Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

More Judicial Madness

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • More Judicial Madness

    The prisoners claim their human rights were violated
    Ex-addict interview
    Nearly 200 prisoners and former inmates forced to stop taking drugs by going "cold turkey" are to receive payments.

    The unspecified settlement followed claims the practice amounted to assault and a breach of human rights.

    The claimants had been using heroin and other opiates and were understood to been receiving alternative treatment before going to prison.

    The Home Office said it "reluctantly" decided to settle out of court to "minimise costs to the taxpayer".

    It said the cases dated back to the early 1990s.

    The settlement originates from a test case earlier this year, when six claimants were given the green light to sue the Home Office.

    They said once in jail, and under the responsibility of the Prison Service in England and Wales, they were made to go "cold turkey" - where drugs are withdrawn or cut short.

    A Home Office spokesperson said the pay-outs would be awarded to 198 applicants, and not just the six involved in the test case.

    Shadow home secretary David Davis said the Home Office could be setting a "disastrous" precedent by settling out-of-court.

    'Sharp detoxification'

    The proceedings focused on six test cases chosen from a total pool of 198 claimants.

    Many had been taking the heroin substitute methadone.

    The claimants were bringing the action based on trespass, because they say they did not consent to the treatment, and for alleged clinical negligence.


    HAVE YOUR SAY
    Being an ex-prisoner and a recovering addict, I have been in this situation a number of times
    Sam, Essex

    Their barrister Richard Hermer told an earlier hearing in May: "Many of the prisoners were receiving methadone treatment before they entered prison and were upset at the short period of treatment using opiates they encountered in jail.

    "Imposing the short, sharp detoxification is the issue."

    Mr Davis suggested the government did not want to be "embarrassed by losing such a case under its own human rights legislation".

    "Drugs are a scourge on society and completely undermine all our other efforts to fight crime. By doing this Mr Reid would be letting down the taxpayer, the victims of these offenders and the drug addicts themselves," he added.

    Former Conservative prisons minister Ann Widdecombe said the settlement was "an insult to every victim and every law abiding person".

    "As far as I'm concerned there is no human right to continue a drug habit when you go to prison.

    "This Prison Service will be paying out money it should not be."

    Drug detoxification in prison is second-rate in standard and woefully short in its duration
    Mark Leech, Prisons Handbook

    Prison Reform Trust director Juliet Lyon said the case could see courts "pause for thought" before using jail terms as a way of making sure an offender receives treatment.

    "Our overcrowded jails are awash with petty, persistent offenders who commit crime to feed their drug habit," she said.

    According to the editor of the Prisons Handbook, Mark Leech, two-thirds of crime is drug-related and Home Office research has shown that 643 drug addicts were responsible for well over 70,000 offences in one three-month period.

    "Prisoners have the right to receive exactly the same type and standard of healthcare in prison as they would receive in the community," he said.

    "Yet for the most part drug detoxification in prison is second-rate in standard and woefully short in its duration."

    The National Drug Prevention Alliance said prisoners should not be able to get drugs in prison.

    Peter Stoker of the group said: "Yes we want a health-orientated regime of treatment for prisoners, but we don't want something that bows down to their existing drug abuse and says we can't do anything about it."

    The charity Drugscope said the government had pledged £28m funding for a treatment programme for inmates this financial year but the actual budget was set lower.

    The Department of Health said it was spending £12m in the current financial year on the scheme and the level of funding would be maintained in 2007/08.

    The programme, supplemented by the Home Office, aims to increase drug treatment for prisoners to allow them to fight their addiction before their release into the community, a spokeswoman said.
    Story from BBC NEWS:
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/uk/6142416.stm
    So their human rights were abused because they were made to go "cold turkey" from an illegal drug... methinks the human rights act might need a little bit of work here...

  • #2
    Originally posted by PubFather View Post
    So their human rights were abused because they were made to go "cold turkey" from an illegal drug... methinks the human rights act might need a little bit of work here...
    No wonder the public think of the judiciary with contempt.
    Semper in excretum. Solum profunda variat.

    Comment


    • #3
      And what about all the poor sex addicts that have been cut off from their indulgences? I wonder how they shall be appeased when it comes up.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Wooglin View Post
        And what about all the poor sex addicts that have been cut off from their indulgences? I wonder how they shall be appeased when it comes up.
        Not to mention the alcoholics, the paedophiles, compulsive thieves...

        Comment


        • #5
          God Bless.

          How liberal can one get?


          "Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination."

          I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to.

          HAKUNA MATATA

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Ray View Post
            God Bless.

            How liberal can one get?
            I don't know. How much further can this idiocy take us?
            Semper in excretum. Solum profunda variat.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by glyn View Post
              I don't know. How much further can this idiocy take us?
              God, I have liberal (and/or libertarian, depending on your definition of the word) leanings. But this is such an embarassing c*ck up. It's up there with the buglar who sued because he was injured in a burglary... utter nonsense...

              Comment

              Working...
              X