduction of free education at all levels. It also recommends that the State party eliminate the unequal treatment between European Union member State nationals and nationals of other States regarding the reduction of university fees and the allocation of financial assistance (UNCESCR, 2009).675 Table 321: Investigation of deprivations of the right to education and outcomes of other investigations, inquiries and reviews Access to education, exclusion and attainments Gypsies and Travellers The National Equality Panel (NEP) (2010) reported that Gypsy/Roma and Irish Traveller pupils, who make up a significant proportion of children in primary schools (2.5 per cent in 2007), experience high levels of inequality in relation to attainment. In 2008, Gypsy/ Roma and Irish Traveller children had the lowest educational performances, with only 17 per cent of Traveller of Irish heritage and 16 per cent of Roma Gypsy pupils obtaining five or more GCSE A*-C passes, compared to 55-65 per cent for the rest of children. The report noted that educational attainment among Gypsy/Romany and Irish Traveller pupils has fallen over time. Irish Traveller pupils are 2.7 times more likely than White British pupils to be categorised as having SEN, even once socioeconomic disadvantage is controlled for. Data from 2005-06 show that Irish Traveller, Gypsy/Roma along with Black Caribbean and Mixed White/Black Caribbean pupils are more than three times as likely to be permanently excluded from school as White pupils. This has been explained by accommodation difficulties leading to interrupted attendance and learning,experiences of racist harassment and bullying, from both other pupils and the school staff, lack of validation of their culture, limited relevance of the curriculum for some children, difficulties in negotiating home and school, and teachers low expectations. (Source: NEP, 2010,79-80). Special Educational Needs the Lamb Inquiry In 2009 the Lamb Inquirys final report, Special Educational Needs and Parental Confidence676, highlighted significantly lower educational outcomes for children with SEN in the UK. The report also noted concerning trends in wider outcomes for children with SEN, including that:Pupils with SEN (both with and without statements) are over 8 times more likely to be permanently excluded than those pupils with no SEN. In 2007/08, 33 in every 10,000 pupils with statements of SEN and 38 in every 10,000 pupils with SEN without statements were permanently excluded from school. This compares with 4 in every 10,000 pupils with no SEN. 508

    The Right to Education UDHR, Article 26; ICESCR, Article 13/14; CRC, Articles 28 and 29; HRA, Protocol 1, Article 2

    Table 322: Key concerns and allegations raised by private individuals and civil society organisations/reports in the media Refugee Council (2011), Something to smile about: Promoting and supporting the educational and recreational needs of refugee children677 The reports findings show that refugee children are still facing many barriers in accessing education and as previous research has highlighted this has been the case for some time. Many young people in SMILE had spent months out of education due to waiting lists in further education colleges, impacting negatively upon their personal development. Admissions policies appear to be inconsistent, and young people, both separated and in families, struggled to negotiate the English education system alone. The report also highlights the negative impact that age assessment has upon young peoples well-being, and the difficulties it causes in terms of their access to education. The nature of the age determination process, its subjectivity and the length of time taken for a resolution, is leaving many children seeking asylum isolated and without access to education. Without any statutory procedure or guidance, local authority policies and practices in the age determination process can be inconsistent and variable, causing further distress for children seeking asylum. The Childrens Legal Centre (2008), The Right to Education in England. Alternate report to the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child678, identified a number of concerns in relation to the right to education in England:

    Availability of education Children in custody did not have a statutory right to education. Many children in custody were not educated under the National Curriculum and did not receive education that was full-time. Also, support for children in custody with SEN was severely lacking. Children in immigration detention did not have a statutory right to education. Detained refugee and asylum-seeking children were educated within detention centres, which compromised their welfare, development and future education and opportunities. Educational provision in immigration detention centres was unsatisfactory of poor quality, with a narrow curriculum, a lack of individual learning plans or accreditation systems and a lack of suitable target-setting. There was a lack of suitable educational provision for children with SEN and disabilities. A flexible continuum of educational provision should be made available in each English local authority area to meet the needs of children with SEN and disabilities. However, for these children, particularly for those children with autism and Aspergers Syndrome, there was a lack of suitable educational provision in many local authority areas to meet the needs of these children.

    509

    The Right to Education UDHR, Article 26; ICESCR, Article 13/14; CRC, Articles 28 and 29; HRA, Protocol 1, Article 2

    For the 135,000 children each year who were unable to attend school (due, for instance, to medical needs, exclusion, bullying or school phobia), the Government had failed to ensure that they received appropriate, suitable alternative educational provision. Alternative educational provision was often insufficient and of poor quality. The Government had also failed to ensure that the 100,000 children missing from school each year were identified and provided with education.

    Access to education The Government had failed to ensure equal access to education for all children in England. In particular: For the 60,000 children in care, many had missed a significant amount of schooling. Also, educational outcomes for these children continued to be poor compared to their peers. Educational attainment was much lower for children from economically disadvantaged backgrounds, as educational achievements were strongly linked to their parents social and economic backgrounds. Teenage mothers continued to experience obstacles in gaining access to education, which the Government had largely failed to address. Many refugee and asylum-seeking children experienced unacceptable delays in gaining access to education; many were placed in schools unable to meet their needs; and for many of these children, access to the full curriculum was restricted due to financial obstacles. In addition, a lack of specificity in funding arrangements meant that refugee and asylum-seeking children did not always receive the important financial support they required to access education. Access to further education was also limited as the Education Maintenance Allowance that supported post-16 education did not apply to asylum-seekers. Children from minority ethnic backgrounds continued to experience unequal access to education and educational attainment. Many Roma and Traveller children were not registered in school and, as a group, had very low school attendance rates. Also, Roma and Traveller children had low educational attainment compared to their peers. Children of African and Afro-Caribbean origin experienced systemic racism in the education system, which resulted in poor educational outcomes compared to that of their peers. The Government had failed to ensure that children with SEN and disabilities had equal access to suitable, appropriate education. Many were not properly assessed in terms of the type of provision and support they required, which hindered their access to the most suitable education. In addition, attainment levels were not properly monitored for this group of children.

    510

    The Right to Education UDHR, Article 26; ICESCR, Article 13/14; CRC, Articles 28 and 29; HRA, Protocol 1, Article 2

    A large number of children continued to be excluded from school every year. There were 8,680 permanent and 363,270 fixed-period exclusions from schools in England in 2006-07. Many more children were informally excluded, as schools would use methods other than official exclusion to keep children off school premises, including persuading parents to remove children from school and keep them at home. Some groups of children children with SEN, Roma and Traveller children, children of African and Afro-Caribbean origin,economically disadvantaged children and children in care continued to be excluded at much higher rates than the whole school population. Despite Government attempts to tackle widespread bullying in English schools, it was still very common in many schools and continued to cause many children to miss school for periods of time, or to withdraw from attending school completely. Some children were particularly vulnerable to bullying, including those with SEN or visible medical conditions. Racist and homophobic bullying was also particularly widespread. Studies have highlighted the inaction on the part of many schools to bullying complaints, and ineffective redress mechanisms for children and parents mean that schools are largely unaccountable for inaction in relation to individual bullying complaints.

    Acceptability of education Children are denied the right to participate in many procedural and substantive aspects of the education system. Children do not have a separate right of appeal against school admission or exclusion decisions or against decisions concerning SEN provision. Parents have the unconditional right, in English law, to withdraw their child from sex and relationships education and collective worship. There is no obligation on the part of LAs or schools to consider the views of the child in relation to any withdrawal. Sex and relationships education is compulsory in English schools, but it does not form part of the National Curriculum. It is therefore not subject to national regulations concerning content and assessment of the subject. Failure to include sex and relationships education as a National Curriculum subject appears to have had a negative impact on the extent and quality of sex and relationships education in schools.

    511

    The Right to Education UDHR, Article 26; ICESCR, Article 13/14; CRC, Articles 28 and 29; HRA, Protocol 1, Article 2

    Adaptability of education Many mainstream schools do not effectively adapt their systems, curriculum, and teaching methods to meet the needs of children with SEN. Concerns have also been raised over the insufficient adaptation of teaching methods in mainstream schools to meet the needs of children with SEN. Stonewall (2009), The School Report. The experiences of young gay people in Britains school (Hunt and Jensen 2007)679, found that almost two-thirds (65 per cent) of young lesbian, gay and bisexual people experienced homophobic bullying in Britains schools. This finding was based on a study by the Schools Health Education Unit on behalf of Stonewall that asked young people from Great Britain who were lesbian, gay, bisexual (or think they might be) to complete a survey about their experiences at school. The survey received 1,145 responses from young people at secondary school. Just under half the respondents were girls (48 per cent). Fourteen per cent were from black and minority ethnic backgrounds and 12 per cent were disabled. Forty-six per cent stated that they had a religious belief and over half of these (29 per cent) were Christian. The majority of respondents (79 per cent) attended a state school, and 12 per cent attended private schools. One in ten respondents (110) attended a faith school. The report also detailed a number of recommendations to tackle homophobia in education, including acknowledgement of the problem, policy development, training and awareness raising, curriculumbased initiatives, and the provision of information and support.

    512

    The Right to Education UDHR, Article 26; ICESCR, Article 13/14; CRC, Articles 28 and 29; HRA, Protocol 1, Article 2

    Table 323: Identifiable expenditure on education in England, Scotland and Wales, 2004-05 2009-10, million
    2004-05 outturn England 9.1 Pre-primary and primary education, of which: under fives primary education 9.2 Secondary education 9.3 Postsecondary non-tertiary education 9.4 Tertiary education 9.5 Education not definable by level 9.6 Subsidiary services to education 9.7 R&D education 9.8 Education n.e.c Total education 2005-06 outturn 2006-07 outturn 2007-08 outturn 2008-09 outturn 2009-10 plans

    19,190 3,762 15,428 22,686

    20,563 3,958 16,605 24,095

    21,092 3,746 17,345 25,428

    22,549 4,012 18,537 26,990

    23,862 4,180 19,682 28,224

    25,263 4,499 20,764 30,260

    218 7,002

    203 7,849

    164 8,112

    178 9,366

    364 9,255

    341 9,901

    320

    317

    312

    345

    316

    305

    2,590 15 1,466 53,486

    2,820 12 1,528 57,388

    2,965 13 1,678 59,764

    3,135 12 1,751 64,325

    3,964 11 2,436 68,431

    4,580 20 1,783 72,453 Continued

    513

    The Right to Education UDHR, Article 26; ICESCR, Article 13/14; CRC, Articles 28 and 29; HRA, Protocol 1, Article 2

    Table 323: Identifiable expenditure on education in England, Scotland and Wales, 2004-05 2009-10, million (continued)
    2004-05 outturn Scotland 9.1 Pre-primary and primary education, of which: under fives primary education 9.2 Secondary education 9.3 Postsecondary non-tertiary education 9.4 Tertiary education 9.5 Education not definable by level 9.6 Subsidiary services to education 9.7 R&D education 9.8 Education n.e.c Total education 2005-06 outturn 2006-07 outturn 2007-08 outturn 2008-09 outturn 2009-10 plans

    2,251 256 1,995 2,226

    2,428 276 2,152 2,395

    2,584 289 2,294 2,629

    2,731 307 2,423 2,660

    2,834 309 2,525 2,731

    2,854 335 2,518 2,862

    133 1,092

    129 1,165

    133 1,378

    140 1,454

    148 1,411

    141 1,402

    163

    167

    126

    83

    42

    42

    24 25 225 6,139

    22 19 240 6,565

    14 23 243 7,131 7,354

    15 19 254 7,555

    198 0 191

    208 5 328 7,842 Continued

    514

    The Right to Education UDHR, Article 26; ICESCR, Article 13/14; CRC, Articles 28 and 29; HRA, Protocol 1, Article 2

    Table 323: Identifiable expenditure on education in England, Scotland and Wales, 2004-05 2009-10, million (continued)
    2004-05 outturn Wales 9.1 Pre-primary and primary education, of which: under fives primary education 9.2 Secondary education 9.3 Postsecondary non-tertiary education 9.4 Tertiary education 9.5 Education not definable by level 9.6 Subsidiary services to education 9.7 R&D education 9.8 Education n.e.c Total education 2005-06 outturn 2006-07 outturn 2007-08 outturn 2008-09 outturn 2009-10 plans

    1,053 73 980 1,415

    1,100 46 1,055 1,509

    1,243 46 1,197 1,440

    1,338 78 1,259 1,499

    1,408 93 1,315 1,392

    1,435 100 1,335 1,536

    471

    481

    508

    537

    537

    459

    150

    134

    169

    185

    209

    182

    210 30 3,329

    237 23 3,485 3,689

    239 91 3,944

    305 80

    397 92 4,036 4,288

    529 148

    Source: HM Treasury (2010). Notes: The sub-functional classification of education has been reviewed since PESA 2009 and work on this continues. Data received after the conclusion of the exercise indicates that Wales secondary education spending in 2008-09 should be closer to 1,510 million, raising overall education spending to 4,150 million.

    515

    The Right to Education UDHR, Article 26; ICESCR, Article 13/14; CRC, Articles 28 and 29; HRA, Protocol 1, Article 2

    Table 324: Identifiable expenditure on education in England, Scotland and Wales, 2004-05 2009-10, per head
    2004-05 outturn England 9.1 Pre-primary and primary education, of which: under fives primary education 9.2 Secondary education 9.3 Postsecondary non-tertiary education 9.4 Tertiary education 9.5 Education not definable by level 9.6 Subsidiary services to education 9.7 R&D education 9.8 Education n.e.c Total education 2005-06 outturn 2006-07 outturn 2007-08 outturn 2008-09 outturn 2009-10 plans

    383 75 308 453

    407 78 329 477

    415 74 342 501

    441 79 363 528

    464 81 383 549

    488 87 401 584

    4 140

    4 156

    3 160

    3 183

    7 180

    7 191

    52 0 29 1,067

    56 0 30 1,137

    58 0 33 1,177

    61 0 34 1,259

    77 0 47 1,330

    88 0 34 1,398 Continued

    516

    The Right to Education UDHR, Article 26; ICESCR, Article 13/14; CRC, Articles 28 and 29; HRA, Protocol 1, Article 2

    Table 324: Identifiable expenditure on education in England, Scotland and Wales, 2004-05 2009-10, per head (continued)
    2004-05 outturn Scotland 9.1 Pre-primary and primary education, of which: under fives primary education 9.2 Secondary education 9.3 Postsecondary non-tertiary education 9.4 Tertiary education 9.5 Education not definable by level 9.6 Subsidiary services to education 9.7 R&D education 9.8 Education n.e.c Total education 2005-06 outturn 2006-07 outturn 2007-08 outturn 2008-09 outturn 2009-10 plans

    443 50 393 438

    477 54 422 470

    505 57 448 514

    531 60 472 518

    548 60 489 528

    550 65 485 552

    26 229

    25 269

    26 283

    27 273

    29 270

    27

    32

    33

    25

    16

    5 5 44 1,209

    4 4 47 1,289

    3 4 48 1,394

    3 4 49 1,431

    38 0 37 1,462

    40 1 63 1,511 Continued

    517

    The Right to Education UDHR, Article 26; ICESCR, Article 13/14; CRC, Articles 28 and 29; HRA, Protocol 1, Article 2

    Table 324: Identifiable expenditure on education in England, Scotland and Wales, 2004-05 2009-10, per head (continued)
    2004-05 outturn Wales 9.1 Pre-primary and primary education, of which: under fives primary education 9.2 Secondary education 9.3 Postsecondary non-tertiary education 9.4 Tertiary education 9.5 Education not definable by level 9.6 Subsidiary services to education 9.7 R&D education 9.8 Education n.e.c Total education 2005-06 outturn 2006-07 outturn 2007-08 outturn 2008-09 outturn 2009-10 plans

    357 25 333 480

    373 15 357 511

    419 15 404 485

    449 26 423 503

    470 31 439 465

    478 33 445 512

    160

    163

    171

    180

    180

    153

    51

    45

    57

    62

    70

    61

    71 10 1,130

    80 8 1,180

    80 31 1,244

    102 27 1,324

    133 31 1,348

    176 49 1,430

    Source: HM Treasury (2010). Notes: The sub-functional classification of education has been reviewed since PESA 2009 and work on this continues. Data received after the conclusion of the exercise indicates that Wales secondary education spending in 2008-09 should be closer to 1,510 million, raising overall education spending to 4,150 million.

    518

    The Right to Education UDHR, Article 26; ICESCR, Article 13/14; CRC, Articles 28 and 29; HRA, Protocol 1, Article 2

    Indicator 66: Spotlight statistics: Inequalities in educational attainment


    Table 325: People of working age achieving functional literacy and numeracy skills, England Published results of the Skills for Life Survey 2002-03, England
    Percentage reaching Level 1 literacy or above1 By occupation Managerial and professional Intermediate occupation Small employers and own account workers Supervisors/ craft-related occupations Working class Gender Men Women By ethnicity White3 Indian Pakistani/ Bangladeshi Black Caribbean Black African 86 63 53 60 62 55 39 29 19 22 7,015 123 69 80 77 Continued 84 84 59 47 3,483 4,391 93 94 80 71 54 50 3,082 628 759 3,099 644 779 Percentage reaching Level 1 numeracy or above
    1

    Number in literacy sample (unweighted)2

    Number in numeracy sample (unweighted)2

    82

    44

    962

    975

    67

    31

    2,132

    2,225

    519

    The Right to Education UDHR, Article 26; ICESCR, Article 13/14; CRC, Articles 28 and 29; HRA, Protocol 1, Article 2

    Table 325: People of working age achieving functional literacy and numeracy skills, England (continued)
    Percentage reaching Level 1 literacy or above1 Non-disabled Disabled No learning difficulties Learning difficulties By age 16-19 years 20-24 years 25-34 years 35-44 years 45-54 years 55-64 years All 84 88 87 85 81 78 84 50 51 57 56 53 47 53 444 613 1,774 2,044 1,509 1,488 7,874 85 77 85 57 Percentage reaching Level 1 numeracy or above
    1

    Number in literacy sample (unweighted)2 6,083 1,784 7,507 351

    Number in numeracy sample (unweighted)2

    56 44 54 24

    Source: Department for Education and Skills (DfES) (2003). Notes: 1 Level 1 literacy is described as: Understands short straightforward texts of varying length on a variety of topics accurately and independently; Can obtain information from different sources. Level 1 numeracy is described as: Understands straightforward mathematical information used for different purposes and can independently select relevant information from given graphical, numerical and written material. 2 Statistical significance is not recorded in the report. 3 The report notes that the differences by ethnicity are largely explained by differences in the proportions of each ethnic group who speak English as a first language. Among those who speak English as their first language, there are few differences by ethnicity.

    520

    Table 326: Key Stage 1 attainment by pupil characteristics, England, 2009-10

    Summary: Percentage of pupils achieving the expected level1 in Key Stage 1 teacher assessments by pupil characteristics

    Years: 2006 to 2010 (provisional)2

    Coverage: England

    School type: Maintained schools (including academies and CTCs)


    Writing 2009 2010 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2006 Mathematics 2007 Science 2008 2009 2010

    Reading

    2006

    2007

    2008

    Gender 80.5 88.5 84.4 84.7 81.2 80.2 79.9 80.8 80.9 90.2 89.8 89.5 89.5 88.7 86.9 85.9 85.6 86.7 86.6 91.6 91.3 91.1 91.1 90.8 89.2 80.9 75.9 74.8 74.5 75.3 75.5 88.8 88.4 88.1 87.9 87.8 87.7 90.6 89.1 87.3 90.4 88.8 87.1 90.2 88.6 87.2 90.6 88.9 87.1 90.4 88.7

    Boys

    80.3

    79.7

    79.9

    Girls

    88.5

    87.9

    87.9

    All pupils

    84.3

    83.7

    83.8

    The Right to Education UDHR, Article 26; ICESCR, Article 13/14; CRC, Articles 28 and 29; HRA, Protocol 1, Article 2

    521
    84.9 85.6 85.7 35.6 34.7 76.3 85.0 82.5 81.9 78.9 77.6 85.3 81.7 80.8 80.6 77.2 77.1 75.2 71.8 71.0 73.1 81.2 78.1 37.3 36.4 35.9 33.6 31.6 35.5 30.0 29.9 27.6 31.6 30.8 32.1 73.6 81.4 77.4 49.8 60.4 87.9 90.2 88.5 86.0 82.3 81.0 81.4 82.1 81.2 90.7 85.8 82.7 81.7 81.4 82.2 82.1 91.3 91.0 89.7 52.3 55.5 86.1 90.3 88.6 85.1 82.3 81.2 80.8 81.5 81.5 91.1 90.7 90.5 90.8 91.2 51.6 57.0 86.0 89.5 87.8

    Ethnicity 90.3 90.7 90.1 53.3 51.8 86.1 89.3 87.8 90.0 90.4 89.9 50.8 52.6 85.6 89.3 86.5 90.6 90.9 90.5 49.5 58.3 84.0 89.2 88.2 90.2 90.7 89.8 49.2 55.5 81.7 89.5 88.3 90.0 90.6 90.5 48.4 57.5 81.7 89.0 88.0 90.2 90.8 90.2 54.2 50.5 82.8 89.0 87.7 90.0 90.6 90.2 51.4 52.0 82.4 88.8 86.9 Continued

    White

    85.3

    84.5

    84.5

    White British

    85.7

    85.1

    85.2

    Irish

    84.8

    84.2

    86.5

    Traveller of Irish

    heritage

    29.6

    33.2

    31.9

    Gypsy/Roma

    39.9

    37.7

    36.9

    Any other White

    background

    77.6

    74.6

    74.6

    Mixed

    84.8

    84.2

    84.5

    White and Black

    Caribbean

    82.3

    81.5

    82.1

    Table 326: Key Stage 1 attainment by pupil characteristics, England, 2009-10 (continued)
    Writing Mathematics Science

    Reading

    2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 83.0 88.2 85.7 83.4 90.5 79.5 80.8 86.0 81.8 80.0 82.8 80.6 89.0 75.2 71.7 84.4 84.7 81.2 80.2 79.9 69.6 68.0 66.2 64.3 78.3 70.6 70.9 71.6 72.3 68.2 80.8 88.5 87.4 86.4 87.0 86.2 86.8 74.2 65.4 80.9 81.7 74.5 74.2 73.8 75.3 77.7 84.6 96.0 84.3 80.2 90.2 83.0 73.9 73.8 75.2 78.0 77.9 83.5 84.1 85.1 95.0 84.3 78.9 89.8 81.1 75.7 75.0 73.7 75.0 75.0 85.6 84.9 82.3 74.5 74.2 74.6 76.9 77.1 84.3 84.4 84.8 84.7 84.8 84.7 95.0 84.5 76.0 89.5 87.0 81.4 80.7 80.4 83.2 84.2 90.4 90.0 89.6 90.8 84.8 83.9 85.5 83.1 94.9 83.8 78.5 89.5 82.1 75.3 76.8 76.6 77.0 79.3 84.4 85.6 85.7 84.7 81.0 72.8 72.3 72.4 75.1 76.3 82.5 82.6 82.3 83.2 83.9 86.2 90.5 84.5 83.7 84.9 84.5 94.8 84.4 76.0 89.2 91.0 85.7 85.1 86.0 87.6 88.2 91.9 92.1 92.3 92.6 93.1 89.0 77.9 79.9 86.0 81.7 84.0 80.1 83.2 91.7 79.2 76.7 89.1 84.6 77.8 77.7 77.8 79.7 81.0 86.4 86.7 86.5 86.9 87.6 82.3 85.8 81.8 81.1 81.5 81.9 81.9 90.1 90.5 89.8 89.5 90.0 89.3 89.6 82.6 88.9 78.4 80.1 86.1 82.0 83.9 80.8 83.2 91.3 79.2 75.4 88.8 88.8 85.9 85.6 84.8 85.0 85.2 93.1 92.8 91.9 91.8 91.4 91.7 91.8 91.4 89.1 82.6 89.5 78.2 81.3 84.8 82.8 84.1 82.1 82.6 89.9 79.5 72.6 88.6 85.8 81.1 80.2 79.0 79.8 82.0 90.2 89.3 89.0 88.0 89.8 87.7 88.4 87.6 87.6 91.2 89.2 83.9 90.5 80.1 81.4 86.8 83.1 83.2 83.2 82.5 90.6 79.0 76.3 88.9 88.6 90.8 89.0 84.5 90.7 80.5 82.7 87.5 83.0 82.9 82.9 83.9 89.1 80.8 73.2 88.7 Continued

    White and Black African

    84.3

    83.4

    82.7

    White and Asian

    88.3

    88.4

    87.6

    Any other mixed background

    85.4

    84.5

    85.3

    Asian

    81.1

    81.4

    82.1

    Indian

    88.6

    88.5

    89.2

    Pakistani

    76.8

    76.9

    77.5

    Bangladeshi

    77.9

    78.8

    80.9

    Any other Asian background

    84.2

    84.2

    84.2

    The Right to Education UDHR, Article 26; ICESCR, Article 13/14; CRC, Articles 28 and 29; HRA, Protocol 1, Article 2

    522

    Black

    78.9

    79.2

    80.5

    Black Caribbean

    80.1

    80.5

    80.2

    Black African

    77.9

    78.6

    80.8

    Any other Black background

    80.3

    79.3

    79.6

    Chinese

    90.2

    88.5

    89.1

    Any other ethnic group

    74.0

    74.9

    75.6

    Unclassified 3

    71.5

    69.8

    68.4

    All pupils

    84.3

    83.7

    83.8

    Table 326: Key Stage 1 attainment by pupil characteristics, England, 2009-10 (continued)
    Writing Mathematics Science

    Reading

    2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 85.5 79.4 59.1 84.4 84.7 81.2 80.2 79.9 80.8 80.9 90.2 89.8 89.5 89.5 89.2 89.1 56.9 46.1 50.4 46.7 55.0 52.3 62.9 66.4 62.0 67.5 64.1 54.2 60.1 88.8 80.6 74.2 73.3 73.6 75.7 76.7 84.9 84.9 84.9 85.2 85.5 80.2 80.1 80.3 55.1 88.6 85.7 82.5 81.6 81.3 82.0 82.0 91.1 90.8 90.6 90.4 90.2 90.6 90.4 90.3 90.5 81.5 62.4 88.9 90.3 82.0 59.4 88.7

    First Language

    English4

    85.5

    85.0

    85.0

    Other than

    English5

    77.6

    77.2

    77.9

    Unclassified3

    51.3

    54.8

    52.1

    All pupils

    84.3

    83.7

    83.8

    Free School Meals (FSM) 70.8 87.4 47.7 84.4 84.7 81.2 80.2 79.9 80.8 80.9 90.2 89.8 46.6 43.0 42.4 39.3 43.2 41.5 60.3 59.4 55.7 89.5 87.9 84.9 84.0 83.5 84.3 84.5 92.4 92.1 91.8 91.7 58.3 89.5 71.7 64.8 63.5 63.5 65.5 66.4 80.3 79.7 79.4 79.6 79.7 91.7 55.1 89.2 77.7 91.7 51.0 89.1 77.2 91.4 51.4 88.8 77.4 91.1 47.5 88.6 78.1 91.3 51.9 88.9 78.7 91.3 49.7 88.7

    FSM

    69.3

    68.6

    69.3

    Non-FSM

    87.6

    87.1

    87.0

    The Right to Education UDHR, Article 26; ICESCR, Article 13/14; CRC, Articles 28 and 29; HRA, Protocol 1, Article 2

    523
    94.1 51.0 53.5 58.2 44.0 45.3 33.9 33.2 58.6 49.1 47.9 48.4 33.7 54.1 44.5 43.3 43.7 45.6 50.2 36.1 51.6 42.1 41.1 41.5 43.2 94.4 91.8 91.3 91.1 91.8 91.9 43.3 45.6 49.9 37.0 97.0 65.1 68.7 74.2 56.2 96.9 64.8 68.3 73.8 56.0 96.9 64.7 68.1 73.8 56.2

    Unclassified

    48.1

    46.2

    44.5

    All pupils

    84.3

    83.7

    83.8

    SEN 96.8 64.3 67.8 73.2 56.8 96.7 63.9 67.3 72.5 56.8 96.0 64.0 67.8 72.5 57.1 95.8 64.2 67.8 72.7 56.7 95.8 64.3 67.8 72.7 57.3 96.0 64.8 68.4 73.4 58.2 96.0 64.1 67.6 72.6 57.8 Continued

    SEN provision

    No identified SEN

    94.0

    93.7

    93.8

    All SEN pupils

    48.7

    48.3

    49.6

    SEN without a statement

    51.1

    50.5

    52.0

    School Action

    55.7

    55.1

    56.7

    School Action Plus

    40.5

    40.4

    42.0

    Table 326: Key Stage 1 attainment by pupil characteristics, England, 2009-10 (continued)
    Writing Mathematics Science

    Reading

    2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 23.3 47.7 84.4 84.7 81.2 80.2 79.9 80.8 80.9 90.2 89.8 89.5 89.5 89.2 89.1 88.8 46.6 43.0 42.4 39.3 43.2 41.5 60.3 59.4 55.7 58.3 55.1 51.0 51.4 47.5 88.6 23.1 19.7 17.9 17.1 17.4 17.4 30.0 28.4 26.7 26.5 25.5 27.9 26.8 25.4 25.4 51.9 88.9 24.5 49.7 88.7

    SEN with a statement

    26.0

    24.2

    23.2

    Unclassified6

    48.1

    46.2

    44.5

    All pupils

    84.3

    83.7

    83.8

    SEN primary

    need7 34.7 25.3 4.7 5.0 3.7 2.7 2.9 3.2 3.2 6.8 7.3 5.9 26.5 18.2 17.1 18.6 19.3 20.1 38.9 38.6 40.3 39.3 5.6 35.1 28.2 27.9 29.8 27.2 27.6 55.9 55.1 53.1 50.0 50.6 39.0 5.6 59.9 41.3 7.5 58.6 41.5 6.6 57.8 43.0 7.2 55.4 42.8 6.4 55.5 41.5 5.6

    Specific learning difficulty

    32.8

    33.9

    35.5

    Moderate learning difficulty

    22.8

    22.1

    24.5

    The Right to Education UDHR, Article 26; ICESCR, Article 13/14; CRC, Articles 28 and 29; HRA, Protocol 1, Article 2

    524
    3.8 2.8 1.4 3.3 1.4 2.3 1.5 3.2 4.2 3.5 53.2 55.1 41.0 41.0 40.7 42.5 43.3 63.7 64.7 63.9

    Severe learning difficulty

    5.1

    4.9

    5.0

    Profound and multiple learning difficulty

    3.6

    3.8

    3.2

    3.8

    3.0

    3.4

    4.5

    3.2

    3.3

    3.3

    Behaviour, emotional and social difficulties

    49.8

    50.8

    50.9

    65.1

    65.1

    65.2

    65.2

    65.8

    66.7

    67.3 Continued

    Table 326: Key Stage 1 attainment by pupil characteristics, England, 2009-10 (continued)
    Writing Mathematics Science

    Reading

    2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

    Speech, language and communications needs 43.3 60.5 63.2 40.6 52.6 37.7 47.4 51.0 51.6 42.1 41.1 41.5 43.2 43.3 65.1 50.2 35.8 36.3 36.5 39.7 41.7 53.9 54.9 64.8 54.1 64.7 39.2 33.5 29.7 29.4 29.0 30.3 44.9 42.6 42.8 40.6 58.0 64.3 53.7 42.7 42.5 41.2 43.8 46.5 52.5 52.0 53.0 54.5 38.0 32.5 20.7 34.8 33.7 27.8 48.2 43.5 44.6 44.6 36.7 54.9 40.7 58.1 63.9 60.3 55.3 57.9 52.6 58.0 55.4 69.7 73.6 67.1 68.5 69.8 67.9 45.8 55.5 40.8 56.2 64.0 61.7 51.1 49.6 48.0 53.1 55.5 67.6 64.5 64.5 69.3 71.3 63.2 59.9 69.8 48.9 55.7 39.5 56.2 64.2 43.6 34.1 32.9 33.1 36.1 36.1 55.4 54.5 54.5 55.0 54.5 52.4 52.0 52.5 60.8 68.1 50.0 55.0 38.8 57.2 64.3

    41.7

    40.3

    41.8

    53.3 65.6 70.2 50.5 57.3 38.7 58.9 64.8

    52.3 66.8 71.6 41.8 57.5 38.6 60.3 64.1

    Hearing impairment

    58.2

    55.6

    54.5

    Visual impairment

    59.1

    62.4

    56.6

    Multi-sensory impairment

    39.8

    35.9

    41.3

    Physical disability

    49.8

    49.5

    50.2

    Autistic spectrum disorder

    The Right to Education UDHR, Article 26; ICESCR, Article 13/14; CRC, Articles 28 and 29; HRA, Protocol 1, Article 2

    525

    42.3

    40.0

    39.4

    Other difficulty/ disability

    41.4

    43.1

    45.0

    All SEN primary

    need pupils7, 8

    48.7

    48.3

    49.6

    Table 326: Key Stage 1 attainment by pupil characteristics, England, 2009-10 (continued)

    Source: National Pupil Database,Department for Education (2010d), Table 1.

    1 Includes pupils who achieved Level 2 (including Levels 2A, 2B or 2C), Level 3 or Level 4. Level 2 is the expected level of achievement for pupils at the end of Key Stage 1.

    2 Figures for 2006-09 are based on final data, 2010 figures are based on provisional data.

    3 Includes pupils for whom ethnicity or first language was not obtained, refused or could not be determined.

    4 Includes Not known but believed to be English.

    5 Includes Not known but believed to be other than English.

    6 Includes pupils for whom free school meal eligibility, SEN provision or SEN primary need could not be determined.

    7 Includes pupils at School Action Plus and those pupils with a statement of SEN. It does not include pupils at School Action.

    8 Includes 24 pupils in 2008 whose SEN primary need could not be determined.

    . = Not applicable.

    The Right to Education UDHR, Article 26; ICESCR, Article 13/14; CRC, Articles 28 and 29; HRA, Protocol 1, Article 2

    526

    x = Figures not shown in order to protect confidentiality. See Technical Note 14 for information on data suppression.

    Table 327: Attainment at Key Stage 4 by gender, ethnicity, deprivation and free school meals, England, 2008
    Total point score capped at best eight GCSEs 10th 80 138 266 317 356 410 3.0 13 36 56 76 227 293 332 392 4.9 8 25 45 65 88 93 30th Med 70th 90th 90:10 ratio 10th 30th Med 70th 90th Rank in the distribution Population proportion 51 49

    Gender

    Male

    Female

    Ethnicity 160 166 * 0 128 118 149 206 164 248 166 176 172 151 266 293 338 311 284 326 272 320 356 362 380 344 323 359 392 293 335 374 422 435 404 410 431 386 308 347 386 431 286 326 365 410 2.8 2.1 2.6 1.8 2.4 2.3 2.5 2.6 260 314 347 392 3.3 276 329 368 423 3.3 7 7 9 14 10 21 10 11 11 9 56 147 239 320 * 1 10 115 254 * * * 1 4 27 23 30 39 32 46 26 30 32 25 299 344 380 428 2.6 10 35 284 329 365 416 2.6 10 30 50 60 7 9 50 42 49 61 54 67 46 49 56 40 70 78 22 19 72 61 70 80 75 83 66 69 78 60 90 93 * 46 92 83 89 94 92 95 87 89 94 80 81 0.35 <0.1 <0.1 2.5 1 0.26 0.52 0.91 2.2 2.5 0.97 0.94 1.3 Continued

    White British

    Irish

    Traveller of Irish heritage

    The Right to Education UDHR, Article 26; ICESCR, Article 13/14; CRC, Articles 28 and 29; HRA, Protocol 1, Article 2

    527

    Gypsy/Romany

    Any other White background

    White and Black Caribbean

    White and Black African

    White and Asian

    Any other mixed background

    Indian

    Pakistani

    Bangladeshi

    Any other Asian background

    Black Caribbean

    Table 327: Attainment at Key Stage 4 by gender, ethnicity, deprivation and free school meals, England, 2008 (continued)
    Total point score capped at best eight GCSEs 10th 167 154 278 120 112 263 320 356 413 3.7 6 24 46 273 329 368 422 3.5 7 26 50 350 383 416 458 1.6 28 63 78 90 72 66 266 314 344 392 2.5 9 25 42 60 281 323 356 401 2.4 10 28 46 66 85 83 98 92 89 30th Med 70th 90th 90:10 ratio 10th 30th Med 70th 90th Rank in the distribution Population proportion 2 0.44 0.37 0.93 1.7

    Black African

    Any other Black background

    Chinese

    Any other ethnic group

    Unclassified1

    Income Deprivation Affecting Children 74 92 118 142 169 190 211 230 242 266 329 362 320 350 314 347 380 386 395 305 338 374 296 332 368 416 422 428 428 437 284 326 362 410 272 320 353 404 2.9 2.4 2.2 2.0 1.9 1.8 1.6 254 311 344 398 3.4 239 302 338 389 4.2 5 7 8 10 12 15 18 20 25 228 296 335 386 5.2 4 17 19 22 26 30 34 37 42 46 50 34 36 40 46 49 53 56 61 63 69 54 56 60 64 69 72 75 78 80 83 80 81 85 87 89 90 92 93 93 95 12 11 10 9.9 9.8 9.6 9.5 9.5 9.5 9.3 Continued

    Indices1

    The Right to Education UDHR, Article 26; ICESCR, Article 13/14; CRC, Articles 28 and 29; HRA, Protocol 1, Article 2

    528

    0-10% most deprived

    10-20%

    20-30%

    30-40%

    40-50%

    50-60%

    60-70%

    70-80%

    80-90%

    90-100% least deprived

    Table 327: Attainment at Key Stage 4 by gender, ethnicity, deprivation and free school meals, England, 2008 (continued)
    Total point score capped at best eight GCSEs 10th 58 185 52 224 308 347 398 7.7 3 17 39 296 332 368 419 2.3 12 34 53 72 61 200 275 322 374 6.4 4 13 27 46 75 91 85 30th Med 70th 90th 90:10 ratio 10th 30th Med 70th 90th Rank in the distribution Population proportion 12 87 0.23

    Free school meals

    FSM

    Non-FSM

    Unclassified2

    Source: NEP (2010).

    Notes: Data from the DCSF. All the breakdowns refer to maintained schools, except for 1.1(b).

    1 Each SOA in England is given a score which ranks it between 1 and 32,482, 1 being the most deprived. Includes pupils with valid postcodes only.

    The Right to Education UDHR, Article 26; ICESCR, Article 13/14; CRC, Articles 28 and 29; HRA, Protocol 1, Article 2

    529

    2 Includes information refused or not obtained.

    Table 328: Attainment at Key Stage 4 by gender, ethnicity, deprivation and free school meals, Wales, 2008
    Total point score capped at best eight GCSEs 10th 4 11 35 47 57 71 6.7 12 35 56 74 26 40 52 66 16.5 8 25 44 64 87 91 30th Med 70th 90th 90:10 ratio 10th 30th Med 70th 90th Rank in the distribution Population proportion 51 49

    Gender

    Male

    Female

    Ethnicity 7 * 4 5 * * * * * * * * * 57 * * * * 18 31 46 * * * * * * * * 43 * * 30 42 53 * * * * * * * 32 43 55 * * * 52 * * * * * * * * * * * 29 42 53 70 15.6 8 27 43 55 72 18.0 8 26 28 * 32 30 * * 18 * * * 6 * * * * * 31 44 55 69 9.8 10 30 51 10 49 47 64 49 47 49 * 31 * 73 70 * 71 66 * 70 66 * * 54 * * 90 * 93 91 * * * * * * * * 95 <0.1 2 1.3 0.25 0.44 0.4 0.2 <0.1 0.34 <0.1 0.18 Continued

    White British

    Gypsy and Travellers

    White Other

    The Right to Education UDHR, Article 26; ICESCR, Article 13/14; CRC, Articles 28 and 29; HRA, Protocol 1, Article 2

    530

    Mixed

    Indian

    Pakistani

    Bangladeshi

    Asian Other

    Black Caribbean

    Black African

    Black Other

    Chinese

    Table 328: Attainment at Key Stage 4 by gender, ethnicity, deprivation and free school meals, Wales, 2008 (continued)
    Total point score capped at best eight GCSEs 10th 0 1 4 7 8 11 13 18 22 26 46 56 64 77 2.9 41 52 61 74 3.3 21 25 40 50 60 73 4.0 18 36 48 58 71 5.5 14 35 47 57 70 6.4 13 35 38 44 45 54 31 44 55 68 8.5 11 31 29 41 51 66 9.4 10 29 45 50 55 58 62 65 72 24 38 48 63 15.8 8 23 40 20 35 46 60 60.0 6 19 35 53 58 64 70 74 75 78 80 85 13 28 41 57 * 3 14 27 45 73 79 84 86 89 91 92 93 94 95 30th Med 70th 90th 90:10 ratio 10th 30th Med 70th 90th Rank in the distribution Population proportion 12 11 10 9.9 10 9.7 9.5 9.5 9 9.5

    Welsh Index of Material Deprivation 2008

    Lowest tenth

    9th tenth

    8th tenth

    7th tenth

    6th tenth

    5th tenth

    4th tenth

    The Right to Education UDHR, Article 26; ICESCR, Article 13/14; CRC, Articles 28 and 29; HRA, Protocol 1, Article 2

    531
    11 0 10 25 38 34 46 56 70 54 6.7 * 12 3

    3rd tenth

    2nd tenth

    Highest tenth

    Free school meals 35 12 54 24 73 41 91 69 86 14

    FSM

    Non-FSM

    Source: NEP (2010).

    Notes: Data from the Welsh Assembly Government. All the breakdowns refer to maintained schools.

    Table 329: Attainment by the end of Secondary 4, by gender, urban/rural, ethnicity, and deprivation, Scotland, 2008
    Total point score capped at best eight GCSEs 10th 54 68 138 185 232 291 4.3 11 33 54 74 125 168 213 278 5.1 9 27 46 66 88 91 30th Med 70th 90th 90:10 ratio 10th 30th Med 70th 90th Rank in the distribution Population proportion 51 49

    Gender

    Male

    Female

    Urban/rural 49 61 76 74 70 84 153 196 240 294 3.5 14 136 182 227 294 4.2 11 142 184 232 294 4.0 12 35 32 39 142 186 230 288 3.8 12 35 130 175 220 280 4.6 10 29 49 54 54 53 59 123 167 216 284 5.8 8 26 46 67 69 73 74 71 76 90 88 91 93 93 93 34 35 10 7.4 8.7 4.2

    Large urban areas

    Other urban areas

    Accessible small towns

    Small remote towns

    Accessible rural areas

    The Right to Education UDHR, Article 26; ICESCR, Article 13/14; CRC, Articles 28 and 29; HRA, Protocol 1, Article 2

    532
    63 * 83 86 * * 30 71 * 8 * 65 87 120 150 198 166 138 131 112 172 187 232 264 226 244 242 184 182 * 196 * 141 180 218 156 220 274 304 283 * * 290 298 * 260 * 125 168 201 * 132 176 222 284 4.5 * 3.7 3.3 * * 9.7 4.2 * 32.5 * 10 * 14 15 * * 6 11 * 4 *

    Remote rural areas

    Ethnicity 30 27 41 34 * 54 22 38 25 15 10 50 46 69 52 59 74 48 60 45 33 30 70 61 87 68 * 84 71 78 77 54 53 90 * 95 89 * * 91 94 * 83 * 94 0.31 0.26 1.1 <0.1 0.31 1.2 0.63 0.25 1.8 0.36 Continued

    White British

    Black (Caribbean, African, Other)

    Asian-Indian

    Asian Pakistani

    Asian Bangladeshi

    Asian Chinese

    White Other

    Mixed

    Asian Other

    Not known/Disclosed

    Other

    Table 329: Attainment by the end of Secondary 4, by gender, urban/rural, ethnicity, and deprivation, Scotland, 2008 (continued)
    Total point score capped at best eight GCSEs 10th 8 27 43 56 67 78 90 100 120 131 194 234 274 304 2.3 178 218 258 298 2.5 164 206 248 298 3.0 18 25 30 153 196 238 294 3.3 16 142 186 228 286 3.7 13 35 39 44 51 58 132 173 216 274 4.1 11 30 121 162 205 265 4.7 9 26 110 150 190 252 5.9 7 22 38 43 48 54 59 63 68 74 98 136 176 238 8.8 6 18 32 81 121 159 220 27.5 4 13 26 42 50 56 62 67 72 76 79 82 87 30th Med 70th 90th 90:10 ratio 10th 30th Med 70th 90th 69 76 80 84 87 90 93 94 94 95 Rank in the distribution Population proportion 11 10 10 9.8 10 10 10 10 9.7 8.7

    Scottish Index of Material Deprivation1

    Lowest tenth

    9th tenth

    8th tenth

    7th tenth

    6th tenth

    5th tenth

    The Right to Education UDHR, Article 26; ICESCR, Article 13/14; CRC, Articles 28 and 29; HRA, Protocol 1, Article 2

    533

    4th tenth

    3rd tenth

    2nd tenth

    Highest tenth

    Source: NEP (2010).

