Respect for family life and privacy
101. We learned during our visit that suspects detained
at Paddington Green are not entitled to any family visits or any
correspondence, and can only communicate with their family in
English on a monitored telephone line.
102. We understand the need for stringent controls
on detainees' communications during an investigation, and the
need to maintain a high security environment at Paddington Green.
We are also aware, however, of the very wide range of terrorism
offences, suspicion of which may lead to detention at Paddington
Green, and the lengthier period of pre-charge detention, and we
question whether a blanket prohibition on family visits and correspondence
is likely in all circumstances to be a proportionate interference
with the right to respect for family life. We recommend that
consideration be given to replacing the blanket prohibition on
family visits and correspondence during detention at Paddington
Green with a discretion to allow supervised family visits and
monitored correspondence in circumstances where not to do so would
be disproportionate.
103. All detainees at Paddington Green are subject
to constant video surveillance in their cell. We noticed on the
monitoring screens that the entire area of the cell is visible,
including the area in which the toilet is situated, but that there
is a small area of pixillation on the screen the purpose of which,
we were told, is to obscure any view of the genital area when
the detainee is using the toilet. We noticed that the area obscured
was extremely small, so it would still be possible to see most
of a detainee who is using the toilet, even if the precise area
of the toilet seat is obscured from view.
104. This struck us as an unnecessary and disproportionate
interference with the detainee's privacy and dignity. There may
be a case for such intrusive surveillance of a detainee who has
been assessed as at risk of suicide or self-harm, but such detainees
will be in the minority and should be identified by the risk assessment
process. In relation to detainees who have not been assessed as
not posing a risk of suicide or self-harm, we doubt whether the
interference with their privacy and dignity is proportionate to
the security purpose which is served by the surveillance. We
recommend that the area within the cell which is obscured from
view be extended so as to ensure that a detainee is not visible
at all when using the toilet.
Conclusion
105. Paddington Green was designed in an era when
terrorism suspects could be held for no longer than 48 hours.
Suspects can now be held before charge for up to 28 days, 14 of
which may be at Paddington Green, and, given the longer period
of detention which is now possible, it is likely that increasing
numbers of suspects will spend 14 days in detention at Paddington
Green. The cells at Paddington Green are, to say the least, spartan,
containing nothing more than a bench with a mattress and pillow,
and a toilet. Visitors are not allowed and, as we have noted,
very limited provision is made for exercise. The GP we met with
said that he had seen little evidence of deteriorating mental
health in the suspects he had assessed. Nevertheless, the potential
for terrorism suspects to suffer mental health problems because
of lengthy detention at Paddington Green appears to us to be significant.
We are concerned that holding terrorism suspects in such basic
conditions for as long as 14 days may give rise in certain circumstances
to breaches of the right not to be subjected to inhuman or degrading
treatment in Article 3 of the ECHR. Furthermore, investigations
would be jeopardised if suspects were rendered unfit for interview
because of the conditions in which they are held, and there must
also be a risk that in certain circumstances evidence obtained
from questioning the suspect during such an extended period of
detention in such basic conditions will be ruled inadmissible
by a court, or a court may refuse to draw an adverse inference
from any silence during questioning whilst detained in such conditions.
We recommend that the conditions in which suspects are detained
at Paddington Green are improved immediately, beginning with more
systematic arrangements for exercise and the provision of basic
facilities for leisure. Any replacement for Paddington Green must
have considerably improved facilities for detaining suspects for
long periods.
47 Report to the UK Government on the visit to the
UK carried out by the European Committee for the Prevention of
Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT)
from 11 to 15 July 2005, CPT/Inf (2006) 26 (hereafter "CPT
July 2005 Report") at paras 10-24; Report to the UK Government
on the visit to the UK carried out by the European Committee for
the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or
Punishment (CPT) from 20 to 25 November 2005, CPT/Inf (2006) 28
(hereafter "CPT November 2005 Report") at paras 27-39. Back
48
See CPT July 2005 Report at para 22 and CPT November 2005 Report
at para 39. Back
49
CPT July 2005 Report at para 24. Back
50
IPCC Report into the Forest Gate counter-terrorism operation,
2 June 2006, published Feb 07, Recommendation 4. Back
51
Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 Code of Practice H: detention,
treatment and questioning by police officers under section 41
of, and Schedule 8 to, the Terrorism Act 2000 (hereafter "Code
H"). Back
52
Code H, para. 14.5. The detainee need not be transferred to a
prison if he or she specifically requests to remain in detention
at a police station, or if there are reasonable grounds to believe
that transferring them to a prison would significantly hinder
a terrorism investigation, delay charging the detainee or their
release from custody, or otherwise prevent the investigation from
being conducted diligently and expeditiously. Back
53
Notes for Guidance, Note 14J. Back
54
Lord Carlile's Report on the operation of the Terrorism Act in
2006, at para. 97. Back
55
Ibid, at para. 98. Back
56
Ibid. Back
57
CPT July 2005 Report at para 12. Back
58
Response of the United Kingdom Government to the report of
the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman
or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) on its visit to the
United Kingdom from 11 to 15 July 2005, CPT/Inf (2006) 27
at para. 11. Back
59
CPT July 2005 Report at para 12 and CPT November 2005 Report at
para 32. Back
60
Schedule 8 para. 3(2) of the Terrorism Act 2000. Back
61
CPT July 2005 Report at paras 15, 17-19 and CPT November 2005
Report at paras 35-36. Back
62
CPT November 2005 Report at para 37. Back
63
Schedule 8, para. 8. Back
64
CPT November 2005 Report at para 34. Back