Watling v The Chief Constable of Suffolk Constabulary & Anor

Article 3 requires adequate systems for detainee healthcare and reasonable operational steps where a public authority knows, or ought to know, of a real and immediate risk of inhuman or degrading treatment. The risk must be substantial, present and continuing, and the treatment must meet an objective minimum level of severity. Article 8 has no equivalent severity threshold, but interference remains subject to justification under Article 8.2.

A contractor providing custody healthcare may be a hybrid public authority where it performs an outsourced public function. Causation requires a substantial, rather than negligible, chance of a better outcome assessed at the time of the alleged violation.

The claimant suffered a stroke while driving and was arrested by Suffolk police on suspicion of drug-driving. He was detained at a police investigation centre and remained without specialist medical examination for several hours before a forensic medical examiner recognised the stroke and arranged hospital treatment.

He alleged that the Chief Constable and G4S Health Services (UK) Ltd had violated Articles 3 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights through failures in police assessment, medical triage, staffing, geographical coverage and response time. The negligence and false-imprisonment claims had been abandoned. The issues included whether G4S was a public authority, whether either defendant had breached a systems or operational duty, and whether any breach caused a real chance of a better medical outcome.

1. Outcome. The claims under Articles 3 and 8 were dismissed, with judgment for both defendants.
2. G4S’s status. Applying R (Weaver) v London & Quadrant Housing Trust [2010] 1 WLR 363, G4S was a hybrid public authority under section 6(3)(b) of the Human Rights Act 1998. Its provision of healthcare and forensic medical services to police detainees was an outsourced public function. The relevant acts, including triage and timely response, were not private acts under section 6(5).
3. Article 3. The systems duty requires effective arrangements to protect detainees’ health and well-being. The operational duty arises only where there is a real and immediate risk of Article 3 ill-treatment. The risk must be substantial, present and continuing. The alleged treatment must also attain the objective minimum level of severity. Those requirements were not met because the police reasonably assessed the claimant’s presentation and the stroke signs were subtle.
4. Systems adequacy. The G4S system was adequate. It provided medical assessment for section 4 testing and 24-hour telephone access to a clinician. In the circumstances, further escalation by the call handler was unnecessary.
5. Article 8. Article 8 has no minimum-severity threshold, but the claim failed on the same factual and legal analysis.
6. Causation. Applying Daniel v St George’s Healthcare NHS Trust [2016] 4 WLR 32, the claimant had to establish a substantial chance of a better outcome. Although a 6.7% chance could be substantial in principle, the claimant-specific clinical evidence established a chance of no more than 2%, which was negligible.