    Notes: Data from the Scottish Government. All the results refer to publicly funded schools.

    1 Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation (SIMD) 2006, 319 pupils with unknown SIMD excluded.

    The Right to Education UDHR, Article 26; ICESCR, Article 13/14; CRC, Articles 28 and 29; HRA, Protocol 1, Article 2

    Indicator 67: Spotlight statistics: Exclusions and access to education/training and educational attainment for at risk/vulnerable groups
    Table 330: Permanent exclusions, by ethnicity and gender Maintained primary, state-funded secondary and special schools1, 2, 3 Number of permanent exclusions by ethnic group and gender4, 5 England, 2009-10 (estimates)6
    Permanent exclusions Boys Number Percentage of school population7 White White British Irish Traveller of Irish heritage Gypsy/Roma Any other White background Mixed White and Black Caribbean White and Black African White and Asian Any other mixed background Asian Indian Pakistani Bangladeshi Any other Asian background 3,340 3,160 20 20 30 120 280 150 0.12 0.12 0.21 0.76 0.58 0.09 0.22 0.37 980 940 x x x 30 100 50 Number Girls Percentage of school population7 0.04 0.04 x x x 0.03 0.08 0.12 4,320 4,090 20 20 40 150 390 200 Number Total Percentage of school population7 0.08 0.08 0.11 0.47 0.33 0.06 0.15 0.24

    30 30 80

    0.18 0.10 0.17

    10 10 30

    0.09 0.02 0.08

    40 40 110

    0.14 0.06 0.12

    210 30 110 50 20

    0.07 0.04 0.09 0.11 0.05

    30 10 20 x x

    0.01 0.01 0.01 x x

    240 40 120 60 20

    0.04 0.02 0.05 0.06 0.03 Continued

    534

    The Right to Education UDHR, Article 26; ICESCR, Article 13/14; CRC, Articles 28 and 29; HRA, Protocol 1, Article 2

    Table 330: Permanent exclusions, by ethnicity and gender (continued)


    Permanent exclusions Boys Number Percentage of school population7 Black Black Caribbean Black African Any other Black background Chinese Any other ethnic group Unclassified8 Minority ethnic pupils
    9

    Girls Number Percentage of school population7 130 70 40 10 x 10 30 310 1,270 0.08 0.16 0.04 0.08 x 0.02 0.04 0.04 600 310 210 80 x 60 100. 1,520 5,710 Number

    Total Percentage of school population7 0.19 0.34 0.11 0.22 x 0.06 0.10 0.09

    470 240 170 60 x 50 80 1,210 4,440

    0.30 0.52 0.18 0.34 x 0.10 0.15 0.13

    All pupils

    Source: Department for Education (2011d), Table 12. Notes: 1 Includes middle schools as deemed. 2 Includes city technology colleges and academies (including all-through academies). 3 Includes maintained and non-maintained special schools. Excludes general hospital schools. 4 Includes only pupils of compulsory school age and above so totals shown here will not match those given previously. Excludes dually registered pupils. 5 Ethnic group is as at the time of the January 2010 School Census. See original documentation Technical Notes 7. 6 Figures relating to permanent exclusions are estimates based on incomplete pupil-level data. See original documentation Technical Notes 5. 7 The number of excluded pupils expressed as a percentage of the school population of compulsory school age and above in each ethnic group. 8 Includes pupils whose ethnic information was not sought or was refused or could not be determined. 9 Pupils who have been classified according to their ethnic group, excluding White British. Not applicable. x less than 5, or a rate based on less than 5 exclusions. Totals may not appear to equal the sum of component parts because numbers have been rounded to the nearest 10.

    535

    The Right to Education UDHR, Article 26; ICESCR, Article 13/14; CRC, Articles 28 and 29; HRA, Protocol 1, Article 2

    Table 331: Fixed period exclusions, by ethnicity and gender Maintained primary, state-funded secondary and special schools1, 2, 3 Number of fixed period exclusions by ethnic group and gender4, 5 England, 2009-10
    Permanent exclusions Boys Percentage of school Number White White British Irish Traveller of Irish heritage Gypsy/Roma Any other White background Mixed White and Black Caribbean White and Black African White and Asian Any other mixed background Asian Indian Pakistani Bangladeshi Any other Asian background 198,550 189,460 880 510 1,140 6,560 12,880 population7 7.42 7.48 7.89 24.91 20.29 5.28 9.91 Number 68,730 65,810 320 160 480 1,960 4,800 Girls Percentage of school population7 2.68 2.71 2.92 7.90 8.97 1.64 3.78 Number 267,280 255,270 1,200 660 1,620 8,520 17,680 Total Percentage of school population7 5.10 5.14 5.42 16.57 14.76 3.50 6.88

    6,390 1,290 1,450

    15.54 9.29 5.20

    2,480 470 500

    6.02 3.34 1.87

    8,880 1,760 1,950

    10.77 6.31 3.57

    3,740 11,810 1,780 6,530 2,120 1,380

    7.96 4.00 2.10 5.50 4.43 3.15

    1,360 2,300 330 1,270 460 250

    3.01 0.82 0.41 1.13 0.96 0.61

    5,100 14,110 2,100 7,800 2,580 1,630

    5.54 2.45 1.28 3.37 2.70 1.92 Continued

    536

    The Right to Education UDHR, Article 26; ICESCR, Article 13/14; CRC, Articles 28 and 29; HRA, Protocol 1, Article 2

    Table 331: Fixed period exclusions, by ethnicity and gender (continued)


    Permanent exclusions Boys Percentage of school Number Black Black Caribbean Black African Any other Black background Chinese Any other ethnic group Unclassified8 Minority ethnic pupils
    9

    Girls Percentage of school Number 5,930 2,600 2,610 720 30 490 16,470 83,700 population7 3.81 5.73 2.82 4.10 0.20 1.18 1,420 2.18 2.60 Number 22,820 9,910 9,930 2,980 180 2,850 69,660 330,170

    Total Percentage of school population7 7.31 10.84 5.37 8.27 0.73 3.28 5,240 4.53 5.03

    population7 10.77 15.89 7.93 12.20 1.27 5.22 3,820 6.80 7.36

    16,890 7,300 7,330 2,270 160 2,360 7 53,190 246,470

    All pupils

    Source: School Census, Department for Education (2011d), Table 13. Notes: 1 Includes middle schools as deemed. 2 Includes city technology colleges and academies (including all-through academies). 3 Includes maintained and non-maintained special schools. Excludes general hospital schools. 4 Includes only pupils of compulsory school age and above so totals shown here will not match those given previously. Excludes dually registered pupils. 5 Ethnic group is as at the time of the January 2010 School Census. See original documentation Technical Notes 7. 6 The number of excluded pupils expressed as a percentage of the school population of compulsory school age and above in each ethnic group. 7 Includes pupils whose ethnic information was not sought or was refused or could not be determined. 8 Pupils who have been classified according to their ethnic group, excluding White British. Not applicable. x less than 5, or a rate based on less than 5 exclusions. Totals may not appear to equal the sum of component parts because numbers have been rounded to the nearest 10.

    537

    The Right to Education UDHR, Article 26; ICESCR, Article 13/14; CRC, Articles 28 and 29; HRA, Protocol 1, Article 2

    Table 332: Permanent exclusions by SEN status Maintained primary, state-funded secondary and special schools1, 2, 3 Number of permanent exclusions by SEN4 England, 1997-98 2009-10 (estimates)5
    Permanent exclusions5 Number of exclusions 1997-98 Pupils with SEN with statements Pupils without statements of SEN All pupils 1998-99 Pupils with SEN with statements Pupils without statements of SEN All pupils 1999-2000 Pupils with SEN with statements Pupils without statements of SEN All pupils 2000-01 Pupils with SEN with statements Pupils without statements of SEN8 All pupils 2001-02 Pupils with SEN with statements Pupils with SEN without statements8 Pupils with no SEN All pupils 2002-03 Pupils with SEN with statements Pupils with SEN without statements Pupils with no SEN All pupils 2003-04 Pupils with SEN with statements Pupils with SEN without statements8 Pupils with no SEN8 All pupils 1,050 5,300 3,650 9,990 10 53 37 100 0.44 0.46 0.06 0.13 Continued
    8 8 8

    Percentage of permanent exclusions6 18 82 100 18 82 100 18 82 100 9 91 100 12 49 39 100 11 55 34 100

    Percentage of school population7 0.96 0.01 0.16 0.78 0.11 0.14 0.61 0.09 0.11 0.33 0.11 0.12 0.49 0.35 0.06 0.12 0.43 0.46 0.05 0.12

    2,250 10,050 12,300 1,920 8,510 10,440 1,490 6,830 8,320 810 8,350 9,160 1,140 4,710 3,740 9,590 1,030 5,180 3,140 9,340

    538

    The Right to Education UDHR, Article 26; ICESCR, Article 13/14; CRC, Articles 28 and 29; HRA, Protocol 1, Article 2

    Table 332: Permanent exclusions by SEN status (continued)


    Permanent exclusions5 Number of exclusions 2004-05 Pupils with SEN with statements Pupils with SEN without statements8 Pupils with no SEN8 All pupils 2005-06 Pupils with SEN with statements Pupils with SEN without statements Pupils with no SEN8 All pupils 2006-07 Pupils with SEN with statements Pupils with SEN without statements Pupils with no SEN All pupils9 2007-08 Pupils with SEN with statements Pupils with SEN without statements Pupils with no SEN All pupils 2008-09 Pupils with SEN with statements Pupils with SEN without statements Pupils with no SEN8 All pupils 2009-10 Pupils with SEN with statements Pupils with SEN without statements Pupils with no SEN8 All pupils
    9 8 9 8 8 8 8 8 9 8 9

    Percentage of permanent exclusions6 9 49 42 100 10 57 33 100 9 61 30 100 9 63 29 100 8 64 28 100 7 67 26 100

    Percentage of school population7 0.37 0.40 0.06 0.13 0.39 0.44 0.05 0.12 0.36 0.42 0.04 0.12 0.33 0.38 0.04 0.11 0.24 0.30 0.03 0.09 0.20 0.27 0.03 0.08

    860 4,680 4,030 9,570 900 5,360 3,070 9,330 780 5,320 2,560 8,680 700 5,080 2,350 8,130 510 4,170 1,860 6,550 420 3,840 1,470 5,740

    539

    The Right to Education UDHR, Article 26; ICESCR, Article 13/14; CRC, Articles 28 and 29; HRA, Protocol 1, Article 2

    Table 332: Permanent exclusions by SEN status (continued) Source: School Census, DfES (2011d), Table 7. Notes: 1 Includes middle schools as deemed. 2 Includes city technology colleges and academies (including all-through academies). 3 Includes maintained and non-maintained special schools. Excludes general hospital schools. 4 SEN is recorded at the time of exclusion. 5 Figures relating to permanent exclusions are estimates based on incomplete pupil-level data. See original documentation Notes to Editors 4. 6 The number of permanent exclusions expressed as a percentage of the total number of permanent exclusions. 7 The number of excluded pupils by SEN stage expressed as a percentage of all pupils with the same SEN stage in primary, secondary and all special schools (excluding dually registered pupils) in January each year. 8 The introduction of the new SEN Code of Practice means that the number of children with SEN without statements reported for the 2000-01 school year and later are not directly comparable with earlier years. Includes pupils with no SEN and pupils with SEN without statements. See original documentation Technical Notes 6. 9 Totals include a small number of pupils for whom stage of SEN was not known. Totals may not appear to equal the sum of component parts because numbers have been rounded to the nearest 10.

    540

    Table 333: Fixed period exclusions by SEN status

    Maintained primary, state-funded secondary and special schools1, 2, 3

    Number of permanent exclusions by SEN4

    England, 2009-10
    State-funded secondary schools1, 2 Percentage of school Number 17,120 154,460 107,680 279,260 8.6 14,910 4.2 180 24.2 330 26.9 14,400 16.3 19.8 47.3 16.5 population5 Number of exclusions population5 Percentage of school Special schools3 Total Percentage of school Number of exclusions 37,140 180,350 113,880 331,380 population5 17.7 12.9 2.0 4.5
    1

    Maintained primary Percentage of school population5 9.8 3.4 0.2 0.9

    schools

    Number of exclusions

    Pupils with SEN with statements

    5,630

    Pupils with SEN without statements

    25,560

    The Right to Education UDHR, Article 26; ICESCR, Article 13/14; CRC, Articles 28 and 29; HRA, Protocol 1, Article 2

    541

    Pupils with no SEN

    6,020

    All pupils

    37,210

    1 Includes middle schools as deemed.

    2 Includes city technology colleges and academies (including all-through academies).

    3 Includes maintained and non-maintained special schools. Excludes general hospital schools.

    4 SEN status as recorded at the time of the exclusion.

    5 The number of fixed period exclusions of pupils by SEN stage expressed as a percentage of the number (headcount) of all pupils (excluding dually registered pupils) at the time of the January 2010 School Census.

    Totals may not appear to equal the sum of component parts because numbers have been rounded to the nearest 10.

    Source: School Census, Department for Education (2011d), Table 8a.

    The Right to Education UDHR, Article 26; ICESCR, Article 13/14; CRC, Articles 28 and 29; HRA, Protocol 1, Article 2

    Table 334: Permanent exclusions by SEN and primary need category Primary, secondary and special schools1, 2, 3 Pupils with permanent exclusions by SEN provision, primary type of need and gender4, 5 2007/08 England
    Pupils with a permanent exclusion in 2007-08 Percentage of school Number All SEN7 Statements of SEN Specific learning difficulty Moderate learning difficulty Severe learning difficulty Profound and multiple learning difficulty Behaviour, emotional and social difficulty Speech language and communication difficulty Hearing impairment Visual impairment Multi-sensory impairment Physical disability 700 0.33 620 0.40 80 0.13 8,130 population6 0.11 Number 6,370 Pupils with a permanent exclusion in 2007-08 Percentage of school population6 0.17 Number 1,760 Pupils with a permanent exclusion in 2007-08 Percentage of school population6 0.05

    40

    0.31

    40

    0.35

    10

    0.18

    70 10

    0.15 0.04

    50 10

    0.18 0.05

    20 #

    0.11 #

    0.00

    0.00

    0.00

    280

    0.91

    250

    0.93

    30

    0.75

    20 10 # # 0

    0.07 0.08 # # 0.00

    20 10 # # 0

    0.08 0.14 # # 0.00

    # 0 0 0 0

    # 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Continued

    542

    The Right to Education UDHR, Article 26; ICESCR, Article 13/14; CRC, Articles 28 and 29; HRA, Protocol 1, Article 2

    Table 334: Permanent exclusions by SEN and primary need category (continued)
    Pupils with a permanent exclusion in 2007-08 Percentage of school Number Autistic spectrum disorder Other difficulty/ disability School Action Plus Specific learning difficulty Moderate learning difficulty Severe learning difficulty Profound and multiple learning difficulty Behaviour, emotional and social difficulty Speech language and communication difficulty Hearing impairment Visual impairment Multi-sensory impairment Physical disability population6 Number Pupils with a permanent exclusion in 2007-08 Percentage of school population6 Number Pupils with a permanent exclusion in 2007-08 Percentage of school population6

    40 # 3,460

    0.12 # 0.78

    40 # 2,800

    0.13 # 0.93

    # 0 660

    # 0.00 0.47

    100

    0.16

    80

    0.19

    20

    0.09

    270 #

    0.21 #

    210 #

    0.26 #

    60 #

    0.13 #

    0.00

    0.00

    0.00

    1,710

    1.44

    1,390

    1.58

    320

    1.05

    30 10 # 0 10

    0.05 0.09 # 0.00 0.09

    30 # # 0 10

    0.06 # # 0.00 0.11

    10 # 0 0 #

    0.03 # 0.00 0.00 # Continued

    543

    The Right to Education UDHR, Article 26; ICESCR, Article 13/14; CRC, Articles 28 and 29; HRA, Protocol 1, Article 2

    Table 334: Permanent exclusions by SEN and primary need category (continued)
    Pupils with a permanent exclusion in 2007-08 Percentage of school Number Autistic spectrum disorder Other difficulty/ disability School Action All SEN (School Action, School Action Plus or statements) No identified SEN8 2,350 0.04 1,700 0.06 650 0.0 population6 Number Pupils with a permanent exclusion in 2007-08 Percentage of school population6 Number Pupils with a permanent exclusion in 2007-08 Percentage of school population6

    20 70 1,620

    0.15 0.30 0.18

    20 60 1,250

    0.15 0.42 0.23

    # 10 370

    # 0.12 0.11

    5,780

    0.38

    4,670

    0.47

    1,110

    0.20

    Source: School Census, Department for Education (2011e), Table 6.10. Notes: 1 Includes middle schools as deemed. 2 Includes both CTCs and Academies. 3 Includes maintained and non-maintained special schools. 4 SEN status is taken at the time of the permanent exclusion and SEN type is taken from the School Census at January 2008. 5 Figures relating to permanent exclusions are estimates based on incomplete pupil-level data. 6 The number of permanent exclusions expressed as a percentage of the number (headcount) of all pupils of the same gender and SEN type in primary, secondary and special schools in January 2008. Excludes dual registrations. 7 Totals for statements of SEN and school action plus include pupil enrolments for whom information on type of special educational need was unclassified or missing. 8 Includes pupils for whom SEN data were unclassified or missing. # Less than 5, or a rate based on less than 5. Totals may not appear to equal the sum of component parts because numbers have been rounded to the nearest 10.

    544

    The Right to Education UDHR, Article 26; ICESCR, Article 13/14; CRC, Articles 28 and 29; HRA, Protocol 1, Article 2

    Table 335: Self-reported participation in education and training of those in prison, England and Wales
    A prison job Vocational or skills training N % Education (including basic skills) N % Offending behaviour programmes N %

    N Type of prison/ establishment: Local N=4,323 Young offenders (18-21) N=1,858 Category B trainers N=855 Category C trainers N=4167 Open N=1,254 Female N=1,352 Children and young people (under 18) N=776 1,130

    44

    290

    12

    736

    27

    199

    403

    39

    175

    17

    358

    35

    115

    11

    321

    72

    77

    18

    165

    37

    97

    22

    1,284 515 317

    64 74 51

    391 154 93

    19 23 13

    620 202 314

    29 30 47

    344 74 96

    18 11 16

    188

    28

    167

    24

    552

    76

    180

    20

    Source: HMIP for England and Wales (2010a). Notes: The n-value refers to the total number of respondents for each survey. Percentages may vary in regard to the n-value as all comparator data is weighted. Local comparator from 2006 onwards. Young offender institutions comparator from 2005 onwards. Category B trainers comparator from 2005 onwards. Category C trainers comparator from 2005 onwards. Opens comparator from 2005 onwards. Children and young people comparator from 2009 onwards. Female comparator from 2005 onwards. Data for children and young people only includes responses from males because of the small number of female respondents. Percentages are calculated only from those who answered the question; missing data has been excluded. See Appendix 2 for demographic information.

    545

    The Right to Education UDHR, Article 26; ICESCR, Article 13/14; CRC, Articles 28 and 29; HRA, Protocol 1, Article 2

    Table 336: Adult male prisoners who self-report that they are participating in education and training, by ethnicity, religion and disability, England and Wales, 2008-09
    Black and minority ethnic prisoners Number of completed questionnaires A prison job Vocational or skills training Education (including basic skills) Offending behaviour programmes Consider themselves to have a disability Do not consider themselves to have a disability

    White

    Muslim prisoners

    Non-Muslim prisoners

    1,037 55% 22%

    2,890 64% 17%

    422 53% 22%

    3,435 63% 17%

    559 52% 14%

    3,170 63% 19%

    47%

    30%

    50%

    32%

    33%

    34%

    18%

    17%

    21%

    17%

    12%

    18%

    Source: HMIP for England and Wales (2010b). Notes: Light grey boxes denote where the group is significantly worse than the comparator. Dark grey boxes denote where the group is significantly better than the comparator. (Emphasis as in original documentation). Table 337: Self-reported participation and activities of detainees in an Immigration Removal Centre, England and Wales
    The number/percentage participating in education N Immigration removal centres N=1,019 250 28 422 50 286 32 % The number/percentage who feel they can work in the Centre if they want to N % The number/percentage who feel there is enough to do to fill their time N %

    Source: HMIP for England and Wales (2010b). Notes: The n-value refers to the total number of respondents for each survey. Percentages may vary in regard to the n-value as all comparator data is weighted. Immigration removal centre comparator from 2005 onwards. Percentages are calculated only from those who answered the question; missing data has been excluded. See Appendix 2 for demographic information.

    546

    The Right to Education UDHR, Article 26; ICESCR, Article 13/14; CRC, Articles 28 and 29; HRA, Protocol 1, Article 2

    Table 338: Eligibility and performance of children who had been looked after continuously for at least 12 months, in Key Stages 1 and 2, compared with all children, 12 months ending 30 September, England, 2007-09
    Children looked after N 2007 Year 2 Number eligible to sit Key Stage 1 tasks and tests Numbers achieving at least Level 22 in the following: Reading Writing Mathematics Year 6 Number eligible to sit Key Stage 2 tasks and tests Number who attained at least Level 42 in the following: English Mathematics Science 1,200 1,200 1,600 1,200 1,200 1,600 1,200 1,100 1,600 46 43 59 46 44 60 46 46 62 80 77 88 81 79 88 80 79 88 850 780 980 900 790 990 830 750 930 55 51 64 57 50 62 58 52 65 84 80 90 84 80 90 84 81 89 2008 2009 2007 % 2008 2009 2007 All children % 2008 2009

    1,500

    1,600

    1,400

    2,700

    2,700

    2,500

    Source: DCSF (2010), Table B. Notes: 1 Data from: DCSF Statistical First Releases National Curriculum Assessments at Key Stage 1 in England, 2009 (figures from 2007 and 2008 are final, figures from 2009 are provisional) and National Curriculum Assessments at Key Stage 2 in England, 2009 (Revised) (figures from 2007 and 2008 are final, figures from 2009 are based on revised data). Includes all schools. All Key Stage 1 figures are based on teacher assessments. 2 Target level for age group. Not applicable.

    547

    The Right to Education UDHR, Article 26; ICESCR, Article 13/14; CRC, Articles 28 and 29; HRA, Protocol 1, Article 2

    Table 339: GCSE and GNVQ equivalent performance of children who had been looked after continuously for at least 12 months, in Year 11, compared with all children, 12 months ending 30 September, England, 2007-09
    Children looked after N 2007 Number in Year 11 Number who sat at least one GCSE/ GNVQ equivalent3 Number who obtained at least: 1 GCSE/GNVQ equivalent at grade A* to G3 5 GCSEs/GNVQ equivalents at grade A* to G3 5 GCSEs/GNVQ equivalents at grade A* to C3 640 710 780 12.6 13.9 14.8 62.0 65.3 70.0 2,200 2,200 2,300 43.1 43.4 44.3 91.7 91.6 92.3 3,200 3,400 3,600 63.7 65.6 68.2 98.9 98.6 98.9 3,400 3,500 3,700 67.7 68.8 71.1 99.5 99.1 98.8 5,100 2008 5,100 2009 5,300 2007 %2 2008 2009 2007 All children % 2008 2009

    Source: DCSF (2010), Table C1. Notes: 1 Data from: DCSF Statistical First Release GCSE and Equivalent Results in England 2008/09 (Revised). Includes all schools. 2 Expressed as a percentage of all looked after children in Year 11. 3 The figures for children looked after relate to GCSE and GNVQ qualifications, figures for all children relate to GCSE and all equivalent qualifications. See original documentation for further details. Not applicable.

    548

    Indicator 68: Spotlight statistics: Support for those with Special Educational Needs

    Table 340: Numbers of children with SEN in England and Wales

    Maintained primary, state-funded secondary and special schools1, 2, 3: Number and percentage of pupils by type of need4, 5

    January 2010
    SEN pupils by their primary type of need4, 5 Maintained primary schools1 Statement of SEN Total N
    6 6

    England
    State-funded secondary schools1, 2 School Action Plus N 36,740 55,060 910 70 74,250 12,140 2.2 1.2 500 12,990 21,330 3.2 100.0 13,200 329,720 0.2 3.9 6.5 4.0 100.0 4,590 2,070 100 4,400 7,140 15,700 213,150 25.8 0.4 0.0 34.8 5.7 2.2 1.0 0.0 2.1 3.3 7.4 100.0 17.2 % N 8,400 12,780 1,680 210 9,720 9,440 2,140 1,580 120 4,990 11,030 1,550 63,640 Statement of SEN %
    6

    School Action Plus %


    6

    Total N 13.2 20.1 2.6 0.3 15.3 14.8 3.4 2.5 0.2 7.8 17.3 2.4 100.0 45,130 67,840 2,590 280 83,970 21,580 6,730 3,650 210 9,390 18,170 17,250 276,780 %6 16.3 24.5 0.9 0.1 30.3 7.8 2.4 1.3 0.1 3.4 6.6 6.2 100.0 Continued

    N N
    6

    % 4.3 11.8 4.6 1.8 12.8 24.3 4.8 2.2 0.3 9.3 20.5 4,110 7,230 87,500 26.5 61,010 18.5 1,440 0.4 4,860 1.5 82,070 24.9 33,480 10.2

    Specific learning difficulty 27.6 0.8 0.1 19.7 27.0 1.6 1.0 0.1 2.8 3.5 4.2 100.0 57,280 1,830 11,770 5,310 200 1,280 2,740 13,930 7,320 1,050 2,620 6,750

    30,990

    11.4

    2,490

    Moderate learning difficulty

    75,330

    The Right to Education UDHR, Article 26; ICESCR, Article 13/14; CRC, Articles 28 and 29; HRA, Protocol 1, Article 2

    549

    Severe learning difficulty

    2,240

    Profound and multiple learning difficulty

    390

    Behaviour, emotional and social difficulties

    53,690

    Speech, language and communications needs

    73,570

    Hearing impairment

    4,490

    Visual impairment

    2,840

    Multi- sensory impairment

    310

    Physical disability

    7,680

    Autistic spectrum disorder

    9,560

    Other difficulty/disability

    11,370

    Total

    272,440

    Table 340: Numbers of children with SEN in England and Wales (continued)

    Maintained primary, state-funded secondary and special schools1, 2, 3: Number and percentage of pupils by type of need4, 5

    January 2010
    SEN pupils by their primary type of need4, 5 Special Schools3 Statement of SEN Total N 1,000 18,670 21,320 7,760 13,020 4,330 1,570 810 160 4,100 16,750 0.6 100.0 570 90,050 4.8 1.7 0.9 0.2 4.6 18.6 0.6 100.0 14.5 8.6 710 128,250 85,780 9,100 4,920 410 12,210 16,930 27,110 487,120 23.7 3,490 0.7 0.1 26.3 17.6 1.9 1.0 0.1 2.5 3.5 5.6 100.0 20.7 130,460 26.8 1.1 67,760 13.9 11,850 38,120 25,280 8,770 29,760 27,620 6,420 3,660 470 14,270 39,320 3,910 209,440 %6 N %6 N N 960 18,590 20,980 7,510 12,720 4,250 1,550 800 160 3,970 16,520 520 88,520 18.7 4.5 0.2 0.9 1.7 4.8 14.4 8.5 23.7 21.0 1.1 %6 School Action Plus Statement of SEN %6 5.7 18.2 12.1 4.2 14.2 13.2 3.1 1.7 0.2 6.8 18.8 1.9 100.0 N 79,610 168,580 28,770 9,480 158,000 113,400 15,520 8,580 870 26,490 56,260 31,010 696,560 Total Total %6 11.4 24.2 4.1 1.4 22.7 16.3 2.2 1.2 0.1 3.8 8.1 4.5 100.0

    England

    School Action Plus %6 2.3 5.0 22.0 16.8 19.7 4.9 1.4 0.8 0.3 8.7 14.9 3.0 100.0

    Specific learning difficulty

    40

    Moderate learning difficulty

    80

    Severe learning difficulty

    340

    The Right to Education UDHR, Article 26; ICESCR, Article 13/14; CRC, Articles 28 and 29; HRA, Protocol 1, Article 2

    550

    Profound and multiple learning difficulty

    260

    Behaviour, emotional and social difficulties

    300

    Speech, language and communications needs

    80

    Hearing impairment

    20

    Visual impairment

    10

    Multi- sensory impairment

    10

    Physical disability

    130

    Autistic spectrum disorder

    230

    Other difficulty/disability

    50

    Total

    1,530

    Source: School Census, Department for Education (2011e), Table 1.4.

    Notes:

    1 Includes middle schools as deemed.

    2 Includes city technology and academies.

    3 Includes maintained and non-maintained special schools. Excludes general hospital schools.

    4 Excludes dually registered pupils.

    5 Pupils at School Action Plus and those pupils with a statement of SEN provided information on their primary need and, if appropriate, their secondary need. Information on primary need only is given here.

    6 Number of pupils by their main need expressed as a percentage of all pupils at School Action Plus or with a statement of SEN.

    Totals may not appear to equal the sum of the component parts because numbers have been rounded to the nearest 10.

    The Right to Education UDHR, Article 26; ICESCR, Article 13/14; CRC, Articles 28 and 29; HRA, Protocol 1, Article 2

    For further evidence under this Indicator, see Tables 326, 332, 333 and 334.

    551

    The Right to Education UDHR, Article 26; ICESCR, Article 13/14; CRC, Articles 28 and 29; HRA, Protocol 1, Article 2

    Table 341: Looked after children: Prevalence of SEN All children who have been looked after continuously for at least 12 months at 31 March 2009 by provision and primary type of SEN1, 2, 3 Experimental figures based on matched children looked after School Census data source Financial year: 2008-092 Coverage: England (maintained schools only)
    Numbers All looked after children All looked after children who matched to the School Census No SEN All SEN SEN without statement School Action School Action Plus SEN with a statement Unclassified4 Of those at School Action Plus5 Specific learning difficulty Moderate learning difficulty Severe learning difficulty Profound and multiple learning difficulty Behaviour, emotional and social difficulty Speech,language and communication difficulty Hearing impairment Visual impairment Multi-sensory impairment Physical disability Autistic spectrum disorder Other Difficulty/disability Unclassified4 520 1,700 40 3,800 420 30 20 50 50 650 0 7 24 1 52 6 0 0 1 1 9 0 Continued 43,100 35,600 8,500 18,300 11,400 4,100 7,300 7,000 8,700 100 24 52 32 11 20 20 24 Percentages

    552

    The Right to Education UDHR, Article 26; ICESCR, Article 13/14; CRC, Articles 28 and 29; HRA, Protocol 1, Article 2

    Table 341: Looked after children: Prevalence of SEN (continued)


    Numbers Of those with a statement of SEN5 Specific learning difficulty Moderate learning difficulty Severe learning difficulty Profound and multiple learning difficulty Behaviour, emotional and social difficulty Speech, language and communication difficulty Hearing impairment Visual impairment Multi-sensory impairment Physical disability Autistic spectrum disorder Other difficulty/disability Unclassified4 210 1,500 840 370 2,900 380 50 50 10 180 480 80 0 3 21 12 5 41 5 1 1 0 3 7 1 0 Percentages

    Source: Department for Education (2011e), Table 1.24.

    553

    The Right to Education UDHR, Article 26; ICESCR, Article 13/14; CRC, Articles 28 and 29; HRA, Protocol 1, Article 2

    Indicator 69: Spotlight statistics: Bullying and treatment with dignity and respect subjective measures
    Table 342: Childrens self-reported experiences of school related bullying, England 2009
    All % Have you ever been bullied at school? Yes No Have you been bullied at school?4 In the last year In the last six months In the last four weeks I was bullied more than 1 year ago How often has someone done something to bully you at school?5 A few times this year Every month Every week Most days Every day Have you ever been bullied when you are not in school (including journey to school)? Yes No Have you been bullied when you are not in school (including journey to school)?6 In the last year In the last six months In the last four weeks I was bullied more than 1 year ago How often has someone done something to bully you outside school7 A few times this year Every month Every week Most days Every day 59 9 7 16 9 30 15 24 31 21 79 51 8 7 23 11 26 9 18 48 46 54

    554

    The Right to Education UDHR, Article 26; ICESCR, Article 13/14; CRC, Articles 28 and 29; HRA, Protocol 1, Article 2

    Source: Department for Education (2011f). Notes: 4 Percentages based only on pupils who have ever been bullied at school. 5 Percentages based only on pupils who have been bullied in the last year at school. 6 Percentages based only on pupils who have ever been bullied out of school. 7 Percentages based only on pupils who have been bullied in the last year out of school. Tellus4 survey The Tellus4 survey was an online survey of children and young people in school years 6, 8 and 10 across England, used to gather their views on their life, their school and their local area. The survey was carried out in autumn 2009 (5th October to 20th November). A sample of 40 primary schools, 20 secondary schools, four special schools and two Pupil Referral Units (PRUs) were selected from across each of the 152 English local authorities to take part. Local authorities were also invited to extend this sample if they wished to, to include up to 60 primary schools and all secondary schools. 95 (63 per cent) chose to do so. Once schools had signed up to participate, they were asked to include a randomly selected class (one class of Year 6 pupils, two classes of year 8 pupils and two classes of year 10 pupils). Schools were however encouraged to extend this sample to include all pupils in these year groups where possible. The survey was available to complete in four different formats: standard, symbol, British sign language, and audio. The survey responses were weighted using the following three strata: gender (male/ female), year group (Years 6, 8, and 10) and deprivation using the Income Deprivation Affecting Children Index (IDACI) (high/low IDACI school). Population data for 2008 from the Pupil Level Annual School Census (PLASC) was used to derive the weights. The report is based on 253,755 individual responses received from children and young people in 3699 schools across 151 local authorities. In addition, 11 schools from Service Childrens Education took part in Tellus4.

    555

    Table 343: Perceptions of treatment with respect in education by personal characteristics


    Aged 35-49 49 44 6 1 1 2,128 1,653 369 197 6,126 * 1 1 * * * 1 1 5 5 2 6 41 39 43 43 54 55 53 50 Aged 50-64 Aged 65-74 Aged 75+ All

    Perceptions of the level of respect respondents are treated with at work/school/college, by age (%)1

    Aged 16-24

    Aged 25-34

    All of the time

    49

    49

    Most of the time

    42

    44

    Some of the time

    Rarely

    Never

    Respondents2

    617

    1,161

    Notes:

    All columns based on core sample (England only).

    1 The underlying question does not allow for separation of at work from at school/college.

    2 Excludes respondents who answered dont know and those with missing answers.

    * Less than 0.5%.

    The Right to Education UDHR, Article 26; ICESCR, Article 13/14; CRC, Articles 28 and 29; HRA, Protocol 1, Article 2

    556
    Males 49 43 6 1 * 2,909 3,217 * 1 6 42 52 Females All 50 43 6 1 * 6,126

    Perceptions of the level of respect respondents are treated with at work/school/college, by sex (%)1

    All of the time

    Most of the time

    Some of the time

    Rarely

    Never

    Respondents2

    Notes:

    All columns based on core sample (England only).

    1 The underlying question does not allow for separation of at work from at school/college.

    2 Excludes respondents who answered dont know and those with missing answers.

    * Less than 0.5%

    Perceptions of the level of respect respondents are treated with at work/school/college, by ethnicity (%)1
    Asian Other 48 42 40 46 46 43 46 44 48 43 53 41 38 41 39 45 44 45 All Caribbean African Other All Black Mixed Chinese race Other All2

    White

    Indian 51 42 34 57

    Pakistani Bangladeshi

    All of the time

    51

    55

    All minority ethnic groups 48 42

    50 43

    Most of the time 6 1 * 260 211 2,486 648 798 334 1,479 * * 1 * * 478 * 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 9 9 6 11 15 13 13 9 8 * 157

    43

    40

    Some of the time

    8 3 1 475

    8 1 *

    6 1 * 5,075 6,126

    Rarely

    Never

    Respondents3

    5,467

    1,247

    768

    Notes:

    The Right to Education UDHR, Article 26; ICESCR, Article 13/14; CRC, Articles 28 and 29; HRA, Protocol 1, Article 2

    557

    1 The underlying question does not allow for separation of at work from at school/college.

    2 All column based on core sample (England only). Other columns based on combined sample (England only).

    3 Excludes respondents who answered dont know and those with missing answers.

    4 Please note this is a very small base size so these findings should be treated as indicative rather than significant.

    * Less than 0.5%

    Perceptions of the level of respect respondents are treated with at work/school/college by religion (%)1
    Muslim All 51 42 6 1 * 6,258 1,351 295 1,647 526 214 * 3 1 * * * * * * * 741 8 6 8 5 4 5 38 35 37 41 45 42 38 3 1 191 53 56 54 53 51 53 58 Practising Nonpractising All Practising All Practising 56 36 8 95 Nonpractising Nonpractising Hindu Sikh All 57 37 5 1 286

    Christian

    Practising

    Nonpractising

    All of the time

    53

    51

    Most of the time

    40

    42

    Some of the time

    Rarely

    Never

    The Right to Education UDHR, Article 26; ICESCR, Article 13/14; CRC, Articles 28 and 29; HRA, Protocol 1, Article 2

    558

    Respondents2

    2,521

    3,733

    Buddhist All 34 47 13 5 131 186 126 313 4,854 1 * 1 * * 4,515 3 1 2 1 1 1 * 9,376 4 6 5 6 6 6 39 51 45 40 43 42 45 5 1 1 1,534 53 42 47 53 51 51 49 Practising Nonpractising All Practising All No religion All4 50 43 6 1 * 6,126 Nonpractising

    Other religion3 All religions

    Practising

    Nonpractising

    All of the time

    43

    19

    Most of the time

    43

    54

    Some of the time

    25

    Rarely

    Never

    Respondents2

    79

    52

    The Right to Education UDHR, Article 26; ICESCR, Article 13/14; CRC, Articles 28 and 29; HRA, Protocol 1, Article 2

    559

    Notes:

    1 The underlying question does not allow for separation of at work from at school/college.

    2 Excludes respondents who answered dont know and those with missing answers.

    3 Jewish respondents included in other religion due to a small numbers.

    4 All column based on core sample (England only). Other columns based on combined sample (England only).

    * Less than 0.5%

    Perceptions of the level of respect respondents are treated with at work/school/college by occupational group (%)1
    Intermediate occupations/ small employers 51 43 6 1 * 1,175 Routine occupations 48 43 6 2 1 574 Never worked/ long-term unemployed 47 41 9 1 2 173 Full time students 52 40 7 1 276 All 50 43 6 1 * 6,126 Not stated or classified 55 32 9 3 1 51 Lower supervisory & technical/ Semi-routine 47 43 8 1 * 1,467

    All of the time Most of the time Some of the time Rarely Never Respondents2

    Higher/lower managerial and professions 53 43 3 * * 2,407

    Notes:

    All columns based on core sample (England only).

    1 The underlying question does not allow for separation of at work from at school/college.

    2 Excludes respondents who answered dont know and those with missing answers.

    * Less than 0.5%.

    The Right to Education UDHR, Article 26; ICESCR, Article 13/14; CRC, Articles 28 and 29; HRA, Protocol 1, Article 2

    560
    Heterosexual 51 42 6 1 * 5,824

    0
    Gay/lesbian/bisexual 45 42 11 1 1 111 All 50 43 6 1 * 6,126

    Perceptions of the level of respect respondents are treated with at work/school/college by: By sexual identity (%)1

    All of the time Most of the time Some of the time Rarely Never Respondents2

    Source: Department for Communities and Local Government (2010a)Citizenship Survey 2008-09 tables, available at www.communities.gov.uk/publications/corporate/statistics/citizenshipsurvey200809equality (accessed 21 September 2011).

    Notes:

    All columns based on core sample (England only).

    1 The underlying question does not allow for separation of at work from at school/college.

    2 Excludes respondents who answered dont know and those with missing answers.

    * Less than 0.5%.

    Indicator 70: The right to education: Public attitudes, understanding and experiences

    Table 344: Support for right to access to free education for children by population subgroup, England, 2005
    p-value Highest educ. Qual. (p<0.05) Reference group = Degree or equivalent 0.200 A level or equivalent GCSE A-C or equivalent 1.071 Foreign or other qualifications No qualifications Social class (HRP nssec7) (p<0.05) 0.001* 0.271 0.808 0.130 0.284 1.176 Routine occupations Never worked/long-term unemployed Full time students 0.056 0.014* 0.006* 0.033* 0.463 0.741 1.040 1.203 2.966 2.517 1.932 Continued 1.121 2.700 0.986 2.873 0.592 1.961 0.433 1.266 0.268 0.726 Reference group = Higher, lower managerial and professions Intermediate occupations/small employer Lower supervisory & technical/semi-routine 0.663 0.795 0.711 1.008 0.344 0.006* 0.109 0.041* 0.974 0.04* 0.496 0.601 0.512 0.612 0.125 0.886 1.053 0.987 1.662 0.951 GCSE D-E or equivalent 0.447 0.577 0.342 0.779 0.715 0.928 1.429 Higher education below degree 0.721 0.110 0.071 0.167 0.002* 0.095 0* 0.483 0.496 0.547 0.272 0.303 0.245 1.077 1.029 1.111 0.735 1.101 0.479 95% Conf Interval p-value Odds ratio 95% Conf Interval

    Odds ratio

    Gender

    Reference group = male

    Female

    1.151

    Disability 0.150 0.639

    Reference group = no limiting longstanding illness or disability

    Limiting longstanding illness or disability

    0.827

    Ethnicity

    The Right to Education UDHR, Article 26; ICESCR, Article 13/14; CRC, Articles 28 and 29; HRA, Protocol 1, Article 2

    561
    Social housing Equivalent household income

    Reference group = white

    Asian

    0.441

    Black

    0.740

    Mixed

    1.077

    Chinese/other

    0.578

    Age

    Reference group = 16-19

    20-24

    1.683

    Social housing (renting, landlord is LA, HA etc.) Reference group=not social housing 0.785 1.000 0.082 0.481 0.597 1.000 1.031 1.000

    25-34

    1.740

    35-49

    1.889

    50-64

    1.618

    65-70

    1.196

    Table 344: Support for right to access to free education for children by population subgroup, England, 2005 (continued)
    p-value IMD (quintile groups) (p<0.05) Reference group = IMD First Quintile (least deprived) 0.072 0.788 0.961 0.004* 0.313 0.496 0.819 North West Yorkshire and the Humber 0.024* 0.768 0.492 0.208 0.682 0.024* 0.108 0.103 0.341 1.104 0.299 1.128 svygof: 0.23 1.083 3.001 0.379 1.889 South West 0.706 4.924 South East 0.655 2.402 East of England 0.556 1.542 West Midlands 0.205 0.892 East Midlands 0.738 1.468 North East 0.703 2.071 Reference group = London 0.942 0.803 0.816 0.940 0.637 0.935 0.869 0.721 0.821 0.364 0.403 0.794 0.061 0.772 0.531 0.168 0.559 0.500 0.506 0.588 0.397 0.594 0.561 0.452 1.588 1.290 1.316 1.501 1.022 1.472 1.349 1.149 0.744 2.509 Government Office Region (p<0.05) 1.210 2.767 IMD Fifth Quintile 0.795 0.279 0.267 3.509 IMD Fourth Quintile 0.655 0.03* 0.521 1.641 IMD Third Quintile 0.777 0.139 0.909 9.267 IMD Second Quintile 0.982 0.925 0.674 0.555 0.447 0.525 1.431 1.086 0.961 1.205 95% Conf Interval p-value Odds ratio 95% Conf Interval

    Odds ratio

    Religion/belief

    Reference group = Christian

    Buddhist

    2.903

    Hindu

    0.924

    Jewish

    0.968

    Muslim

    1.830

    Sikh

    1.366

    Any other religion

    1.206

    No religion

    1.041

    Country of birth (p<0.05)

    Reference group = UK

    The Right to Education UDHR, Article 26; ICESCR, Article 13/14; CRC, Articles 28 and 29; HRA, Protocol 1, Article 2

    562

    Irish Republic

    0.428

    India

    0.926

    Pakistan

    1.255

    Bangladesh

    1.864

    Jamaica

    0.846

    East African New Commonwealth

    1.803

    Rest of New Commonwealth

    0.581

    Other

    0.614

    Source: Vizard (2010).

    Notes: Authors calculations from the Citizenship Survey. The data in this table is for England only. It represents the combined sample, corrected for complex survey design. The findings are accurate to three decimal places. * Significance tests are based on logistic regression analysis controlling for gender, long-term limiting illness or disability, ethnicity, age, religion/belief, country of birth, equivalent household income, highest educational qualification, social class, social housing, index of multiple deprivation ranking, Government Office Region.

