Advertisement

Flaws Found In Isolation Of Terror Inmates

Flaws Found In Isolation Of Terror Inmates

The rights of convicted terrorists to fair treatment in prison will never be the most popular of causes.

In this case Kamel Bourgass - the only person to be convicted of the notorious ricin poison plot, once used by US Secretary of State Colin Powell to justify the invasion of Iraq but later discredited - is a particularly unattractive victim.

During his arrest in Manchester in 2003, he fatally stabbed one police officer, and wounded three others, for which he is now serving a life sentence.

Bourgass and another prisoner Tanvir Hussain - who was convicted of the liquid bomb plot - were set to become the latest hate figures for the anti-Human Rights Act lobby, when they argued in the Supreme Court that being kept in solitary confinement in prison for periods of up to seven months, was a breach of their human rights.

But in fact the judgement from the Supreme Court has much more to offer than proving whether, as many have alleged, the Human Rights Act is, or is not, a "villain's charter".

A panel of five judges unanimously allowed the appeals, finding the long periods of time Bourgass and Hussain spent in segregation were unlawful.

But they reached that conclusion on the basis of the English common law, not the Human Rights Act.

The Government had argued the Segregation Review Board (SRB), which meets every 14 days to consider the cases of prisoners held in segregation, was enough of a check to guarantee the fairness of Bourgass's and Hussain's ongoing isolation.

The Supreme Court used long established English law principles to find that was not the case.

The SRB was not sufficiently independent of the prison, staffed as it was by prison officers - and couldn't claim to be a constitutional embodiment of the Home Secretary herself.

And, importantly, the judges also found other procedural flaws in the way prisons deal with inmates who are placed in isolation.

Bourgass and Hussain were accused of assaulting other prisoners, and told they had to be kept in segregation because investigations were ongoing, when in fact, they were not.

They were told they were being assessed for transfer, when they were not.

They were told that they posed a threat to the other inmates or were a disruptive influence - allegations too vague for the inmates to meaningfully challenge.

Hussain in particular was accused of trying to convert other inmates to Islam by preaching through cell windows. The prison later retracted this allegation.

By then it was too late, both men had already spent long periods in isolation.

As a punishment, it's an extreme one, involving being locked in a cell for 23 hours a day, with one hour's exercise, in a cage.

The Supreme Court referred to the UN, which has considered whether this punishment constitutes a form of inhuman and degrading treatment.

After 14 days it can have irreversible effects on prisoners' mental health, a disproportionate number of prisoners in isolation take their own lives.

Such a sentence, the judges found, is often imposed in a hurry - given the need to protect security within a prison - but if it is to continue, it must be carefully, independently and fairly reviewed.

What was outside the scope of the court's judgement, but perfectly within the scope of ours, is the long-term effect on society of keeping prisoners in isolation without proper safeguards.

Bourgass and Hussain are not expecting to be released any time soon.

But for other prisoners who are expected to reintegrate into society after serving their sentence, unfairly placing them in isolation is likely to foster, at best, resentment and anger, at worse, mental health problems and personality breakdown.

So while few will be celebrating a legal victory for two convicted terrorists, there may be something in it for everyone too.