Grant & Anor v The Ministry of Justice

In assessing whether prison conditions constitute degrading treatment under Article 3, the court must consider all the circumstances and their combined effects. The minimum level of severity remains high and constant, although detention may be a significant factor. A requirement to use a bucket as a toilet is not necessarily, and of itself, a breach of Article 3. Article 8 requires an actual interference with privacy or dignity; an unacceptable risk of a future breach does not itself constitute such interference. The ordinary civil standard of proof applies to claims under section 7 of the Human Rights Act 1998, applied flexibly and having regard to the seriousness of the allegation.

The claimants were prisoners at HMP Albany, a closed prison without in-cell sanitation. They alleged that the Night San electronic locking system, occasional failures, and the provision of buckets for use as toilets breached Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention. They also relied on cell size, lighting, ventilation, religious observance, and the alleged risk that the sanitation arrangements would produce future breaches.

The claimants sought declarations, and Desmond Grant also claimed damages. The issues were whether the conditions, considered individually or cumulatively, amounted to degrading treatment or unlawfully interfered with private life, and whether the claims were established on the evidence.

1. Article 3 test. The court held that prison conditions must be assessed in their full context and by reference to their effects on the claimant. The minimum level of severity remains a high and constant threshold. The vulnerability of a person in state detention is an important factor, but it does not create a lower threshold. Intention to humiliate is relevant but unnecessary.
2. Bucket sanitation. The Strasbourg authorities did not establish that using a bucket as a toilet in a locked cell is automatically a violation. The decisive inquiry is whether, in all the circumstances, the treatment reaches the minimum level of severity. The Albany regime required bucket use only rarely, and defecation in a bucket only very rarely. The cells were single occupancy, buckets could generally be emptied promptly, and adequate cleaning facilities were available.
3. Evidence and proof. Where the claimant bears the burden, an Article 3 claim under section 7 of the Human Rights Act 1998 is proved on the balance of probabilities. The standard remains civil but may require cogent evidence because of the seriousness of finding a breach. Neither claimant established significant distress, physical injury, psychiatric harm, or psychological harm.
4. Article 8. Sanitation arrangements may interfere with privacy or dignity, but Article 8 requires an actual interference. A risk that the system might cause a future Convention breach cannot be converted into an actual Article 8 interference. The direct Article 8 claim therefore failed on the factual findings.
5. Disposition. The conditions at HMP Albany did not breach Articles 3 or 8. Both claims were dismissed.

First-instance decision. No prior appellate decision is stated in the judgment.