    The Right to Education UDHR, Article 26; ICESCR, Article 13/14; CRC, Articles 28 and 29; HRA, Protocol 1, Article 2

    Chapter notes
    637

    The status of UN treaty ratification is drawn from the UN Treaty Database, www.unhchr. ch/tbs/doc.nsf/Statusfrset?OpenFrameSet (accessed 4 November 2010). The status of European treaty ratification is drawn from the Council of Europe Treaty Office website, conventions.coe.int/ (accessed 4 November 2010). When a state signs an international treaty this is signals its preliminary endorsement of the treaty, it does not create a binding legal obligation. A state which ratifies or accedes to a treaty is asserting that it considers itself to be legally bound by the treaty. Ratification requires the state to have previously signed the treaty, whereas accession is a single step which does not require previous signing. It should be noted that a treaty which has been acceded to or ratified by the UK does not automatically become part of the domestic law; separate legislative action is required to incorporate international law into domestic law (for example, the HRA making the ECHR enforceable in the UK). Nonetheless, ratification or accession is a states expression that it consents to be legally bound by the treaty, including respecting and implementing its provisions. www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/1968/3.html ukhumanrightsblog.com/2010/07/16/delay-in-providing-for-special-educational-needs-doesnot-breach-convention-right-to-education-says-supreme-court/ (accessed 25 January 2011). www.actionaid.org/main.aspx?pageId=730 (accessed 25 January 2011). cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentId=695386&portal=hbkm&sourc e=externalbydocnumber&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649 cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentId=695332&portal=hbkm&sourc e=externalbydocnumber&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649 www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2000/343.html www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/uk/cases/UKHL/2006/14.html&query=+[2001]+1+WL R+1359&method=all (accessed 25 January 2011). ukhumanrightsblog.com/2010/07/16/delay-in-providing-for-special-educational-needs-doesnot-breach-convention-right-to-education-says-supreme-court/ (accessed 25 January 2011). cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentId=825443&portal=hbkm&sourc e=externalbydocnumber&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649 cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentId=847939&portal=hbkm&sourc e=externalbydocnumber&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649 www.supremecourt.gov.uk/decided-cases/docs/UKSC_2009_0065_Judgment.pdf cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentId=864619&portal=hbkm&sourc e=externalbydocnumber&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649 cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentId=879615&portal=hbkm&sourc e=externalbydocnumber&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649 www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/socialcharter/Complaints/CC13Merits_en.pdf cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentId=665027&portal=hbkm&sourc e=externalbydocnumber&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649 cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentId=667625&portal=hbkm&sourc e=externalbydocnumber&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649 cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentId=665303&portal=hbkm&sourc e=externalbydocnumber&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649 cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentId=668601&portal=hbkm&sourc e=externalbydocnumber&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649 www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2003/1522.html www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/2009/22.html www.escr-net.org/caselaw/caselaw_show.htm?doc_id=400701 www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/0/4ceb75c5492497d9802566d500516036?Opendocument

    638 639

    640 641 642 643 644 645

    646 647 648 649 650 651 652 653 654 655 656 657 658 659

    563

    The Right to Education UDHR, Article 26; ICESCR, Article 13/14; CRC, Articles 28 and 29; HRA, Protocol 1, Article 2

    660 661 662 663 664 665 666 667 668 669 670 671 672 673 674

    675 676 677 678

    679

    www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/(Symbol)/ae1a0b126d068e868025683c003c8b3b?Opendocument www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/0/619d3c786801bc2cc1256bbc00568cea?Opendocument (accessed 13 July 2011). www.education.gov.uk/publications//eOrderingDownload/DCSF-00067-2010.pdf cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentId=695332&portal=hbkm&sourc e=externalbydocnumber&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649 www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2000/343.html www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/uk/cases/UKHL/2006/14.html&query=+[2001]+1+WL R+1359&method=all www.supremecourt.gov.uk/decided-cases/docs/UKSC_2009_0065_Judgment.pdf cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentId=879615&portal=hbkm&sourc e=externalbydocnumber&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649 cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentId=665027&portal=hbkm&sourc e=externalbydocnumber&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649 cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentId=667625&portal=hbkm&sourc e=externalbydocnumber&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649 cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentId=665303&portal=hbkm&sourc e=externalbydocnumber&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649 cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentId=668601&portal=hbkm&sourc e=externalbydocnumber&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649 www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt200809/jtselect/jtrights/157/157.pdf UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, 2008, www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/crc/docs/ AdvanceVersions/CRC.C.GBR.CO.4.pdf, p 15 (accessed 24 November 2010). UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (2009), daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/ UNDOC/GEN/G09/429/21/PDF/G0942921.pdf?OpenElement, p 10 (accessed 2 December 2010). daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G09/429/21/PDF/G0942921.pdf?OpenElement, p 11 (accessed 2 December 2010). www.education.gov.uk/childrenandyoungpeople/sen/sen/types/a0063735/lamb-inquiryspecial-educational-needs-and-parental-confidence (accessed 5 October 2011). www.refugeecouncil.org.uk/Resources/Refugee%20Council/downloads/researchreports/ SMILE%20report_3.pdf www.childrenslegalcentre.com/OneStopCMS/Core/CrawlerResourceServer. aspx?resource=EF6D1BCD-2A77-4239-A48B-F044F97336FB&mode=link&guid=038e5c985 c2a4d42a26937c1e043e2b0 www.stonewall.org.uk/documents/school_report.pdf

    564

    Chapter 12
    The Right to an Adequate Standard of Living (Convention on the Rights of the Child, Article 27; International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Article 11)

    Please read Part II Guidance on using and interpreting the Human Rights Measurement Framework first.

    12 The Right to an Adequate Standard of Living (Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), Article 27; International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), Article 11)

    Panel and indicators


    Adequate housing Adequate income/social security Other basic needs

    Protection of the right to an adequate standard of living by the state, its agents or bodies fulfilling a public function

    Indicators

    Adequate nutrition

    Structural (indicators of commitment in principle)

    Indicator 71: Legal and constitutional framework Protection of the right to life in domestic law (including constitutional/higher law) Status of ratification of relevant international treaties

    Indicator 72: Legal precedents, gaps and standard-setting Principles established in key cases (domestic and ECHR) and international standard setting processes Gaps in protection and non-implementation of legal judgements and recommendations

    The Right to an Adequate Standard of Living CRC, Article 27; ICESCR, Article 11

    566

    Process (indicators of steps taken including legal, regulatory and public policy measures)

    Indicator 73: Regulatory framework Key regulators, inspectorates and ombudsmen Relevant responsibilities and powers, national minimum standard frameworks and inspection/complaints-handling criteria

    Indicator 74: Public policy framework Primary legislation, policies, plans, targets and goals Codes and guidance Spotlight resource allocations

    Outcome (indicators of the position of individuals and groups in practice/ emergence of a human rights culture)

    Indicator 75: Outcomes of key judicial, regulatory and investigative processes Violations of the right to an adequate standard of living: Case law outcomes Key concerns raised by human rights monitoring bodies Outcomes of inspection, regulation and complaints procedures (includes established cases of neglect relating to deprivation in basic needs, outcomes of food hygiene/quality inspection processes, Audit Commission inspection results of local authority social housing provision) Outcomes of other independent inquiries, investigations and reviews Key allegations by private individuals and civil society organisations/reports in the media

    Indicator 76: Spotlight statistics: Income poverty and material deprivation General population absolute and relative poverty measures, by ethnic group, older people, people with disabilities Additional measures to capture the position of the most disadvantaged groups

    Indicator 77: Spotlight statistics: Child income poverty and material deprivation reporting against the Child Poverty Act targets (fulfilment of the child poverty duty) Reporting against national child poverty targets (absolute, relative, material deprivation)

    The Right to an Adequate Standard of Living CRC, Article 27; ICESCR, Article 11

    567

    Indicator 78: Spotlight statistics: Deprivation in other basic needs Fuel poverty Homelessness Average household expenditure on food by income deciles Percentage of individuals living in sub-standard, unadapted or overcrowded accommodation Gypsies and Travellers: housing conditions and evictions Percentage of care leavers aged 19 who will not be going into suitable accommodation Percentage of children living in bed and breakfast accommodation as allocated by the local authority Utilities (discrimination and pricing issues) Water and sanitation Percentage living in poor environmental conditions

    Indicator 79:Spotlight statistics: Adequate standard of living at risk/vulnerable groups Numbers of children in need and numbers of looked after children with primary care category low income (with breakdown by age and asylum-seeking status) Use of vouchers to support asylum-seekers/destitution amongst undocumented migrants

    Indicator 80: Spotlight statistics: Public attitudes, understanding and experiences Public attitudes towards the right to a an adequate standard of living as a right you should have Self-reported experience of the right to health an adequate standard of living as a right you do have

    Panel and indicators (continued)

    Indicators should be systematically disaggregated Key disaggregation characteristics include ethnicity/race, gender, disability, sexual orientation, transgender, religion and belief, age, social class, area (region, urban/rural, remoteness) with separate reporting of the non-private household population and at risk/vulnerable groups including individuals staying in/resident/detained in public and private institutions; individuals living in poverty; refugees/asylum seekers, vulnerable children and young people (for example, children in need, looked after children, children who are carers), Gypsies and Travellers, etc.

    The Right to an Adequate Standard of Living CRC, Article 27; ICESCR, Article 11

    568

    The Right to an Adequate Standard of Living CRC, Article 27; ICESCR, Article 11

    Evidence base
    Structural indicators Indicator 71: Legal and constitutional framework
    Table 345: Protection of the right to education in domestic law (including constitutional/higher law) The right to an adequate standard of living is not incorporated into domestic law. Table 346: Status of ratification of relevant international treaties680 ICESCR, Articles 6, 7, 9 and 11 ratified. Optional Protocol to ICESCR (communications and inquiries) not ratified by the UK. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), Article 47 ratified. Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), Article 14 ratified. International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD), Article 5 ratified. CRC, Articles 3, 18, 23, 26 and 27 ratified. Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), Article 28 ratified. Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, Articles 21 and 23 ratified. ECHR, Article 1 Protocol 1. European Social Charter (revised) signed, not ratified. Additional Protocol to the European Social Charter Providing for a System of Collective Complaints not ratified.

    569

    The Right to an Adequate Standard of Living CRC, Article 27; ICESCR, Article 11

    Table 347: Principles established in key cases (domestic, ECHR and international) Housing Europe Roma Rights Centre v Greece no. 15/2003 [2004] ECSR681 In a case relating to the insufficient number of permanent dwellings of an acceptable quality to meet the needs of the settled Roma; the insufficient number of stopping places for Roma who choose to follow an itinerant lifestyle or who are forced to do so; and the systematic eviction of Roma from sites or dwellings unlawfully occupied by them, the European Committee of Social Rights (ECSR) found that the insufficiency of permanent dwellings constitutes a violation of Article 16 of the European Social Charter; that the lack of temporary stopping facilities constitutes a violation of Article 16 of the European Social Charter; that the forced eviction and other sanctions of Roma constitutes a violation of Article 16 of the European Social Charter. European Roma Rights Centre v Italy no. 27/2004 [2005] ECSR682 The ECSR found that Article 31 (1) guarantees access to adequate housing, which means a dwelling which is structurally secure; safe from a sanitary and health point, ie it possesses all basic amenities, such as water, heating, waste disposal, sanitation facilities, electricity; not overcrowded and with secure tenure supported by law . The temporary supply of shelter cannot be considered as adequate and individuals should be provided with adequate housing within a reasonable period. The Committee recalls that Article 31 (1) E enshrines the prohibition of discrimination and establishes an obligation to ensure that, in absence of objective and reasonable justifications any group with particular characteristics, including Roma, benefit in practice from the rights in the Charter. On the contrary, by persisting with the practice of placing Roma in camps the Government has failed to take due and positive account of all relevant differences, or adequate steps to ensure their access to rights and collective benefits that must be open to all. The ECSR found a violation of Article 31 of the European Social Charter. R (Weaver) v London and Quadrant Housing [2009] EWCA Civ 587; [2009] WLR (D) 202683 A housing association was carrying out public functions, therefore bound by the obligations under the Human Rights Act (HRA). Coughlan & Ors v North & East Devon Health Authority [1999] EWCA Civ 1871684 Closure of a nursing home breached the legitimate expectations and rights of residents that it would be their home for life under ECHR, Article 8.685

    570

    The Right to an Adequate Standard of Living CRC, Article 27; ICESCR, Article 11

    Homelessness and nationality R (Morris) v Westminster City Council and First Secretary of State Administrative Court [2004] EWHC 2191 (Admin)686 In a case relating to the prohibition of nationality/citizenship discrimination in the exercise of the right to a family life and homelessness assistance687, the Court ruled that the councils refusal to treat the Claimant as having a priority need for accommodation in circumstances where a parent with a dependent child who was not subject to immigration control would have been treated as having a priority need for accommodation amounted to an infringement of her right under Article 14 to enjoy her right to respect for her family life under Article 8 without discrimination.

    Deprivation in basic needs can meet Article 3 threshold R v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Limbuela [2005] UKHL 66688 Refusal to give financial support (including the practice of refusing accommodation or food) to asylum seekers may breach Article 3 if they would otherwise be destitute.

    Standard of living MSS v Belgium and Greece (GC) no. 30696/09 [2011] ECHR689 In the case of an asylum seeker expelled from Belgium to Greece, the European Court of Human Rights found that there had been a breach of Article 3 in relation to the conditions of detention for asylum seekers in Greece the Court considers that the conditions of detention experienced by the applicant were unacceptable. It considers that, taken together, the feeling of arbitrariness and the feeling of inferiority and anxiety often associated with it, as well as the profound effect such conditions of detention indubitably have on a persons dignity, constitute degrading treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention. In addition, the applicants distress was accentuated by the vulnerability inherent in his situation as an asylum seeker. In finding that the extreme poverty in which the applicant had lived in Greece was a violation of Article 3, the Court noted that the Greek authorities have not had due regard to the applicants vulnerability as an asylum seeker and must be held responsible, because of their inaction, for the situation in which he has found himself for several months, living in the street, with no resources or access to sanitary facilities, and without any means of providing for his essential needs. The Court considers that the applicant has been the victim of humiliating treatment showing a lack of respect for his dignity and that this situation has, without doubt, aroused in him feelings of fear, anguish or inferiority capable of inducing desperation. It considers that such living conditions, combined with the prolonged uncertainty in which he has remained and the total lack of any prospects of his situation improving, have attained the level of severity required to fall within the scope of Article 3 of the Convention. The Court also found that the applicants transfer by Belgium to Greece was a violation of Article 3; and further, that by transferring the applicant to Greece the Belgian authorities knowingly exposed him to conditions of detention and living conditions that amounted to degrading treatment. 571

    The Right to an Adequate Standard of Living CRC, Article 27; ICESCR, Article 11

    Social security Stec and others v UK (GC) nos. 65731/01, 65900/01 [2006] ECHR690 The case involved a number of applicants who had been receiving a Reduced Earnings Allowance following a work injury and who were then transferred onto the Retirement Allowance upon reaching retirement age; the applicants alleged a violation of their Article 14 rights in combination with Article 1 Protocol 1 as the date of their transfer was linked to the pension age and entailed differential treatment on the basis of sex. As the applicants were complaining of inequalities in a welfare system, the European Court of Human Rights emphasised that Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 does not include a right to acquire property. It places no restriction on the Contracting States freedom to decide whether or not to have in place any form of social security scheme, or to choose the type or amount of benefits to provide under any such scheme. If, however, a State does decide to create a benefits or pension scheme, it must do so in a manner which is compatible with Article 14 of the Convention. The Court found that the sex discrimination inherent within the differential age entitlement to receive the State Pension in the UK was originally intended to correct the disadvantaged economic position of women, and continued to be reasonably and objectively justified on this ground. R v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2008] UKHL 63691 In a case relating to the exclusion from disability benefits of a homeless disabled person, the House of Lords found that while the applicants claim that he had wrongly been deprived of his disability premium fell,in principle, within the ambit of Article 1 Protocol 1 and Article 14, the discrimination against homelessness was justified in these circumstances.

    Resource allocation R (on the application of Cawser) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2003] EWCA Civ 1522692 A leading case on the allocation of resources and the role of the court, considered in the context of Article 5 rights. See also consideration of this case in Secretary of State for Justice v James (formerly Walker & Anor): R (on the application of Lee) v Secretary of State for Justice & one other action [2009] UKHL 22.693

    Minimum standards R (on the application of EW) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2009] EWHC 2957 (Admin)694 An example of the application of Limbuela. The Court stated that there was no general right to accommodation or a minimum standard of living that could be drawn from the Convention or European law, or from domestic human rights, social or other legislation. The setting of such a minimum standard was a matter for social legislation, not the courts. While the courts could determine that an individuals living conditions breached Article 3, they could not establish generally what the minimum standard required was.

    572

    The Right to an Adequate Standard of Living CRC, Article 27; ICESCR, Article 11

    Non-discrimination Connors v UK no. 66746/01 [2004] EHRC695 In finding a violation of Article 8, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that The vulnerable position of gypsies as a minority means that some special consideration should be given to their needs and their different lifestyle both in the relevant regulatory framework and in reaching decisions in particular cases To this extent, there is thus a positive obligation imposed on the Contracting States by virtue of Article 8 to facilitate the gypsy way of life. See also Table 218).

    International cases Housing Grootboom and Others v Government of the Republic of South Africa and Others Constitutional Court Order (CCT38/00) [2000] ZACC 14 (21 September 2000)696 Clarifying the nature and scope of positive human rights obligations in relation to housing,the Constitutional Court found that the South African government had overall responsibility for ensuring that the state complies with the obligation under Section 26 of the South African constitution to provide everyone with a right of access to housing and to take reasonable measures, within its available resources, to ensure that this right is achieved progressively(Institute for Democracy in South Africa (IDASA), 2002).697

    Standard of living Villagran-Morales et al v. Guatemala, Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACrtHR), 19 November 1999698 States are required to take positive measures to protect the right to life of street children living in poverty. The IACrtHR found a violation of Articles 7, 4, 5, 8.1 and 25 of the American Convention on Human Rights; violation of Articles 1, 6 and 8 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture.

    Table 348: Principles established in international standard setting processes General evaluative criteria developed by the United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (UNCESCR) Obligations to respect, protect and fulfil human rights. Obligations of conduct versus obligations of result. Progressive realization/maximum available resources. Minimum core threshold approach/immediate obligations. Non-retrogression.

    573

    The Right to an Adequate Standard of Living CRC, Article 27; ICESCR, Article 11

    Other key international standards UNCESCR General Comment 4 The right to adequate housing699 (legal security of tenure, accessible to disadvantaged groups). UNCESCR General Comment 7 The right to adequate housing700: forced evictions. UNCESCR General Comment 9 Domestic application of the Covenant.701 UNCESCR General Comment 12 The right to adequate food.702 UNCESCR General Comment 15 Right to water703 availability, quality, accessibility. UNCESCR General Comment 18 Right to work704 availability, accessibility, acceptability and quality. UNCESCR General Comment 19 The right to social security705 availability, social risks and contingencies, adequacy, accessibility. UNCESCR General Comment 21 Right to take part in cultural life706 availability, accessibility, acceptability, adaptability, appropriateness. Reasonableness of state actions (South African jurisprudence).

    Indicator 72: Legal precedents, gaps and standard-setting


    Table 349: Gaps in legal protection The ICESCR is not incorporated into domestic law. The UNCESCR (2002) has expressed concerns about the non-incorporation of the Covenant into domestic law: The Committee deeply regrets that, although the State party has adopted a certain number of laws in the area of economic, social and cultural rights, the Covenant has still not been incorporated in the domestic legal order and that there is no intention by the State party to do so in the near future. The Committee reiterates its concern about the State partys position that the provisions of the Covenant, with minor exceptions, constitute principles and programmatic objectives rather than legal obligations that are justiciable, and that consequently they cannot be given direct legislative effect. 707 The Revised European Social Charter has been signed but not ratified by the UK.

    574

    The Right to an Adequate Standard of Living CRC, Article 27; ICESCR, Article 11

    Process indicators Indicator 73: Regulatory framework


    National Poverty Commission Childrens Commissioner Child Poverty Commission as specified in the Child Poverty Act 2010708, to be established in 2011 Environment Agency, which manages water resources and enforces water quality standards Drinking Water Inspectorate, which regulates the quality of drinking water Ofwat, which is responsible for economic regulation of the water industry Other utility regulators

    Indicator 74: Public policy framework


    Table 350: Child Poverty Act/child poverty targets The Child Poverty Act709 creates a statutory duty in relation to the eradication of child poverty and creates the Child Poverty Commission. Duty holders including the Secretary of State, local authorities and partner organisations. Four specific time-bound targets relating to child poverty in 2020 are specified: The relative low income target

    (1) The relative low income target is that less than 10% of children who live in qualifying households live in households that fall within the relevant income group. (2) For the purposes of this section, a household falls within the relevant income group, in relation to a financial year, if its equivalised net income for the financial year is less than 60% of median equivalised net household income for the financial year. The combined low income and material deprivation target

    (1) The combined low income and material deprivation target is that less than 5% of children who live in qualifying households (a)l ive in households that fall within the relevant income group, and (b) experience material deprivation.

    575

    The Right to an Adequate Standard of Living CRC, Article 27; ICESCR, Article 11

    (2) For the purposes of subsection (1)(a), a household falls within the relevant income group, in relation to a financial year, if its equivalised net income for the financial year is less than 70% of median equivalised net household income for the financial year. (3) Regulations must specify the circumstances in which a child is to be regarded for the purposes of subsection (1)(b) as experiencing material deprivation in a financial year. The absolute low income target

    (1) The absolute low income target is that less than 5% of children who live in qualifying households live in households falling within the relevant income group. (2) For the purposes of this section, a household falls within the relevant income group, in relation to a financial year, if its equivalised net income for the financial year is less than 60% of the adjusted base amount. (3) The adjusted base amount, in relation to a financial year, is the base amount adjusted in a prescribed manner to take account of changes in the value of money since the base year. (4) In this section the base amount means the amount of median equivalised net household income for the base year; the base year means the financial year beginning with 1 April 2010. The persistent poverty target

    In relation to a financial year (the relevant financial year), the persistent poverty target is that less than the target percentage of children who have lived in qualifying households during each of the survey years have lived in households that have been within the relevant income group in at least 3 of the survey years. (2) The survey years are (a) the calendar year that ends in the relevant financial year, and (b) the 3 previous calendar years. (3) For the purposes of this section, the target percentage is a percentage to be prescribed by regulations made before 2015. (4) For the purposes of this section, a household falls within the relevant income group, in relation to a calendar year, if its equivalised net income for the year is less than 60% of median equivalised net household income for the year.

    576

    The Right to an Adequate Standard of Living CRC, Article 27; ICESCR, Article 11

    (5) Instead of exercising the power conferred by subsection (3), the Secretary of State may by regulations amend this section so as to substitute a different persistent poverty target for that set out in subsections (1) to (4). (6) Regulations under subsection (5) may only be made (a) before 2015, and (b) with the consent of the Commission. Judicial scrutiny of the Child Poverty Bill by the Joint Committee on Human Rights (JCHR) In its judicial scrutiny of the Child Poverty Bill, the JCHR (2010a) noted:The main purposes of the Bill are to enshrine in law the Governments commitment to eradicate child poverty by 2020, to define success in eradicating child poverty, and to create a framework to monitor progress at both a national and a local level. To these ends, the Bill places a duty on the Secretary of State to ensure that four UK-wide income poverty targets are met by the end of the financial year 2020-2021.710 The JCHR further recognised the Child Poverty Duty as a human rights enhancing measure that provides a means of implementing Article 27 of the CRC and Article 11 of the ICESCR: By providing an unqualified duty to meet the four income targets by the end of the financial year 2020-21, and establishing a detailed framework both for driving and monitoring progress towards the achievement of those targets, the Bill does on its face appear to provide a mechanism for the progressive realisation of childrens right to an adequate standard of living in Article 27 UNCRC and Article 11 ICESCR. It goes some way towards implementing the recent recommendation of the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child that the Government adopt legislation aimed at achieving the target of ending child poverty by 2020, including by establishing measurable indicators for its achievement. We therefore welcome the Bill as a human rights enhancing measure. The JCHR further recognised the Child Poverty Duty, which combines political accountability with limited judicial review, as an exemplar of its mid-way model for the implementation of economic, social and cultural rights in the UK. The JCHRs mid-way model provides a basis for giving economic and social rights legal effect in a way which falls short of making them fully justiciable and legally enforceable rights. The JCHR contends that the mid-way model provides a viable middle way: between the traditional positions in the debate about economic and social rights, in which the Government is placed under a duty to make progress towards realising those rights, and is required to report regularly on that progress to Parliament, and the courts have a very limited and closely circumscribed role in reviewing the adequacy of the measures taken to reach the target.

    577

    The Right to an Adequate Standard of Living CRC, Article 27; ICESCR, Article 11

    We welcome the detailed mechanisms in the Bill to ensure that the Secretary of State is accountable to Parliament for the Governments performance of the new statutory duty to ensure that the child poverty targets are met. As both we and our predecessor Committee have consistently made clear in previous reports, we consider that in a parliamentary democracy it is the democratic branches of the state (the Government and Parliament) which should have primary responsibility for economic and social policy, in which the courts lack expertise and have limited institutional competence or authority. In our view the scheme of the Bill ensures that primary responsibility for policy on child poverty remains with the democratic branches, by making detailed provision for the Secretary of States accountability to Parliament for Government policy on how to meet the targets. The JCHR noted its concern, however, that the most disadvantaged children might be excluded from official monitoring arrangements under the Child Poverty Act: [T]he use of targets which apply only to children in qualifying households is potentially indirectly discriminatory, because it necessarily excludes certain children who may well be living in poverty, including Gypsy, Roma and Traveller children, asylum-seeking children living in asylum centres or Bed and Breakfast accommodation, and looked after children living in childrens homes. Such differential treatment of children not living in qualifying households raises the question whether the Bill is compatible with Article 14 ECHR, the right not to be discriminated against in the enjoyment of Convention rights.711 Table 351: Fuel Poverty Duty The Warm Homes and Energy Conservation Act (2000) establishes that a person is to be regarded as living in fuel poverty if he is a member of a household living on a lower income in a home that cannot be kept warm at reasonable cost. The legislation requires appropriate authorities to prepare a strategy (including measures and targets) to ensure that as far as reasonably practical persons do not live in fuel poverty.712

    578

    The Right to an Adequate Standard of Living CRC, Article 27; ICESCR, Article 11

    Table 352: Identifiable expenditure on social protection in England, Scotland and Wales, 2004-05 2009-10, million
    2004-05 outturn England: of which: personal social services 10.1 Sickness and disability of which: personal social services of which: incapacity, disability and injury benefits 10.2 Old age of which: personal social services of which: pensions 10.3 Survivors 10.4 Family and children of which: personal social services of which: family benefits, income support and tax credits 2005-06 outturn 2006-07 outturn 2007-08 outturn 2008-09 outturn 2009-10 plans

    18,519 23,103

    20,100 24,238

    21,372 25,152

    22,489 26,429

    23,887 29,078

    24,120 31,718

    4,706

    5,196

    5,429

    6,011

    6,437

    6,765

    18,397 54,075

    19,042 56,764

    19,723 59,095

    20,418 63,530

    22,641 69,884

    24,953 74,796

    6,562 47,513 1,481 22,462

    7,086 49,679 1,481 22,764

    7,438 51,657 1,443 22,974

    7,712 55,818 1,434 24,035

    8,141 61,743 1,436 23,589

    8,172 66,624 1,440 23,984

    4,703

    5,204

    5,488

    5,797

    6,234

    6,411

    17,760

    17,560

    17,486

    18,237

    17,355

    17,574 Continued

    579

    The Right to an Adequate Standard of Living CRC, Article 27; ICESCR, Article 11

    Table 352: Identifiable expenditure on social protection in England, Scotland and Wales, 2004-05 2009-10, million (continued)
    2004-05 outturn 10.5 Unemployment of which: personal social services of which: other unemployment benefits 10.6 Housing 10.7 Social exclusion not elsewhere classified (n.e.c.) of which: personal social services, of which: of which: family benefits, income support and tax credits 10.8 Research and development (R&D) social protection 10.9 Social protection n.e.c. Total social protection 3,074 2005-06 outturn 3,357 2006-07 outturn 3,799 2007-08 outturn 3,554 2008-09 outturn 4,392 2009-10 plans 6,777

    1,048

    1,166

    1,501

    1,467

    1,435

    1,046

    2,026 13,079

    2,190 13,803

    2,298 14,646

    2,088 15,490

    2,957 16,694

    5,730 19,456

    11,082

    12,160

    13,301

    14,379

    17,269

    19,477

    1,502

    1,448

    1,516

    1,502

    1,641

    1,726

    9,580

    10,712

    11,785

    12,876

    15,628

    17,751

    2 3,426 131,784

    1 2,913 137,481

    0 2,168 142,578

    1,859 150,710

    1,813 164,154

    3,031 23,984 Continued

    580

    The Right to an Adequate Standard of Living CRC, Article 27; ICESCR, Article 11

    Table 352: Identifiable expenditure on social protection in England, Scotland and Wales, 2004-05 2009-10, million (continued)
    2004-05 outturn Scotland: of which: personal social services 10.1 Sickness and disability of which: personal social services of which: incapacity, disability and injury benefits 10.2 Old age of which: personal social services of which: pensions 10.3 Survivors 10.4 Family and children of which: personal social services of which: family benefits, income support and tax credits 2005-06 outturn 2006-07 outturn 2007-08 outturn 2008-09 outturn 2009-10 plans

    2,292 3,001

    2,447 3,128

    2,330 3,121

    2,748 3,334

    2,988 3,700

    3,106 4,087

    540

    589

    524

    675

    747

    825

    2,460 6,064

    2,539 6,295

    2,598 6,422

    2,659 6,998

    2,952 7,780

    3,262 8,406

    1,013 5,051 195 2,508

    1,049 5,246 191 2,536

    949 5,473 187 2,565

    1,132 5,866 193 2,726

    1,246 6,534 193 2,570

    1,307 7,099 198 2,589

    555

    616

    634

    714

    766

    766

    1,953

    1,920

    1,931

    2,012

    1,804

    1,823 Continued

    581

    The Right to an Adequate Standard of Living CRC, Article 27; ICESCR, Article 11

    Table 352: Identifiable expenditure on social protection in England, Scotland and Wales, 2004-05 2009-10, million (continued)
    2004-05 outturn 10.5 Unemployment of which: personal social services of which: other unemployment benefits 10.6 Housing 10.7 Social exclusion n.e.c. of which: personal social services, of which: of which: family benefits, income support and tax credits 10.8 R&D social protection 10.9 Social protection n.e.c. Total social protection 339 2005-06 outturn 324 2006-07 outturn 360 2007-08 outturn 319 2008-09 outturn 389 2009-10 plans 607

    78

    83

    109

    106

    102

    72

    261 1,496 1,110

    241 1,543 1,214

    251 1,570 1,299

    213 1,609 1,390

    287 1,682 1,668

    536 1,882 1,878

    106

    110

    114

    121

    127

    136

    1,004 0 404 15,116

    1,104 0 384 15,615

    1,184 0 327 15,851

    1,269 0 292 16,861

    1,541 1 319 18,301

    1,742 0 306 19,953 Continued

    582

    The Right to an Adequate Standard of Living CRC, Article 27; ICESCR, Article 11

    Table 352: Identifiable expenditure on social protection in England, Scotland and Wales, 2004-05 2009-10, million (continued)
    2004-05 outturn Wales: of which: personal social services 10.1 Sickness and disability of which: personal social services of which: incapacity, disability and injury benefits 10.2 Old age of which: personal social services, of which: of which: pensions 10.3 Survivors 10.4 Family and children of which: personal social services of which: family benefits, income support and tax credits 2005-06 outturn 2006-07 outturn 2007-08 outturn 2008-09 outturn 2009-10 plans

    1,546 2,246

    1,711 2,349

    1,768 2,424

    1,902 2,515

    1,913 2,743

    1,870 2,973

    358

    400

    430

    485

    511

    522

    1,888 3,427

    1,949 3,596

    1,994 3,751

    2,030 4,058

    2,232 4,455

    2,451 4,795

    465 2,962 102 1,436

    494 3,102 102 1,482

    518 3,234 100 1,495

    537 3,522 100 1,544

    560 3,895 101 1,501

    563 4,232 102 1,496

    308

    382

    406

    420

    434

    426

    1,128

    1,100

    1,089

    1,125

    1,067

    1,070 Continued

    583

    The Right to an Adequate Standard of Living CRC, Article 27; ICESCR, Article 11

    Table 352: Identifiable expenditure on social protection in England, Scotland and Wales, 2004-05 2009-10, million (continued)
    2004-05 outturn 10.5 Unemployment of which: personal social services of which: other unemployment benefits 10.6 Housing 10.7 Social exclusion n.e.c. of which: personal social services of which: family benefits, income support and tax credits 10.8 R&D social protection 10.9 Social protection n.e.c. Total social protection 307 2005-06 outturn 332 2006-07 outturn 399 2007-08 outturn 388 2008-09 outturn 440 2009-10 plans 522

    194

    209

    276

    270

    262

    186

    113 648 865

    123 668 934

    123 708 900

    118 747 1,018

    178 806 1,148

    336 908 1,310

    221

    225

    139

    191

    145

    173

    644 0 172 9,204

    708 154 9,617

    762 121 9,899

    827 109 10,480

    1,003 133 11,328

    1,137 180 12,285

    Notes: Definitions of expenditure by function are based on the UN Classification of the Functions of Government (COFOG) system, available at: www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/pespub_economic_functional_analysis.htm Source: HM Treasury (2010).

    584

    The Right to an Adequate Standard of Living CRC, Article 27; ICESCR, Article 11

    Table 353: Identifiable expenditure on social protection per head in England, Scotland and Wales, 2004-05 2009-10
    2004-05 outturn England: of which: personal social services 10.1 Sickness and disability of which: personal social services of which: incapacity, disability and injury benefits 10.2 Old age of which: personal social services, of which: of which: pensions 10.3 Survivors 10.4 Family and children of which: personal social services of which: family benefits, income support and tax credits 2005-06 outturn 2006-07 outturn 2007-08 outturn 2008-09 outturn 2009-10 plans

    370 461

    398 480

    421 495

    440 517

    464 565

    465 612

    94

    103

    107

    118

    125

    131

    367 1,079

    377 1,125

    389 1,164

    400 1,243

    440 1,358

    482 1,443

    131 948 30 448

    140 984 29 451

    147 1,018 28 453

    151 1,093 28 470

    158 1,200 28 459

    158 1,286 28 463

    94

    103

    108

    113

    121

    124

    354

    348

    344

    357

    337

    339 Continued

    585

    The Right to an Adequate Standard of Living CRC, Article 27; ICESCR, Article 11

    Table 353: Identifiable expenditure on social protection per head in England, Scotland and Wales, 2004-05 2009-10 (continued)
    2004-05 outturn 10.5 Unemployment of which: personal social services of which: other unemployment benefits 10.6 Housing 10.7 Social exclusion n.e.c. of which: personal social services of which: family benefits, income support and tax credits 10.8 R&D social protection 10.9 Social protection n.e.c. Total social protection 61 2005-06 outturn 67 2006-07 outturn 75 2007-08 outturn 70 2008-09 outturn 85 2009-10 plans 131

    21

    23

    30

    29

    28

    20

    40 261 221

    43 274 241

    45 289 262

    41 303 281

    57 324 336

    111 375 376

    30

    29

    30

    29

    32

    33

    191 0 68 2,630

    212 0 58 2,724

    232 0 43 2,809

    252 36 2,950

    304 35 3,191

    343 58 3,487 Continued

    586

    The Right to an Adequate Standard of Living CRC, Article 27; ICESCR, Article 11

    Table 353: Identifiable expenditure on social protection per head in England, Scotland and Wales, 2004-05 2009-10 (continued)
    2004-05 outturn Scotland: of which: personal social services 10.1 Sickness and disability of which: personal social services of which: incapacity, disability and injury benefits 10.2 Old age of which: personal social services, of which: of which: pensions 10.3 Survivors 10.4 Family and children of which: personal social services of which: family benefits, income support and tax credits 2005-06 outturn 2006-07 outturn 2007-08 outturn 2008-09 outturn 2009-10 plans

    451 591

    480 614

    455 610

    535 649

    578 716

    599 788

    106

    116

    102

    131

    145

    159

    484 1,194

    498 1,236

    508 1,255

    517 1,362

    571 1,505

    629 1,620

    199 995 38 494

    206 1,030 38 498

    185 1,070 37 501

    220 1,142 38 530

    241 1,264 37 497

    252 1,368 38 499

    109

    121

    124

    139

    148

    148

    385

    377

    377

    392

    349

    351 Continued

    587

    The Right to an Adequate Standard of Living CRC, Article 27; ICESCR, Article 11

    Table 353: Identifiable expenditure on social protection per head in England, Scotland and Wales, 2004-05 2009-10 (continued)
    2004-05 outturn 10.5 Unemployment of which: personal social services of which: other unemployment benefits 10.6 Housing 10.7 Social exclusion n.e.c. of which: personal social services of which: family benefits, income support and tax credits 10.8 R&D social protection 10.9 Social protection n.e.c. Total social protection 67 2005-06 outturn 64 2006-07 outturn 70 2007-08 outturn 62 2008-09 outturn 75 2009-10 plans 117

    15

    16

    21

    21

    20

    14

    51 295 219

    47 303 238

    49 307 254

    41 313 270

    56 325 323

    103 363 362

    21

    22

    22

    23

    25

    26

    198 0 79 2,977

    217 0 75 3,065

    231 0 64 3,098

    247 0 57 3,281

    298 0 62 3,541

    336 0 59 3,845 Continued

    588

    The Right to an Adequate Standard of Living CRC, Article 27; ICESCR, Article 11

    Table 353: Identifiable expenditure on social protection per head in England, Scotland and Wales, 2004-05 2009-10 (continued)
    2004-05 outturn Wales: of which: personal social services 10.1 Sickness and disability of which: personal social services of which: incapacity, disability and injury benefits 10.2 Old age of which: personal social services, of which: of which: pensions 10.3 Survivors 10.4 Family and children of which: personal social services of which: family benefits, income support and tax credits 2005-06 outturn 2006-07 outturn 2007-08 outturn 2008-09 outturn 2009-10 plans

    525 762

    579 795

    596 817

    638 844

    639 917

    624 991

    121

    136

    145

    163

    171

    174

    641 1,163

    660 1,218

    672 1,265

    681 1,362

    746 1,489

    817 1,599

    158 1,005 35 487

    167 1,050 34 502

    175 1,090 34 504

    180 1,182 34 518

    187 1,301 34 502

    188 1,411 34 499

    105

    129

    137

    141

    145

    142

    383

    373

    367

    377

    356

    357 Continued

    589

    The Right to an Adequate Standard of Living CRC, Article 27; ICESCR, Article 11

    Table 353: Identifiable expenditure on social protection per head in England, Scotland and Wales, 2004-05 2009-10 (continued)
    2004-05 outturn 10.5 Unemployment of which: personal social services of which: other unemployment benefits 10.6 Housing 10.7 Social exclusion n.e.c. of which: personal social services of which: family benefits, income support and tax credits 10.8 R&D social protection 10.9 Social protection n.e.c. Total social protection 104 2005-06 outturn 112 2006-07 outturn 135 2007-08 outturn 130 2008-09 outturn 147 2009-10 plans 174

    66

    71

    93

    91

    88

    62

    38 220 294

    42 226 316

    42 239 303

    40 251 341

    60 269 383

    112 303 437

    75

    76

    47

    64

    48

    58

    219 0 58 3,124

    240 52 3,256

    257 41 3,338

    277 36 3,517

    335 44 3,785

    379 60 4,097

    Notes: Definitions of expenditure by function are based on the UN COFOG system, available at: www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/pespub_economic_functional_analysis.htm NB All expenditure on children and adult protection falls under function 10 Social Protection. Within that function it falls under sub function 10.4 Family and children, personal social services. Source: HM Treasury (2010, 2011).

    590

    The Right to an Adequate Standard of Living CRC, Article 27; ICESCR, Article 11

    Table 354: Identifiable expenditure on housing in England, Scotland and Wales, 2004-05 2009-10, million
    2004-05 outturn England: 6.1 Housing development of which: local authority housing of which: other social housing 6.2 Community development 6.3 Water supply 6.4 Street lighting 6.5 R&D housing and community amenities 6.6 Housing and community amenities n.e.c Total housing and community amenities Scotland: 6.1 Housing development of which: local authority housing of which: other social housing 6.2 Community development 6.3 Water supply 6.4 Street lighting 6.5 R&D housing and community amenities 6.6 Housing and community amenities n.e.c Total housing and community amenities 707 715 874 950 955 1,135 3,049 4,687 5,347 5,975 7,418 8,607 2005-06 outturn 2006-07 outturn 2007-08 outturn 2008-09 outturn 2009-10 plans

    1,240 1,810 2,322 3 363

    2,955 1,732 2,598 -17 424

    3,256 2,091 2,582 -19 466

    3,744 2,231 2,899 -8 513

    4,588 2,830 3,103 -5 577

    4,051 4,556 2,955 -10 585

    82

    89

    90

    88

    88

    130

    5,820

    7,780

    8,466

    9,466

    11,181

    12,266

    300 407 94 174 8

    323 392 104 547 9

    292 581 116 661 8

    357 593 119 619 8

    501 454 118 689 10

    671 463 154 588 11

    15

    14

    18

    17

    12

    43

    20

    1,016

    1,406

    1,679

    1,746

    1,787

    1,914 Continued

    591

    The Right to an Adequate Standard of Living CRC, Article 27; ICESCR, Article 11

    Table 354: Identifiable expenditure on housing in England, Scotland and Wales, 2004-05 2009-10, million (continued)
    2004-05 outturn Wales: 6.1 Housing development of which: local authority housing of which: other social housing 6.2 Community development 6.3 Water supply 6.4 Street lighting 6.5 R&D housing and community amenities 6.6 Housing and community amenities n.e.c Total housing and community amenities 98 194 220 200 350 254 2005-06 outturn 2006-07 outturn 2007-08 outturn 2008-09 outturn 2009-10 plans

    130 -31 159 26

    200 -5 184 30

    225 -5 200 31

    232 -32 257 34

    334 16 230 37

    257 -3 251 37

    21

    21

    27

    21

    284

    409

    471

    512

    644

    562

    Notes: Definitions of expenditure by function are based on the UN COFOG system, available at: www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/pespub_economic_functional_analysis.htm Source: HM Treasury (2010).

    592

    The Right to an Adequate Standard of Living CRC, Article 27; ICESCR, Article 11

    Table 355: Identifiable expenditure on housing per head in England, Scotland and Wales, 2004-05 2009-10
    2004-05 outturn England: 6.1 Housing development of which: local authority housing of which: other social housing 6.2 Community development 6.3 Water supply 6.4 Street lighting 6.5 R&D housing and community amenities 6.6 Housing and community amenities n.e.c Total housing and community amenities Scotland: 6.1 Housing development of which: local authority housing of which: other social housing 6.2 Community development 6.3 Water supply 6.4 Street lighting 6.5 R&D housing and community amenities 6.6 Housing and community amenities n.e.c Total housing and community amenities 139 140 171 185 185 219 61 93 105 117 144 166 2005-06 outturn 2006-07 outturn 2007-08 outturn 2008-09 outturn 2009-10 plans

    25 36 46 0 7

    59 34 51 0 8

    64 41 51 0 9

    73 44 57 0 10

    89 55 60 0 11

    78 88 57 0 11

    116

    154

    167

    185

    217

    237

    59 80 19 34 2

    63 77 20 107 2

    57 114 23 129 2

    69 115 23 120 1

    97 88 23 133 2

    129 89 30 113 2

    200

    276

    328

    340

    346

    369 Continued

    593

    The Right to an Adequate Standard of Living CRC, Article 27; ICESCR, Article 11

    Table 355: Identifiable expenditure on housing per head in England, Scotland and Wales, 2004-05 2009-10 (continued)
    2004-05 outturn Wales: 6.1 Housing development of which: local authority housing of which: other social housing 6.2 Community development 6.3 Water supply 6.4 Street lighting 6.5 R&D housing and community amenities 6.6 Housing and community amenities n.e.c Total housing and community amenities 33 66 74 67 117 85 2005-06 outturn 2006-07 outturn 2007-08 outturn 2008-09 outturn 2009-10 plans

    44 -11 54 9

    68 -2 62 10

    76 -2 67 10

    78 -11 86 11

    112 5 77 12

    86 -1 84 12

    96

    138

    159

    172

    215

    188

    Notes: Definitions of expenditure by function are based on the UN COFOG system, available at: www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/pespub_economic_functional_analysis.htm NB All expenditure on children and adult protection falls under function 10 Social Protection. Within that function it falls under sub function 10.4 Family and children, personal social services. Source: HM Treasury (2010, 2011).

