Article 3: UK

Question 1

Re A (disclosure of information) (2012) UKSC

Answer 1

It did not breach A3 to allow confidential statements a person had made about being the victim of childhood sexual abuse to be put forward as evidence in court, even though it could be extremely distressing and exacerbate the person’s illness.

The “nature and context” of treatment is relevant, and here it was about ensuring a fair trial.

Question 2

How was the judgment in A v UK (1998) implemented in England?

Answer 2

The Children Act 2004 set out that anything that would amount to ABH could not be justified as “reasonable punishment”

Question 3

What is the significance of Criminal Justice Act 1998 s134?

Answer 3

It makes torture committed by a state official a crime in UK law wherever in the world it is committed.

It implements the UK’s commitments under CAT.

Question 4

When it comes to physical chastisement of pupils, has the ECtHR had any influence in the UK?

Answer 4

No: the Education Act 1996 stopped schools from doing this, without any negative judgment from the ECtHR.

Costello-Roberts v UK (1993) had previously found it didn’t breach A3, when there were no lasting effects.

Question 5

Napier v Scottish Ministers (2004)

Answer 5

The practice of “slopping out” at Barlinnie was capable of breaching Article 3, and did so for the petitioner.

This involved prisoners sharing a cell designed for one, and having to use a chamber pot in it, and then having to empty it out themselves.