Greenfield, R (on the application of) v. Secretary of State for the Home Department [2005] UKHL 14
Citation:Greenfield, R (on the application of) v. Secretary of State for the Home Department [2005] UKHL 14
Rule of thumb:Can damages be claimed for a human rights violation? Yes, damages for stress and suffering when human rights are violated can be claimed.
Background facts:
The facts were that Greenfield was punished for behaviour he carried out in prison, namely being found in possession of drugs and given an extra 21 days to serve. He initially had no legal representation at this hearing. The Court held that the first hearing was a violation of Article 6, but that no damages were to be awarded because he had not actually shown how he suffered detriment as a result of this i.e. there was not another trial where he was found not guilty of the offence.
Judgment:
The Court affirmed that where someone’s human rights are violated then they are entitled to damages generally, however, there are some exceptions to this. The Court also affirmed the general point that in making human rights arguments the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg is an important place for the UK Courts to seek precedents from, rather than from domestic cases.
Ratio-decidendi:
‘12. More germane to the present case is a second head of claim for what English lawyers would call general damages and the Court tends to call, but not always consistently, non-pecuniary damage... A second head of general or non-pecuniary damage has been variously described: "physical and mental suffering" (Colozza, above, paras 36, 38); "prolonged uncertainty" (Bönisch, above, para 11); "prolonged uncertainty and anxiety" (Lechner and Hess, above, para 64); "a certain feeling of frustration and helplessness"... In considering claims under this head the Court has, consistently with its general approach, only been willing to award compensation for anxiety and frustration (however described) attributable to the article 6 violation. It has recognised that for very many people involvement in legal proceedings is bound to cause anxiety irrespective of any article 6 breach, and no award is made in such cases... To gain an award under this head it is not necessary for the applicant to show that but for the violation the outcome of the proceedings would, or would probably, or even might, have been different, and in cases of delay the outcome may not be significant at all. But the Court has been very sparing in making awards... The appellant claimed damages almost from the outset. It was open to him to put forward such material as he chose to support his claim, and in the absence of any contrary procedural order it was his duty to do so’ (at 12- 30)’, Lord Bingham, ‘There could be no clearer indication that courts in this country should look to Strasbourg and not to domestic precedents’, Lord Bingham at 19
Warning: This is not professional legal advice. This is not professional legal education advice. Please obtain professional guidance before embarking on any legal course of action. This is just an interpretation of a Judgment by persons of legal insight & varying levels of legal specialism, experience & expertise. Please read the Judgment yourself and form your own interpretation of it with professional assistance.