    594

    The Right to an Adequate Standard of Living CRC, Article 27; ICESCR, Article 11

    Outcome indicators Indicator 75: Outcomes of key judicial, regulatory and investigative processes
    Table 356: Violations of the right to an adequate standard of living: case law outcomes Housing R (Weaver) v London and Quadrant Housing [2009] EWCA Civ 587; [2009] WLR (D) 202713 A registered social landlord was a hybrid public authority so the act of terminating the tenancy of its assured tenant was not a private act and was susceptible to judicial review (see Table 347). Coughlan & Ors v North & East Devon Health Authority [1999] EWCA Civ 1871714 The closure of a nursing home violated residents Article 8 rights (see Table 347).

    Homelessness and nationality R (Morris) v Westminster City Council and First Secretary of State Administrative Court [2004] EWHC 2191 (Admin)715 Violation of Article 14 to enjoy the right to respect of family life under Article 8 without discrimination (see Table 347).

    Deprivation in basic needs can meet Article 3 threshold R v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Limbuela [2005] UKHL 66716 Refusal to give financial support (including the practice of refusing accommodation or food) to asylum seekers may breach Article 3 where they would otherwise be destitute (see Table 347).

    Social security Stec and others v UK (GC) nos. 65731/01, 65900/01 [2006] ECHR717 No violation of Article 14 taken in conjunction with Article 1 Protocol 1 (see Table 347). R v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2008] UKHL 63718 While the applicants claim that he had wrongly been deprived of his disability premium fell,in principle, within the ambit of Article 1 Protocol 1 and Article 14, the House of Lords ruled that the discrimination against homelessness was justified in these circumstances (see Table 347).

    Non-discrimination Connors v UK no. 66746/01 [2004] EHRC719 Violation of Article 8 (see Table 347).

    595

    The Right to an Adequate Standard of Living CRC, Article 27; ICESCR, Article 11

    Table 357: Key concerns raised by human rights monitoring bodies Domestic JCHR The JCHR considered the question of domestic incorporation of economic, social and cultural rights (JCHR, 2004a)). In 2008, the JCHRs report (JCHR, 2008b) included recommendations on the inclusion of economic, social and cultural rights in any future bill of rights. It suggested that, in the first instance, the rights to health, education, housing, and an adequate standard of living, should be included in a bill of rights (see Table 262). Child Poverty The JCHR (2009e), in scrutinising the Child Poverty Act 2010, noted its concern that poverty is a very serious problem affecting all parts of the United Kingdom, including the Overseas Territories, and that it is a particular concern in Northern Ireland, where over 20 per cent of children reportedly live in persistent poverty. Furthermore, the Committee is concerned that the Governments strategy is not sufficiently targeted at those groups of children in most severe poverty and that the standard of living of Traveller children is particularly poor.720 International The UNCESCR was concerned about higher poverty rates, particularly among ethnic minorities, asylum-seekers and migrants, older persons, single mothers, and persons with disabilities. (Article 11) UNCESCR, 2009).721 The UNCESCR was concerned about the extent of homelessness and the chronic shortage of housing, in particular social housing, for the most disadvantaged and marginalized individuals and groups, such as persons with disabilities (UNCESCR, 2009).722 The UNCESCR recommends that the State party consider ratifying ILO Convention no. 118 on Equality of Treatment (Social Security) and the European Social Charter (Revised). It also recommends that the State party commit itself fully to all the provisions of ILO Convention no. 102 on Social Security (Minimum Standards) ratified by the State party and, for that purpose, consider withdrawing its reservations to Parts 6, 8 and 9 of the Convention (UNCESCR, 2009).723

    596

    The Right to an Adequate Standard of Living CRC, Article 27; ICESCR, Article 11

    Table 358: Key concerns and allegations raised by private individuals and civil society organisations/reports in the media UNICEF, Report Card 7, Child Poverty in Perspective: An Overview of Child Wellbeing in Rich Countries, February 2007.724 Child Poverty Action Group, Child Wellbeing and Child Poverty: where the UK stands in the European table, spring 2009.725 British Institute of Human Rights (BIHR), Human Rights and Poverty Project726 BIHR has raised issues around human rights and poverty, and the need for organisations working with, and for, people facing poverty or social injustice to use human rights to strengthen their impact.

    Indicator 76: Spotlight statistics : Income poverty and material deprivation


    Table 359: Percentage of individuals in low-income groups by various family and household characteristics, UK, 2009-10
    All individuals (millions) 70%

    Before Housing Costs 50% Disability Disabled individuals Disabled children Disabled working-age adults Disabled pensioners Non-disabled individuals Non-disabled children Non-disabled working-age adults Non-disabled pensioners 11 9 21 18 31 30 60% 70%

    After Housing Costs 50% 60%

    Income thresholds below median

    16 17

    24 28

    34 39

    11.2 0.8

    14 8 9 10

    25 18 16 20

    35 28 24 31

    24 8 15 19

    33 15 22 29

    42 26 28 38

    5.2 5.2 49.5 12.2

    9 10

    14 19

    20 29

    15 9

    20 16

    25 25

    30.9 6.3 Continued

    597

    The Right to an Adequate Standard of Living CRC, Article 27; ICESCR, Article 11

    Table 359: Percentage of individuals in low-income groups by various family and household characteristics, UK, 2009-10 (continued)
    All individuals (millions) 70% 27 42 51 37 54.3 0.5 3.0 1.3

    Before Housing Costs 50% White Mixed Asian or Asian British Indian Pakistani and Bangladeshi Black or Black British Black Caribbean Black NonCaribbean Chinese or other ethnic group 9 14 21 15 60% 16 23 34 24 70% 24 31 44 31

    After Housing Costs 50% 14 26 30 20 60% 20 34 42 30

    Income thresholds below median Ethnic group of head (three-year average)

    31 17 17 17

    49 28 24 30

    63 37 33 40

    41 30 23 35

    56 41 33 46

    68 50 43 54

    1.2 1.6 0.6 0.9

    18

    27

    33

    30

    38

    44

    0.8 Continued

    598

    The Right to an Adequate Standard of Living CRC, Article 27; ICESCR, Article 11

    Table 359: Percentage of individuals in low-income groups by various family and household characteristics, UK, 2009-10 (continued)
    All individuals (millions) 70% 30 33 31 50.5 2.5 6.8

    Before Housing Costs 50% England North East North West Yorkshire and the Humber East Midlands West Midlands East London Inner Outer South East South West Scotland Wales Northern Ireland All individuals 10 12 11 60% 18 22 19 70% 26 31 28

    After Housing Costs 50% 16 16 16 60% 23 24 24

    Income thresholds below median Region/Country (three-year average)

    11 11 12 9 11 12 10 7 10 10 11 13 10

    20 20 22 15 17 19 16 12 16 17 21 22 17

    30 28 31 22 24 26 22 19 24 25 31 32 25

    16 15 17 14 21 25 19 12 14 13 16 14 15

    23 22 25 20 28 32 26 18 20 19 23 22 22

    31 29 33 27 34 39 32 24 28 26 31 30 30

    5.1 4.3 5.3 5.6 7.5 2.7 4.8 8.2 5.1 5.1 2.9 1.7 60.7

    Source: Department for Work and Pensions(DWP) (2011b). For the latest Households Below Average Income (HBAI) findings see: research.dwp.gov.uk/asd/hbai/hbai2010/index.php?page=contents

    599

    Table 360: Percentage of individuals living in households with less than 60 per cent of contemporary median household income, by gender and adulthood, UK, 2009-10
    199798 199899 19992000 200001 200102 200203 200304 200405 200506 200607 200708 200809 200910

    199495

    199596

    199697

    Before Housing Costs

    Gender and adulthood 15 19 27 19 20 19 19 18 18 18 18 17 18 27 26 26 23 23 23 22 21 22 19 19 19 19 18 18 18 17 17 18 22 18 15 15 16 15 15 15 15 15 15 16 16 18 23 18 16 18 22 18 16 17 20 17

    Adult male

    15

    15

    Adult female

    18

    18

    Children

    25

    24

    All individuals (per cent)

    19

    18

    After Housing Costs

    The Right to an Adequate Standard of Living CRC, Article 27; ICESCR, Article 11

    600
    20 25 34 25 24 24 24 23 23 33 34 33 31 31 30 22 24 24 23 23 22 22 19 19 19 19 18 19 18 21 29 21

    Gender and adulthood 17 19 28 21 19 20 30 22 19 21 30 22 19 21 31 23 19 21 30 22 20 21 29 22

    Adult male

    20

    20

    Adult female

    24

    24

    Children

    33

    33

    All individuals (per cent)

    24

    24

    Notes:

    Figures are for the UK from 2002-03 onwards. Earlier years are for Great Britain only.

    Source: DWP (2011b). For the latest HBAI findings see: research.dwp.gov.uk/asd/hbai/hbai2010/index.php?page=contents

    Table 361: Percentage of individuals living in households with less than 60 per cent of 1998-99 median household income held constant in real terms, by gender and adulthood, UK, 2009-10
    199798 199899 19992000 200001 200102 200203 200304 200405 200506 200607 200708 200809 200910

    199495

    199596

    199697

    Before Housing Costs

    Gender and adulthood 17 21 29 21 20 19 17 15 13 12 12 11 11 28 26 23 19 15 14 14 13 13 20 19 17 15 13 12 12 11 11 12 13 12 16 15 14 13 11 11 11 10 10 11 11 12 13 12 11 11 12 11 10 10 11 10

    Adult male

    19

    19

    Adult female

    23

    22

    Children

    30

    29

    All individuals (per cent)

    23

    23

    After Housing Costs

    The Right to an Adequate Standard of Living CRC, Article 27; ICESCR, Article 11

    601
    22 27 36 27 25 24 22 20 17 34 34 31 27 23 21 15 25 24 22 19 16 14 20 19 18 16 14 13 13 14 20 15

    Gender and adulthood 12 12 18 13 13 13 19 14 13 13 19 14 13 14 19 15 14 14 19 15 14 13 18 14

    Adult male

    23

    23

    Adult female

    28

    28

    Children

    37

    37

    All individuals (per cent)

    29

    28

    Notes:

    Figures are for the UK from 2002-03 onwards. Earlier years are for Great Britain only.

    Source: DWP (2011b). For the latest HBAI findings see: research.dwp.gov.uk/asd/hbai/hbai2010/index.php?page=contents

    The Right to an Adequate Standard of Living CRC, Article 27; ICESCR, Article 11

    Table 362: Percentage of pensioners in low-income groups by various family and household characteristics, UK, 2009-10
    All pensioners (millions) 70% 22 23 26 28 28 29 23 27 1.9 2.8 2.3 1.9 1.5 1.1 4.3 7.2

    Before Housing Costs 50% Age 60-64 65-69 70-74 75-79 80-84 85+ Gender Male Female 7 10 16 20 26 30 8 8 9 8 11 12 15 16 18 21 23 23 23 25 29 32 32 32 60% 70%

    After Housing Costs 50% 8 7 8 9 9 12 7 9 60% 14 14 16 16 17 19 14 16

    Income thresholds below median

    Disability and receipt of disability benefits1 Those living in families where no-one is disabled Those living in families where someone is disabled Ethnic group of head (three-year average)2 White Mixed Asian or Asian British Indian Pakistani and Bangladeshi 11 .. 23 23 20 .. 35 33 31 .. 44 41 9 .. 20 17 16 .. 33 29 26 .. 43 38 10.9 0.0 0.2 0.1

    11

    20

    29

    17

    25

    5.1

    17

    28

    15

    25

    6.4

    27

    48

    55

    29

    46

    57

    0.1 Continued

    602

    The Right to an Adequate Standard of Living CRC, Article 27; ICESCR, Article 11

    Table 362: Percentage of pensioners in low-income groups by various family and household characteristics, UK, 2009-10 (continued)
    All pensioners (millions) 70%

    Before Housing Costs 50% Black or Black British Black Caribbean Black NonCaribbean Chinese or other ethnic group All pensioners3 9 18 28 60% 70%

    After Housing Costs 50% 60%

    Income thresholds below median

    16 18 ..

    28 30 ..

    40 44 ..

    17 15 ..

    27 25 ..

    44 42 ..

    0.1 0.1 0.0

    20

    29

    38

    19 8

    28 16

    39 25

    0.1 11.5

    Notes: 1 Disability benefits are Disability Living Allowance; Armed Forces Compensation Scheme; Attendance Allowance (for those over 65 years old); Industrial Injuries Disablement Benefit. Disability benefits may be received by or on behalf of the eligible person in the household. 2 The figures for Mixed and Black Non-Caribbean have been suppressed due to small sample sizes. 3 The totals for all pensioners are shown for the UK for the latest year and are not threeyear averages. Low income is defined using thresholds derived from percentages of median income for the whole population. Households reporting the lowest incomes may not have the lowest living standards. The bottom 10 per cent of the income distribution should not, therefore, be interpreted as having the bottom 10 per cent of living standards. This is a particular issue for lower thresholds of median income. To reflect this uncertainty in these tables, results for the 50 per cent of median threshold are presented in italics. Source: DWP (2011b). For the latest HBAI findings see: research.dwp.gov.uk/asd/hbai/hbai2010/index.php?page=contents

    603

    The Right to an Adequate Standard of Living CRC, Article 27; ICESCR, Article 11

    Table 363: Percentage of pensioners aged 65 or over in material deprivation by various family and household characteristics, United Kingdom
    Percentage of pensioners Material deprivation Economic status of adults in the family One or more working No one working Age 65- 69 70- 74 75- 79 80- 84 85+ Family type Couple living with others Couple living alone Single living with others Single living alone Gender Male Female Marital status Couple Married or civil partnered Cohabiting Single Disability and receipt of disability benefits1 Those living in families where no-one is disabled Those living in families where someone is disabled One or more disabled adults In receipt of disability benefits Not in receipt of disability benefits 5 12 12 15 10 4.0 5.6 5.6 2.2 3.4 Continued 6 6 8 13 5.8 5.6 0.2 3.9 8 10 4.3 5.3 10 6 22 12 0.5 5.3 0.5 3.3 9 11 9 9 8 2.8 2.3 1.9 1.5 1.1 4 10 1.2 8.4 Pensioners aged 65 or over (millions)

    604

    The Right to an Adequate Standard of Living CRC, Article 27; ICESCR, Article 11

    Table 363: Percentage of pensioners aged 65 or over in material deprivation by various family and household characteristics, United Kingdom (continued)
    Percentage of pensioners Material deprivation Tenure Owners Owned outright Buying with mortgage Social rented sector tenants All rented privately Ethnic group of head (three-year average)2, 3 White Mixed Asian or Asian British Indian Pakistani and Bangladeshi Black or Black British Black Caribbean Black Non-Caribbean Chinese or other ethnic group All pensioners4 9.1 0.0 .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 9 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 9.6 6 5 15 23 19 7.6 7.1 0.5 1.6 0.4 Pensioners aged 65 or over (millions)

    Notes: 1 Disability benefits are Disability Living Allowance; Armed Forces Compensation Scheme; Attendance Allowance (for those over 65 years old); Industrial Injuries Disablement Benefit. These benefits may be received by or on behalf of the eligible person in the household. 2 The figures for Mixed and Black Non-Caribbean have been suppressed due to small sample sizes. 3 There is only one year of data available for the material deprivation indicator and so it is not possible to provide the standard three-year average statistics for the ethnic group of head. Until this detailed information is available, it is only possible to look at larger groupings: in 2009-10, the material deprivation rate for white pensioners aged 65 or over was nine per cent from a population of 9.3 million, and for pensioners aged 65 or over from all other ethnic groups it was 26 per cent from a population of 0.3 million. 4 The totals for all pensioners are shown for the UK for the latest year and are not threeyear averages. Source: Family Resources Survey 2009-10, DWP (2011b), Table 6.9db.

    605

    The Right to an Adequate Standard of Living CRC, Article 27; ICESCR, Article 11

    Indicator 77: Spotlight statistics: Child income poverty and material deprivation reporting against the Child Poverty Act targets (fulfilment of the Child Poverty Duty)
    Table 364: Percentage of children falling below various thresholds of contemporary median income, UK1, 2, 1998-99 2009-10
    Percentage of children Before Housing Costs Below median 50% FRS (UK) 1998-99 1999-2000 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 Change 1998-99 2009-102, 3 2008-09 2009-102, 3 -3 -1 -6 -2 -5 -1 -5 -1 14 13 12 11 11 11 11 11 12 12 11 10 26 26 23 23 23 22 21 22 22 23 22 20 24 23 21 20 20 19 18 19 20 21 20 19 34 33 31 31 30 29 28 30 30 31 30 29 60% After Housing Costs Below median 50% 60%

    Notes: 1 FRS figures are for Great Britain up to 1997-98, and for the UK from 1998-99, with estimates for Northern Ireland imputed for the years 1998-99 to 2001-02. The reference period for FRS figures is single financial years. 2 Small changes in estimates from year to year, particularly at the bottom of the income distribution, may not be significant in view of data uncertainties; for information on sampling errors refer to the DWP. 3 Due to rounding, the estimates of change in percentages of children below low-income thresholds may not equal the difference between the total percentage of children below thresholds for any pair of years shown. Low income is defined using thresholds derived from percentages of median income for the whole population. Households reporting the lowest incomes may not have the lowest living standards. The bottom 10 per cent of the income distribution should not, therefore, be interpreted as having the bottom 10 per cent of living standards. This is a particular issue for lower thresholds of median income. To reflect this uncertainty in these tables, results for the 50 per cent of median threshold are presented in italics. Source: DWP (2011b). For the latest HBAI findings see: research.dwp.gov.uk/asd/hbai/hbai2010/index.php?page=contents 606

    The Right to an Adequate Standard of Living CRC, Article 27; ICESCR, Article 11

    Table 365:Number of children falling below various thresholds of contemporary median income, UK1, 2, 1998-99-2009-10
    Number of children (millions) Before Housing Costs Below median 50% FRS (UK) 1998-99 1999-2000 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 Change 1998-99 2009-102, 3 2008-09 2009-102, 3 -0.5 -0.1 -0.9 -0.2 -0.7 -0.1 -0.7 -0.1 1.8 1.7 1.6 1.5 1.5 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.5 1.5 1.4 1.3 3.4 3.4 3.1 3.0 2.9 2.9 2.7 2.8 2.9 2.9 2.8 2.6 3.1 3.1 2.8 2.6 2.6 2.5 2.3 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.6 2.4 4.4 4.3 4.1 4.0 3.9 3.7 3.6 3.8 3.9 4.0 3.9 3.8 60% After Housing Costs Below median 50% 60%

    Notes: 1 FRS figures are for Great Britain up to 1997-98, and for the UK from 1998-99, with estimates for Northern Ireland imputed for the years 1998-99 to 2001-02. The reference period for FRS figures is single financial years. 2 Small changes in estimates from year to year, particularly at the bottom of the income distribution, may not be significant in view of data uncertainties; for information on sampling errors refer to the DWP. 3 Due to rounding, the estimates of change in percentages of children below low-income thresholds may not equal the difference between the total percentage of children below thresholds for any pair of years shown. Low income is defined using thresholds derived from percentages of median income for the whole population. Households reporting the lowest incomes may not have the lowest living standards. The bottom 10 per cent of the income distribution should not, therefore, be interpreted as having the bottom 10 per cent of living standards. This is a particular issue for lower thresholds of median income. To reflect this uncertainty in these tables, results for the 50 per cent of median threshold are presented in italics. Source: DWP (2011b). For the latest HBAI findings see: research.dwp.gov.uk/asd/hbai/hbai2010/index.php?page=contents

    607

    The Right to an Adequate Standard of Living CRC, Article 27; ICESCR, Article 11

    Table 366: Number of children falling below various thresholds of 1998-99 median income held constant in real terms, UK1, 2, 1998-99 2009-10
    Number of children (millions) Before Housing Costs Below median 50% FRS (UK) 1998-99 1999-2000 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 Change 1998-99 2009-102, 3 2008-09 2009-102, 3 1.0 -0.1 -2.0 -0.2 -1.7 -0.1 -2.1 -0.1 1.8 1.5 1.2 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.8 3.4 3.1 2.5 2.0 1.8 1.8 1.7 1.6 1.7 1.7 1.6 1.4 3.1 2.7 2.1 1.6 1.5 1.5 1.4 1.4 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.4 4.4 4.1 3.6 3.0 2.7 2.5 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.5 2.4 2.3 60% After Housing Costs Below median 50% 60%

    Notes: 1 FRS figures are for Great Britain up to 1997-98, and for the UK from 1998-99, with estimates for Northern Ireland imputed for the years 1998-99 to 2001-02. The reference period for FRS figures is single financial years. 2 Small changes in estimates from year to year, particularly at the bottom of the income distribution, may not be significant in view of data uncertainties. 3 Due to rounding, the estimates of change in percentages of children below low-income thresholds may not equal the difference between the total percentage of children below thresholds for any pair of years shown. Low income is defined using thresholds derived from percentages of median income for the whole population. Households reporting the lowest incomes may not have the lowest living standards. The bottom 10 per cent of the income distribution should not, therefore, be interpreted as having the bottom 10 per cent of living standards. This is a particular issue for lower thresholds of median income. To reflect this uncertainty in these tables, results for the 50 per cent of median threshold are presented in italics. Source: DWP (2011b). For the latest HBAI findings see: research.dwp.gov.uk/asd/hbai/hbai2010/index.php?page=contents

    608

    The Right to an Adequate Standard of Living CRC, Article 27; ICESCR, Article 11

    Table 367: Percentage of children in low-income groups by various family and household characteristics, UK, 2009-10
    Percentage of children Low income and material deprivation1 Disability and receipt of disability benefits Those living in families where no-one is disabled Those living in families where someone is disabled No disabled adult, 1 or more disabled child 1 or more disabled adult, no disabled child 1 or more disabled adult, 1 or more disabled child In receipt of disability benefits Not in receipt of disability benefits White Mixed Asian or Asian British Indian Pakistani and Bangladeshi Black or Black British Black Caribbean Black NonCaribbean Chinese or other ethnic group All children3 13
    2

    Before Housing Costs Below median 50% 9 60% 18

    After Housing Costs Below median 50% 17 60% 27

    24

    14

    25

    23

    35

    16 27

    8 17

    15 30

    13 28

    22 41

    27

    13

    28

    24

    39

    20 25

    9 15

    17 28

    14 26

    25 39

    Ethnic group of head (three-year average) 15 26 28 14 39 29 24 32 15 16 9 16 25 14 33 18 18 19 20 10 19 28 42 27 54 32 24 36 33 20 17 30 36 22 45 35 25 41 37 19 27 42 52 35 63 48 39 54 48 29

    609

    The Right to an Adequate Standard of Living CRC, Article 27; ICESCR, Article 11

    Notes: 1 A family is in low income and material deprivation if they have a material deprivation score of 25 or more and a household income below 70 per cent contemporary median income, Before Housing Costs. For further details see HBAI Report, website or refer to DWP. 2 Disability benefits are: Disability Living Allowance; Armed Forces Compensation Scheme; Attendance Allowance (for those over 65 years old); Industrial Injuries Disablement Benefit. These benefits may be received by or on behalf of the eligible person in the household. 3 The totals for all children are shown for the UK for the latest year and are not three-year averages. Out of a population of 10.8 million children in families where at least one person works, 13 per cent were in households with incomes below 60 per cent of the median Before Housing Costs (20 per cent After Housing Costs). Out of a population of 2.2 million children in families where no-one works, 51 per cent were in households with incomes below 60 per cent of the median Before Housing Costs (75 per cent After Housing Costs). Within households, pensioners are excluded from the classifications if they are not working, and are included if they are working. For those households where children live only with pensioners, the status of all adults is included in the analysis. Source: DWP (2011b). For the latest HBAI findings see: research.dwp.gov.uk/asd/hbai/hbai2010/index.php?page=contents

    610

    The Right to an Adequate Standard of Living CRC, Article 27; ICESCR, Article 11

    Table 368: Percentage of children falling below various thresholds of 1998/99 median income held constant in real terms, United Kingdom1, 2, 1998-99 2009-10
    Percentage of children Before Housing Costs Below median 50% FRS (UK) 1998-99 1999-2000 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 Change 1998-99 2009-102, 3 2008-09 2009-102, 3 -7 -1 -15 -2 -13 -1 -16 -1 14 11 9 7 7 7 7 7 8 7 7 6 26 23 19 15 14 14 13 13 13 13 12 11 24 21 16 13 11 11 11 11 12 12 12 11 34 31 27 23 21 20 18 19 19 19 19 18 60% After Housing Costs Below median 50% 60%

    Notes: 1 FRS figures are for Great Britain up to 1997-98, and for the UK from 1998-99, with estimates for Northern Ireland imputed for the years 1998-99 to 2001-02. The reference period for FRS figures is single financial years. 2 Small changes in estimates from year to year, particularly at the bottom of the income distribution, may not be significant in view of data uncertainties; for information on sampling errors refer to the DWP. 3 Due to rounding, the estimates of change in percentages of children below low-income thresholds may not equal the difference between the total percentage of children below thresholds for any pair of years shown. Low income is defined using thresholds derived from percentages of median income for the whole population. Households reporting the lowest incomes may not have the lowest living standards. The bottom 10 per cent of the income distribution should not, therefore, be interpreted as having the bottom 10 per cent of living standards. This is a particular issue for lower thresholds of median income. To reflect this uncertainty in these tables, results for the 50 per cent of median threshold are presented in italics. Source: DWP (2011b). For the latest HBAI findings see: research.dwp.gov.uk/asd/hbai/hbai2010/index.php?page=contents 611

    The Right to an Adequate Standard of Living CRC, Article 27; ICESCR, Article 11

    Table 369: Percentage and number of children falling below thresholds of low income and material deprivation1, 2, UK3, 2004-05 2009-10
    Low income and material deprivation Percentage FRS (UK) 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 Change 2008-09 2009-103, 4 -1 -0.1 -1 -0.1 0.2 17 16 16 17 17 16 2.2 2.1 2.0 2.2 2.2 2.0 6 6 6 6 6 5 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.7 12.9 12.8 12.8 12.8 12.8 13.0 Number (millions) Severe low income and material deprivation Percentage Number (millions) All children

    Notes: 1 A family is in low income and material deprivation if they have a material deprivation score of 25 or more and a household income below 70 per cent of contemporary median income, Before Housing Costs. For the latest HBAI findings see: research.dwp.gov.uk/asd/hbai/hbai2010/index.php?page=contents or refer to the DWP. 2 A family is in severe low income and material deprivation if they have a material deprivation score of 25 or more and a household income below 50 per cent of contemporary median income, Before Housing Costs. For the latest HBAI findings see: research.dwp.gov.uk/asd/hbai/hbai2010/index.php?page=contents or refer to the DWP. 3 Small changes in estimates from year to year, particularly at the bottom of the income distribution, may not be significant in view of data uncertainties; see references to sampling errors in original documentation, Appendix 2. 4 Due to rounding, the estimates of change in percentages and numbers of children below low-income thresholds may not equal the difference between the total percentage and total number of children below thresholds for any pair of years shown. Low income is defined using thresholds derived from percentages of median income for the whole population. Households reporting the lowest incomes may not have the lowest living standards. The bottom 10 per cent of the income distribution should not, therefore, be interpreted as having the bottom 10 per cent of living standards. This is a particular issue for lower thresholds of median income. To reflect this uncertainty in these tables, results for the 50 per cent of median threshold are presented in italics. Source: DWP (2011b). For the latest HBAI findings see: research.dwp.gov.uk/asd/hbai/hbai2010/index.php?page=contents

    612

    The Right to an Adequate Standard of Living CRC, Article 27; ICESCR, Article 11

    Table 370: Percentage of children experiencing persistent low income, Great Britain1, 1991-2008
    Percentage of children living in households below the threshold in at least three out of four years Before Housing Costs thresholds 1991-94 1992-95 1993-96 1994-97 1995-98 1996-99 1997-2000 1998-2001 1999-2002 2000-03 2001-04 2002-05 2003-06 2004-07 2005-08 19 18 17 17 17 17 17 17 16 14 12 11 10 10 12 After Housing Costs thresholds 25 23 22 23 23 23 22 21 20 17 15 16 14 15 17

    Below 60% median

    Source: DWP (2011b). For the latest HBAI findings see: research.dwp.gov.uk/asd/hbai/hbai2010/index.php?page=contents

    613

    Indicator 78: Spotlight statistics : Deprivation in other basic needs

    Table 371: Statutory homelessness: Households accepted by local authorities as owed a main homelessness duty, by ethnicity, England, 1998-2010
    Black or Black British Mixed2 Asian or Asian British Chinese or other ethnic group Ethnic group not stated

    Number of households

    White

    The Right to an Adequate Standard of Living CRC, Article 27; ICESCR, Article 11

    614

    1998-99 1999-2000 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10P

    accepted during period 104,260 105,580 114,670 116,660 128,540 135,430 120,860 93,980 73,360 63,170 53,430 40,020 % 75 74 73 71 71 72 74 74 74 72 70 68 N 7,100 7,690 9,860 10,040 12,490 12,960 12,430 9,960 7,250 6,910 6,630 5,600 % 7 7 9 9 10 10 10 11 10 11 12 14 N 5,280 5,470 6,430 6,810 7,000 7,020 6,570 5,190 4,130 3,870 3,310 2,620 % 5 5 6 6 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 7 N .. .. .. .. .. .. 1730 1820 1580 1430 1440 1160 % .. .. .. .. .. .. 1 2 2 2 3 3 N 6,440 6,820 7,500 7,790 9,850 9,440 4,770 3,070 2,150 1,980 1,930 1,550 % 6 6 7 7 8 7 4 3 3 3 4 4

    N 78,260 77,950 83,820 83,040 90,920 98,070 89,180 69,320 54,370 45,500 37,310 27,250

    N 7,200 7,680 7,080 9,010 8,290 7,930 6,170 4,640 3,880 3,520 2,820 1,850

    % 7 7 6 8 6 6 5 5 5 6 5 5

    Source: Department for Communities and Local Government (CLG) (2011).

    Notes: The term homelessness is often considered to apply only to people sleeping rough. However, most statistics on homelessness relate to the statutorily homeless ie those households which meet specific criteria of priority need set out in legislation, and to whom a homelessness duty has been accepted by a local authority. Such households are rarely homeless in the literal sense of being without a roof over their heads, but are more likely to be threatened with the loss of, or are unable to continue with, their current accommodation.

    1 Households found to be eligible for assistance, unintentionally homeless and falling within a priority need group, and consequently owed a main homelessness duty by a local housing authority. Figures reflect decisions under the Housing Act 1996, and residual Housing Act 1985 cases.

    2 In 2004 Q2 the collection of data for people of mixed ethnicity was introduced. Prior to this date, people would have been counted in the category offering the most appropriate description of their ethnicity.

    P Provisional data. Totals may not equal the sum of components because of rounding.

    The Right to an Adequate Standard of Living CRC, Article 27; ICESCR, Article 11

    Table 372: Statutory homelessness: Households accepted by local authorities as owed a main homelessness duty, by Government Office Region, England, 1998-2010 Number of households accepted1 and acceptances rate2 per 1,000 households.
    England 1 104,260 105,580 114,670 116,660 128,540 135,430 120,860 93,980 73,360 63,170 53,430 40,020 North East 1 2 4,460 4.2 4,840 4.5 5,160 4.8 5,610 5.2 6,920 6.4 8,350 7.7 7,940 7.3 5,970 5.5 4,790 4.4 3,600 3.3 3,140 2.8 2,010 1.8 East of England 1 2 8,680 4.0 8,720 4.0 9,810 4.4 10,250 4.6 11,060 4.9 11,190 4.9 10,150 4.4 8,260 3.6 6,890 2.9 5,900 2.5 5,050 2.1 3,660 1.5 North West 1 2 13,100 4.7 12,770 4.6 13,190 4.7 13,280 4.7 15,020 5.3 18,030 6.3 17,360 6.0 13,180 4.6 11,380 3.9 8,530 2.9 5,490 1.9 4,010 1.4 Yorkshire and the Humber 1 2 8,210 4.0 8,380 4.1 9,320 4.5 10,760 5.2 15,300 7.3 16,190 7.7 13,430 6.3 9,450 4.4 8,220 3.8 7,350 3.4 6,260 2.8 3,880 1.8 East Midlands 1 2 7,660 4.5 7,090 4.2 7,430 4.3 7,200 4.1 8,240 4.7 9,590 5.4 9,120 5.1 6,890 3.8 6,020 3.3 4,780 2.6 3,670 2.0 3,060 1.6

    1998-99 1999-2000 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10

    2 5.2 5.2 5.6 5.7 6.2 6.5 5.8 4.4 3.4 2.9 2.5 1.8

    1998-99 1999-2000 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10

    West Midlands 1 2 14,000 6.6 13,210 6.2 13,820 6.5 14,670 6.8 14,770 6.8 15,600 7.2 14,050 6.4 11,960 5.4 8,740 3.9 9,170 4.1 8,670 3.9 7,100 3.2

    London 1 2 26,580 9.2 27,950 9.5 29,710 10.0 29,320 9.7 29,790 9.7 30,080 9.7 26,730 8.6 21,140 6.7 15,390 4.8 13,800 4.3 12,780 3.9 9,460 2.9

    South East 1 2 12,670 3.9 12,860 4.0 14,910 4.6 14,310 4.3 14,670 4.4 15,150 4.5 12,420 3.7 9,320 2.8 6,660 2.0 5,510 1.6 4,730 1.4 3,870 1.1

    South West 1 2 8,930 4.4 9,790 4.8 11,360 5.5 11,300 5.4 12,790 6.0 11,230 5.3 9,680 4.5 7,820 3.6 5,270 2.4 4,520 2.0 3,650 1.6 2,980 1.3

    Source: CLG (2011). Notes: The term homelessness is often considered to apply only to people sleeping rough. However, most statistics on homelessness relate to the statutorily homeless ie those households which meet specific criteria of priority need set out in legislation, and to whom a homelessness duty has been accepted by a local authority. Such households are rarely homeless in the literal sense of being without a roof over their heads, but are more likely to be threatened with the loss of, or are unable to continue with, their current accommodation. 1 Households found to be eligible for assistance, unintentionally homeless and falling within a priority need group, and consequently owed a main homelessness duty by a local housing authority. Figures reflect decisions under the Housing Act 1996, and residual Housing Act 1985 cases. 2 Any changes from previously published rates are due to revision of household estimates. Totals may not equal the sum of components because of rounding.

    615

    The Right to an Adequate Standard of Living CRC, Article 27; ICESCR, Article 11

    Table 373: Number and estimates of rough sleepers, England, 2010


    Total of street counts1 Total estimates of councils that did not count2 440 807

    Source: CLG (2010b). Notes: Experimental statistics. Definition of rough sleepers: People sleeping, about to bed down (sitting on/in or standing next to their bedding) or actually bedded down in the open air (such as on the streets, in tents, doorways, parks, bus shelters or encampments). People in buildings or other places not designed for habitation (such as stairwells, barns, sheds, car parks, cars, derelict boats, stations, or bashes). Figures are as reported by local authorities. 1 The 2010 local authority street counts were carried out between January 2009 and May 2010. Counts for 2010 based on the 2007 count guidance are final. 2 Local authorities who did not carry out a count between January 2009 and May 2010 were asked to submit a single figure estimate of the number of people sleeping rough on any given night as at June 2010. In order to obtain a robust estimate these authorities were referred to the definition of people sleeping rough as given in the guidance and advised to speak to the voluntary sector, the police and other local agencies in order to obtain local intelligence on rough sleeping in their local area. Table 374: Total number of households in fuel poverty,England, 2003-09
    Number of households in group (1000s) 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 1,222 1,236 1,529 2,432 2,823 3,335 3,964 Percentage of households in group 5.9 5.9 7.2 11.5 13.2 15.6 18.4

    Notes: A household is said to be in fuel poverty if it needs to spend more than 10 per cent of its income on fuel to maintain an adequate level of warmth (usually defined as 21 degrees for the main living area, and 18 degrees for other occupied rooms). Source: Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) (2010).

    616

    The Right to an Adequate Standard of Living CRC, Article 27; ICESCR, Article 11

    Table 375: Percentage of households in fuel poverty by ethnicity, disability, vulnerability and Government Office Region, England, 2003-08
    Percentage of households in group Year Ethnic origin of household reference person White 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Ethnic minority 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Yes 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 No 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 95.4 95.1 93.8 89.9 88.3 86.4 4.6 4.9 6.2 10.1 11.7 13.6 54.9 58.6 60.3 62.4 62.3 61.3 Continued 91.0 91.6 90.2 85.2 83.4 79.7 9.0 8.4 9.8 14.8 16.6 20.3 45.1 41.4 39.7 37.6 37.7 38.7 95.4 95.3 93.9 87.8 85.7 83.0 4.6 4.7 6.1 12.2 14.3 17.0 6.1 6.1 7.0 9.3 9.6 10.0 94.0 94.0 92.7 88.6 86.9 84.6 6.0 6.0 7.3 11.4 13.1 15.4 93.9 93.9 93.0 90.7 90.4 90.0 Not fuel poor Fuel poor Percentage of total fuel poor in group

    Someone in household has a Long-term illness or disability

    617

    The Right to an Adequate Standard of Living CRC, Article 27; ICESCR, Article 11

    Table 375: Percentage of households in fuel poverty by ethnicity, disability, vulnerability and Government Office Region, England, 2003-08 (continued)
    Percentage of households in group Year Government Office Region North East 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Yorkshire and the Humber 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 North West 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 East Midlands 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 93.7 94.3 91.9 87.1 85.2 80.8 6.3 5.7 8.1 12.9 14.8 19.2 9.2 8.2 9.5 9.7 9.6 10.8 Continued 93.7 93.4 90.8 85.8 83.8 81.9 6.3 6.6 9.2 14.2 16.2 18.1 14.6 15.3 17.6 17.1 16.8 15.9 91.4 92.3 92.0 87.3 84.5 81.8 8.6 7.7 8.0 12.7 15.5 18.2 14.7 13.2 11.1 11.2 11.8 12.2 91.3 90.5 88.5 83.6 81.3 78.8 8.7 9.5 11.5 16.4 18.7 21.2 7.8 8.3 8.3 7.4 7.3 7.1 Not fuel poor Fuel poor Percentage of total fuel poor in group

    618

    The Right to an Adequate Standard of Living CRC, Article 27; ICESCR, Article 11

    Table 375: Percentage of households in fuel poverty by ethnicity, disability, vulnerability and Government Office Region, England, 2003-08 (continued)
    Percentage of households in group Year West Midlands 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 South West 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 East of England 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 South East 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 95.6 96.1 95.1 91.5 90.5 90.1 4.4 3.9 4.9 8.5 9.5 9.9 12.2 10.7 11.0 12.0 11.8 10.3 Continued 94.9 93.9 93.3 90.3 89.2 87.5 5.1 6.1 6.7 9.7 10.8 12.5 9.4 11.4 10.1 9.2 9.0 8.8 93.5 93.8 91.7 88.4 88.3 84.5 6.5 6.2 8.3 11.6 11.7 15.5 11.4 10.8 11.8 10.5 9.2 10.2 93.3 93.0 91.1 86.3 82.8 77.5 6.7 7.0 8.9 13.7 17.2 22.5 11.9 12.4 12.9 12.5 13.6 15.0 Not fuel poor Fuel poor Percentage of total fuel poor in group

    619

    The Right to an Adequate Standard of Living CRC, Article 27; ICESCR, Article 11

    Table 375: Percentage of households in fuel poverty by ethnicity, disability, vulnerability and Government Office Region, England, 2003-08 (continued)
    Percentage of households in group Year London 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Vulnerable group Not vulnerable group 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Vulnerable group 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Total 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 94.1 94.1 92.8 88.5 86.8 84.4 5.9 5.9 7.2 11.5 13.2 15.6 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 93.4 93.6 92.2 87.2 85.4 82.5 6.6 6.4 7.8 12.8 14.6 17.5 79.7 76.9 78.2 80.1 80.2 79.5 95.9 95.2 94.3 91.9 90.4 89.1 4.1 4.8 5.7 8.1 9.6 10.9 20.3 23.1 21.8 19.9 19.8 20.5 96.4 96.1 96.1 91.7 90.0 89.2 3.6 3.9 3.9 8.3 10.0 10.8 8.8 9.6 7.8 10.5 11.0 9.8 Not fuel poor Fuel poor Percentage of total fuel poor in group

    Department of Energy and Climate Change (2011) Trends in fuel poverty, England, 2003 to 2009, available at: www.decc.gov.uk/assets/decc/Statistics/ fuelpoverty/2182-trends-fuel-poverty-england-2003-2009.xls Notes: A household is said to be in fuel poverty if it needs to spend more than 10 per cent of its income on fuel to maintain an adequate level of warmth (usually defined as 21 degrees for the main living area, and 18 degrees for other occupied rooms). 620

    The Right to an Adequate Standard of Living CRC, Article 27; ICESCR, Article 11

    Indicator 79: Spotlight indicators : Adequate standard of living at risk/vulnerable groups


    Table 376: Children in need whose primary need category is low income Numbers and percentages of children in need at 31 March 20101 , by primary need2 at initial assessment3, England4, 2010
    Numbers of children in need at 31 March 2010, by primary need Numbers of children in need at 31 March 2010 Missing/unknown Abuse or neglect Childs disability or illness Parents disability or illness Family in acute stress Family dysfunction Socially unacceptable behaviour Low income Absent parenting Cases other than children In need Not stated Data confidence indicator
    5

    Percentage of the total number of children in need at 31 March 2010, by primary need n/a 3.5 39.4 12.0 3.4 10.3 15.7 2.1 0.7 3.6 1.5 7.8 n/a

    375,900 13,300 148,300 45,000 12,700 38,500 59,100 8,000 2,500 13,600 5,500 29,300 n/a

    Source: Department for Education (2010b), Table 6. Notes: 1 Data based upon local authorities who submitted data at 31 August 2010. 2 Primary need indicates the main reason why a child started to receive services. It should not be left blank and only one reason should be recorded. 3 An initial assessment is defined as a brief assessment of each child referred to childrens social care with a request for services to be provided. If a child was the subject of more than one initial assessment during the reporting year, each assessment should be coded separately. 4 The total figures for England include estimates for missing data and are rounded to the nearest 100 if over 1,000 or nearest 10 otherwise. Subtotals may not add up to the England total due to rounding. 5 The data is published with a data confidence indicator which provides guidance on the confidence in the data provided by each local authority. 3 denotes high confidence, 2 denotes medium confidence, 1 denotes low confidence, A denotes aggregate information was supplied by the local authority and .. denotes no data was supplied. Further details on the levels of confidence that apply to this table and on the construction of the confidence indicator are in the publication technical notes, paragraphs 20 to 25. 621

    The Right to an Adequate Standard of Living CRC, Article 27; ICESCR, Article 11

    Table 377: Children looked after whose primary need category is low income, by category of need1, 2, 3, England, years ending 31 March 2006 to 31 March 2010
    Numbers 2006 Category of Need4 Abuse or neglect Childs disability Parents illness or disability Family in acute stress Family dysfunction Socially unacceptable behaviour Low income Absent parenting 60,300 37,600 2,400 3,200 4,500 6,200 1,300 110 5,100 2007 60,000 37,200 2,300 3,000 4,700 6,300 1,300 110 5,000 2008 59,400 36,700 2,300 2,800 4,900 6,300 1,200 130 5,100 2009 60,900 37,100 2,200 2,700 5,300 6,900 1,200 140 5,300 2010 64,400 39,200 2,200 2,800 5,800 8,000 1,300 170 4,900

    Source: Department for Education (2010c), Table A1. Notes: 1 Numbers have been rounded to the nearest 100 if they exceed 1,000, and to the nearest 10, otherwise. Percentages have been rounded to the nearest whole number. See original publication Technical Notes for more information on rounding. 2 Figures exclude children looked after under an agreed series of short term placements. 3 Historical data may differ from older publications. This is mainly due to the implementation of amendments and corrections sent by some local authorities after the publication date of previous materials. 4 The most applicable category of the eight need codes at the time the child started to be looked after rather than necessarily the entire reason they are looked after.

    622

    The Right to an Adequate Standard of Living CRC, Article 27; ICESCR, Article 11

    Table 378: Children in need at 31 March 2010 whose primary need category at initial assessment is low income, by age and asylum seeking status,England, 2010
    Childs age at 31 March 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 and over Missing Asylum seeking Missing N Y Frequency 97 127 135 126 156 130 137 138 114 144 131 123 108 106 119 136 139 174 72 28 30 11 21 21 Frequency 15 2,399 109

    Source: Department for Education (2011b), Personal Communication.

    623

    The Right to an Adequate Standard of Living CRC, Article 27; ICESCR, Article 11

    Table 379: Looked after children at 31 March whose primary need category is low income, by age1, 2, England, 2010 Year ending 31 March 2010 Coverage: England
    Numbers All children looked after at 31 March 2010 Under 1 All children Domestic children Unaccompanied asylum seeking children 10 10

    Age at 31 March 2010 (years) 1 to 4 20 20 5 to 9 10 10 10 to 15 20 20 16 and over 50 50

    Source: Department for Education (2011a), Personal Communication. Notes: 1 England totals have been rounded to the nearest 10. Figures of 5 or less, except for 0, have been suppressed and replaced with x. 2 Figures exclude children looked after under an agreed series of short term placements. x Figures not shown in order to protect confidentiality. Table 380: Supported asylum seekers, 2007-09
    Total Q1 2007 Q2 2007 Q3 2007 Q4 2007 Q1 2008 Q2 2008 Q3 2008 Q4 2008 Q1 2009 Q2 2009 Q3 2009 Q4 2009 48,800 48,995 48,470 44,495 33,865 31,580 32,170 32,580 33,165 31,500 29,895 29,150 Subsistence only support 10,935 10,865 10,160 8,900 6,820 6,495 6,600 6,195 6,020 5,120 4,900 4,670 In dispersed accommodation 36,785 37,280 37,060 34,150 25,940 24,060 24,290 25,145 25,895 25,535 24,170 23,845 In initial accommodation 1,075 850 1,250 1,440 1,105 1,025 1,280 1,240 1,250 845 820 635

    Source: Home Office (2010a), Table 2d. 624

    The Right to an Adequate Standard of Living CRC, Article 27; ICESCR, Article 11

    Table 381: Section 4 support for destitute asylum seekers This measure covers asylum seekers who are supported under Section 4 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. Individuals are generally eligible for this support if their asylum application has been finally determined as refused but they are destitute and there are reasons that temporarily prevent them from leaving the UK (Home Office, 2010a). Section 4 support is provided in the form of accommodation and vouchers to cover the cost of food and other basic essentials. At the end of Q4 2009, 11,655 applicants, excluding dependants, were in receipt of Section 4 support, 13 per cent higher than in Q4 2008 (10,295) (Home Office, 2010a). The table below details the number of cases granted Section 4 support from Q1 2007 to Q4 2009. Decisions to grant Section 4 support, UK, Q1 2007 to Q4 2009
    Number of cases granted Section 4 support Q1 2007 Q2 2007 Q3 2007 Q4 2007 Q1 2008 Q2 2008 Q3 2008 Q4 2008 Q1 2009 Q2 2009 Q3 2009 Q4 2009 2,005 1,635 1,480 1,585 1,875 2,220 2,440 2,580 2,905 3,140 2,620 1,440

    Source: Home Office (2010a), Figure 2a.

    625

    Indicator 80: Spotlight Statistics: Public attitudes, understanding and experiences

    Table 382: Support for the right to be looked after by the State if you can not look after yourself by population subgroup, England, 2005
    p-value Highest educ. Qual. (p<0.05) Reference group = Degree or equivalent 0.679 A level or equivalent GCSE A-C or equivalent 1.348 Foreign or other qualifications No qualifications Social class (HRP nssec7) (marg.) 0.009* 0.006* 0.007* 0.107 0.464 1.078 0.398 0.867 Routine occupations Never worked/long-term unemployed Full time students 0.064 0.033* 0.000* 0.001* 0.000* 1.732 1.297 1.332 2.546 2.547 4.047 Continued 1.030 1.983 0.979 2.115 0.428 0.865 0.401 0.880 Reference group = Higher, lower managerial and professions Intermediate occupations/small employer Lower supervisory & technical/semi-routine 0.739 0.784 0.676 0.800 0.445 0.006* 0.016* 0.005* 0.327 0.023* 0.597 0.644 0.514 0.512 0.221 0.914 0.955 0.889 1.251 0.896 GCSE D-E or equivalent 0.589 0.582 0.479 0.614 0.722 0.836 1.124 Higher education below degree 0.695 0.010* 0.023* 0.000* 0.005* 0.003* 0.001* 0.526 0.546 0.462 0.401 0.296 0.466 0.917 0.956 0.750 0.845 0.775 0.810 95% Conf Interval p-value Odds ratio 95% Conf Interval

    Odds ratio

    Gender

    Reference group = male

    Female

    0.969

    Disability 0.445 0.877

    Reference group = no limiting longstanding illness or disability

    Limiting longstanding illness or disability

    1.087

    Ethnicity

    The Right to an Adequate Standard of Living CRC, Article 27; ICESCR, Article 11

    626
    Social housing Equivalent household income

    Reference group = white

    Asian

    0.594

    Black

    0.608

    Mixed

    0.588

    Chinese/other

    0.707

    Age (p<0.05)

    Reference group = 16-19

    20-24

    1.439

    Social housing (renting, landlord is LA, HA etc) Reference group=not social housing 0.948 1.000 0.647 0.956 0.755 1.000 1.191 1.000

    25-34

    1.429

    35-49

    1.842

    50-64

    1.817

    65-70

    2.647

    Table 382: Support for the right to be looked after by the State if you can not look after yourself by population subgroup, England, 2005 (continued)
    p-value IMD (quintile groups) Reference group = IMD First Quintile (least deprived) 0.341 0.938 0.142 0.061 0.007* 0.813 0.072 Yorkshire and the Humber East Midlands 0.01* 0.008* 0.878 0.259 0.078 0.151 0.733 0.002* 0.450 0.831 0.641 1.368 0.849 2.889 0.344 1.059 South West 0.484 1.216 South West 0.629 1.722 South East 0.406 0.873 East of England 0.193 0.797 West Midlands 0.980 1.607 North West 0.656 1.712 Reference group = London 0.746 0.928 0.857 0.679 0.827 1.075 0.923 0.945 0.945 1.240 3.943 Government Office Region (p<0.05) 0.188 0.686 0.416 0.058 0.354 0.697 0.664 0.774 0.774 0.482 0.647 0.590 0.454 0.553 0.746 0.642 0.640 0.640 1.155 1.332 1.244 1.014 1.236 1.551 1.326 1.393 1.393 0.984 2.125 IMD Fifth Quintile 1.349 0.752 7.240 IMD Fourth Quintile 1.280 0.073 0.056 0.648 1.600 IMD Third Quintile 1.256 0.073 0.648 3.497 IMD Second Quintile 1.301 0.026* 1.032 0.979 0.977 0.993 1.641 1.612 1.677 1.835 95% Conf Interval p-value Odds ratio 95% Conf Interval

    Odds ratio

    Religion/belief (p<0.05)

    Reference group = Christian

    Buddhist

    1.505

    Hindu

    1.018

    Jewish

    2.334

    Muslim

    1.446

    Sikh

    2.211

    Any other religion

    1.060

    No religion

    1.255

    Country of birth (p<0.05)

    Reference group = UK

    The Right to an Adequate Standard of Living CRC, Article 27; ICESCR, Article 11

    627

    Irish Republic

    0.393

    India

    0.596

    Pakistan

    1.040

    Bangladesh

    0.768

    Jamaica

    0.603

    East African New Commonwealth

    1.566

    Rest of New Commonwealth

    0.936

    Other

    0.612

    Source: Vizard (2010).Notes: Authors calculations from the Citizenship Survey. The data in this table is for England only. It represents the combined sample, corrected for complex survey design. The findings are accurate to three decimal places. * Significance tests are based on logistic regression analysis controlling for gender, long-term limiting illness or disability, ethnicity, age, religion/belief, country of birth, equivalent household income, highest educational qualification, social class, social housing, index of multiple deprivation ranking, Government Office Region.

    The Right to an Adequate Standard of Living CRC, Article 27; ICESCR, Article 11

    Chapter notes
    680

    The status of UN treaty ratification is drawn from the UN Treaty Database, www.unhchr. ch/tbs/doc.nsf/Statusfrset?OpenFrameSet (accessed 4 November 2010). The status of European treaty ratification is drawn from the Council of Europe Treaty Office website, conventions.coe.int/ (accessed 4 November 2010). When a state signs an international treaty this is signals its preliminary endorsement of the treaty, it does not create a binding legal obligation. A state which ratifies or accedes to a treaty is asserting that it considers itself to be legally bound by the treaty. Ratification requires the state to have previously signed the treaty, whereas accession is a single step which does not require previous signing. It should be noted that a treaty which has been acceded to or ratified by the UK does not automatically become part of the domestic law; separate legislative action is required to incorporate international law into domestic law (for example, the HRA making the ECHR enforceable in the UK). Nonetheless, ratification or accession is a states expression that it consents to be legally bound by the treaty, including respecting and implementing its provisions. www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/socialcharter/Complaints/CC15Merits_en.pdf www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/socialcharter/Complaints/CC27Merits_en.pdf www.lawreports.co.uk/WLRD/2009/CACiv/R(Weaver)_v_LondonQuadrant.html www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/1999/1871.html Suzanne Lambert, The justiciability of economic, social and cultural rights, May 2007, www.justice.org.uk/images/pdfs/escrightspresentation.pdf (accessed 3 March 2011). www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2004/2191.html&query=title+ (+R+)+and+title+(+v+)+and+title+(+Westminster+)+and+title+(+City+)+and+title+ (+Council+)&method=boolean www2.lse.ac.uk/humanRights/articlesAndTranscripts/Human_rights_equality_and_ discrimination.pdf (accessed 11 March 2011). www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldjudgmt/jd051103/adam-1.htm cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentId=880339&portal=hbkm&sourc e=externalbydocnumber&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649 cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentId=794149&portal=hbkm&sourc e=externalbydocnumber&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/2008/63.html www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2003/1522.html www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/2009/22.html www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2009/2957.html cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentId=699671&portal=hbkm&sourc e=externalbydocnumber&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649 www.saflii.org/za/cases/ZACC/2000/14.html oppenheimer.mcgill.ca/IMG/pdf/10-09_Fondements_Pleniere_Grootboom.pdf (accessed 11 March 2011). www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/4b17bc442.html www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/(Symbol)/469f4d91a9378221c12563ed0053547e?Opendocument www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/(Symbol)/959f71e476284596802564c3005d8d50?Opendocument www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/0/4ceb75c5492497d9802566d500516036?Opendocument www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/(Symbol)/3d02758c707031d58025677f003b73b9?Opendocument www2.ohchr.org/english/issues/water/docs/CESCR_GC_15.pdf www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/898586b1dc7b4043c1256a450044f331/493bee38093458c0c125 71140029367c/$FILE/G0640313.pdf daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G08/403/97/PDF/G0840397.pdf?OpenElement www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/cescr/comments.htm www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/0/619d3c786801bc2cc1256bbc00568cea?Opendocument (accessed 13 July 2011).

    681 682 683 684 685 686

    687 688 689 690 691 692 693 694 695 696 697 698 699 700 701 702 703 704 705 706 707

    628

    The Right to an Adequate Standard of Living CRC, Article 27; ICESCR, Article 11

    708 709 710 711 712 713 714 715

    716 717 718 719 720 721 722 723 724 725 726

    www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/9/part/1/crossheading/the-child-poverty-commission www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/9 (accessed 29 November 2011). www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt200809/jtselect/jtrights/183/18305.htm www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt200809/jtselect/jtrights/183/18305.htm www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/31/section/2/enacted (accessed 31 October 2011) www.lawreports.co.uk/WLRD/2009/CACiv/R(Weaver)_v_LondonQuadrant.html www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/1999/1871.html www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2004/2191.html&query=title+ (+R+)+and+title+(+v+)+and+title+(+Westminster+)+and+title+(+City+)+and+title+(+Council+) &method=boolean www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldjudgmt/jd051103/adam-1.htm cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentId=794149&portal=hbkm&sourc e=externalbydocnumber&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649 www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/2008/63.html cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentId=699671&portal=hbkm&sourc e=externalbydocnumber&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649 www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt200809/jtselect/jtrights/183/18305.htm daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G09/429/21/PDF/G0942921.pdf?OpenElement, p7. daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G09/429/21/PDF/G0942921.pdf?OpenElement, p8. daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G09/429/21/PDF/G0942921.pdf?OpenElement, p11 (accessed 2 December 2010). www.unicef.org/media/files/ChildPovertyReport.pdf www.cpag.org.uk/info/ChildWellbeingandChildPoverty.pdf www.bihr.org.uk/projects/poverty

    629

    Part IV
    Appendices

    Appendix 1: Further details of the protection and promotion of human rights in England, Scotland and Wales

    Appendix 1: Further details of the protection and promotion of human rights in England, Scotland and Wales
    The Human Rights Act (HRA) (1998)
    Full details of the HRA are available at: www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1998/ukpga_19980042_en_1. Details of the current status of UK reservations and declarations are provided in full at: conventions.coe.int/Treaty/Commun/ListeDeclarations.asp?PO=UK&NT=&MA=999&CV=1 &NA=&CN=999&VL=1&CM=5&CL=ENG The European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) Protocols that the UK is a party to are the First (property and education), the Third (free elections) and the Sixth (death penalty).

    European regional arrangements


    Figure 11: Human rights treaties signed and ratified or having been the subject of an accession as of 26 February 2010727
    No. 005 Title Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms Signature: 4 November 1950 Opening of the treaty Entry into force E N U

    4 November 1950 3 September 1953

    Ratification or accession: 8 March 1951 20 March 1952

    Entered into force: 3 September 1953 18 May 1954

    009

    Protocol to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms Signature: 20 March 1952

    Ratification or Entered into force: accession: 18 May 1954 3 November 1952 18 October 1961 Ratification or accession: 11 July 1962 6 May 1963 26 February 1965 Entered into force: 26 February 1965 21 September 1970

    035

    European Social Charter Signature: 18 October 1961

    044

    Protocol No. 2 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, conferring upon the European Court of Human Rights competence to give advisory opinions Signature: 6 May 1963

    Ratification or accession: 6 May 1963

    Entered into force: 21 September 1970 Continued

    633

    Appendix 1: Further details of the protection and promotion of human rights in England, Scotland and Wales

    Figure 11: Human rights treaties signed and ratified or having been the subject of an accession as of 26 February 2010727 (continued)
    No. 045 Title Protocol No. 3 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, amending Articles 29, 30 and 34 of the Convention Signature: 6 May 1963 Opening of the treaty 6 May 1963 Entry into force 21 September 1970 E N U

    Ratification or accession: 6 May 1963 20 January 1966

    Entered into force: 21 September 1970 20 December 1971

    055

    Protocol No. 5 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, amending Articles 22 and 40 of the Convention Signature: 10 February 1966

    Ratification or accession: 24 October 1967 6 May 1969

    Entered into force: 20 December 1971 17 April 1971

    067

    European Agreement relating to Persons participating in Proceedings of the European Commission and Court of Human Rights Signature: 6 May 1969

    Ratification or Entered into force: accession: 17 April 1971 24 February 1971 28 April 1983 1 March 1985

    114

    Protocol No. 6 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms concerning the Abolition of the Death Penalty Signature: 27 January 1999

    Ratification or accession: 20 May 1999 19 March 1985

    Entered into force: 1 June 1999 1 January 1990

    118

    Protocol No. 8 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms Signature: 19 March 1985

    Ratification or accession: 21 April 1986

    Entered into force: 1 January 1990 Continued

    634

    Appendix 1: Further details of the protection and promotion of human rights in England, Scotland and Wales

    Figure 11: Human rights treaties signed and ratified or having been the subject of an accession as of 26 February 2010727 (continued)
    No. 126 Title European Convention for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment Signature: 26 November 1987 Opening of the treaty 26 November 1987 Entry into force 1 February 1989 E X N X U

    Ratification or accession: 24 June 1988 25 March 1992

    Entered into force: 1 February 1989

    146

    Protocol No. 10 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms Signature: 25 March 1992

    Ratification or accession: 9 March 1993 5 November 1992 1 March 1998 Ratification or accession: 27 March 2001 Entered into force: 1 July 2001 X X

    148

    European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages Signature: 2 March 2000

    151

    Protocol No. 1 to the European Convention for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment Signature: 9 December 1993

    4 November 1993 1 March 2002

    Ratification or accession: 11 April 1996

    Entered into force: 1 March 2002

    152

    Protocol No. 2 to the European Convention for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment Signature: 9 December 1993

    4 November 1993 1/3/2002

    Ratification or accession: 11 April 1996

    Entered into force: 1 March 2002 Continued

    635

    Appendix 1: Further details of the protection and promotion of human rights in England, Scotland and Wales

    Figure 11: Human rights treaties signed and ratified or having been the subject of an accession as of 26 February 2010727 (continued)
    No. 155 Title Protocol No. 11 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, restructuring the control machinery established thereby Signature: 11 May 1994 Opening of the treaty 11 May 1994 Entry into force 1 November 1998 E N U

    Ratification or Entered into force: accession: 1 November 1998 9 December 1994 1 February 1998 Entered into force: 1 May 1998 1 January 1999 X X

    157

    Framework Convention for the 1 February 1995 Protection of National Minorities Signature: 1 February 1995 Ratification or accession: 15 January 1998 5 March 1996

    161

    European Agreement relating to persons participating in proceedings of the European Court of Human Rights Signature: 27 October 1999

    Entered into force: Ratification or 1 January 2002 accession: 9 November 2001 5 March 1996 1 November 1998

    162

    Sixth Protocol to the General Agreement on Privileges and Immunities of the Council of Europe Signature: 27 October 1999

    Ratification or Entered into force: accession: 10 December 9 November 2001 2001 3 February 2002 1 July 2003

    187

    Protocol No. 13 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, concerning the abolition of the death penalty in all circumstances Signature: 3 May 2002

    Ratification or accession: 10 October 2003

    Entered into force: 1 February 2004 Continued

    636

    Appendix 1: Further details of the protection and promotion of human rights in England, Scotland and Wales

    Figure 11: Human rights treaties signed and ratified or having been the subject of an accession as of 26 February 2010727 (continued)
    No. 194 Title Protocol No. 14 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, amending the control system of the Convention Signature: 13 July 2004 Opening of the treaty 13 May 2004 Entry into force 1 June 2010 E N U

    Ratification or accession: 28 January 2005 16 May 2005

    Entered into force: 1 June 2010 1 February 2008 X X X

    197

    Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings Signature: 23 March 2007

    Ratification or accession: 17 December 2008

    Entered into force: 1 April 2009

    Notes: Convention(s) and agreement(s) opened to the member states of the Council of Europe and, where appropriate, to the: E: European non-member states N: Non-European nonmember states U: European Union. See the final provisions of each treaty. Source: Treaty Office on conventions.coe.int

    637

    Appendix 1: Further details of the protection and promotion of human rights in England, Scotland and Wales

    Core international human rights treaties


    Figure 12: Current status of UK ratification of UN human rights treaties728
    International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights New York, 16 December 1966 Entry into force: Registration: Status: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland Note: 3 January 1976, in accordance with Article 27 3 January 1976, No. 14531 Signatories: 69. Parties: 160 Signature 16 September 1968 Ratification, accession (a), succession (d) 20 May 1976

    The Covenant was opened for signature at New York on 19 December 1966.

    Declarations and reservations: treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=IV-3&chapter=4&lang=en#14 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights New York, 16 December 1966 Entry into force: 23 March 1976, in accordance with Article 49, for all provisions except those of Article 41; 28 March 1979 for the provisions of Article 41 (Human Rights Committee), in accordance with paragraph 2 of the said Article 41 23 March 1976, No. 14668 Signatories: 69. Parties: 160 Signature 16 September 1968 Ratification, accession (a), succession (d) 20 May 1976

    Registration: Status: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland Note:

    The Covenant was opened for signature at New York on 19 December 1966.

    Declarations and reservations: treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=IV-4&chapter=4&lang=en#6 International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination New York, 7 March 1966 Entry into force: Registration: Status: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland Note: 4 January 1969, in accordance with Article 19 12 March 1969, No. 9464 Signatories: 85. Parties: 173 Signature 11 October 1966 Ratification, accession (a), succession (d) 7 March 1969

    The Convention was adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations in resolution 2106 (XX) of 21 December 1965.

    Declarations and reservations: treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=IV-2&chapter=4&lang=en#12 Continued

    638

    Appendix 1: Further details of the protection and promotion of human rights in England, Scotland and Wales

    Figure 12: Current status of UK ratification of UN human rights treaties728 (continued)


    Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women New York, 18 December 1979 Entry into force: Registration: Status: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland Note: 3 September 1981, in accordance with Article 27(1) 3 September 1981, No. 20378 Signatories: 98. Parties: 186 Signature 22 July 1981 Ratification, accession (a), succession (d) 7 April 1986

    The Convention was opened for signature at the United Nations Headquarters on 1 March 1980.

    Declarations and reservations: treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=IV-3&chapter=4&lang=en#14 Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women New York, 6 October 1999 Entry into force: Registration: Status: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland Note: 22 December 2000, in accordance with Article 16(1)(see paragraph 16 of Resolution A/RES/54/4) 22 December 2000, No. 20378 Signatories: 79. Parties: 99 Signature Ratification, accession (a), succession (d) 17 December 2004 (a)

    The Protocol was adopted by resolution A/RES/54/4 of 6 October 1999 at the fifty-fourth session of the General Assembly of the United Nations.

    Declarations and reservations: treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=IV-8-b&chapter=4&lang=en Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment New York, 10 December 1984 Entry into force: Registration: Status: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland Note: 26 June 1987, in accordance with Article 27(1) 26 June 1987, No. 24841 Signatories: 76. Parties: 146 Signature 15 March 1985 Ratification, accession (a), succession (d) 8 December 1988

    The Convention was adopted by resolution 39/46 of 10 December 1984 at the thirty-ninth session of the General Assembly of the United Nations.

    Declarations and reservations: treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=IV-9&chapter=4&lang=en Continued

    639

    Appendix 1: Further details of the protection and promotion of human rights in England, Scotland and Wales

    Figure 12: Current status of UK ratification of UN human rights treaties728 (continued)


    Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment New York, 18 December 2002 Entry into force: Registration: Status: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland Note: 22 June 2006 22 June 2006, No. 24841 Signatories: 64. Parties: 50 Signature 26 June 2003 Ratification, accession (a), succession (d) 10 December 2003

    The above Protocol was adopted on 18 December 2002 at the fifty-seventh session of the General Assembly of the United Nations by resolution A/RES/57/199. In accordance with Article 27(1), the Protocol was opened for signature on 4 February 2003, the first possible date, by any state that has signed the Convention. In accordance with operative paragraph 1 of General Assembly resolution A/RES/57/199, the Protocol is available for signature, ratification and accession at United Nations Headquarters in New York. Convention on the Rights of the Child New York, 20 November 1989

    Entry into force: Registration: Status: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland Note:

    2 September 1990, in accordance with Article 49(1) 2 September 1990, No. 27531 Signatories: 140. Parties: 193 Signature 19 April 1990 Ratification, accession (a), succession (d) 16 December 1991

    The Convention was adopted by resolution 44/25 of 20 November 1989 at the forty-fourth session of the General Assembly of the United Nations.

    Declarations and reservations: treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=IV-11&chapter=4&lang=en Continued

    640

    Appendix 1: Further details of the protection and promotion of human rights in England, Scotland and Wales

    Figure 12: Current status of UK ratification of UN human rights treaties728 (continued)


    Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the Involvement of Children in Armed Conflict New York, 25 May 2000 Entry into force: Registration: Status: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland 12 February 2002, in accordance with Article 10(1) 12 February 2002, No. 27531 Signatories: 125. Parties: 132 Signature 7 September 2000 Ratification, accession (a), succession (d) 24 June 2003

    Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the Sale of Children, Child Prostitution and Child Pornography New York, 25 May 2000 Entry into force: Registration: Status: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland 18 January 2002, in accordance with Article 14(1) 18 January 2002, No. 27531 Signatories: 117. Parties: 136 Signature 7 September 2000 Ratification, accession (a), succession (d) 20 February 2009

    Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities New York, 13 December 2006 Entry into force: Registration: Status: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland 3 May 2008, in accordance with Article 45(1) 3 May 2008, No. 44910 Signatories: 144. Parties: 80 Signature 30 March 2007 Ratification, accession (a), succession (d) 8 June 2009

    Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities New York, 13 December 2006 Entry into force: Registration: Status: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland 3 May 2008, in accordance with Article 13(1) 3 May 2008, No. 44910 Signatories: 88. Parties: 51 Signature 26 February 2009 Ratification, accession (a), succession (d) 7 August 2009

    641

    Appendix 1: Further details of the protection and promotion of human rights in England, Scotland and Wales

    Figure 13: Summary of UK ratifications of core UN human rights treaties729


    United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland CAT-Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment CAT-OP-Optional Protocol to the Convention Against Torture and Cruel Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment CCPR-International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights CCPR-OP1-Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights CCPR-OP2-DP-Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights CED-Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance CEDAW-Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women CEDAW-OP-Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women Status Ratification Signature date 15 March 1985 26 June 2003 EIF date 7 January 1989 22 June 2006 Record of instruction 8 December 1988 10 December 2003

    Ratification

    Ratification No action

    16 September 1968

    20August 1976

    20 May 1976

    Ratification

    31 March 1999

    10 March 2000

    10 December 1999

    No action

    Ratification

    22 July 1981

    7 May 1986

    7 April 1986

    Accession

    17 March 2005

    17 December 2004

    CERD-International Convention Ratification on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination CESCR-International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights CESCR-OP-Optional Protocol to the Covenant on Economic; Social and Cultural Rights CMW-International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families CPD-Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities CPD-OP-Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities CRC-Convention on the Rights of the Child Ratification No action

    11 October 1966 16 September 1968

    6 April 1969

    7 March 1969

    20 August 1976

    20 May 1976

    No action

    Ratification Ratification

    30 March 2007 26 February 2009 19 April 1990

    8 July 2009 7 September 2009 15 January 1992

    8 June 2009 7 August 2009

    Ratification

    16 December 1991

    642

    Appendix 1: Further details of the protection and promotion of human rights in England, Scotland and Wales

    Appendix 1 notes
    727

    conventions.coe.int/Treaty/Commun/ListeTraites.asp?PO=UK&MA=44&SI=2&DF=&CM=3&CL=ENG (accessed 26 February 2010). Information from www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/treaty/index.htm (accessed 26 February 2010). When a state signs an international treaty this signals its preliminary endorsement of the treaty, it does not create a binding legal obligation. A state which ratifies or accedes to a treaty is asserting that it considers itself to be legally bound by the treaty. Ratification requires the state to have previously signed the treaty, whereas accession is a single step which does not require previous signing. It should be noted that a treaty which has been acceded to or ratified by the UK does not automatically become part of domestic law; separate legislative action is required to incorporate international law into domestic law (for example the HRA making the ECHR enforceable in the UK). Nonetheless, ratification or accession, is a states expression that it consents to be legally bound by the treaty, including respecting and implementing its provisions. Source: www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/Statusfrset?OpenFrameSet (accessed 1 March 2010).

    728

    729

    643

    Locals N 418 1 38 372 92 1653 92 727 88 3,642 90 1,147 93 1,147 87 671 9 181 11 114 14 501 13 52 6 214 18 33 4 92 0 1,683 92 3 0 22 1 14 1 100 8 99 133 1,858 855 4,167 1,254 1,352 776 1011 9 16 % N % N % N % N % N % N % N %

    High security Youth Open Female Under 18 Custody

    Category B trainers

    Category C trainers

    Number of completed questionnaires returned

    4,323

    Are you under 21 years of age?

    236

    Are you a foreign national?

    549

    14

    Is English your first language?

    3,650

    87

    Are you from a minority ethnic group (including all those who did not tick White British, White Irish or White other categories)? 122 25 64 18 83 24 154 11 113 17 505 5 22 2 33 5 121 4 15 15 186 15 99 15 372 11 109 11 100 4 58 5 9 2 11 1 10 28 519 30 239 29 1,073 27 292 27 372 17 81 251 161 28 7 7 25 16

    1,092

    28

    247 31 83

    32 6 11

    314

    35

    Appendix 2: Demographics of respondents to the HM Inspectorate of Prisons surveys

    Appendix 2: Demographics of respondents to HM Inspectorate of Prisons surveys

    645

    Do you consider yourself to be Gypsy/Roma/Traveller?

    90

    Are you Muslim?

    426

    12

    107 17 22 10 197 5 84 11

    12 2 19 1 Continued

    Are you homosexual/gay or bisexual?

    132

    Do you consider yourself to have a disability?

    795

    21

    Are you transgender/ transsexual?

    Are you 18 years of age?

    Appendix 2: Demographics of respondents to HM Inspectorate of Prisons surveys

    Immigration removal centres N Number of completed questionnaires returned Are you male? Are you aged under 21 years? Is English your first language? Do you understand spoken English? Do you understand written English? Are you Muslim? Do you consider yourself to have a disability? 1,019 908 125 265 722 670 367 164 87 12 27 75 68 38 20 %

    Source: HMIP

    646

    Appendix 3: Details of participation in the Human Rights Measurement Framework Specialist Consultation and Advisory Group

    Appendix 3: Details of participation in the Human Rights Measurement Framework Specialist Consultation and Advisory Group
    Scotland event (Edinburgh), Friday18 June 2010 England event (London), Monday28 June 2010 Wales event (Cardiff), Tuesday6 July 2010

    The web consultation ran from 21 June to12 September at personal.lse.ac.uk/PRECHR/ (see Figure 14). For the consultation day events in England, Scotland and Wales, there were 39 participants (excluding observers, project management team members and research team members). Five organisations submitted a formal response to the web consultation. In addition, a number of one-to-one in-depth meetings (including some multiple meetings) were held with targeted organisations as part of the Specialist Consultation process. The aim here was to gain a better understanding of the current use of indicators for human rights monitoring purposes on the ground within a range of organisations including the Independent Police Complaints Commission, HM Inspectorate of Prisons, the Care Quality Commission, Age UK, Audit Scotland and the Police Complaints Commissioner for Scotland. We also had email exchanges and conversations with different non-profitorganisations and Government departments (including different divisions within the organisations and departments). Feedback and comments were received from two Ministry of Justice convened groups (the Human Rights Senior Champions Meeting on 17 November 2010, and the Regulators, Inspectorates and Ombudsmen Forum on Human Rights on 1 December 2010).

    647

    Appendix 3: Details of participation in the Human Rights Measurement Framework Specialist Consultation and Advisory Group

    Figure 14: Screenshot of the web consultation

    648

    Appendix 3: Details of participation in the Human Rights Measurement Framework Specialist Consultation and Advisory Group

    Participation in the Human Rights Measurement FrameworkSpecialist Consultation


    Edinburgh Aoife Daly Ruth Dickinson Nancy Fancott Kay Goodall Jon Harris Juliet Harris Kristi Long Jacqui McQueen Brian Peddie Marcia Ramsay Liz Rowlett Rebecca Spillane London Asif Afridi Maggie Beirne Alice Donald Jaya Gajparia Teresa Hanley Hana Ibrahim Arjumand Kazmi Louise King Todd Landman Alexandra Runswick Brenda Weston BRAP International Council on Human Rights Policy London Metropolitan University, Human Rights and Social Justice Research Institute Womens Resource Centre Joseph Rowntree Foundation: Globalisation, UK Poverty and Communities MacMillan Cancer: Improving Cancer Services Directorate; Volunteering and Inclusion Voice4Change England Save the Children University of Essex: Institute for Democracy and Conflict Resolution Unlock Democracy Equality South West 649 Save the Children Scottish Government, Patients Rights Bill team Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations University of Stirling, School of Law Convention of Scottish Local Authorities Together Scottish Alliance for Childrens Rights National Health Service Education for Scotland The State Hospital Scottish Government: EU and International Law Branch, Civil Law Division Scottish Commission for the Regulation of Care Scottish Disability and Equality Forum East Lothian Council

    Appendix 3: Details of participation in the Human Rights Measurement Framework Specialist Consultation and Advisory Group

    Cardiff Trudy Aspinwall Rob Beardall Gwion Evans Tracey Goode Samantha Grant Michael Harmer Eleanor Hicks Marcus Hill Save the Children Welsh Local Government Association: Equalities and Social Justice Team (Policy) Childrens Commissioner for Wales National Health Service Centre for Equality and Human Rights Welsh Assembly Government: Demography, Heritage and Equalities Statistics/Statistical Directorate Welsh Assembly Government: Social Justice Branch, Social Research Division Stonewall Cymru Welsh Assembly Government: Rights and Entitlements Branch; Children and Young Peoples Strategy Division; Department for Children, Education, Lifelong Learning and Skills Swansea University, School of Law Welsh Womens Aid Amnesty International Wales Wales Audit Office Welsh Assembly Government: Equality and Diversity Champion/ Health and Social Services Welsh Local Government Association; Equalities and Social Justice Team (Older People and Ageing) Welsh Assembly Government: Equalities, Diversity and Inclusion Division Welsh Language Board

    Simon Hoffman Nesta Lloyd-Jones Cathy Owens Michael Palmer Denise Puckett David Warren Sue Watkins Andrew White

    650

    Appendix 3: Details of participation in the Human Rights Measurement Framework Specialist Consultation and Advisory Group

    One-to-one meetings Eric Metcalfe Anne Owers Laura Nettleingham Louise Falshaw Nigel Thompson Frank Worth Sara Brodie Anthony Nick Hardwick Katherine Hill Frances Butler Justice HM Inspectorate of Prisons HM Inspectorate of Prisons HM Inspectorate of Prisons Care Quality Commission Care Quality Commission Police Complaints Commissioner for Scotland Audit Scotland Independent Police Complaints Commission Age UK Independent Adviser on Human Rights

    Presentations at Ministry of Justice convened events Human Rights Senior Champions Meeting, 17 November 2010 Regulators, Inspectorates and Ombudsmen Forum on Human Rights, 1 December 2010 Email correspondence, telephone conversations and other exchanges Aneeka Alam Philipa Bragman Margaret Greenfields Vass Pyrkos Preth Rao Jane Furniss Claudia Wells Lucy Wilkinson Keith Main Emma Fossey David Signorini Ed Stradling Stephen Ashcroft Tenant Services Authority CHANGE Buckinghamshire New University Criminal Justice Womens Policy Team, Ministry of Justice Local Government Ombudsman Independent Police Complaints Commission Centre for Health Analysis and Life Events, Office for National Statistics Equality, Diversity and Human Rights Manager, Care Quality Commission Police Division, Scottish Government Scottish Government Scottish Government National Offender Management Service, Ministry of Justice Department for Education (Children and Early Years Data Unit) 651

    Appendix 3: Details of participation in the Human Rights Measurement Framework Specialist Consultation and Advisory Group

    The Human Rights Measurement Framework Advisory Group The project has benefited from scrutiny, feedback and input from an expert Advisory Group with three Advisory Group meetings held over the lifetime of the Human Rights Measurement Framework: Advisory Group I (11 March 2010) Road-testing of the Human Rights Measurement Framework provisional panels Advisory Group II (5 October 2010) Recommendations following preliminary feedback, comments and suggestions from the Specialist Consultation with stakeholders and subject experts Advisory Group III (16 May 2011) Scrutinise the draft final shortlist of indicators and measures, draft final project recommendations, etc. Participation in the Advisory Group Paul Allin Nick Croft Tom Dooley Warwick Allen Lizzie Romilly Lindsey Dyer Nicolas Fasel Gillian Fawcett Tracey Good Samantha Grant Michael Harmer Julia Husermann Todd Landman Peter Matejic Diane McGiffen Office for National Statistics City of Edinburgh Council Home Office Home Office Home Office Mersey Care National Health Service Trust Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, Right to Development Section The Association of Chartered Certified Accountants National Health Service Centre for Equality and Human Rights Welsh Assembly Government Welsh Assembly Government Rights and Humanity Essex University, Institute for Democracy and Conflict Resolution Department for Work and Pensions, Households Below Average Income Team Audit Scotland

    652

    Appendix 3: Details of participation in the Human Rights Measurement Framework Specialist Consultation and Advisory Group

    Brian Peddie Duncan Isles Jiwan Raheja Jacquie Roberts Karen Anderson Isabella Sankey Sally Stares Nigel Thompson

    Scottish Government: EU and International Law Branch, Civil Law Division Scottish Government: EU and International Law Branch, Civil Law Division Ministry of Justice, Human Rights Team Scottish Care Commission Scottish Care Commission Liberty London School of Economics, Methodology Institute Care Quality Commission

    653

    Appendix 4: Record of feedback, comments and recommendations from the Human Rights Measurement Framework Specialist Consultation

    Appendix 4: Record of feedback, comments and recommendations from the Human Rights Measurement Framework Specialist Consultation
    This section records the feedback from participants in the HRMF specialist consultation. Participants commented on a first draft of the panels and indicator dashboards. The panels, indicator dashboards and project indicator selection criteria were revised in the light of consultation feedback and comments. Key changes included the inclusion of additional qualitative indicators, more emphasis on non-official and NGO sources and the inclusion of a standalone panel on the right to an adequate standard of living.

    Overall project objectives


    The vast majority of participants responded positively to the project and its overall objectives. The following issues were raised in relation to the overall project objectives and the overall positioning of the Human Rights Measurement Framework (HRMF). The limited coverage of the HRMF was a key concern and many participants called for additional panels to be developed and for coverage of all of the human rights that are included within the HRA and the regional and international human rights treaties that the UK is signed up to. Various suggestions were made regarding the next panels that should be developed as the HRMF is extended over time including a childrens panel, a panel for people with disabilities, a panel on access to justice, and a panel on the right to participation. Participants in England and Wales suggested a single panel on adequate standard of living (with food , housing etc. flowing from this) rather than separate panels on food and housing (with no coverage of generic standard of living) would make sense and emphasised the importance of including poverty (including child poverty) in the first round. There were also some general suggestions about the organisation of the panels (for example, under Article 3, effective protection in society, families and communities should be an indicator title rather than an attribute).

    Scope of the consultation lack of engagement with at risk/disadvantaged groups


    Some participants were concerned that those experiencing/at risk of discrimination and disadvantage should be involved with the Specialist Consultation, which was limited to subject experts and stakeholders. Precedents for direct involvement in indicator selection processes that were highlighted during discussions included projects in Northern Ireland.

    655

    Appendix 4: Record of feedback, comments and recommendations from the Human Rights Measurement Framework Specialist Consultation

    CHANGE highlighted the importance of direct participation and engaging with people with learning disabilities. There was a suggestion that without this type of involvement the framework would not be useful for disadvantaged/at risk individuals and groups.

    Top-down approach versus civil society engagement


    Some participants articulated a related concern that the HRMF would be developed as a top down tool rather than something that actively engages with, and is driven forward by, civil society.

    Name
    There was some discussion of the name of the HRMF. Some participants felt that the term monitoring framework would be more appropriate than measurement framework since the framework includes both qualitative and quantitative indicators and the former are not well captured by the term measurement and it is critical that qualitative as well as quantitative evidence is included within the HRMF. Others felt that the term measurement framework captured the authoritative nature of the evidence base that the HRMF will provide, and ensures parity of status of the HRMF with other Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) Frameworks. Welsh Assembly Government(WAG) noted that from the policy perspective, the term human rights measurement should not cause any problems. However, the statisticians perspective is that the name of the framework might need changing as it is not a measurement framework and the terminology monitoring framework might be preferable. There needs to be an emphasis on using plain English.

    Concerns around potential misuse of data


    Concerns around the potential misuse of data were raised at all three consultation events. Participants were concerned that the HRMF could be represented as a violations counting system and that inferences might be made from statistical data in particular that were not valid. For example, statistical data on the number of stop and searches does not in itself establish where human rights violations have occurred. Although this concern can be addressed in part by more detailed data (for example, the number of stop and searches that lead to arrests) there is ultimately a need for the HRMF to be accompanied by a high quality human rights analysis/narrative to clarify and tease out the human rights issues. Another concern was a possible over-reliance on available information and data. The HRMF should not be a data driven exercise and it is important to clarify the conceptual issues as a foundation for measurement. For example, in relation to

    656

    Appendix 4: Record of feedback, comments and recommendations from the Human Rights Measurement Framework Specialist Consultation

    suicides associated with hate crime, an absence of data does not imply an absence of a problem. Indeed, human rights violations may reside precisely where there is least statistical information since the activities involved may be concealed and covert (for example, torture)

    The role of non-official statistics within the HRMF


    A further concern was possible over-reliance onofficial statistics. The HRMF should covercivil society/Non-Government Organisations (NGO). It is critical not to over-rely on the states own reporting systems for human rights monitoring purposes. One organisation commented that they remained concerned that the current design of the structural indicators only allows for official data sources and statistics. These would not allow for disaggregation of indicators by all prohibited grounds of discrimination, as much of this data isnot currently collected by official sources, especially where this concerns sexual orientation. They felt that NGO and other data sources should be considered for inclusion where other data is insufficient. Policy frameworks and regional legislation which impacts on human rights should be included in the structural indicators as standard, for example Welsh Measures. Although it was recognised that there will be a concern that some NGO and other data may have implications in terms of statistical and official validation, it was felt that if there is a statement included with the HRMF as to the sources and validation for such data then the framework would not be subject to such concerns. Inspectorates and regulators used for structural indicators need to include Welsh regulators, for example Estyn instead of Ofsted,the Wales Audit Office, the Public Service Ombudsman for Wales, etc. Other official bodies also need to be included, for example, the Childrens Commissioner for Wales, Older Peoples Commissioner for Wales and the Welsh Language Board/Commissioners office. It was also felt that there is great value to including community information, not just official sources. For example, hate incidents may not be identified accurately in police official statistics, due to under-reporting, whereas community helplines may assist in obtaining a more accurate statistics.

    Potential use of the HRMF by stakeholders


    Participants in Scotland highlighted the applications of the EMF in the context of performance management and suggested that the HRMF could have similar applications. One participant in Wales raised a concern regarding the potential use of the HRMF for performance management purposes in the local government context. The HRMF includes indicators of process as well as outcomes and this positioning might conflict with the new Government focus on outcomes monitoring. One participant commented that another concern was that at the local level, local bodies are having their capacities reduced, so there is less time to focus on gathering/interpreting statistics from the human rights perspective. 657

    Appendix 4: Record of feedback, comments and recommendations from the Human Rights Measurement Framework Specialist Consultation

    Another felt that the reduction in capacity is what makes the HRMF more important it will be critical to identify and present data on human rights in the forthcoming period and the HRMF can help as an advocacy tool to ensure that robust data on human rights is available. One participant in Wales commented that local ownership of the HRMF would be critical for taking it forward. We need to be able to show practitioners that the HRMF, whether from a WAG, National Health Service (NHS) or otherperspective, is all actually based around a Welsh strategic perspective. Another participant in Wales suggested that the language of compliance could raise difficulties for some organisations, and suggested that the language of fulfilment might be preferable. Another in London suggested that regulation in terms of equality has not always worked well and has often been punitive and that this has resulted in a tickbox culture. It would be important to communicate, for example, that the purpose of the framework is to help public services and assist them to improve the quality of their services. One participant suggested that those working in the field of inequality are scared and apprehensive about the human rights area. We will need to be aware of this social phenomenon when trying to apply the HRMF in practice.

    Legal terminology versus plain and accessible English


    Some participants emphasised that the HRMF is about monitoring the law and that the terminology adopted should be anchored in legal definitions and terminology. Other participants suggested that the language adopted in the HRMF was too complex and needed to be simplified. One participant at the Welsh event suggested that for the HRMF to be an active driver of change, it would need to be simplified, particularly if results are going to be released. A practitioner may not understand all the layers of complexity as it is currently presented, which is a potential problem, particularly given the political climate that weare going into now. One participant at the London event commented that basic, simple information is required at the local level, for individuals and organisations about their human rights. If people donot know that their rights have been violated, then it will not be possible to capture that data. Simplification of the HRMF, and educating people about their rights, would therefore be required for it to be implemented at the local level. Some participants emphasised the importance of working with plain English descriptions (there were suggestions for plain English versions of the structure/ process and outcome indicator descriptions).

    658

    Appendix 4: Record of feedback, comments and recommendations from the Human Rights Measurement Framework Specialist Consultation

    The distinction between accessible and plain English and the importance of making the HRMF accessible to specific groups (for example, people with learning difficulties) was highlighted by CHANGE. CHANGE could provide good practice examples of accessible as oppose to plain English. WAG suggested that there could be a simple definition of the meaning of each article included in the panels in order to provide a context. .

    International versus domestic focus


    The majority of participants seemed to support the decision to cover both the domestic and the international framework for the protection and promotion of human rights. A limited number of participants had a preference for a focus on the international human rights framework on the one hand, or the Human Rights Act (HRA) on the other. Participants discussed the implications of the issue of broader international understanding of the nature of scope of rights in some areas. For example, the UN Committee on Civil and Political Rights understanding of the right to life, in its General Comment 6, as including issues such as infant mortality rates and life expectancy as opposed to a more narrow understanding under Article 2 of the HRA, was discussed. Some participants highlighted the importance of ensuring that all international treaties are captured under all panels. One participant pointed out that domestic law might conflict with international treaty standards for example, in relation to housing, and asked how this would be captured by the structural indicators within the HRMF system.

    Minimum compliance, positive duties, human rights culture


    Some participants expressed concern about moving away from case law and jurisprudence. However, most participants appeared to support a broader approach engaging with regulatory frameworks, policies and results as well as case law outcomes. Many participants raised the importance of distinguishing between negative and positive obligations and the need to capture both dimensions of obligation within the HRMF so that the extent to which agencies use human rightsas a positive driver of service quality and delivery can be measured. There was also a discussion of the definition of a public authority in the UK and the exclusion of coverage of the HRA where there were no public funds at stake, for example,privately funded places in care home or private schools. One participant felt that complaints against private sub-contractors of public services need to be covered.

    659

    Appendix 4: Record of feedback, comments and recommendations from the Human Rights Measurement Framework Specialist Consultation

    One participant commented that it would be important, under the positive obligations concept, to capture the extent to which human rights are being used as a positive driver of good practice. A number of participants recognised that the terminology of effective protection within society, community and family could provide a plain English description of positive duties,for example, in the context of homicide/domestic violence. However, it was suggested that this term was best applied as an indicator label rather than an attribute.

    Distinction between structure, process and outcome indicators


    No major substantive problems with the United Nations Office for the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) typology were identified through the Specialist Consultation process. As mentioned above, one participant in Wales pointed out that the current Government may only be interested in the outcomes, not structure or processes. Consequently, in local government, there is also a shift in thinking towards monitoring outcomesrather than processes. If we leave the framework as it is, there is a danger of being disconnected. Some participants thought that working with categories can be problematic since the categories are inherently fuzzy (for example, is case law best described as a structural or outcome indicator?) At the London event, one participant highlighted the need to link processes to outcomes, to achieve continuity in the HRMF. For example, in trying to develop human rights for cancer care in the UK, there are a number of behaviours in a cancer care pathway to understand if peoples human rightsare to be protected. It is important to identify the plan and policy, but also to monitor the outcomes, from the human rights perspective. A number of participants highlighted the need to get a sense of flow between the structural, process and outcome indicators. The challenge would be to relate outcome indicators back to process;identifying which agencies have responsibility. JUSTICEsuggested that the distinction between structural, process and outcome indicators is useful (although the case for outcome indicators is perhaps less clear cut).

    Modification of the OHCHR panels


    There was general agreement that the OHCHR Framework would need modifying for the English,Scottish and Welsh contexts and the modifications required would involve some modification of attributes as well as indicators.

    660

    Appendix 4: Record of feedback, comments and recommendations from the Human Rights Measurement Framework Specialist Consultation

    Definition of a human rights indicator


    Participants discussed the merits of a definition based on broader values versus one based on human rights articles. Some participants thought there was some advantage to sticking to a legal definition rather than substituting this with vague concepts. For example, Colm OCinneide, UCL Faculty of Laws, noted that the definition is okay. There are advantages in clarity in retaining the reference to human rights (with its link to the welldeveloped and extensive international standards) rather than substituting it with references to vague concepts such as dignity and autonomy. Others highlighted the advantages of a focus on concepts,for example, participation, autonomy, dignity, non-discrimination. Data providers often focused on these terms rather than on human rights articles, and it would be important to include these as human rights indicators. For example, one organisation commented that they were happy with the definition of a human rights indicator and feel that this is specific and yet flexible enough to underpin the development of a practical and useful framework. They also welcomed the suggestion that measures need not use the term human rights expressly, as this allows for utilisation of all relevant indicators without the need to redefine them. This organisation remained concerned that if this definition is used publicly then only human rights and equality specialists will be able to understand the definition. Therefore,they suggested the development of a plain language developed for public use and to ensure that the framework is understood by anyone with an interest in human rights. Age UK also supported the definition and welcomed, in particular, the recognition that the indicators do not need to refer explicitly to the term human rights in order to be included in the system. Research carried out for Age Concern by the Institute for Public Policy Research in 2006 into the attitudes of older people towards human rights found that the values that are important to older people are very often consistent with, and support, human rights concepts even if they do not immediately recognise them as such. For example, respect was seen to be at the heart of a decent society. (Rights for Real: Older People, Human Rights and the CEHR, Age Concern,May 2006). WAG highlighted the use of the following indicator: To ensure that everyone, regardless of race, religion, sex, ability, gender, and so forth, has the same opportunities to enjoy culture, arts, sport and the heritage offered throughout Wales. Some participants pointed out that where a values-based approach is adopted it needed to be clear that human rights values are explicitly underpinned by a legal framework.

    661

    Appendix 4: Record of feedback, comments and recommendations from the Human Rights Measurement Framework Specialist Consultation

    Identification of good practice examples of the use of human rights indicators


    Colm OCinneide,UCL Faculty of Laws, noted that the European Committee on Social Rights, of which he is a member, makes use of an extensive range of indicators relating to GDP, national poverty levels, cost of living and so on, which provide a reasonably effective way of assessing compliance with socio-economic rights. The Prisons and Probation Ombudsman(PPO) noted that HM Inspectorate of Prisons (HMIP) use the Prisons Expectations document. The PPO is itself developing indicators for certain types of natural causes deaths but these are not drawn solely from a human rights perspective. Age UK, in partnership with Macmillan Cancer Support, Shelter and Action for Children, is currently undertaking some scoping work with a view to developing anequality andhuman rights framework for third sector organisations. The public sector has an equality framework for local government developed by IDeA, and an equality framework for the private sector is currently being developed; but there is as yet no third sector-wide equality and human rights framework. The aim of this work is to assist third sector bodies in putting human rights at the heart of the way services are designed and delivered in order to make services better for everyone, with service users and staffs experiences reflecting the core values of fairness, respect, equality, dignity and autonomy. Developing a human rights-based approach within the proposed framework for third sector organisations will help improve outcomes for service users. This work is at a very early stage and no indicators have yet been developed. BRAP highlighted work undertaken for Macmillan exploring what a human rights standard might look like in cancer care. WAG highlighted the Give Racism the Red Card Scheme. This does not just aim to support projects in Walesand to fight racism in sport, but also to track how successful this initiative is.

    Importance of qualitative as well as quantitative indicators


    Many comments were made during the course of the consultation regarding the types of indicator that should be included in the HRMF. Many participants highlighted the need to develop qualitative as well as quantitative indicators. Some suggested that this would require a greater departure from the OHCHR Framework than was suggested in the draft HRMF panels tabled for the consultation exercise. Some participants also called for more use of events/allegations data and narrative data.

    662

    Appendix 4: Record of feedback, comments and recommendations from the Human Rights Measurement Framework Specialist Consultation

    Specific general recommendations included the development of: indicators that capture case law precedents/principles indicators that capture case law outcomes/violations indicators that capture concerns raised by human rights monitoring bodies such as the Joint Committee on Human Rights and the UN treaty monitoring bodiesfor example,Committee on the Rights of the Child Concluding Observations, Human Rights Committee and Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights General Comments and Concluding Observations outcomes of judicial, regulatory and investigative processes outcomes of death reviews including child death reviews and domestic violence death reviews.

    JUSTICE suggested that it would be relevant to include UN committees comments and recommendations; includes comments by the Human Rights Committee in areas such as immigration, mental health and youth detention; ratifications; investigative mechanisms ; Council of Europe work and visits; Torture Committee inspections; Universal Periodic Review outcomes. Caselaw would also be particularly important and the best mechanism would be to do a case law search using a database. At the Scottish event, the particular role that helpline data could potentially play in developing the HRMF was highlighted. For example, it might be possible to make use of helpline data generated by Action on Elder Abuse. Similarly, ChildLine data on abuse, neglect and bullying. There might be a need for follow up projects here and for the development of a robust methodology.

    Structural indicators
    One participant suggested that under the structural aspects of human rights protection, the term higher law as well as constitution should be included in the UK context, in order to capture the need for all law to be human rights compliant. Another suggested that it would be useful to include an indicator of gaps in legal protection.

    The development of indicators capturing the role of inspection and regulatory bodies in upholding human rights
    Participants responded to proposals for giving high profile to regulators and inspectorates within the HRMF. The idea of human rights regulation with information from regulators and inspectorates feeding up to EHRC/Scottish Human Rights Commission (SHRC) and the EHRC/SHRC picking up oncross-cutting human rights concerns (for example, Article 2 concerns around the right to life and investigation of deaths, as they emerge in different contexts such as the police and criminal justice system/the health and social care system), was viewed as particularly important.

    663

    Appendix 4: Record of feedback, comments and recommendations from the Human Rights Measurement Framework Specialist Consultation

    The importance of having a full list of organisations with responsibilities in relation to each panel was also highlighted. TheIPCC provided information on systems for monitoring and reporting on complaints and on deaths during or following police contact, overall data on police complaints and on deaths during or following police contact. The Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC)does not, itself, routinely map data on deaths during or following police contact or complaints relating to articles of the HRA, although in principle, complaints data that relate to the right to life could be mapped to Article 2, rights that relate to the prohibition on torture and on cruel and unusual treatment or punishment could be mapped to Article 3, etc. In addition, some human rights issues might be outside the scope of the existing complaints system since the complaints system requires individual police officers to be at fault and does not cover systemic, policy based human rights complaints. In the disability hate crime context, a complaint would have to establish that an individual police officer is at fault rather than raise a lack of concern in policy terms. The role of British Crime Surveydata on complaints and perceptions of the performance of the police and criminal justice system was also discussed and the IPCC view was that the survey provides an appropriate means of supplementing complaints data. The possibility of follow-up research that maps complaints to human rights standards was discussed. The Police Complaints Commissioner Scotland (PCCS)highlighted that it is a review body that handles complaints by police forces in Scotland. An annual report provides regular analysis and breakdown of complaints handling data. The aim is to ensure accessible, understandable and consistent complaints handling across Scotland. The organisation has a different remit to the IPCC, for example, it has no general remit to review deaths following police contact and the remit includes quality of service complaints(for example, the failure to deploy officers in an area as a matter of policy). Complaints are not routinely mapped to human rights standards and there is no particular inclusion of human rights standards in policies (for example, explicit linkage to standards relating to the failure to protect in the context of known risk731. HMIP uses criteria set out in the Expectations documentas a basis for inspection and reports on performance against inspection criteria and compliance with recommendations. These findings are published and are in the public domain. The work of the Inspectorate is explicitly linked to both domestic human rights law and to international human rights standards. The Expectations document explicitly links, for example, to the HRA, the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and the UN Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT) (and its Optional Protocol, which requires independent investigation). In terms of linkages to those human rights that have an explicit basis in domestic law, HMIPs entry points are Articles 2, 3 and 8 of the HRA. HMIP also has a co-ordinating role in relation to the National Preventative Mechanism. As part of its work, HMIP conducts regular surveys. These are specially designed to link to the Expectations document and include questions on treatment, complaints,

    664

    Appendix 4: Record of feedback, comments and recommendations from the Human Rights Measurement Framework Specialist Consultation

    engagement with education, access to health, etc. Information about characteristics such as ethnicity, religion and belief, disability and sexual orientation is recorded (although in practice numbers can sometimes be toolow to report). HMIPs data could potentially play a role in addressing some of the data gaps identified in the EMF project relating to the treatment of prisoners (given the fact that the Ministry of Justice(MoJ) treatment of prisoners survey was not released for the purposes of the EMF project). Much of HMIPs data is already in the public domain and HMIP indicated its willingness to share published data for the purposes of the current report (although this is not necessarily a long-term agreement). At the time of our meeting the Care Quality Commission(CQC) was undertaking a restructuring of the system of inspection and registration following new legislation. There were four key components to the previous system under the Healthcare Commission: an Annual Health Check, National Minimum Standards (core standards), Social Care Standards and Annual Performance Assessment of Councils in relation to Adult Social Care. Following the Health and Social Care Act, NHS providers have to be registered and compliance with regulatory standards is the sole regulatory activity of the CQC. The new regulatory model entails registration and ongoing inspection based on a system of risk assessment. Performance is now evaluated at the point of registration and against the new essential standards of quality and safety which, from 1 October 2010, covered both health and social care. There has been a shift to a continuous responsive intelligence led mode of inspection (using, for example, a quality-risk profile and, for example, intelligence based on complaints). Providers that were evaluated as non-compliant with essential standards might fail to be registered. In addition, conditions can be imposed and providers can have their registration withdrawn. The Annual Performance of Councils for Adult Social Care (ways in which Councils provide care to people in community) will continue in a slimmed down version and include safeguarding. Prior to the meeting the research team identified three types of data had thought in terms of three types of data that might be included within the HRMF based on the work of the predecessor to the CQC, the Healthcare Commission. These were: (1) (2) numbers failing minimum standards by domain (for example, dignity and respect domain, safety domain); survey data (for example, Patient Survey Data covering, for example, treatment with dignity and respect, autonomy and involvement, privacy, support for nutritional needs during hospital stays) and other sources such as the Count Me In census (covering, for example, detention and use of restraint in mental health);

    665

    Appendix 4: Record of feedback, comments and recommendations from the Human Rights Measurement Framework Specialist Consultation

    (3)

    data on complaints. The ways in which we might match this data to the new data being generated under the new regulatory regime were discussed at three meetings. Broadly speaking and as discussed above, the minimum standards framework (including monitoring of compliance with equality and human rights under core standard 7e) has been superseded by the essential standards framework; the Patient Survey Data will continue but the Count Me In census is being terminated; and complaints handling will not be undertaken by the CQC. At the time of our meeting with the CQC, there were ongoing discussions about whether reporting under the essential standards regime will be domain based and the extent to which and how the overall national picture will be reported as well as in relation to its equality and human rights content. For example, discussions were underway regarding a possible recommendation that placing of conditions due to failure to satisfy essential standards of quality and safety is 1) published 2) disaggregated by each essential standard of quality and safety. However, the CQC is required by legislation to produce a State of Health and Social Carereport on an annual basis. In addition, the CQCand EHRC have a Memorandum of Understanding and there are plans to develop new composite measure reflecting equality and human rights concerns that could be integrated into the HRMF over time. Whilst the Count Me InCensus is being terminated, it nevertheless provides disaggregated data that is highly relevant to the HRMF. For example, Count Me In data on restraint in the mental health establishment context by ethnicityis relevant to Article 3/Article 8).

    Resource indicators
    One participant commented that it would be important to include resource indicators on every panel.

    Disaggregation characteristics
    At the London event, one participant felt that disaggregation by race and ethnicity should be given more emphasis. It was suggested that race/ethnicity was currently omitted from the HRMF panels. Indicators relating to stop and search, broader treatment by the police/criminal justice system, treatment of people in nursing homes and hospitals and other areas should also be disaggregated by ethnicity and race. Participants were in agreement that each measure should be disaggregated by all characteristics and groups where possible.

    666

    Appendix 4: Record of feedback, comments and recommendations from the Human Rights Measurement Framework Specialist Consultation

    List of vulnerable groups


    It was suggested by a participant at the London event that there was a lack of emphasis on race and ethnicity in the list of vulnerable groups, as well as in relation to the disaggregation characteristics. The list of vulnerable groups should also include individuals who face discrimination because of ethnicity/race. Colm OCinneide, UCL Faculty of Laws, suggested that adults on poverty-level incomes should be considered a vulnerable group. The PPO suggested that all prisoners, their families, detainees in immigration removal centres and short term holding facilities should be included in the list of vulnerable groups. There also was much discussion about the terminology of vulnerable groups in the three day consultation events. One proposal for alternative terminology was individuals and groups at risk of discrimination and disadvantage. At the Welsh event, some participants objected to the use of the term vulnerable group to describe Welsh speakers. Alternative suggestions were to refer to Welsh language speakers as a priority group or a key group. One organisation felt that vulnerable groups should be extended to include lesbian, gay and bisexual (LGB) people in certain circumstances. Whilst it is true that LGB people are not automatically vulnerable there are many situations where they are, for example, when they are at risk of hate crime or when coming into contact with public services, where the fact that they may expect discrimination makes them less likely to disclose, less likely to receive appropriate treatment and more likely to feel vulnerable and under attack. One organisation suggested that people who speak a British indigenous language other than English (ie Welsh, Gaelic or British Sign Language (BSL)) as their first language should be added to this list of groups and that people whose first language is not English or another indigenous British language should be added as a separate group. One organisation considered that vulnerable groups is not the appropriate term to use, as it places the emphasis on the individuals belonging to that group and gives the impression that being different can be an issue. Key groups and groups who experience discrimination or disadvantage were suggested as possible alternatives. WAG suggested: the elderly, disabled adults, ethnic minorities, adults in income poverty, adults and children for whom English/Welsh/Scottish Gaelic or Irish is not a first language (again, this assumes this group is subject to discrimination due to a lack of services in their respective first languages).

    667

    Appendix 4: Record of feedback, comments and recommendations from the Human Rights Measurement Framework Specialist Consultation

    In relation to terminology, WAG suggested that a term linked to a rights based approach could be used,for example, individuals/groups who are less likely to fully enjoy their rights. One participant suggested changing the language of vulnerable groups to risk of human rights violation. Age UK argued that most of the proposed categories could be applied to older people who should be included as a vulnerable group. Other groups that should be included are:older lesbian,gay,bisexual andtransgender (LGBT)people and older black and minority ethnic (BME)people. In addition, the framework should take into account older people who experience co-morbidity, that is to say that they experience multiple health conditions or illnesses. This is also sometimes described as frailty. It might also be useful to look specifically at older people with dementia.

    Relationship with the Equality Measurement Framework (EMF)


    A number of participants, particularly those who had been involved with consultations on the EMF, were concerned about the relationship between the HRMF and the EMF. A key issue here is whether there would be an expectation of duty holders working with more than one framework. Other issues raised included the question of replication of indicators and the potential overlap between the systems. One participant asked whether where the indicator (or a similar indicator) already exists in the EMF or the Good Relations Measurement Framework, will the exact same indicator and source be used (thus minimising cost and time burdens)? A participant at the London event highlighted that many civil society organisations work in both fields equality and human rights, and was concerned to establish what is distinct about the HRMF vis--vis the Good Relations Framework and the EMF. There was further discussion at the London event of whether equality and human rights should be regarded as separate fields with independent legislative bases in the HRA on the one hand, and equality legislation on the other. There was some discussion of whether rights, including the right to participation, should be classified as falling within the ambit of the EMF on the one hand, or the HRMF on the other. Some participants raised concerns that we were imposing further burdens on organisations in developing a new framework and were concerned that the two frameworks be integrated in the future, since working with multiple frameworks would be difficult and inefficient. Some participants emphasised the integrated nature of the EHRCs equality and human rights and raised this a rationale for future integration of the EMF and the HRMF.

    668

    Appendix 4: Record of feedback, comments and recommendations from the Human Rights Measurement Framework Specialist Consultation

    Others highlighted the advantages of a stand-alone HRMF. The key issue highlighted here was the need, from the human rights perspective, for explicit article by article reporting for domestic and international human rights monitoring purposes. OHCHR highlighted the overlapping nature of the EMF and the HRMF and emphasised that equality is a key human rights principle.

    Rationale for choice of indicators


    Participants highlighted that there needed to be an explicit rationale for each indicator being used with the HRMF. There was some concern that the representation of other vulnerable/at risk groups is balanced across the HRMF. Some participants expressed a concern regarding possible over concentration on the prison population and looked after children.

    Suggestions for forward development of the HRMF


    A number of suggestions were made regarding the forward development of the HRMF. These included: developmentof an accessible version of the HRMF for people with different levels of cognitive development development of a plain English version of the HRMF a glossary web access to data the capacity for civil society organisations to add data to the system.

    Other comments
    WAG noted in its consultation response that all reporting panels in Wales have to produce a report in both English and Welsh. Age UK noted that older peoples rights are insufficiently recognised in the international human rights treaty framework and Age UK is among a number of internationalbodies calling for steps to be taken towards developing a UN Convention on the Rights of Older People. Age UK is currently undertaking a three-year project, in partnership with the British Institute of Human Rights (BIHR), funded by Comic Relief. The Older People and Human Rights Project (OPHRP) is working with four local Age Concerns to raise awareness and empower older people to use human rights principles to influence decisions affecting their lives and wider public policy. At the beginning of the project a research and mapping exercise was undertaken to inform the work. A copy of this report is being sent with our response to this consultation for further background information about how older people experience breaches of their human rights. 669

    Appendix 4: Record of feedback, comments and recommendations from the Human Rights Measurement Framework Specialist Consultation

    The PPO noted that there were many references to the relevant Ombudsman service in the panels. We do not find this particularly useful, to the service, the service user or the PPO. There should be greater clarity. The PPO also has an interest in several tables, in which prisoner complaints may engage articles for example, Table 6 (the right to adequate food) there are many complaints about this from prisoners. Table 7 while complaints on prison healthcare are dealt with by the Parliamentary Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO), the PPO also has an obvious interest as we investigate deaths resulting from natural causes this often involves the interface between prison and external health providers. Colm OCinneide,UCL Faculty of Laws. This is a useful project perhaps concentrating on fewer but more fundamental indicators might be useful. Thought needs to be given to how eventual publication of the HRMF conclusions will be used to drive forward progress, through media and political processes. One organisation felt that in future the HRMF should aim to capture all relevant articles of the UN convention on human rights. We feel that the current proposed panels draw the correct balance between focusing on developing in-depth panels to begin with and covering a broad range of articles and rights. Therefore we feel that moving towards coverage of all articles is a long-term goal for the framework, on which progress should be made on a constant basis and in a timely manner, but allowing the time to ensure that each panel is appropriately considered and developed before being added to the framework.We are also pleased that the focus of this framework is not merely on legal compliance, but also on good practice development and promotion. This framework has the potential to contribute greatly towards the development of a human rights culture locally and nationally in the UK, and the focus on good practice should help to embed this culture.We also welcome the fact that the framework allows for international comparisons to drawn and to map out the position of the UK and Wales against other countries on human rights. However this needs to be balanced against the need to develop a framework, which is UK specific and meets the needs and issues of the UK.We also feel that the language used is complicated, because of the international focus, such language needs to be simplified and translated into a UK context which people can understand, especially as regards headline indicators and contexts that determine the indicators within each panel.

    The right to life


    In Scotland, some participants felt that there needed to be an improved balance between positive and negative duties. The original HRMF panels, some participants felt, captured the negative duty of states to refrain from violations (by refraining from killing) but did not adequately capture and reflect positive duties to protection individuals, for example, in the context of domestic violence. The particular importance of inquiries into deaths following police contact, deaths in court cells, prisons, immigration removal centres, etc. were highlighted by several participants. 670

    Appendix 4: Record of feedback, comments and recommendations from the Human Rights Measurement Framework Specialist Consultation

    One participant queried whether the state has an obligation to stop domestic homicide, rather than just to mitigate circumstances that cause domestic homicide. There was a suggestion that too much emphasis on positive obligations could muddy the water. Others emphasised that there is European case law that establishes protection in domestic homicide, and the importance of the positive duty to protect. In Wales, one participant pointed out that the HRA covers individuals where the state knew there was risk and should have done something. It would be important to develop indicators of this positive duty and of failure of the duty to protect. Participants discussed the challenges involved in developing meaningful indicators of how instances of this kind, where the state failed to take action,then lead to death. The issue of protection from third party violations was highlighted in this context. It will be critical to have balance between capturing where the state acts as a threat as opposed to threats from society: ie, those that died in the hands of a partner (domestic violence) and those that died in the hands of institutional custody. One participant suggested that the accounts of the failure to protect life by the police in IPCCreports would provide a potential source for an indicator of the failure to protect life. It was suggested that a multiagency approach to protection would also be important. For example, death rates of women fleeing from domestic violence is high because of the lack of adequate housing. This also needs to be reflected in the HRMF, since it is also a form of Government inaction. Participants in Wales suggested that in relation to Local Safeguarding Children Boards, it is variable whether child death reviews are undertaken. They further highlighted that domestic homicide covers children and that this should be made explicit in the HRMF. Loss of life through hate crime was viewed as important for this panel. One participant noted that is difficult to establish identity in the context of homicide, since disaggregating by sexual orientation once a person has died is complex. We do have the police homicide index which is filled in by the police, where characteristics may be imposed. However, requesting the police to establish sexual identity would be complex. Similarly, in the context of suicide, someone may have been subjected to homophobic bullying. However, establishing sexual identity following death is again problematic, and this information might not have been conveyed to police. There was a feeling that this information should be made available and used, for example, as part of serious case reviews. Collecting information from GP forms/access to health services on sexual identity might also be problematic. Some individuals might not want to identify their sexual orientation because they are concerned the GP will treat them differently.

    671

    Appendix 4: Record of feedback, comments and recommendations from the Human Rights Measurement Framework Specialist Consultation

    Some participants also argued that it is critical to include variations in general population mortality rates within the scope of the right to life. The importance of UN General Comment 6 of the OHCHR was discussed in this context. Some participants at the London event argued that whether the state has acted reasonably or not can only be determined case by case in court. The duty of care of the state and the importance of vulnerable groups such as prisoners and deaths in custody, including homicide and suicide, was raised as another key concern. The importance and impact of income poverty in the context of the right to life was highlighted. In Scotland, it was suggested that the number of deaths, life expectancy, etc. should be disaggregated by poverty and area deprivation. Suicide, including suicide rates by poverty and area deprivation, were also highlighted as particular concerns. In Wales, the suicide and bullying including homophobic bullying were raised as key concerns under the right to life panel. In London, accidental death rates among Gypsies and Travellers, including vulnerability to road traffic and pedestrian accidents and death through fire was put forward at the London event as a possible contender for an indicator. One participant in London raised the issue of race and ethnicity in relation to the right to life including in the context of nursing homes and treatment by the police. The number of deaths, suicides and accidents were also highlighted as being particular concerns and as strong contenders for indicators within the HRMF. Age UK recommended that the measurement of GDP spent on adult protection is included alongside the measure of resources spent on child protection. However, they were not aware that this data is currently easily accessible. Age UK further suggested that it would be useful to find a way of capturing older peoples access to life saving medical treatment as we know that this in area in which age discrimination currently operates and which the new equality legislation aims to tackle. Cancer survival rates for older people could be a proxy measure for this. The report of the All Party Parliamentary Group on Cancers Inquiry into inequalities in cancer, in 2009 found that success rates for people over 75 have not improved over the last decade and are much lower than in comparable countries. A Review of the National Cancer Dataset is currently being carried out by the National Cancer Intelligence Network andwe would recommend that outcomes by age group are included within this. The work that Macmillan Cancer Support is carrying out in partnership with the EHRC is also relevant here. See: www.macmillan.org.uk/ Documents/AboutUs/WhatWeDo/HumanRightsFrameworkForCancerCareReport.PDF Colm OCinneide, UCL Faculty of Laws, queried whether the proportion of GDP spent on protecting under oneyear olds from homicide and percentage of GDP spent on child protection provides an indicator of effectiveness? A focus on under ones actually distort patterns of protection for example, is this distinction important in existing social services? As a result, this indicator could possibly be removed. 672

    Appendix 4: Record of feedback, comments and recommendations from the Human Rights Measurement Framework Specialist Consultation

    The PPO stated that it considered natural causes deaths in custody of equal significance to non-natural causes, and queried why there was no mention of such deaths in the HRMF panel. All deaths in custody are investigated by the PPO under Article 2 of the ECHR. Ongoing work in Europe to establish a set of minimum standards for the investigation into deaths in custody. The PPO further pointed out that it is working with indicators and measures that are relevant to the development of the right to life panel. It investigates deaths in prisons, court cells, immigration removal centres and probation approved premises. WAG made a number of specific recommendations for the development of the right to life panel. The importance of the European Directives including the Equal Treatment Directive was highlighted. WAG also suggested that that it would be appropriate for prisons to be covered in the institutional context under the attribute Other action/ inaction by the state... as well as in the attribute use of unlawful force. WAG further queried the meaning of resource indicators and pointed out that the amount of GDP spent does not necessarily mean a better outcome, and that the addition of such indicators further complicates the panels. The rationale for the resource indicator (GDP) only covering children under one yearwas also queried. WAG recommended that it would be better to categorise indicators as infant mortality rates, suicide rates etc. rather than as variations in such rates. The data would be expected to highlight any variations. Matching data could potentially be identified in the Welsh context in relation to ethnic and minority diversity policy on forced marriages and safeguarding children. Complaints data might provide a potential source in relation to domestic homicide. A lack of measures targeting older people was highlighted. Other potential measures include the number of: people denied treatment for ill health deaths due to child trafficking/slavery (Childrens Commissioner for Wales office has done some research on child trafficking) deaths of children in private homes (foster care placements/adopted children) deaths due to corporate manslaughter.

    WAG finally pointed out that within the Gypsy and Traveller cultures, ethnic minorities, and also amongst refugees and asylum seekers, there are beliefs regarding life and death which may be seen as at odds with any such measures.

    673

    Appendix 4: Record of feedback, comments and recommendations from the Human Rights Measurement Framework Specialist Consultation

    BRAP highlighted work undertaken for Macmillan exploring what a human rights standard might look like in cancer care. The focus was on identifying the types of behaviours that staff should be enacting if they are protecting patients human rights. Another potentially relevant project involves mapping what is important to patients and carers in the end of life care pathway, pointing out that questions relating to what matters to staff, carers and patients in relation to cancer end of life care might be useful for the development of the right to life panel. These could be particularly important for the development of process indicators. The following documents were highlighted: Developing and Evaluating the Practical Application of a Human Rights Framework in Cancer Care (BRAP 2010) and PRIDE Cancer End of Life Care Evaluation Report (Gaze 2009) from NHS Bury. It maps what is important to patients and carers in the end of life care pathway. End of life issues were a particular concern in Scotland and in London.One participant highlighted work on end of life pathways in Bury where individuals were asked whats a good type of service what would that look like. The evidence here could provide be relevant in relation to an indicator capturing the level of choice inend of life decisions. Individuals might also be asked prior to death about other choices in end of life decisions (for example, has anyone consulted you about do you want to be at home, in the hospital, etc.). Questions might also be put to carers. This issue of DNR (do not resuscitate) and advanced directives orders came up in Scotland. There was a particular concern with issues of consent and the disproportionate use of such orders in relation to people who are disabled. Support for abortion and assisted suicide were also suggested by one participant as falling within the scope of the right to life panel. One participant suggested including a place holder for an indicator that would be based on good practice in Belfast for suicide prevention in the mental health context. They want guaranteed follow-up appointments for mental health services. It is now a policy across Northern Ireland that people leave with a card. A final issue raised was access to life saving medical treatment (covering evidence of discrimination in access against older people and National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence(NICE) rules/age limits on drugs). Information Services Division Scotland was highlighted as a useful source of information for many of the life and health indicators and a number ofcontacts were provided.

    674

    Appendix 4: Record of feedback, comments and recommendations from the Human Rights Measurement Framework Specialist Consultation

    The right to freedom from torture, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment


    Domestic violence was viewed as an important concern at all three events, and as cutting across different forms of household abuse including child abuse. It was emphasised that the duty relates to where the state has knowledge of a risk and where there was a failure to intervene and protect. Due diligence was viewed as a critical principle. The impossibility of the non-ambiguity selection criterion was highlighted here. Increasing reporting of domestic violence could be viewed as good since behaviour rather than prevalence may have changed. Care therefore needs to be taken in interpreting indicators, and the non-ambiguity criterion should perhaps be dropped from the final list of selection criteria, to allow for more emphasis on qualitative indicators. The use of restraint was highlighted as a key Article 3 issue in Scotland. The use of medication could also be viewed as a form of restraint. Suggestions for indicator development included: complaints data, conviction rate on sexual assault, punishment in schools. Perceptions of feeling safe within a community/home/crime surveys (perception, rather than reality) although there was recognition that this issue might be picked up under Article 8, as well as the possible limitations of subjective indicators. Likewise, the merits and demerits of social survey questions on being treated with dignity and respect were discussed. There was a feeling that although these measures could be useful they may not always pick up the relevant human rights concerns, and objective probing would also be necessary. Non-official data was seen as being particularly important under Article 3. For example, it would be wrong to rely exclusively on the states interpretation/analysis of the extent of torture. One participant also highlighted the importance of non-state data in the context of racially and religiously aggravated crime. It would be vital to include non-official data since official records would not capture incidence in the community. General comment: dont rely on reported data, need to find a way to capture the unreported incidences. Participants in Scotland suggested that helpline data could provide a way of capturing cases not reflected in police recorded crime,for example, in the context of rape and sexual assault and elder abuse. Laws relevant to the assessment and implementation of these. Some participants highlighted the importance of capturing the gaps between general population rates of incidence, police recorded crime and successful prosecutions, including in the context of domestic violence, sexual violence, rape and hate crime.

    675

    Appendix 4: Record of feedback, comments and recommendations from the Human Rights Measurement Framework Specialist Consultation

    The PPO comment that it was unclear what was meant by open prisons in the outcome indicator under this panel. Doesitmean category D prisons and, if so, are there measures for all prisons? The PPO would be able to provide figures for complaints made by prisoners to the PPO that fall within the scope of Article 3 and is working with indicators and measures that are relevant to the development of this panel? Since it investigates eligible complaints dealing with subjects that fall under the categories of this panel. Criminal Justice Womens Policy Team, MoJ welcomed the sections on Violence Against Women, which they viewed as comprehensive, whilst suggesting that Women Offenders can be added to the list of vulnerable groups, and that further consideration be given to women offenders who are Black, Asian & Minority Ethnic (BAME); to those who have disabilities; to those women offenders who are elderly; and to identification of these groups by those in custody and those in the community? It was pointed out that this is often a forgotten group as work on womens issues tends to focus on white women, and work on ethnicity focuses on black males. Indeed, the needs of BAME women differ from both of these groups, they are often rendered invisible. Age UK noted that it would be good to capture resources dedicated to tackling elder abuse. Under outcome indicators, the inclusion of a measure of adults with very low perceptions of treatment with dignity and respect in healthcare was welcomed whilst recognising that there is some concern that levels of self-reporting on lack of dignity may be low among older people. The measures in the Inpatient Survey (England only), which include people who feel they are not always treated with respect for their dignity and people who are not given the help they need at mealtimes, both return percentages which are not high. That said, even a small percentage is important in an area where non-compliance should be virtually zero. Objective measures such as the number of people treated on mixed-sex wards might offer a different perspective. Measures of treatment with dignity and respect should also be extended to care homes. We are not aware of any good person-centred measures for inhuman or degrading treatment in care homes, but the National Minimum Standards for care homes (older people) provide a number of process indicators that could be used. www.dh.gov.uk/prod_consum_dh/groups/dh_digitalassets/@dh/@en/documents/ digitalasset/dh_4135403.pdf Age UK also welcomed the inclusion of a measure of adults experiencing a lack of support for individual nutritional needs during hospital stays. This is more useful than hospitals own self-assessment of how they do on this, which can often mask a serious gap between policy and practice. A measurement of the incidence of elder abuse would be very welcome. However,a proper measure for this (in care homes or in the community) is still not available. This is a serious data gap.

    676

    Appendix 4: Record of feedback, comments and recommendations from the Human Rights Measurement Framework Specialist Consultation

    JUSTICE Key issues include torture/hooding/handcuffing in detention context; pain compliant techniques in the youth detention context; other forms of degrading treatment; interrogation techniques overseas,for example, Southern Iraq. JUSTICE reports provide a potential source of information. WAG called attention to the Amnesty International report on the state of the worlds human rights and the European Commission/Directorate General for Humanitarian Aid annual report and statistics. It noted that the set of measures under Article 3 could be the most problematic as is will comprise allegation data and state data. Thus, concerns are raised here around access to (state) data and secrecy along with the robustness of allegation data. It would also be important to capture what is an effective investigation for the purpose of reporting. In relation to alleged use or involvement in extraordinary rendition/alleged deportation of individuals, WAG raised a concern in relation to the term alleged. This appears to imply that the data may be true or false but in this context the allegation will be treated as true. WAG suggested that sexual abuse in immigration centres should be covered. The measure of the percentage of adults with very low perceptions of treatment (currently covered in the resident/detained section) is applicable to all people, for example, in outpatient treatment and could be expanded to cover state activity regardless of residency/detention. Percentage reporting lack of support for individual nutritional need could be expanded to cover nutritional needs such as those through day centres, meals on wheels etc. Participants at the Welsh event highlighted the importance of the following inspectorates for the development of an indicator identifying key inspectorates: Care and Social Services Inspectorate Wales (CSSIW); Healthcare Inspectorate Wales; Social Services Commission; Older Peoples Commission; Youth Justice Board, National Offender Management Service and HMIP,. A number of relevant Welsh Government Committees were also highlighted. These were: Social Justice Committee; Local Government Committee; Children and Young People Committee. The importance of the regulatory group for migrant workers at the UK level; the LSB (Local Service Board); the One Wales Agreement; Equality Act; Single Equalities Scheme. The following key issues/programmes were highlighted in Wales: Children Unbeatable Campaign, Female Genital Mutilation; Forced Migration, Community Health Councils, UNCRC Action Plan (Getting it Right), plus, within the third sector, Wales Domestic Abuse Hotline; Multi Agency Risk Assessment Conference on issues of domestic abuse and intervention. Participants in Wales suggested that there is a need for the broadening of categories to include the following: treatment of those resident (as well as detained) in institutions they can also be mistreated; and boarding schools.

    677

    Appendix 4: Record of feedback, comments and recommendations from the Human Rights Measurement Framework Specialist Consultation

    The role of a protection committee in Scotland under Articles 3 and 8 was highlighted together with a network of child protection and adult protection bodies under local authorities. Statistics on abuse of adults/children would be relevant to the Article 3 panel and might be available from these sources. Similar concerns around the need to broaden categories in Scotland were also expressed. For example, participants highlighted that in looking at social care statistics, there was a concern that the proposed HRMF indicators focused on residential care settings. It would be important to cover degrading treatment in all contexts, for example, by looking at those receiving auxiliary care (such as someone being locked in their home at the behest of a contract carer, or someone not giving them the full 30 minutes of attention they deserve). Participants in London highlighted the importance of cross-referencing the different issues that affect different groups falling under the category degrading human treatment. Other issues highlighted under Article 3 included: destitution, including failed asylum seekers experiencing destitution (especially those not entitled to public support); violence against women in detention; trafficking;female genital mutilation; forced marriage; and bullying. It was suggested that information on transgender motivated crime will be available on Scotland. Finally, the importance of safeguarding children and vulnerable adults guidance was highlighted.

    The right to liberty and security of the person


    Age UK welcomed the focus on the operation of Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards and recommended that this is extended to cover the use of restraint on residential care settings in addition to mental health institutions, if the data allows for this. WAG highlighted European reports regarding prisoners held without charge for long periods. Possible measures under this indicator included wrongful arrest, overturned convictions, Anti-Social Behaviour Orders(ASBOs) (young people), number of mental health tribunals, time spent in detention (various groups and settings). The use of restraints should be taken to cover both physical and chemical restraints. Regarding the number of children entering and leaving immigration and asylum detention centres, WAG raised the issue that proof of age is difficult to ascertain in some cases. There have been cases of adults posing as children and this issue would need to be addressed. WAG finally highlighted that the use of restraints is also relevant in the schools context. Participants in Wales noted that criminal justice is not devolved and highlighted the importance of the UNCRC action plan and proposed children and young peoples rights. The list of inspectorates highlighted under Article 3 was again mentioned. Victim support, advocacy provision in secure settings and dignity drive. 678

    Appendix 4: Record of feedback, comments and recommendations from the Human Rights Measurement Framework Specialist Consultation

    Stop and search mechanisms, ASBOs, restraint, deprivation liberty safeguards were all mentioned as key concerns.

    The right to a fair trial


    Age UK welcomed the measure of the average number of days to completion of a case in the magistrates court is welcome. Speed of justice has been recognised by the ECHR as being a relevant factor in upholding older peoples right to a fair trial, whether as victims of crime or as defendants. WAG queried whether the percentage of those who were dissatisfied by the information about court procedure would cover defendants only, or whether it would cover both defendants and witnesses. WAG also made a number of suggestions of measures we could draw on for this panel, including number of people denied advocacy services and the number of complaints to Social Services or ChildLine etc. against number of prosecutions taken forward. A time related measure for county/crown courts as well as other courts was suggested. Access to legal aid was seen as a key issue that would need further unpacking. State funding for advice services and the position of CAB would be particularly important issues, as well as the marketisation of the legal aid system. One participant suggested that a broader range of offences brought to justice would be relevant,for example, sexual abuse of children or employment-related abuse. The following issues were highlighted as key under the right to a fair trial: victim support; treatment of victims/witnesses; access to advocacy provision in secure settings, including access to advocacy for prisoners; access to advocacy for disabled people; accessible information/interpreters; deprivation of liberty in the mental health context; availability of legal aid in the civil courts context; impact of control orders/ anti-terrorist legislation on the right to a fair trial; public attitudes/percentage of people who believe everyone has a right to a fair trial. One participant suggested that in relation to access to representation within the court system it would be important to tease out the following: does the advice bureau have an in-house adviser available on the day for those who donot have any representation in their cases (from criminal and civil cases); in terms of the cut-off point in legal aid is that very low, or how is that translated in reality? Another raised the question of who can actually afford to take civil cases for a violation of their human rights? There might be a recognised breach of their rights, but in all likelihood, a case wouldnot be brought forward because of the resilience needed to take the case as well as costs involved. Families with single parents, etc. Wouldnot be brought to light.

    679

    Appendix 4: Record of feedback, comments and recommendations from the Human Rights Measurement Framework Specialist Consultation

    The list of inspectorates provided under Article 3 was highlighted in Wales, with the additions of a mental health tribunal, family proceedings (Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service CAFCASS), employment tribunals and criminal justice practitioners. In Scotland, participants put particular emphasis on the right of children to be heard when making decisions or when decisions are being made about their well-being. It was noted that the Convention on the Rights of the Child(CRC) is ratified but not incorporated. The role of judicial discretion in determining whether or not children were able to participate was a particular concern, particularly in family law. Participants in Scotland also raised the need to relate human rights to awareness, legal aid, financial barriers and legal support. Some individuals cannot identify a solicitor to deal with cases. One participant raised concerns around the issue of those participating in juries they might not have any understanding on what those issues might be. Another raised concerns around lists of people excluded from jury service and suggested that people with sensory impairment should be allowed to take part in juries. Another suggested, in the mental health tribunal context, that people who sit on these committees might be council officials or elected officials, and donot understand the impact of their decisions. The issue of the identification of perpetrators in sexual crimes where anonymity protected was also discussed. Is that the right thing to do? Is the victim for the crime being punished? At the same time, the identity of the perpetrator should also be protected. One participant noted that the measure of offences brought to justice might be better positioned under Article 3.

    The right to private and family life


    Participants discussed the wide range of Article 8 and the need for the HRMF to capture and reflect its many dimensions. Age UK welcomed proposals for developing an indicator to measure the percentage of those who feel able to form and maintain the relationships they want. This is particularly relevant to older people who as a group are particularly susceptible to isolation and loneliness. Social isolation is thought to affect in the region of 1 million older people (ICM research survey for Help the Aged and Age Concerns One Voice report, 2009). Age UK also advocated inclusion of a separate indicator to measure social isolation among older people in the framework. A new data source would need to be established for this as we are not away of any official measurement of social isolation. It is not only lack of practical support (as defined in the indicator relating to disabled people) that affects older peoples Article 8 rights.

    680

    Appendix 4: Record of feedback, comments and recommendations from the Human Rights Measurement Framework Specialist Consultation

    A key theme emerging from the project that Age UK is currently undertaking in partnership with BIHR, is that older people view lack of access to public transport and amenities such as public toilets and fear of crime as key barriers to their enjoyment of Article 8 rights. A separate measurement of older peoples assessment of their ability to exercise choice and autonomy which incorporated such factors should be considered for inclusion in the framework. WAG highlighted family law cases and cases under the Equalities Act 2010 dealing with family rights and the rights of the parent. The possibility of measures covering homelessness was raised and difficulties in measuring unrecognised/unsupported need in education were highlighted. WAG suggested that a measure focusing on percentage of children and young people resident in institutions in England might be relevant but numbers here may be very small and unusable. An alternative measure, if available, would be distance from home, for example,, number of children and young people detained over 50miles from their home...100miles...150 miles, etc. One participant queried why support in mainstream schools for disabled children was included under the right to private and family life this should be broadened to cover support for parents and families in general. There was a need to bring in unmet basic needs where these have been identified as necessary for the enjoyment of Article 8 rights, for example,in relation to older people and disabled people. A number of participants mentioned bullying and hate crime as key concerns. Complaints data relating to identity based crime raises the same issues as in other areas in terms of interpreting increases these might reflect changes in behaviour rather than underlying trend. Qualitative indicators focusing on the dimensions rather than on numbers might be particularly relevant here. Privacy, DNA and radio frequency data were also discussed. Data provided by relevant regulators on interventions in privacy cases provided a potential data source. There was a discussion of the privacy issues that arise in the context of electoral rolls and the commercial use of information sharing. In relation to family life, particular issues around separation were discussed in the refugee/asylum seeking context and the growing body of case law in these areas was discussed. Access to family/visits for people in detention was viewed as a particular issue including in Wales, where the number of children detained in England raises key concerns. WAG proposed the percentage of detained people denied access to family visits as a possible measure.

    681

    Appendix 4: Record of feedback, comments and recommendations from the Human Rights Measurement Framework Specialist Consultation

    JUSTICEsuggested that issues include DNA, private CCTVs and stop and search. In relation to data on privacy and surveillance, relevant bodiesand organisations include the Information Commissioners Office and Privacy International. Studies on use of CCTV (including a new study on the use of private CCTVs which supersedes previous work based on inferences from small scale studies) are also relevant. The House of Lords Constitutional Committee/Home Affairs Select Committee Report on Surveillance 08/09 is a key source. In Scotland, there was a discussion of access to information to support decision making. In the Scottish prison service, there are high rates of illiteracy where surveys take place. It would be important to monitor the role of surveys here and whether those with lower levels of literacy could still have their voices heard. Proposals for including measures on personal autonomy were welcomed, although data limitations in this area were viewed as an obstacle. Some participants felt that there was currently too little emphasis on independent living within the Article 8 panel. Social services data was highlighted as a potential source of an indicator on those assisted to live at home. People remaining athome,for example, delivery of home-meals (and satisfaction with these) was another possible source. It would be important to develop a measure of support of individuals who want to remain in their own home and the extent to which theyexercise choice and control and the losses of autonomy associated with moves of disabled people and older people into care. Decision making autonomy was also emphasised and advanced statements/capacity to make decisions were discussed. Family breakdown and homelessness issues were also discussed under this panel. Some participants suggested that sexuality and reproductive rights were missing from this panel. One participant argued there was a need to bring in private life and the control of corporate behaviour.

    The right to education


    Colm OCinneide, UCL Faculty of Laws,queried the relevance of the proportion of local authoritiesbudget spent on support for children with Special Educational Needs (SEN) (this point was raised under discussions about Article 8 but is also relevant to the right to education panel). As in the context of other indicators, he felt that focus on resource/input is questionable, and may encourage excessive focus on spending money rather than ensuring effectiveness. Bullying in the educational context was also highlighted as an important concern. A lot of people bullied as children and leaving school because of bullying will return to education to get qualifications in later life. Access to/support for special educational needs was raised as a concern at all three consultation events. In Wales, the percentage of disabled people who accessed education outside Wales was proposed as a measure.

    682

    Appendix 4: Record of feedback, comments and recommendations from the Human Rights Measurement Framework Specialist Consultation

    A number of participants emphasised that education is not just for children the HRMF should also capture adults education with a focus on life-time learning especially given the changing economy and job market. For example, access to literary training and right to take time out of work to develop new skills. Functional literacy and the number of over 50s with no qualifications would be relevant. Access to education by vulnerable/at risk children in looked after children and children in secure units and immigration removal centres were highlighted as particular concerns during the course of the Specialist Consultation. This issue arose, for example, during discussions with HMIP. Many participants welcomed the specific measures proposed that highlighted access to education by these specific groups within the HRMF and viewed specific reporting on the position of these groups as a key object of the HRMF. The logic of extending the measurement of educational gaps to cover ethnicity/looked after children (as well as free school meal status) was also welcomed. A few participants, however, queried why there was a focus on these specific groups. Margaret Greenfields, Buckinghamshire New University, pointed out that during the Childrens Measurement Framework(CMF) consultations, it was suggested that the National Pupil Database (NPD) be used to measure school drop-out rates of Gypsy and Traveller children as they progress throughthe Key Stages. It is possible to use one of the NPD attendance codes for this measurement: authorised absence due to Traveller absence. The difficulty is that this code identifies only whole numbers rather than individual children so that we are only able to say X children were in school at Key Stage 1 and that X children were there at Key Stage 4. While the educational history of individual children cannot be identified (which would be preferable) one can still see by region that a substantial proportion of children are lost to the system over certain time periods. Use of the NPD enables us to map numbers of children in school and drop-out percentages in a way which cannot be monitored from roadside figures. Another technique useful in picking up shifts in retention rates over time is to look at regional/local local education authority (LEA) statistics. The number of children identified on school census data each year can be comparedto the figures of those not present for Standard Assessment Tests (SATs)/national exams at Key Stages. Using this technique, a study assessing the service needs of Gypsies and Travellers in the Cambridge area (Home and Greenfields, 2006) identified a significant drop-off rate of Gypsy and Traveller children at each SATs period with fewer returning on each occasion. The study also identified significantly lower numbers on school census figures for Gypsy and Traveller children in the final years of schooling, as well as a high number of drop-outs in the GCSE year. Age UK suggested that the measures in the proposed panel were heavily focused on childrens education and do not adequately address adult, including older peoples participation in, and access to, education. The National Institute of Adult Continuing Education(NIACE) undertakes an adult annual participation in learning survey which includes a breakdown by age that could be used here. 683

    Appendix 4: Record of feedback, comments and recommendations from the Human Rights Measurement Framework Specialist Consultation

    WAG suggested measures and indicators including truanting, full-time schooling, suspension, expulsion and school absence data, literacy rates as a percentage of vulnerable groups and lifelong learning. Information relating to the range of education policies in Wales can be gained through theWAGs DCELLS Strategy Unit for School pupil data initiatives, including the Lost Pupil Database, Children Missing Education Guidance and the Pupil Level Annual School Census(PLASC). Also see the Ethnic Minority & Safeguarding Policy/Support for Learners Division for possible indicators. At the consultation event in Wales, in the discussion of structural indicators, the following public policy instruments were raised:: Learning and Skills Act 2000; national curriculum (quality and effectiveness framework); basic skills strategies; quality effectiveness framework (flying start, early years/sure start, learning pathways); local and national government duties. The following were proposed as process indicators for the right to education: Estyn; Personal and Social Education (PSE) Framework containing the CRC (requiring teaching and having the resources in order to teach); youth councils; youth forums. It was thought that it would be appropriate to include a resource indicator relating to expenditure on education compared to GDP. The importance of NEET (not in education, employment, or training)and of focusing on how systems are used so that there is intervention before young people fall off of the system was discussed. Also in Wales, in relation to outcome indicators, the following were highlighted: data series available include: the percentage of students with temporary absences/ exclusion data for children and disaggregation (cost pupil database/PLASC); schoolbased data; recent data requirements including improved data on children missing education; gaps in education achievement, particularly under the poverty agenda; Flying Start, 14-18 Learning Pathways, Children and Family (Wales); Lifelong learning record (Wales). Other issues highlighted in Wales were: learning accounts (EMA) and impact on adults; access to education for those who are disabled; ability to access education outside Wales; Welsh language: provision of degrees, through the medium of Welsh; speech and language therapy for those who are Welsh; freeschool meals, socio economic disadvantage and its impact on achievement. The child poverty strategy was discussed in this context, with children who are carers being identified as a major issue. In London, there was some discussion of whether access to upper end education was a human rights concern or whether the framework should be about minimums, focusing on more basic education. Participants were divided on this issue:Whilst some felt that the HRMF should be about minimums, others felt that inequalities in the overall distribution of education were also relevant. For example, we should consider including a measure of participation in elite universities by free school meal status.

    684

    Appendix 4: Record of feedback, comments and recommendations from the Human Rights Measurement Framework Specialist Consultation

    In Scotland, the Right to education: STEP (Scottish Traveller Education Programme) pilot study was highlighted as a potential data source on statistics on access to education. Other issues raised included educational attainment by sexual orientation; equal recognition of a range of skills in the labour market,for example, vocational/academic; outcomes following training; digital IT literacy; perceptions of education as a right; access to early year education/sure start; gaps in educational achievements. Another concern highlighted at the London event was the importance of educational attainment by social class . Social mobility based on educational qualification was suggested as a possible indicator. One participant raised particular equality and human rights concerns around non-discrimination and admissions criteria, for example, new academies.

    Right to adequate housing


    The overlaps between the right to housing and the right to private and family life were discussed. The need to embed cross-links in the HRMF so that users could easily identify these overlaps was discussed. The issue of forced evictions was highlighted at all three consultation events. Reliance on official data was viewed as problematic because many cases will notbe reported and the role of other sources (for example,NGO input and citizens advice bureau data) was highlighted. Colm OCinneide, UCL Faculty of Laws, commented that the European Committee on Social Rights makes use of useful indicators on state compliance with Article 31 (housing) of the revised Social Charter, which the UK has not ratified. In addition, the Committee has in a collective compliant, Feantsa v France, emphasised the importance of transparent priority-allocation mechanisms and the need to prioritise (within reasonable limits) the most disadvantaged. Age UK suggested another indicator that could be considered here is the percentage of people living in non-decent housing (or living in housing deemed non-decent for thermal comfort). This is measured by the annual English housing survey.Another possible indicator might be the number of homes built to the lifetime homes standard. Colm OCinneide,UCL Faculty of Laws,commented that he was more comfortable with GDP indicators under this panel, but they need to be used with great caution. He would prefer an emphasis on housing demand and quality, not expenditure. WAG suggested additional indicators and measures including the percentage of prosecutions against private landlords by local authorities for providing inadequate housing; and the percentage of home adaptation applications against the number granted.

    685

    Appendix 4: Record of feedback, comments and recommendations from the Human Rights Measurement Framework Specialist Consultation

    In the Welsh context, the Social Justice andLocal Government, policy on housing and policy on Gypsy and Traveller sites are relevant under this panel.The annual report (www.lgo.org.uk/publications/annual-report/) and the digest of cases in previous years were highlighted as potential sources. In London, a number of participants highlighted the need to include a panel on the right to an adequate standard of living in the first HRMF round. One proposal was to replace the current housing panel with a panel focusing more broadly on the right to an adequate standard of living, with housing and food viewed as attributes of this. One participant suggested that the resource indicator focusing on the proportion of GDP spending on housing should be broken down to local administrative level (to capture regional disparity). An indicator of the disparity of cost of housing and average wage of an area was suggested. Other proposed measures focused on the proportion of households that need public housing and get it, homelessness and perceptions data on treatment in the social housing process.

    The right to health


    Participants highlighted a range of concerns including elder abuse and mental health; the need to cover public health and preventative measures,for example,reducing alcohol consumption, eat fivea day, smoking reduction; black men and mental health status; South Asians and the prevalence of heart disease; the need to identify religion and belief and sexual orientation issues that health surveys for England may miss. Infection control mortality rates; immunisation screening; life expectancy; healthy life expectancy; cancer treatment and survival; language and access issues; teenage pregnancy; access to breastfeeding; competence/capacity decisions; access to interpreters; waiting lists; outcome indicators for disabled people; broad-based measure of mental health (in addition to a focus on vulnerable groups). Under non-discrimination a range of issues including access to essential medicines, the postcode lottery and NICE rules were discussed.In the Gypsy and Traveller context, non-registration at GP practices was a particular concern from the nondiscrimination perspective. However, this raises an issue about the limits of measurement how could non-registration be picked up in a measure? Some participants raised concerns around the challenges of using public expenditure of healthcare as a proportion of GDP, ie that the relation to outcomes isnot clear. In Scotland, in the discussion of resource indicators, the proportion of budgets spent on mental health services (including work on mental well-being) was proposed as a measure.

    686

    Appendix 4: Record of feedback, comments and recommendations from the Human Rights Measurement Framework Specialist Consultation

    In relation to vulnerable/at risk groups, some participants felt that it would be important to make use of emerging new data,for example, in relation to health outcomes for looked after children and access of children in detention to health services. Others remained concerned that this would result in an over-concentration on certain groups. Access to healthcare in the detention context,for example, by prisoners, including in relation to access to mental health services, was viewed as particularly important and access to GPs byrefugees, migrants and asylum seekers washighlighted. In Wales, the following inspectorates and regulators were highlighted: Healthcare Inspectorate Wales (HIW), Wales Audit Office (WAO) andCSSIW. Some participants raised concerns around data gap in the social care context for example, care homes. Access to services for LGBT people was raised as a concern and the importance of Stonewall research,Prescription for Change 2008 was highlighted. Sex education should be LGBT inclusive. In Scotland, particular emphasis was put on the disaggregation of all health indicators by area deprivation and the Scottish Index of Material Deprivation (SIMD). Allocation of funding by SIMD area was also thought to be important. For example, do GPs get more to deal with more complex issues in deprived areas? Also in Scotland, access to health and social care services for remote communities was also highlighted as a particular concern and a contender for the development of an indicator.For example, mental health services in island communities. There is lack of availability of services in some areas. The accessibility of all services, including primary and mental health services, needs to be evaluated;care homes need to be located appropriately; and support and training for GPs in remote areas given broader demands on them (as other services are not available) is essential. Rural Health Care Scotland was highlighted as a potential data source. More generally, geographical location and rural versus urban access views were viewed as relevant. The following bodies and sources were highlighted in Scotland: Quality Improvment Scotland part of NHS Scotland (clinical governance standards) safety patient programme; Ombudsman serious failure of care; Scottish Public Services Office end of life;Patients Rights Board (currently there isa bill about it in parliament); ISD Scotland (Health Service Data) Life and Health indicators; Better together: Scottish patient programme; Scottish Patients Association. The Marmot Review and Scottish Review were highlighted as potential data sources. NHS targets, access measures and treatment targets were highlighted as relevant minimum standards frameworks. NHS HEAT targets (Health, Efficiency, Access and Treatment) and health outcomes measures and treatment measures were also mentioned.

    687

    Appendix 4: Record of feedback, comments and recommendations from the Human Rights Measurement Framework Specialist Consultation

    One participant suggested that requirements under UNCRP in relation to health should be reflected in the panel. A number of participants argued that complaints data should also be built in. The number of complaints-handling bodies was highlighted and it was also suggested that increases in number of complaints could not always be unambiguously interpreted as bad in some cases increased numbers of complaints reflects behavioural change. In London, the proactive use of human rights indicators in making a business case in health was discussed, for example, treating people with dignity and respect could be viewed as a selling factor. BRAP provided information on its work on human rights and work with Macmillan Cancer Care (see information under the right to life panel). The need for measures capturing the position of people with dementia in residential care was another concern. In Scotland, the use of informal restraints and the Bournewood Case (and the implementation of the Bournewood findings) were discussed. Indicators that capture whether bodies have something in place to monitor case law and make sure that the staff are aware of human rights issues were proposed as possible process indicators. Colm OCinneide, UCL Faculty of Laws, commented that the European Committee on Social Rights makes use of useful indicators when assessing state compliance with the right to health (Article 11 of the Social Charter). Although there are some possible limitations tothese measures (too much of a GDP/expenditure focus) they are, nevertheless, extensive. The PPO noted that prisoners are entitled to receive healthcare which is equivalent to what they would receive in the community. PPO investigations into deaths in custody consider whether this was delivered. The indicators and measures that are relevant here, and with which PPO works, refer to existing NHS standards and service frameworks. Age UK strongly agreed that a measure of discrimination in access to healthcare should form part of the HRMF. Age discrimination in both health and social care is a key human rights issue for older people. In developing this indicator framework further we urge that older peoples specific experience is reflected, for example, by looking at access to certain treatments by age. See Age UKs comments on measures of dignity in healthcare. WAG made a number of suggestions for measures including: selfharm rates for children in care; percentage take up of services at genito-urinary medicine/sexually transmitted diseases clinics; number of doctors available to make house calls; percentage of population with access to an NHS dentist. Specific matching sources for Wales could be identified under the following headings: Minority Ethnic Achievement Policy, Gypsy Travellers Policy, Health for children of asylum seekers, refugees, gypsies and travellers.

    688

    Appendix 4: Record of feedback, comments and recommendations from the Human Rights Measurement Framework Specialist Consultation

    Some deaths, like those with Multiple Sclerosis(MS), or those with other similar disabilities, it show up in statistics as being caused by MS, when in fact there is an issue of preventable deaths and being unable to access the necessary antibiotics. How will this issue of avoidable deaths be captured in the HRMF evidence base? In Scotland, there was a discussion on an indicator around termination of pregnancies, whether that would be simply the number per live births (like the UN), or whether it would be something about a structure or process indicator (a list of medical professionals that offer a list of termination services) and the refusal to do so. Termination data itself was thought to be relevant (ISD Scotland). In Scotland, the new Patient Rights Bill was mentioned and the process of revising legislation around NHS complaints in Scotland was discussed. Contacts were provided for further discussion of measurement of human rights around health and right to life. Other sources and references included the Judith Mesquita section in Unequal Britainwhich uses the structure process outcome framework for the right to health; Paul Hunts Special Rapporteur reports and article in the Lancet; and the General Comments of relevant UN committees. One participant suggested that the standards in the UNCRPD should be integrated into this panel.

    Right to adequate food


    Colm OCinneide, UCL Faculty of Laws, highlighted that the European Committee on Social Rights makes use of useful indicators on social assistance, poverty and other socio-economic rights which may be useful. He further suggested that the reference to GDP proportion here is a little more appropriate than in other contexts, as there is a clearer link in this area between state expenditure and enjoyment of the right, but its use still needs to be treated with caution. Age UK suggested that under food accessibility a measure of pensioner poverty should be included. In line with the suggested measures of child poverty this should be taken from the data collected for Households Below Average Income data series. It would be relatively simple to cross-reference this with food expenditure (from the Family Expenditure Survey) to create a food poverty indicator in line with fuel poverty indicator. This would involve setting a percentage of total income above which pensioners would be deemed to be in food poverty. Age UK further raised the issue of howthe percentage of the working age population in paid employment be measured once the default retirement age is scrapped (expected in October 2011).Employment for some older people is a key route out of poverty and age discrimination in the workplace currently remains a major barrier to employment. Any measurement of unemployment should encompass all those who wish to work but are not able to find a job, and not be restricted to a particular age group.

    689

    Appendix 4: Record of feedback, comments and recommendations from the Human Rights Measurement Framework Specialist Consultation

    Age UK finally noted that whilst a measure of adults experiencing a lack of support for individual nutritional needs during hospital stays is included in Panel 2, it would seem important that it is also reflected here. A measure of the, percentage living in the community at medium or high risk of malnutrition (BAPEN definition) would also be useful. WAG suggested that the proposed measure focusing on the proportion of students eligible for free school meals who do not accept the meals would only be interesting if it wascompared toall those eligible/take-up. The measure relating to the percentage of working age population in employment was queried. Whilst these people can pay for food, so can those on benefits, thus,it is not a direct link to adequate food. Alternatives proposed were the proportion of household budget spent on food; whilst the measure relating to the percentage of people developing malnutrition during a stay in a hospital/institution may be better regarding older people in particular. The percentage of people admitted to hospital by conditions such as malnutrition/rickets etc. (illness related to inadequate food intake) would also be relevant. The adequate range (including for religious purposes) of food available in hospitals, schools andprisons is a further issue; as is some form of measurement of elderly peoples spending on food against pensions. One participant raised the need to add a measure relating to quality and nutritional value of free school meals and the provision of food in prisons and hospitals. Equality and human rights issues included access to suitable food by religion and belief,for example, halal food, in the school meals context. One participant suggested that a measure of the affordability of food could be derived by linking expenditure studies with the Family Resources Survey.

    Additional Welsh specific issues Participants at the day event in Wales highlighted that clear policy differences in England and Wales would need to be flagged up. For example, in Wales, if a local clinic cannot provide timely care, they are required to provide an alternative facility for healthcare. So, for example, the measures on choice and control for care and treatment would be different for England and Wales. Some Welsh regulators, inspectors and auditors are different bodies to those covering England and the HRMF should also identify Welsh inspectorates. In relation to some areas of policy that are not formally devolved, for example, crimes against women and how the criminal justice system handles those cases, the impact of local services such asa victim service means that in practice these areas fall between Welsh and GB-wide law. Variations in choice and control by urban/rural are particularly important in Wales and should be reflected in the HRMF.

    690

    Appendix 4: Record of feedback, comments and recommendations from the Human Rights Measurement Framework Specialist Consultation

    One participant noted that efforts are being made to ensure that the views of children and young people are incorporated into policy making and equalities and human rights monitoring in Wales. Developments include the submission of a report to a UN Committee in 2007 that is based on the views of children aged between seven and 18 in Wales, called Our Rights, Our Story by the Funky Dragon (the Children and Young Peoples Assembly for Wales). This report provides insight on how children feel about their access to their rights guaranteed under the UNCRC (Funky Dragon, 2007). Participants in Wales suggested that the right to be educated in the language of choice or to receive healthcare in ones own language should be reflected in the HRMF. The possibility of indicators of a fair trial in Welsh language plays a part in access to a fair trial in Wales. This right is set in law, but obtaining bilingual juries is still a big issue. Qualitative studies of discrimination against those whose first language is Welsh should be explored One example is access to public services, especially access to speech therapists, and the need to protectWelsh speakers who are at risk of discrimination. There is anecdotal evidence from older people about poor treatment in healthcare because of the Welsh language issue. The right to dignity in,and access to, healthcare is affected by the bilingual nature of Wales. A recent UN/European Council of Minority Languages (for regional languages) report specifically mentions language and health and social care as issues of concern. There is human rights legislation from a UN level down that refers to language as a human rights issue. There is currently debate being posed to the National Assembly on rights about this. If the HRMF was being designed specifically for Wales, the Welsh language and its impact on human rights would be a major issue. There was a long discussion of how the protection of Welsh speakers should be reflected in the HRMF panel by panel, or as a cross-cutting issue? Similarly, some participants argued that it might be applicable to add Welsh language as a disaggregation characteristic for Wales. Alternatively, there could be disaggregation by first language not English and Welsh speakers captured as a subcategory. Yet another position was that rather than including Welsh speaking as an additional disaggregation characteristic, the issue could be explored in a context-driven way especially in relation to education, access to health and social care, and the right to a fair trial. 691

    Appendix 4: Record of feedback, comments and recommendations from the Human Rights Measurement Framework Specialist Consultation

    In support of the latter approach, one participant suggested that whilst there is a large number of complaints about Welsh speakers being unable to access services through Welsh, there are also English speakers who cannot access jobs or services through the medium of English in a predominantly Welsh speaking area. Therefore, the HRMF should highlight that Wales is a bilingual country and that while negative impact is much more severe for Welsh speakers, it exists for other languages in Wales. It was further suggested that it will be important to protect all speakers,of whatever language,in Wales not one particular group over another. Care should be taken in how protection of Welsh language speakers is defined. The official position of the government is that there are two official languages, and that has to be takeninto account. Some quantitative data might be possible in certain contexts. There are indicators of access to a fair trial by Welsh language speaking status and Estyn might be able to provide underlying data on Welsh language issues. One participant referred to three qualitative studies that identified instances of discrimination and inability to access services by Welsh language speakers. Overall, the view emerged from the discussion that Welsh speakers should not be identified as a cross-cutting characteristic, but important contexts will be specified within panels whenthey appear, such as when lack of access to services or discrimination for being Welsh speaking is important. Other existing comparative frameworks (regions with their own language) could be useful to the Welsh language issue for the HRMF, for example, the UN model for Catalonia. A list of Welsh inspectorates that could be drawn on under the proposed indicator on key regulators, inspectorates and audit bodies was provided. This included Estyn; CSSIW; WAO; Board of Community Health Councils in Wales; HIW; Welsh Risk Pool; Postgraduate Medical Education andTraining Board. A list of inspectorates covering England and Wales was also provided. This included: Planning Inspectorate (Wales); The Charity Commission for England andWales; Environment Agency for England andWales; General Medical Council (GMC) Wales; Health andSafety Executive (HSE); HM Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC); HMIP for England and Wales; HM Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate (HMCPSI); HM Courts Services; HM Inspectorate of Probation. The Rights and Entitlements Branch, Children and Young Peoples Strategy Division emphasised the need to acquire detailed information on policy initiatives from across WAG and provided a series of contacts. It was noted that there is a problem with small sample sizes in Wales. Even where data is anonymised surveys can reveal peoples identities, and this in turn might mean that people are less willing to reveal personal information.

    692

    Appendix 4: Record of feedback, comments and recommendations from the Human Rights Measurement Framework Specialist Consultation

    Additional Scottish specific issues


    As in the Welsh context, participants emphasised the importance of there being different institutions and regulators in Scotland, including in relation to arrangements for human rights protection. Relevant Scottish regulators and inspectorates included the Scottish Police Complaints Commission, the Scottish Public Sector Ombudsman, Audit Scotland and the Scottish Care Commission. Participants in Scotland discussed the need to operationalise the HRMF and asked whether the new framework would be used for performance management, for example, by the Scottish Government and local bodies. There was some discussion of the applications of the EMF for performance management purposes in Scotland, including at the local levels and in relation to single-outcome agreements. SHRC was taking forward work to use and develop data to improve local equality outcomes using the EMF, including by working with the Improvement Service and Scottish Government. This involved piloting the EMF with five local authorities (Glasgow City Council, City of Edinburgh Council, South Lanarkshire Council, Highland Council and Perth and Kinross Council) and community planning partners,for example,the police (where appropriate) in order to identify, measure and track progress on key equality outcomes throughperformance management and selfevaluation frameworks. The need to cover the three dimensions of prevention, protection and remedy was highlighted in Scotland. Would it be possible to make coverage of these three dimensions more explicit in the HRMF? It was suggested that the notion of investigation, for example under Article 2 but also in a more cross-cutting way, should be linked to that of compliant investigation rather than just effective investigation. Remote location and access to public services (particularly health services and specialists including mental health experts) in rural and island communities was a particular concern. Participants suggested that remote access to services rather than an urban/rural split is what is critical in Scotland. There should be a disaggregation characteristic to reflect this distinction. The importance of variations by geographical area was highlighted as being of particular importance. The following were mentioned as possible sources: Better together: ScotlandsPatient Experience Programme;SPS (Scottish Prison Survey) and Annual Prison Survey;Civil Justice Survey for Scotland;Scottish Social Attitudes Survey discrimination module; ISD Scotland (Health Service Data); independent advisory support service (run by citizens advice bureau) for complaints data

    693

    Appendix 4: Record of feedback, comments and recommendations from the Human Rights Measurement Framework Specialist Consultation

    The following were mentioned: Scottish Public Services Ombudsman, ISD Scotland, National Services Scotland, NHS improvement Scotland, In relation to Right to life, end of life issues, the difficulties and complexities of measurement were highlighted.Ombudsman data and the outcome of recommendations relating to end of care were highlighted, etc. One participant suggested that Childrens Rights Network is working on budget allocation and that this might be relevant for the development of resource indicators.

    694

    Appendix 4: Record of feedback, comments and recommendations from the Human Rights Measurement Framework Specialist Consultation

    Appendix 4 notes
    731

    PCCS highlighted the relevance of a number of documents to the HRMF. These include: www.pcc-scotland.org/assets/0000/2413/PCCS_ANNUAL_REPORT_0910_web_version.pdf; www.pcc-scotland.org/assets/0000/2687/PCCG1983_20STAT_20RETURN_20Web_1_.pdf; www.pcc-scotland.org/assets/0000/2624/Draft_Statutory_Guidance_FINAL_for_consultation. pdf; www.pcc-scotland.org/quality_assurance/reports/assessment_of_accessibility_of_ police_complaint. Other relevant documents include HMICS Thematic reviews such as www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/241086/0066923.pdf www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/229105/0062018.pdf. The PCCS produced a CHR in 2007 (www.pcc-scotland.org/assets/0000/0386/PCCS-0710-00007-PF-SP.pdf) regarding the detention of a child in custody. We asked HM Inspectorate of Constabulary for Scotland (HMICS) to consider the issues arising from the CHR in the thematic review of their detention of children in custody. www.pcc-scotland.org, Increasing Scotlands confidence in police complaints handling through impartial oversight and reform. On the essential standards on quality and safety for health and social care, and, on equality and rights, see www.cqc.org.uk/aboutcqc/howwedoit/promotingequalityandhumanrights.cfm www.cqc.org.uk/_db/_documents/FINAL_PDF_Equality_and_Human_Rights_Scheme.pdf

    732

    733 734 735

    695

    References

    References
    Age UK. (2010). Still Hungry to Be Heard. The scandal of people in later life becoming malnourished in hospital. London: Age UK. Available online at: www.ageuk.org.uk/Documents/EN-GB/ID9489%20HTBH%20Report%2028ppA4.pdf?dtrk=true Alkire, S., Bastagli, F., Burchardt, T., Clark, D., Holder, H., Ibrahim, S., Munoz, M., Terrazas, P., Tsang, T. and Vizard, P. (2009). Developing the Equality Measurement Framework: selecting the indicators. Manchester: Equality and Human Rights Commission. Available online at: www.equalityhumanrights.com/fairer-britain/equality-measurement-framework Allmark, P. (2010). LIFE & HEALTH: An evidence review and synthesis for the Equality and Human Rights Commissions Triennial Review 2010. Centre for Health & Social Care Research, Sheffield Hallam University. Available online at: www.equalityhumanrights.com/ uploaded_files/triennial_review/triennial_review_life_health_omnibus.pdf Amnesty International. (2010a).Open secret: Mounting evidence of Europes complicity in rendition and secret detention, 15 November 2010, EUR 01/023/2010. Available online at: www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/4ce139192.html (accessed 5 October 2011). Amnesty International. (2010b). Submission for the Review of Counter Terrorism and Security Powers, September 2010. Available online at: www.amnesty.org/en/library/info/ EUR45/015/2010/en Amnesty International. (2010c). Dangerous Deals: Europes Reliance on Diplomatic Assurances Against Torture, April 2010. Available online at: www.amnesty.org/en/library/ info/EUR01/012/2010/en Amnesty International. (2010d). United Kingdom: Time for an inquiry into the UKs role in human rights violations overseas since September 11 2001, March 2010. Available online at:www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/EUR45/001/2010/en/6b65c47e-c1a1-42e6-b382eae6a948b42a/eur450012010en.pdf Amnesty International. (2010e).Five Years On: Time to End the Control Orders Regime, August 2010. Available online at:www.amnesty.org/en/library/info/EUR45/012/2010/en Article 23 Plus, The Right to Education. Available online at: article23plus.wetpaint.com/ page/RIGHT%20TO%20EDUCATION (accessed 27 January 2011). Association of Chief Police Officers. (2006). Guidance on the Safer Detention & Handling of Persons in Policy Custody. National Centre for Policing Excellence. Available online at: www.nacro.org.uk/data/files/nacro-2006021400-469.pdf Association of Chief Police Officers. (2008). Operational use of Taser by authorised firearms officers, policy and guidance, Version 4. Available online at: www.acpo.police.uk/documents/uniformed/2008/200812UNTAS01.pdf

    697

    References

    Association of Chief Police Officers.(2010a). Total of recorded hate crime from regional forces in England, Wales and Northern Ireland during the calendar year 2009. Available online at: www.acpo.police.uk/asp/policies/Data/084a_Recorded_Hate_Crime_-_January_ to_December_2009.pdf (accessed 29 December 2010). Association of Chief Police Officers. (2010b). Response to Equality and Human Rights Commission call for evidence. Available online at:www.acpo.police.uk/documents/ edhr/2010/201010EDHREHR01.pdf Audit Commission. (2010). 2008/9 completed inspections. Available online at:www. audit-commission.gov.uk/housing/inspection/localauthority/pages/inspections0809.aspx (accessed30 July 2010). Audit Scotland. (2008). Managing increasing prisoner numbers in Scotland. Auditor General for Scotland. Available online at: www.audit-scotland.gov.uk/docs/central/2008/ nr_080508_prisoner_numbers.pdf Barrett, J. The right to education, human rights and school exclusions, UK Human Rights Blog. Available online at:ukhumanrightsblog.com/2011/01/14/the-right-to-educationhuman-rights-and-school-exclusions/ (accessed 25 January 2011). Bill of Rights Forum. UK Ratification Status of International Human Rights Treaties. Available online at: www.billofrightsforum.org/uk_ratification_status_of_international_ human_rights_and_echr_instruments.pdf Birnberg Peirce & Partners, Medical Justice, and the National Coalition of Anti-Deportation Campaigns. (2008). Outsourcing Abuse: The use and misuse of state-sanctioned force during the detention and removal of asylum seekers. Available online at: www.medicaljustice.org.uk/images/stories/reports/outsourcing%20abuse.pdf Bowen, R. and Holtom, D. (2010). A Survey into the Prevalence and Incidence of School Bullying in Wales, Main Report. Cardiff: Welsh Assembly Government. Available online at: wales.gov.uk/topics/educationandskills/publications/researchandevaluation/research/ surveyschoolbullying/?lang=en (accessed 17 January 2011). brap. (2010). Developing and Evaluating the Practical Application of a Human Rights Framework in Cancer Care: A brap report for Macmillan Cancer Support. Provided by brap. Candler, J., Hosali, S., Tsang, T., and Vizard, P. (2010). Background Briefing Paper for the Human Rights Measurement Framework Specialist Consultations on Human Rights, 2010. Available online at: personal.lse.ac.uk/prechr/hrmf/HRMF_background.pdf Care Quality Commission. (2008). State of Healthcare 2008. Available online at: www.cqc.org.uk/_db/_documents/State_of_Care_final_-_tagged.pdf (accessed September 2011). Care Quality Commission. (2009a). The quality and capacity of adult social care services. Available online at: www.cqc.org.uk/_db/_documents/Quality_and_capacity_of_ ASC_200912022655.pdf

    698

    References

    Care Quality Commission. (2009b). Performance judgements for adult social services. Available online at: www.cqc.org.uk/_db/_documents/94717_APA.pdf Care Quality Commission. (2009c). NHS Performance Ratings 2008-09. Available online at: www.cqc.org.uk/_.../0809_NHS_ratings_overview_document_161009 (accessed September 2011). Care Quality Commission. (2009d). Restraint: How to move towards restraint free care. Care Quality Commission. (2010). Personal communication, 10 March 2011. Care Quality Commission. (2010a). Count Me In 2009. Available online at: www.cqc.org. uk/guidanceforprofessionals/mentalhealth/countmeincensus/countmeincensus2009.cfm (accessed 6 July 2010). Care Quality Commission. (2010b). Count Me In 2009 data spreadsheets England. Available online at: www.cqc.org.uk/guidanceforprofessionals/mentalhealth/ countmeincensus/countmeincensus2009.cfm (accessed 6 July 2010). Care Quality Commission. (2010c). Count Me In 2009 data spreadsheets Wales. Available online at: www.cqc.org.uk/guidanceforprofessionals/mentalhealth/ countmeincensus/countmeincensus2009.cfm (accessed 6 July 2010). Care Quality Commission. (2010d). Monitoring the use of the Mental Health Act in 2009/10. The Care Quality Commissions first report on the exercise of its functions in keeping under review the operation of the Mental Health Act 1983. Care Quality Commission. (2011a). Personal communication,17 February 2011. Care Quality Commission. (2011b). Review of Compliance. Castlebeck Care (Teesdale) Ltd, July 2011. Available online at: www.caredirectory.cqc.org.uk/_db/_ documents/1-116865865_Castlebeck_Care_(Teesdale)_Ltd_1-138702193_Winterbourne_ View_RoC_20110517_201107183026.pdf Care Quality Commission. (2011c). Dignity and Nutrition Review: Inspection Programme of NHS Hospitals. Available online at: www.cqc.org.uk/public/reports-surveys-and-reviews/ themes-inspections/dignity-and-nutrition-older-people (accessed 5 December 2011). Care Quality Commission. (2011d). Personal communication, 10 March 2011. Carlisle, A. (2009). Report on Operation Pathway. Available online at: www.irr.org.uk/pdf2/Carliles_report_Pathway.pdf Cemlyn, S., Greenfields, M., Burnett, S., Matthhews, Z., and Whitehall C. (2009). Inequalities Experienced by Gypsy and Traveller Communities: A Review Centre for Maternal and Child Enquiries. (2011). Saving Mothers Lives: Reviewing maternal deaths to make motherhoodsafer: 200608 (The Eighth Report of the Confidential Enquiries into Maternal Deaths in the United Kingdom). BJOG: An international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology, Vol. 118, Supplement 1. Available online at: www.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1471-0528.2010.02847.x/pdf 699

    References

    Centre for Public Scrutiny. (2009). Walk a mile in my shoes Scrutiny of dignity and respect in health and social care services: a guide, November 2009. Improvement and Development Agency. Available online at: www.cfps.org.uk/what-we-do/publications/cfpshealth/?id=113 Child Poverty Action Group. (2009).Child wellbeing and child poverty. Where the UK stands in the European Table, spring 2009. Child Poverty Action Group. Available online at: www.cpag.org.uk/info/ChildWellbeingandChildPoverty.pdf Childrens Legal Centre. (2008). The Right to Education in England. Alternate report to the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child. Available online at: www.refugeecouncil.org. uk/Resources/Refugee%20Council/downloads/researchreports/SMILE%20report_3.pdf (accessed16 March 2011). Commission for Social Care Inspection. (2007a). Rights, risks and restraints: An exploration into the use of restraint in the care of older people. Available online at: www.cambridgeshire.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/46979CAB-51B2-4305-B64B-E520165D56D7/0/ Restraint.pdf Commission for Social Care Inspection. (2007b). Guidance for inspectors: How to move towards restraint free care. Available online at:www.positive-options.com/news/downloads/ restraint_guidance_for_inspectors_csci_december_2007.pdf Crossman, G. with Kitchin, H., Kuna, R., Skrein, M., and Russell, J. (2007). Overlooked: Surveillance and personal privacy in modern Britain. Liberty. Available online at:www. liberty-human-rights.org.uk/policy/reports/overlooked-privacy-report-december-2007.pdf (accessed 16 March 2011). Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service. (2009). Rape Conviction rates in rape cases. Available online at:www.copfs.gov.uk/Publications/2009/06/Rape-Conviction-ratesrape-cases (accessed 3 March 2011). Crown Prosecution Service. (2010a). Violence against Women Crime Report 2009-2010. Crown Prosecution Service. Available online at: www.cps.gov.uk/publications/docs/CPS_ VAW_report_2010.pdf (accessed 25 February 2011). Crown Prosecution Service. (2010b). Hate crime and crimes against older people report 2009-2010. Crown Prosecution Service. Available online at: www.report-it.org.uk/files/cps_ hate_crime_report_2009-2010_1.pdf (accessed 25 February 2011). Department for Communities and Local Government. (2010a). 2008-09 Citizenship Survey: Race, Religion and Equalities Topic Report. Available online at: www.communities.gov.uk/publications/corporate/statistics/citizenshipsurvey200809equality (accessed 11 March 2011). Department for Communities and Local Government. (2010b). Rough Sleeping England Total Street Count and Estimates 2010. Available online at: www.communities.gov.uk/ publications/corporate/statistics/roughsleepingcount2010 (accessed11 March 2011).

    700

    References

    Department for Communities and Local Government. (2011). Live tables on homelessness. Available online at: www.communities.gov.uk/housing/housingresearch/housingstatistics/ housingstatisticsby/homelessnessstatistics/livetables/ (accessed11 March 2011). Department for Children, Schools and Families. (2009). Preventable child deaths in England: Year Ending 31 March 2009. Available online at: www.dcsf.gov.uk/rsgateway/DB/ STR/d000863/STR_PreventableChildDeathsv2.pdf (accessed on 6 July 2010). Department for Children, Schools and Families. (2010). Statistical First Release (SFR) on Outcome Indicators for Children Looked After, Twelve months to 30 September 2009 England. Available online at: www.education.gov.uk/rsgateway/DB/SFR/s000930/index.shtml (accessed 11 March 2011). Department for Education. (2010a). Statistical Release:PREVENTABLE CHILD DEATHS IN ENGLAND: YEAR ENDING 31 MARCH 2010. Available online at: www.education.gov.uk/rsgateway/DB/STR/d000943/osr17-2010v6.pdf (accessed 17 February 2011). Department for Education. (2010b). Statistical Release: Children in need in England, including their characteristics and further information on children who were the subject of a child protection plan (Children in Need Census Final Year Ending 31 March 2010, OSR28/2010, 30 November 2010. Available online at: www.education.gov.uk/rsgateway/ DB/STR/d000970/index.shtml (accessed 27 February 2011). Department for Education. (2010c). Statistical Release: Children looked after by Local Authorities in England (including adoption and care leavers) year ending 31 March 2010, SFR 27/2010, 30 September 2010. Available online at: www.education.gov.uk/rsgateway/ DB/SFR/s000960/index.shtml (accessed 27 February 2011). Department for Education. (2010d). Statistical First Release:Key Stage 1 Attainment by Pupil Characteristics, in England 2009/10 tables. Available online at: www.education.gov.uk/rsgateway/DB/SFR/s000968/index.shtml (accessed September 2011). Department for Education. (2011a).Personal communication. Department for Education. (2011b). Personal communication. Department for Education. (2011c). Statistical First Release:Children accommodated in secure childrens homes at 31 March 2011, England and Wales. Available online at: www.education.gov.uk/rsgateway/DB/SFR/s001027/sfr20-2011v3.pdf (accessed 3 October 2011). Department for Education. (2011d). Statistical First Release: Permanent and Fixed Period Exclusions from Schools and Exclusion Appeals in England 2009/10. Available online at: www. education.gov.uk/rsgateway/DB/SFR/s001016/index.shtml (accessed 21 September 2011). Department for Education. (2011e). Children with Special Educational Needs 2010: an analysis. Tables available online at: www.education.gov.uk/rsgateway/DB/STA/t000965/ index.shtml (accessed September 2011).

    701

    References

    Department for Education. (2011f). National summary of questionnaire results 2009-10 (from the Tellus4 surveyExcel spreadsheet). Available online at: www.education.gov.uk/ rsgateway/DB/STR/d000908/index.shtml (accessed 21 September 2011). Department for Education and Skills. (2003). Skills for Life Survey: a national needs and impact survey of literacy, numeracy and ICT skills. London: DfES. Available online at: www.education.gov.uk/rsgateway/DB/STR/d000908/index.shtml Department for Work and Pensions. (2011a). Personal communication. Department for Work and Pensions. (2011b). Households Below Average Income (HBAI) 1994/95-2009/10. Tables available online at: research.dwp.gov.uk/asd/hbai/hbai2010/ index.php?page=chapters (accessed September 2011). Department of Energy and Climate Change. (2010). Annual report of fuel poverty statistics 2010 and excel spreadsheet. Available online at: www.decc.gov.uk/assets/decc/Statistics/ fuelpoverty/610-annual-fuel-poverty-statistics-2010.pdf and www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/ cms/statistics/fuelpov_stats/fuelpov_stats.aspx (accessed 11 March 2011 and 30 November 2011). Department of Health. (2008). Human rights in healthcare a framework for local action, 2nd Edition, October 2008. Department of Health. Available online at: www.dh.gov.uk/en/ Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/PublicationsPolicyAndGuidance/DH_088970 Department of Health. (2009).Safeguarding adults. Report on the consultation on the review of No Secrets. Available online at: www.dh.gov.uk/prod_consum_dh/groups/dh_ digitalassets/documents/digitalasset/dh_102981.pdf (accessed 3 October 2010). Department of Health. (2010a). Essence of Care 2010. London: TSO. Available online at: www.dh.gov.uk/prod_consum_dh/groups/dh_digitalassets/@dh/@en/@ps/documents/ digitalasset/dh_119970.pdf Department of Health. (2010b).Human rights training materials and human rights resources. Available online at:www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/ PublicationsPolicyAndGuidance/DH_115174 Dick, S. (2009). Homophobic hate crimes and hate incidents, Equality and Human Rights Commission research summary 38. Available online at: www.equalityhumanrights.com/ uploaded_files/research/research38_so_hatecrime.pdf (accessed 15 December 2011). Dr Foster. (2010). Hospital Guide 2010: What makes a good hospital? Available online at: www.drfosterhealth.co.uk/docs/hospital-guide-2010.pdf (accessed 2 February 2011). Eminent Jurists Panel on Terrorism, Counter-terrorism and Human Rights. (2009). Assessing damage, urging action. Geneva: International Commission of Jurists. Available online at:ejp.icj.org/IMG/EJP-Report.pdf Equality and Human Rights Commission. (2009). Human Rights Inquiry. Report of the Equality and Human Rights Commission. Available online at: www.equalityhumanrights. com/uploaded_files/hri_report.pdf 702

    References

    Equality and Human Rights Commission. (2010a). Triennial Review 2010, How Fair is Britain? The First Triennial Review. Available online at: www.equalityhumanrights.com/uploaded_files/triennial_review/how_fair_is_britain_ch6.pdf (accessed 24 November 2010). Equality and Human Rights Commission. (2010b). Joint Committee on Human Rights 13th Report: Equality and Human Rights Commission. Equality and Human Rights Commission Response, July 2010. Available online at: www.equalityhumanrights.com/uploaded_files/ humanrights/jchr_report13_ehrc_response.pdf (accessed 10 November 2010). Equality and Human Rights Commission. (2010c). Triennial Review 2010, How Fair is Britain? The First Triennial Review. Physical Security. Available online at: www.equalityhumanrights.com/uploaded_files/triennial_review/how_fair_is_britain_ch8.pdf (accessed 24 November 2010). Equality and Human Rights Commission. (August 2010c). Summary of the Commissions interventions in the European Court of Human Rights. Available online at: www.equalityhumanrights.com/uploaded_files/humanrights/ecthrs_interventions.pdf (accessed 10 November 2010). Equality and Human Rights Commission. (2010d). Stop and Think. A critical review of the use of stop and search powers in England and Wales, March 2010. Available online at: www. equalityhumanrights.com/uploaded_files/raceinbritain/ehrc_stop_and_search_report.pdf Equality and Human Rights Commission. (2011). Personal communication. Equality and Human Rights Commission. (2011b). Close to Home, An Inquiry into older people and human rights in home care. Available online at: www.equalityhumanrights.com/ uploaded_files/homecareFI/home_care_report.pdf (accessed November 23 2011). Equality and Human Rights Commission and Care Quality Commission. (2011). Memorandum of Understanding. Available online at: www.equalityhumanrights.com/ uploaded_files/humanrights/mou_cqc.pdf (accessed 5 December 2011). Flatley, J. (Ed). (2010). Crime in England and Wales 2009/10. Home Office Statistical Bulletin. Available online at: rds.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs10/hosb1210.pdf (accessed 25 February 2011). Funky Dragon. (2007). Our Rights, Our Story. Available online at: www.funkydragon.org/en/fe/page.asp?n1=1437&n2=2108 Gaze, C. (2009). PRIDE Cancer End of Life Care Evaluation Report. Provided by brap. General Register Office for Scotland. (2010). Probable Suicides: Deaths which are the Result of Intentional Self-harm or Events of Undetermined Intent. Available online at:www. gro-scotland.gov.uk/statistics/theme/vital-events/deaths/suicides/index.html (accessed 18 February 2011). General Register Office for Scotland. (2010). 2009 Births, Marriages and Deaths Preliminary Annual Figures. Available online at: www.gro-scotland.gov.uk/statistics/theme/ vital-events/general/bmd-preliminary/2009.html (accessed 18 February 2011). 703

    References

    Hammarberg, T. (2009). Serious implementation of human rights standards requires that benchmarking indicators are defined, Viewpoint. Council of Europe website. Available online at: www.coe.int/t/commissioner/Viewpoints/090817_en.asp Hammarberg, T. (2009b). Human Rights and Gender Identity, Issue Paper. Office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights. Strasbourg: Council of Europe. Available online at: wcd.coe.int/wcd/ViewDoc.jsp?id=1476365 Hannan, M., Hearnden, I., Grace K., and Bucke, T. (2010). Deaths in or following police custody: An examination of the cases 1998/99 2008/09, IPCC Research Series Paper: 17, 2010. Available online at: fflm.ac.uk/upload/documents/1291370447.pdf (accessed 3 February 2011). Health and Safety Executive. (2011). Statistics on fatal injuries in the workplace. Available online at: www.hse.gov.uk/statistics/fatalinjuries.htm (accessed 28 November 2011). Health and Social Care Information Centre. (2011). Quarterly analysis of Mental Capacity Act 2005, Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) Assessments (England) Quarter 2 2010/11. Available online at: www.ic.nhs.uk/statistics-and-data-collections/mental-health/ mental-health-act/quarterly-analysis-of-mental-capacity-act-2005-deprivation-of-libertysafeguards-assessments-england-quarter-2-2010-11 (accessed13 March 2011). Healthcare Commission. (2006). Investigation into 10 maternal deaths at, or following delivery at, Northwick Park Hospital, North West London Hospitals NHS Trust, between April 2002 and April 2005, August 2006. Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection. Available online at: www.cqc.org.uk/_db/_documents/Northwick_tagged.pdf Healthcare Commission. (2009). Investigation into Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust March 2009. Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection. Available online at: www.cqc.org.uk/_db/_documents/Investigation_into_Mid_Staffordshire_NHS_Foundation_ Trust.pdf (accessed 2 February 2011). Healthcare Commission. (2009b). Spotlight on Complaints: A report about second stage complaints about the NHS in England. HM Government. (2011). Review of Counter-Terrorism and Security Powers. Review Report and Recommendations, Cm 8044. Available online at: www.homeoffice.gov. uk/publications/counter-terrorism/review-of-ct-security-powers/review-findings-andrec?view=Binary (accessed 5 July 2011). HM Inspectorate of Prisons. (2008). Expectations. Criteria for assessing the conditions in prisons and the treatment of prisoners. Available online at: www.justice.gov.uk/ inspectorates/hmi-prisons/docs/HMIP_AR_2008-9_web_published_rps.pdf HM Inspectorate of Prisons for England and Wales. (2010a). Personal communication, 8 July 2010.

    704

    References

    HM Inspectorate of Prisons for England and Wales. (2010b). HM Chief Inspector for Prisons for England and Wales: Annual Report 2008-09. London: HMIP. Available online at: webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.justice.gov.uk/inspectorates/hmiprisons/docs/HMIP_AR_2008-9_web_published_rps.pdf HM Inspectorate of Prisons for England and Wales. (2011). Personal communication, 21 February 2011. HM Inspectorate of Prisons for Scotland. (2006). Standards used for the inspection of prisons in Scotland, Scottish Executive, August 2006. Available online at: www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/1102/0036494.pdf HM Prison Service. (2010). Performance statistics overcrowding. Available online at: www.hmprisonservice.gov.uk/abouttheservice/prisonperformance/performancestatistics/ (accessed 23 February 2011). HM Treasury. (2009). Public Expenditure Statistical Analyses 2009. Available online at: www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/pespub_pesa09.htm (accessed 6 July 2010). HM Treasury. (2010). Public Expenditure Statistical Analyses 2010. Available online at: www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/pespub_pesa10.htm#cra HM Treasury. (2011). Personal communication, September 2011. Home Office. (2008). Edited by D. Povey, K. Coleman, P. Kaiza and S. Roe. Homicides, firearm offences and intimate violence 2007/8, Supplementary Volume 2 to Crime in England and Wales 2007/8. Available online at: homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs09/hosb0209.pdf Home Office. (2009). Anti-Social Behaviour Orders. Statistics: detailed breakdown of data by CJS area. Available online at: webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20100413151441/ crimereduction.homeoffice.gov.uk/asbos/asbos2.htm (accessed 23 January 2011). Home Office. (2009). Together we can end violence against women and girls: a strategy. Available online at: webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20100418065544/http:/www. homeoffice.gov.uk/documents/vawg-strategy-2009/ Home Office. (2010). Recorded Crime Statistics 2002/03 2009/10. Available online at: rds.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs10/recorded-crime-2002-2010.xls (accessed 3 December 2010). Home Office. (2010a). Control of Immigration: Quarterly Statistical Summary, United Kingdom October December 2009. Available onlineat: rds.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs10/ immiq409.pdf (accessed 6 July 2010). Home Office. (2011). Statistical Releases: Anti-Social Behaviour Order Statistics England and Wales 2009. Available online at: rds.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/stats-release.html (accessed 26 January 2011).

    705

    References

    Home, R., and Greenfields, M. (2006). Cambridge Sub-Region Traveller Needs Assessment. Commission from Anglia Ruskin University and Buckinghamshire Chilterns University College by Cambridgeshire County Council for a consortium of public authorities. Available online at: www.cambridgeshire.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/42B16143-173344FE-9A32-5484F627BFDA/0/TravellersSurveyFinalReportRevisedEdition18_02_08.pdf (accessed 17 January 2011). House of Commons Library. (2009). Anti-social behavior order statistics. Standard note: SN/SG/3112. Available online at: www.parliament.uk/briefingpapers/commons/lib/research/ briefings/snsg-03112.pdf (accessed 24 January 2011). House of Commons Home Affairs Committee. (2008). A Surveillance Society? Fifth Report of Session 2007-08, HC-581, 20 May 2008. London: TSO. Available online at: www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmselect/cmhaff/58/58i.pdf House of Commons Home Affairs Committee. (2011). Unauthorised tapping into or hacking of mobile communications, Thirteenth Report of Session 2010-12, 20 July 2011. Available online at: www.parliament.uk/documents/commons-committees/home-affairs/ CRCFinalReportEmbargoed.pdf (accessed 20 July 2011). Human Rights Information Service. (2007). What the courts have said about end of life decisions and human rights, 1 May 2007. NHS Litigation Authority. Human Rights Working Group on Restraint and Seclusion. (2005). Guidance on restraint and seclusion in health and personal social services, August 2005. Available online at: www.dhsspsni.gov.uk/restraint_and_seclusion_august_2005.pdf Humphries, M. (2009). Ethics and the Legal Profession. Available online at: www.lawgazette.co.uk/features/ethics-and-legal-profession-part-3 (accessed 10 March 2011). Hunt, D. (2009). The Hunt Review of the regulation of legal services, October 2009. Available online at: www.lawcentres.org.uk/uploads/Legal_Regulation_Report_ October_2009.pdf Hunt, P. (2003). Interim report of the Special Rapporteur of the Commission on Human Rights on the right of everyone to enjoy the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health, Mr. Paul Hunt, UN documentA/58/427 dated 10 October 2003. Available online at: www.unhchr.ch/Huridocda/Huridoca.nsf/(Symbol)/A.58.427.En?Opendocument (accessed October 2011). Hunt, P. (2006). Report of the Special Rapporteur on the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health, E/CN.4/2006/48, 3 March 2006. UN Commission on Human Rights. Available online at: www.ifhhro.org/images/stories/ifhhro/documents_UN_special_rapporteur/3_4_3_en.pdf Hunt, R. and Jensen, J. (2007). The School Report. The experiences of young gay people in Britains schools. Stonewall. Available online at: www.stonewall.org.uk/what_we_do/2583.asp#Asylum (accessed 17 March 2011). 706

    References

    IDASA. (2002). The Grootboom case and womens housing rights, Budget Brief no. 111, October 2002. Available online at: oppenheimer.mcgill.ca/IMG/pdf/10-09_Fondements_ Pleniere_Grootboom.pdf (accessed 11 March 2011). ISD Scotland. (2010). Unintentional injuries in children. Information Services Division Scotland. Available online at: www.isdscotland.org/isd/4428.html (accessed 4 March 2011). Independent Police Complaints Commission. (2006). Joint Committee on Human Rights Inquiry into Counter-Terrorism Policy and Human Rights: Evidence submitted by the Independent Police Complaints Commission. Available online at: webarchive. nationalarchives.gov.uk/20100908152737/ipcc.gov.uk/final_submission_to_jchr_inquiry.pdf (accessed 3 October 2011). Independent Police Complaints Commission. (2009a). Deaths during or following police contact: Statistics for England and Wales 2008/09. London: IPCC. Available online at: www.ipcc.gov.uk/en/Pages/reports_polcustody.aspx (accessed November 2011). Independent Police Complaints Commission.(2009b). Police complaints: Statistics for England and Wales 2008/09. London: IPCC. Available online at: www.ipcc.gov.uk/Pages/ stats.aspx (accessed 25 January 2011). Independent Police Complaints Commission. (2009c). IPCC Report into the contact between Fiona Pilkington and Leicestershire Constabulary, 2004-7, Independent Investigation Final Report 2009/016872. IPCC. Available online at: www.ipcc.gov.uk/en/Pages/investigation_reports.aspx Independent Police Complaints Commission.(2009d). Annual Report and Statement of Accounts, 2008-9. Available online at: www.ipcc.gov.uk/en/Pages/corp_reports-plans.aspx Independent Police Complaints Commission.(2010). Annual Report and Statement of Accounts, 2009-10. Available online at: www.ipcc.gov.uk/en/Pages/corp_reports-plans.aspx The Information Commissioners Office. (2009). Information Commissioners report to Parliament on the state of surveillance.Information Commissioners Office.Available online at:www.ico.gov.uk/about_us/research/~/media/documents/library/Corporate/Research_ and_reports/surveillance_report_for_home_select_committee.ashx Inquest. (2007). Adam Rickwood Briefing, Inquest, May 2007. Available online at: inquest.gn.apc.org/pdf/INQUEST_ian_tomlinson_briefing_jun_2009.pdf Inquest. (2009). Briefing on the death of Ian Tomlinson, Inquest. Available online at: inquest.gn.apc.org/pdf/INQUEST_ian_tomlinson_briefing_jun_2009.pdf Inquest. (2011). Briefing on the death of Jimmy Mubenga. Available online at: inquest. org.uk/pdf/briefings/INQUEST_parliamentary_inquiry_call_Jimmy_Mubenga_briefing.pdf (accessed November 2011). Institute of Race Relations. (2006). Driven to desperate measures. Available online at: www.irr.org.uk/pdf/Driventodesperatemeasures.pdf

    707

    References

    Intelligence and Security Committee. (2005). The handling of detainees by UK intelligence personnel in Afghanistan, Guantanamo Bay and Iraq, Cm 6469, March 2005. Available online at: https://www.mi5.gov.uk/output/intelligence-and-security-committeespecial-reports.html (accessed 3 October 2011). Intelligence and Security Committee. (2007). Rendition, Cm 7171, 25 July 2007. Available online at: www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/sites/default/files/resources/20070725_isc_final.pdf (accessed 3 October 2011). Joint Committee on Human Rights.(2004a). The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Twenty-First Report of Session 2003-04. Available online at: www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt200304/jtselect/jtrights/183/183.pdf (accessed 11 November 2010). Joint Committee on Human Rights. (2004b). Deaths in Custody, Third Report of Session 2004-05. Available online at: www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt200405/jtselect/ jtrights/15/15.pdf Joint Committee on Human Rights. (2005). Review of International Human Rights Instruments, Seventeenth Report of Session 2004-05, March 2005. Available online at: www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt200405/jtselect/jtrights/99/99.pdf (accessed 4 November 2010). Joint Committee on Human Rights. (2007). The Human Rights of Older People in Healthcare, Eighteenth Report of Session 2006-07. London: JCHR. Available online at: www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt200607/jtselect/jtrights/156/156i.pdf (accessed 10 March 2010). Joint Committee on Human Rights. (2008a). The Use of Restraint in Secure Training Centres, Eleventh Report of Session 2007-2008. Available online at: www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt200708/jtselect/jtrights/65/65.pdf Joint Committee on Human Rights. (2008b). A Bill of Rights for the UK? Twenty-ninth Report of Session 2007-2008, London: JCHR. Available online at: www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt200708/jtselect/jtrights/165/165i.pdf (accessed 10 March 2010). Joint Committee on Human Rights. (2009a). Legislative Scrutiny: Coroners and Justice Bill (certified inquests), Sixteenth Report of Session 2008-09, May 2009. Available online at: www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt200809/jtselect/jtrights/94/9405.htm (accessed 17 November 2010). Joint Committee on Human Rights. (2009b). Legislative Scrutiny: Policing and Crime Bill (gangs injunctions), HL Paper 68. Available online at: www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ jt200809/jtselect/jtrights/94/9405.htm Joint Committee on Human Rights. (2009c). Childrens Rights, Twenty-fifth Report of Session 2008-09, HL Paper 157. London: TSO. Available online at: www.publications. parliament.uk/pa/jt200809/jtselect/jtrights/157/157.pdf 708

    References

    Joint Committee on Human Rights. (2009d). Allegations of UK complicity in torture, Twentythird Report of Session 2008-09, 21July 2009, HL Paper 152. London: TSO.Available online at: www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt200809/jtselect/jtrights/152/152.pdf Joint Committee on Human Rights. (2009e). Legislative Scrutiny: Child Poverty Bill, Twenty-eighth report of Session 2008-09, HL Paper 183, 26 November 2009. London: TSO. Available online at: www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt200809/jtselect/ jtrights/183/183.pdf Joint Committee on Human Rights. (2010a). Legislative Scrutiny:Crime and Security Bill; Personal Care at Home Bill; Children, Schools and Families Bill, Twelfth Report of Session 200910. Available online at: www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt200910/jtselect/jtrights/67/67.pdf (accessed 15 March 2011). Joint Committee on Human Rights. (2010b). Counter-Terrorism Policy and Human Rights (Seventeenth Report): Bringing human rights back in, Sixteenth Report of Session 200910, HL Paper 86. London: TSO. Available online at: www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ jt200910/jtselect/jtrights/86/86.pdf Joint Committee on Human Rights. (2010c). Counter-Terrorism Policy and Human Rights (Sixteenth Report): Annual Review of Control Orders Legislation 2010, Ninth Report of Session 2009-10, HL Paper 64. London: TSO. Available online at: www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt200910/jtselect/jtrights/64/64.pdf Joint Committee on Human Rights. (2010d). Work of the Committee in 200809: Government Response to the Committees Second Report of Session 2009-10; Legislative Scrutiny (Finance Bills and Academies Bill), First Report of Session, 2010-11, HL Paper 32. London: TSO. Available online at: www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt201011/jtselect/jtrights/32/32.pdf JUSTICE. Review of the UKs Reservations to International Human Rights Treaty Obligations. Available online at:www.justice.org.uk/images/pdfs/reservations.pdf (accessed 5 October 2011). JUSTICE. (2009). Secret Evidence. London: JUSTICE. Available online at: www.justice.org.uk/resources.php/33/secret-evidence, Kaur-Ballagan, K., Castell, S., Brough, K., and Friemert, H. (2009). Public Perceptions of Human Rights, Report prepared for EHRC.Manchester: EHRC. Available online at: www.equalityhumanrights.com/uploaded_files/public_perceptions_of_human_rights_ipos_ mori.pdf (accessed 10 March 2011). Klug, F., and Wildbore, H. (no date). Equality, dignity and discrimination under human rights law: select cases. Available online at: www2.lse.ac.uk/humanRights/ articlesAndTranscripts/Human_rights_equality_and_discrimination.pdf (accessed 11 March 2011). Klug, F., Weir, S., and Starmer, K. (1996). The Three Pillars of Liberty: Political Rights and Freedoms in the United Kingdom. London: Routledge.

    709

    References

    Lamb, B. (2009). The Lamb inquiry special educational needs and parental confidence. Department for Education. Available online at: www.education.gov.uk/ childrenandyoungpeople/sen/sen/types/a0063735/lamb-inquiry-special-educational-needsand-parental-confidence Laming, Lord. (2009). The protection of children in England: a progress report, March 2009, House of Commons HC 330. London: TSO. Available online at: www.education.gov.uk/publications/eOrderingDownload/HC-330.pdf Liberty. (2010). Terrorism pre-charge detention. Comparative law study. Liberty. Available online at: www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/policy/reports/comparative-law-study-2010-precharge-detention.pdf Local Government Ombudsman and Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman. (2009). Six lives: the provision of public services to people with learning disabilities, Second Report (Session 2010-11), HC 203-1. London: TSO. Available online at: www.ombudsman.org.uk/improving-public-service/reports-and-consultations/reports/ health/six-lives-the-provision-of-public-services-to-people-with-learning-disabilities (accessed 5 October 2011). MacLeod, P., and Page, L. (2010a). 2009/10 Scottish Crime and Justice Survey: Partner Abuse. Scottish Government. Available online at: www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/ Doc/333601/0108895.pdf (accessed 4 March 2011). MacLeod, P., and Page, L. (2010b). 2009/10 Scottish Crime and Justice Survey: Sexual Victimisation and Stalking. Scottish Government Social Research. Available online at: www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/333871/0109033.pdf (accessed 3 March 2011). Magee, I. (2010). Review of Legal Aid Delivery and Governance. Ministry of Justice. Available online at www.justice.gov.uk/publications/docs/legal-aid-delivery.pdf Marmot, M. (2010). Fair Society, Healthy Lives. The Marmot Review, February 2010. The Marmot Review. Available online at:www.marmotreview.org/ Mental Welfare Commission for Scotland. (2006). Rights, risks and limits to freedom: Principles and guidance on good practice in caring for residents with dementia and related disorders and residents with learning disabilities where consideration is being given to the use of physical restraint and other limits to freedom. Edinburgh: Mental Welfare Commission for Scotland. Available online at: www.mwcscot.org.uk/web/FILES/ Publications/Rights_Risks.pdf Mental Health Commission.(2009). Coercion and Consent, Monitoring the Mental Health Act 2007-2009, MHAC Thirteenth Biennial Report 20072009. London: TSO. Available online at: www.cqc.org.uk/_db/_documents/MHAC_Biennial_Report_0709_final.pdf Miles, N. (2010). No going back. Lesbian and Gay people and the asylum system. Stonewall. Available online at: www.stonewall.org.uk/what_we_do/2583.asp#Asylum

    710

    References

    Miller, A., Craig, S., Greenhill, P., Mullen, T., and Murdoch, J.(2004).The Use of Human Rights Legislation in the Scottish Courts. Available online at: www.scotland.gov.uk/ Publications/2004/11/20181/45877 (accessed 27 January 2011). Ministry of Justice. (2008a). Mental Capacity Act 2005: Deprivation of liberty safeguards, Code of Practice to supplement the main Mental Capacity Act 2005 Code of Practice. London:TSO. Available online at: www.dh.gov.uk/prod_consum_dh/groups/dh_ digitalassets/@dh/@en/documents/digitalasset/dh_087309.pdf Ministry of Justice. (2008b). Offender management caseload statistics, Ministry of Justice Statistics Bulletin, 30 October 2008. Available online at: www.justice.gov.uk/offendermanagement-caseload-statistics-2008-2.pdf (accessed 27 January 2011). Ministry of Justice. (2009a). Statistics on race and the criminal justice system, 2007/8, A Ministry of Justice publication under Section 95 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991. London: MoJ. Available online at: webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.justice.gov.uk/ publications/raceandcjs-archive.htm (accessed 7 November 2011). Ministry of Justice. (2009b). Resource Accounts 2008-09 (For the year ended 31 March 2009). Available online at: www.justice.gov.uk/publications/docs/ministry-justice-resourceaccounts-0809ii.pdf (accessed10 March 2011). Ministry of Justice.(2010a). Safety in custody statistics 2008/2009, Ministry of Justice Statistics Bulletin. London: MoJ. Available online at: www.justice.gov.uk/publications/docs/ safety-in-custody-2009.pdf (last accessed on November ? 2010). Ministry of Justice.(2010b). Statistics of mentally disordered offenders 2008, England and Wales. London: MoJ. Available online at: www.justice.gov.uk/about/docs/mentallydisordered-offenders-2008.pdf (accessed 25 January 2011). Ministry of Justice. (2010c). Criminal Statistics: England and Wales 2008. London: MoJ. Available online at: www.justice.gov.uk/publications/criminalannual-archive.htm (accessed 27 January 2011). Ministry of Justice. (2010d). HM Courts Service Court User Survey 2009-2010. London:MoJ. Available online at: www.justice.gov.uk/publications/hmcsusersurvey.htm (accessed 28 January 2011). Ministry of Justice. (2010e). Information Rights Tracker Survey Key Wave 14 results, Fieldwork, January 2010. Available online at: www.justice.gov.uk/publications/informationrights-tracker-surveys.htm (accessed 28 January 2010). Ministry of Justice. (2010f). Criminal Statistics: England and Wales 2009, Statistical Bulletin. Available online at: www.justice.gov.uk/criminalannual.htm (accessed 25 February 2011). Ministry of Justice. (2010g). HM Courts Service Court User Survey 2009-10, Ministry of Justice Statistics bulletin. Available online at: www.justice.gov.uk/publications/docs/hmcourts-service-court-user-survey2009-10.pdf (accessed 10 March 2011).

    711

    References

    Ministry of Justice. (2010h). Resource Accounts 2009-10 (For the year ended 31 March 2010). Available online at: www.justice.gov.uk/moj-resource-accounts-2010.pdf (accessed 10 March 2011). Ministry of Justice. (2010i). Criminal Statistics England and Wales 2009. Available online at: www.justice.gov.uk/publications/criminalannual.htm (accessed 10 March 2011). Ministry of Justice. (2010j). Time Intervals for Criminal Proceedings at Magistrates Courts. Available online at: www.justice.gov.uk/publications/statistics-and-data/courts-andsentencing/magistrates-times.htm. Available online at: www.justice.gov.uk/publications/ criminalannual.htm (accessed 10 November 2011). Ministry of Justice.(2011a). Homicides, Firearm Offences and Intimate Violence 2009/10 Supplementary Volume 2 to Crime in England and Wales 2009/10, Ministry of Justice Statistics Bulletin, 11 January 2011. Available online at: www.homeoffice.gov.uk/ publications/science-research-statistics/research-statistics/crime-research/hosb0111/ (accessed 24 February 2011). Ministry of Justice. (2011b). Provisional Quarterly Criminal Justice System Information, Ministry of Justice Statistics bulletin, September 2010. Available online at: www.justice.gov.uk/publications/criminal-justice-system-performance.htm (accessed 10 March 2011). Ministry of Justice. (2011c). Provisional Quarterly Criminal Justice System Information Indicators, Ministry of Justice Statistics bulletin, September 2010. Available online at: www.justice.gov.uk/publications/criminal-justice-system-performance.htm (accessed 8 November 2011). National Centre for Policing Excellence. (2006). Guidance on the Safer Detention & Handling of Persons in Policy Custody. Association of Chief Police Officers, 2006. National Council for Independent Monitoring Boards. (2010). Slopping Out? A report on the lack of in-cell sanitation in Her Majestys Prisons in England and Wales, August 2010. Independent Monitoring Boards. Available online at: www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/ guidance/inspection-monitoring/In-Cell_Sanitation_Report_V2_Aug_10.pdf National Equality Panel. (2010). An Anatomy of Economic Inequality in the UK. Government Equalities Office. Available online at: www.equalities.gov.uk/pdf/NEP%20 Report%20bookmarkedfinal.pdf. Statistical annex available online at:www.equalities.gov. uk/national_equality_panel/publications/charts_and_statistical_annex/statistical_annex/ education.aspx (accessed 11 March 2011). National Offender Management Service. (2010). Physical control in care training manual. Ministry of Justice. Available online at: www.justice.gov.uk/publications/docs/physicalcontrol-in-care-training-manual-2010.pdf National Offender Management Service. (2010). Annual Report 2008/09: Management Information Addendum. Ministry of Justice. Available online at: www.justice.gov.uk/publications/docs/noms-annual-report-0809-stats-addendum.pdf (accessed 24 February 2011). 712

    References

    National Offender Management Service. (2011). Personal communication, 15 February 2011. National Policing Improvement Agency. (2010). Manual of guidance on keeping the peace. Association of Chief Police Officers and Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland. Available online at: www.acpo.police.uk/documents/uniformed/2010/201010UNKTP01.pdf National Preventative Mechanism. (2011). Monitoring Places of Detention. First Annual Report of the UKs National Preventive Mechanism, 2009-2010, Cm 8010. London: TSO. Available online at: webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.justice.gov.uk/ inspectorates/hmi-prisons/docs/National_Preventive_Mechanism_Annual_report_20092010(web).pdf NHS Litigation Authority. (2007). What the courts have said about. resource allocation and human rights. Available online at: www.nhsla.com/Publications/ (accessed 3 October 2011). NICE-SCIE. (2006). Dementia. Supporting people with dementia and their carers in health and social care, Guideline 42, November 2006. Available online at: www.scie.org.uk/ publications/misc/dementia/dementia-guideline.pdf OCallaghan, E.(2008). Childrens Rights in Schools: An Examination of the Case Law of the European Court of Human Rights. Available online at: www.oiguskantsler.ee/.../editor/ File/Elaine_O_Callaghan_Children_s_Rights_in_Schools.ppt (accessed 27 January 2011). Office for National Statistics. (2007). News Release: Variations persist in life expectancy by social class, 2002-2005, 24 October 2007. Office for National Statistics. (2008a). News Release: Life expectancy at birth is longest in the South of England, 30 October 2008. Office for National Statistics. (2008b). Large differences in infant mortality by ethnic group. Available online at: www.ons.gov.uk/ons/publications/re-reference-tables. html?edition=tcm%3A77-46494 (accessed 17 February 2011). Office for National Statistics. (2010a). Life expectancy at birth and at age 65 by local areas in the United Kingdom, 200709. Available online at: www.ons.gov.uk/ons/publications/rereference-tables.html?edition=tcm%3A77-213718 (accessed 3 October 2011). Office for National Statistics. (2010b). Infant and perinatal mortality in England and Wales by social and biological factors, 2009. Available online at: www.ons.gov.uk/ons/publications/re-reference-tables.html?edition=tcm%3A77-217125 (accessed 9 November 2011). Office for National Statistics. (2010c). Interim Life Tables. Available online at: www.ons.gov.uk/ons/publications/re-reference-tables.html?edition=tcm%3A77-61850 (accessed 3 October 2011). Office for National Statistics. (2010d). Infant and perinatal mortality by health areas in England and Wales, 2009. Available online at: www.ons.gov.uk/ons/search/index.html?new query=infant+and+perinatal+mortality+by+health+areas+in+england+and+wales+2009 713

    References

    Office for National Statistics. (2011a). Suicide rates in the United Kingdom, 2000-2009, Statistical Bulletin. Available online at: www.ons.gov.uk/ons/publications/re-referencetables.html?edition=tcm%3A77-233434 (accessed 7 November 2011). Office for National Statistics.(2011b). Personal communication, 13 February 2011. Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. (2006b). Report on Indicators for Monitoring Compliance with International Human Rights Instruments, UNDOC HRI/ MC/2006/7, 11 May 2006. Available online at: www.huridocs.org/resource/report-onindicators/ (accessed 3 October 2011). Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. (2008). Report on Indicators for Promoting and Monitoring the Implementation of Human Rights, UN Doc HRI/MC/2008/3. Available online at: www2.ohchr.org/english/issues/indicators/docs/HRI.MC.2008.3_en.pdf (accessed 15 April 2010). Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.(2010). Status note on OHCHRs work on indicators for human rights (March 2010) made available by OHCHR upon request. Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.(2011). Personal communication. OKeeffe, M., Hills, A., Doyle, M., McCreadie, C., Scholes, S., Constantine, R., Tinker, A., Manthorpe, J., Biggs, S., and Erens, B.(2007). UK study of abuse and neglect of older people, Prevalence Report, 2007. London: Comic Relief and the Department of Health. Available online at: www.elderabuse.org.uk/AEA%20Services/Useful%20downloads/ Prevalence/Prevalence%20Report-Full.pdf (accessed October 2011). ONeill. A. (2010). The Right to Education and the Supreme Court, UKSC Blog, 7 July 2010.Available online at: ukscblog.com/the-right-to-education-and-the-supreme-court (accessed 25 January 2011). Palmer, E.(2007). Judicial Review, socio-economic rights and the Human Rights Act. Oxford: Hart Publishing. Palmer, E. (2010). The Child Poverty Act 2010: holding government to account for promises in a recessionary environments?, European Human Rights Law Review 2010. Parke, S. (2008). Children and Young People in Custody 2006-2008. An analysis of the experiences of 15-18 year olds in prison. HM Inspectorate of Prisons Youth Justice Board. Available online at: webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.justice.gov.uk/ inspectorates/hmi-prisons/docs/children_and_young_people-rps.pdf Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman. (2009). Six lives: the provision of public services to people with learning disabilities, Report of the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman and the Local Government Ombudsman, Part one: overview and summary investigation reports. Available online at: www.ombudsman.org.uk/__data/ assets/pdf_file/0013/1408/six-lives-part1-overview.pdf Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman. (2010). Making an impact. Annual Report. Available online at: www.ombudsman.org.uk/about-us/publications/annual-reports 714

    References

    Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman. (2011). Care and Compassion.Report of the Health Services Ombudsman on 10 investigations into NHS care of older people, Fourth report of the Health Service Commissioner for England Session 2010-2011, HC 778: London: TSO. Available online at: www.ombudsman.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_ file/0016/7216/Care-and-Compassion-PHSO-0114web.pdf Parry, G. et al. (2004). The Health Status of Gypsies & Travellers in England. Available online at: www.shef.ac.uk/content/1/c6/02/55/71/GT%20final%20report%20for%20web.pdf (accessed 10 March 2011). Patients Association. (2011). Weve been listening, have you been learning?. Available online at: patients-association.com/Default.aspx?tabid=80&Id=23 (accessed 11 November 2011). Patrick, H. (2008). Autonomy, benefit and protection. How human rights can protect people with mental health conditions or learning disabilities from unlawful deprivation of liberty. Mental Welfare Commission for Scotland. Available online at: www.mwcscot.org.uk/web/ FILES/Publications/Autonomy%2C_benefit_and_protection_FULL.pdf (accessed 5 July 2011). Prisons and Probation Ombudsman for England and Wales. (2010). Annual Report 2009/10. Available online at: Privy Council.(2008). Review of Intercept as Evidence, Cm 7324,30 January 2008. London: TSO. Available online at: www.official-documents.gov.uk/ document/cm73/7324/7324.pdf Qureshi, H. (2009). Restraint in care homes for older people: a review of selected literature, Adult Services Report 26. Social Care Institute for Excellence.Available online at:www.scie.org.uk/publications/reports/report26.pdf (accessed 3 October 2011). Reding, V.(2011). Your data, your rights. Safeguarding your privacy in a connected world, Privacy Platform The Review of the EU Data Protection Platform, Brussels, 16 March 2011. Available online at: www.euractiv.com/en/infosociety/reding-defines-new-eu-dataprivacy-rules-news-503172 (accessed 17 March 2011). Reed, B., Rhodes, S., Schofield, P., and Wylie, K. (2009). Gender Variance in the UK: Prevalence, Incidence, Growth and Geographic Distribution. GIRES. Available online at: www.gires.org.uk/assets/Medpro-Assets/GenderVarianceUK-report.pdf (accessed 17 March 2011). Reprieve. (2009). Scottish Involvement in Extraordinary Rendition, 9 November 2009. Available online at: www.reprieve.org.uk/static/downloads/2009_11_09REPORTONSCOT TISHINVOLVEMENT.__.pdf Ruebain, D., Wadham, J., Robinson, A., and Uppal, S. (2010). Blackstones Guide to the Equality Act 2010. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Refugee Council. (2011). Something to smile about: Promoting and supporting the educational and recreational needs of refugee children, February 2011. Available online at: www.refugeecouncil.org.uk/Resources/Refugee%20Council/downloads/researchreports/ SMILE%20report_3.pdf (accessed 16 March 2011). 715

    References

    Ruck Keen, A., and Butler-Cole, V. (2011). Care arrangements and deprivation of liberty, 27 January 2011. Available online at: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/index. php?option=com_content&view=article&id=5687%3Acare-arrangements-and-deprivationsof-liberty&catid=54%3Achildrens-services-articles&q=&Itemid=22 (accessed 9 March 2011). The Scotsman. (2010). Alarm at Scots deaths from malnutrition, The Scotsman online, 10 August 2010. Available online at: thescotsman.scotsman.com/scotland/Alarm-at-Scotsdeaths-from.6465493.jp (accessed 24 February 2011) Scottish Government. (2009a). HMICS Statistics Complaint allegations Substantiated. Available online at: www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Justice/public-safety/Police/local/15403/ Statistical/ComplaintsHTML/Complaintssubstantiated (accessed 4 March 2011). Scottish Government. (2009b). Review of fatal accident inquiry legislation. The report. Scottish Government. Available online at: www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/ Doc/290392/0089246.pdf Scottish Government. (2009c). Safer lives: changed lives. A shared approach to tackling violence against women in Scotland. Edinburgh: The Scottish Government. Available online at: www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/273938/0081867.pdf Scottish Government. (2010). Statistical Bulletin: Crime and Justice Series: Domestic Abuse Recorded by the Police in Scotland, 2009-10. Scottish Government. Available online at: www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2010/11/11095346/32 (accessed 3 March 2011). Scottish Government. (2010b). High Level Summary of Statistics Trends Chart data. Available online at: www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Statistics/Browse/Health/TrendData (accessed 10 March 2011). Scottish Government. (2011). Personal communication, 16 February 2011. Scottish Parliament. (2000). Conditions in Scottish Prisons, Research Note 00/34. Available online at:www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/research/pdf_res_notes/rn00-34.pdf Scottish Public Health Observatory. (2010a). Suicide: deprivation. Data available at:www. scotpho.org.uk/home/Healthwell-beinganddisease/suicide/suicide_data/suicide_simd.asp (accessed 4 March 2011). Scottish Public Health Observatory. (2010b). Healthy life expectancy: deprivation deciles. Data available at: www.scotpho.org.uk/home/Populationdynamics/hle/hle_data/hle_ depdeciles.asp (accessed 4 March 2011). Siegler, V., and Al-Hamad, A. (2010). Social inequalities in fatal childhood accidents and assaults: England and Wales, 2001-03, Heath Statistics Quarterly 48: winter 2010. ONS. Available online at: www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/article.asp?ID=2610&Pos=1&ColRank=1&Ra nk=224 (accessed 18 February 2011).

    716

    References

    Smedley, N. (2009). Review of the Regulation of Corporate Legal Work, March 2009. Available online at: www.lawcentres.org.uk/uploads/Review_of_the_Regulation_of_ Corporate_Legal_Work_03.09_.pdf Smith, M., Olatunde, O., and White, C. (2010). Inequalities in disability-free life: expectancy by area deprivation: England, 2001-04 and 2005-08, Health Statistics Quarterly 48. Available online at: www.ons.gov.uk/ons/taxonomy/index. html?nscl=Health+Inequalities (accessed 25 November 2011). Smith, K. (Ed). (2011). Homicides, Firearm Offences and Intimate Violence 2009/10: Supplementary volume 2 to Crime in England and Wales 2009/10, Home Office Statistical Bulletin. Available online at: www.cjp.org.uk/publications/government/homicides-firearmoffences-and-intimate-violence-2009-10-supplementary-volume-2-to-crime-in-englandand-wales-2009-10-20-01-2011/ (accessed 7 November 2011). Starmer, K., and Gordon, J. (2007). The PSNIs proposed introduction of taser. Human rights advice, 23 May2007. Available online at www.nipolicingboard.org.uk/intro_of_taser.pdf Stern, V. (2010). The Stern Review: A report by Baroness Vivian Stern OBE of an independent review into how rape complaints are handled by public authorities in England and Wales. Home Office. Available online at: beneaththewig.com/wp-content/ uploads/2011/08/Stern_Review_acc_FINAL4.pdf UN Childrens Fund (UNICEF). (2007). Child Poverty in Perspective: An Overview of Child Well-being in Rich Countries, Report Card 7. UNICEF. Available online at: www.unicef.org/media/files/ChildPovertyReport.pdf UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. (2002). Concluding Observations of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, 5 June 2002. Available online at: www.unhcr.org/refworld/publ isher,CESCR,CONCOBSERVATIONS,GBR,,0.html (accessed 13 July 2011). UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. (2009). Consideration of Reports submitted by states parties under Articles 16 and 17 of the Covenant. Concluding Observations of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the Crown Dependencies and Overseas Dependent Territories, 12 June 2009. Available online at: www.unhcr.org/refworld/publisher,CESCR,C ONCOBSERVATIONS,GBR,,0.html (accessed 2 December 2010). UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. (2009b). Guidelines on treatyspecific documents to be submitted by states parties under articles 16 and 17 of the international covenant on economic, social and cultural rights, E/C.12/2008/2. Available online at: www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/cescr/docs/E.C.12.2008.2.doc (accessed 30 October 2011).

    717

    References

    UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women. (2008a). Concluding Observations of the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Available online at: daccess-dds-ny. un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N09/555/92/PDF/N0955592.pdf?OpenElement (accessed 24 November 2010). UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women. (2008b). Fifth and Sixth Periodic Reports United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, Part of A/63/38. Available online at: www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/cedaw/docs/CEDAW.C.GBR.CO.6.pdf UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination.(2010). Reports submitted by States Parties under Article 9 of the Convention. Eighteenth to Twentieth Periodic Reports of States Parties due in April 2006: United Kingdom. Available online at: daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G10/443/00/PDF/G1044300.pdf?OpenElement (accessed 24 November 2010). UN Committee on the Rights of the Child. (2005). General guidelines regarding the form and content of periodic reports to be submitted by states parties under Article 44, paragraph(b) of the Convention, UN Doc CRC/C/58/Rev.1, 29 November 2005. UN Committee on the Rights of the Child. (2008). Consideration of reports submitted by states parties under Article 44 of the Convention. Concluding Observations: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, 20 October 2008. Available online at: www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/crc/docs/AdvanceVersions/CRC.C.GBR.CO.4.pdf (accessed 3 October 2011). UN Economic and Social Council. (2011). Report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, E/2011/90, dated 26 April 2011. Available online at: http://daccess-ddsny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G11/427/16/PDF/G1142716.pdf?OpenElement (accessed 30 October 2011). UN Human Rights Council. (2010). Joint Study on global practices in relation to secret detention in the context of countering terrorism, of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism, A/HRC/13/42, 19 February 2010. Available online at: www2.ohchr.org/english/ bodies/hrcouncil/docs/13session/A-HRC-13-42.pdf (accessed 3 October 2011). UN Human Rights Council. (1982). General Comment: The right to life (art. 6), dated 30/04/1982. Available online at: www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/(Symbol)/84ab9690ccd81fc7c1 2563ed0046fae3?Opendocument (accessed October 2011). Vizard, P. (2010). What do the public think about economic and social rights? Research Report to Inform the Debate about a Bill of Rights and a Written Constitution, CASE Research Report 61. Available online at: sticerd.lse.ac.uk/dps/case/cr/CASEreport61.pdf (accessed 10 March 2011). Wadham, J., Mountfield, H., Gallagher, C., and Prochasks, E.(2009). Blackstones Guide to the Human Rights Act 1998. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    718

    References

    Wagner, A. (2011a). Human rights, anti-obesity surgery and the NHS purse, UK Human Rights Blog. Available online at: ukhumanrightsblog.com/2011/04/13/human-rights-antiobesity-surgery-and-the-nhs-purse/ (accessed 23 May 2011). Wagner, A. (2011b). Supreme Court bolsters rights of children in deportation cases, UK Human Rights Blog. Available online at: ukhumanrightsblog.com/2011/02/01/supremecourt-bolsters-rights-of-children-in-deportation-cases/ (accessed 10 March 2011). Wagner, A. (2010). The Human Right to Education a Weak Right?, UK Human Rights Blog, 7 July 2010. Available online at: ukhumanrightsblog.com/2010/07/07/human-right-toeducation-a-weak-right/ (accessed 25 January 2011). Walby, S. et al. (2010). Physical and Legal Security and the Criminal Justice System: A Review of Inequalities. Equality and Human Rights Commission. Available online at: www. equalityhumanrights.com/uploaded_files/triennial_review/triennial_review_cjs_review.pdf (accessed 3 March 2011). Welsh Assembly Government. (2010). The Right to be Safe, March 2010. Available online at: wales.gov.uk/docs/dsjlg/publications/commsafety/100325besafefinalenv1.pdf Whittle, S., Turner, L., and Al-Alami, M.(2007). Engendered Penalties: Transgender and Transsexual Peoples Experiences of Inequality and Discrimination, The Equalities Review. Available online at: www.spectrum-lgbt.org/downloads/reports/equality_review_trans.pdf (accessed 17 March 2011). Wilson, D. (2010). Personal communication.

    719

    Contacts
    England
    Equality and Human Rights Commission Helpline FREEPOST RRLL-GHUX-CTRX Arndale House, The Arndale Centre, Manchester M4 3AQ Main number: 0845 604 6610 Textphone: 0845 604 6620 Fax: 0845 604 6630 Email: englandhelpline@equalityhumanrights.com

    Scotland
    Equality and Human Rights Commission Helpline FREEPOST RSAB-YJEJ-EXUJ The Optima Building, 58 Robertson Street, Glasgow G2 8DU Main number: 0845 604 5510 Textphone: 0845 604 5520 Fax: 0845 604 5530 Email: scotlandhelpline@equalityhumanrights.com

    Wales
    Equality and Human Rights Commission Helpline FREEPOST RRLR-UEYB-UYZL 3rd Floor, 3 Callaghan Square, Cardiff CF10 5BT Main number: 0845 604 8810 Textphone: 0845 604 8820 Fax: 0845 604 8830 Email: waleshelpline@equalityhumanrights.com Helpline opening times: Monday to Friday 8am6pm. Calls from BT landlines are charged at local rates, but calls from mobiles and other providers may vary. Calls may be monitored for training and quality purposes. Interpreting service available through Language Line, when you call our helplines. If you require this publication in an alternative format and/or language please contact the relevant helpline to discuss your needs. All publications are also available to download and order in a variety of formats from our website. www.equalityhumanrights.com

    www.equalityhumanrights.com

    The Human Rights Measurement Framework (HRMF) has been developed by the Commission, in partnership with the Scottish Human Rights Commission, to bring together information and evidence for analysing and assessing human rights in Britain. It will enable the Commissions, Government, public bodies, NGOs and others with an interest in human rights to begin to evaluate compliance with, and progress towards, the implementation of human rights in England, Scotland and Wales. The prototype framework covers five rights that are domestically enforceable under the Human Rights Act, and three rights from international instruments that the UK is signed up to.

    Potrebbero piacerti anche