- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Greenfield, R (on the application of) v. Secretary of State for the Home Department
Factual and Procedural Background
The Appellant, while serving a two-year sentence in a privately-run prison, was charged under the Prison Rules 1999 with self-administration of a controlled drug after a mandatory drugs test proved positive. The disciplinary hearing was conducted between October and December 2000 by a deputy controller (a Crown servant equivalent to a deputy governor). The deputy controller refused the Appellant’s request for legal representation, found the charge proved, and imposed 21 additional days’ imprisonment. That decision was approved by an area manager.
The Appellant sought judicial review, alleging breaches of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Queen’s Bench Divisional Court and the Court of Appeal rejected his arguments. While the domestic litigation was pending, the European Court of Human Rights delivered its judgment in Ezeh and Connors v United Kingdom. Relying on that authority, the Respondent conceded that the disciplinary proceedings had involved the determination of a “criminal charge,” that the deputy controller was not an independent tribunal, and that the refusal of legal representation violated Article 6.
Accordingly, the only live issue before the House of Lords was whether the Appellant was entitled to damages under section 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998, in addition to declaratory relief acknowledging the Article 6 violations.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether, after the conceded Article 6 violations, an award of damages was “necessary to afford just satisfaction” within the meaning of section 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998.
- If damages were appropriate, what principles—domestic tort scales or Strasbourg jurisprudence—should govern their quantification.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- The denial of legal representation deprived the Appellant of a real opportunity to secure a different outcome; damages should therefore be awarded for loss of that opportunity.
- The violations caused anxiety and frustration, warranting compensation under the head of non-pecuniary loss.
- Domestic courts should apply ordinary English scales of damages, pointing to awards in discrimination and other domestic cases (Bernard; KB; Anufrijeva) as comparators.
Respondent's Arguments
- The Strasbourg practice is to treat the declaration of a violation as sufficient satisfaction in Article 6 cases unless a clear causal link between the breach and a specific loss is proved.
- No such causal connection existed: the hearing was conscientious, and any suggestion that legal representation would have changed the result was speculative.
- Section 8(4) obliges domestic courts to take Strasbourg principles into account; aligning awards with domestic tort scales would undermine the Convention’s uniform approach.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Ezeh and Connors v United Kingdom | Prison disciplinary proceedings may amount to a “criminal charge”; requirement of an independent tribunal and access to legal representation. | Ground for the Respondent’s concession that Article 6 was violated. |
| Benham v United Kingdom | Finding of an Article 6 violation can, by itself, constitute just satisfaction. | Cited as illustration of Strasbourg’s reluctance to award monetary compensation. |
| Findlay v United Kingdom | Same principle as Benham. | Used to demonstrate the normal Strasbourg approach. |
| Perks and Others v United Kingdom | Compensation awarded only where a causal nexus exists; differing outcomes for different applicants. | Referenced to show exceptions when compensation is granted. |
| Kingsley v United Kingdom | Grand Chamber statement that damages are awarded only when loss is actually caused by the violation. | Key authority guiding the domestic court’s causation analysis. |
| GW v United Kingdom | Finding of violation treated as sufficient satisfaction. | Further example of the general rule. |
| Piersack v Belgium | Restitutio in integrum as guiding concept for remedies. | Cited in discussion of remedial principles. |
| De Cubber v Belgium | Similar to Piersack; emphasis on restoring as far as possible the position the applicant would have occupied. | Cited in remedy discussion. |
| Bönisch v Austria | Recognition of “prolonged uncertainty” as a possible non-pecuniary loss. | Used when analysing claims for distress-based damages. |
| Delta v France | Loss of “real opportunities” can justify damages where causation is shown. | Illustrates situations where compensation was awarded. |
| Vidal v Belgium | Same causal-loss principle as Delta. | Reinforces the limited circumstances for non-pecuniary awards. |
| Pelissier and Sassi v France | “Loss of opportunity” approach to compensation. | Cited among cases showing varied Strasbourg language on causation. |
| Zielinski and Others v France | Principle of restoring the applicant, where feasible, to the position absent the breach. | Part of general survey of Strasbourg practice. |
| Davies v United Kingdom | Damages for distress where attributable to the Article 6 breach. | Referenced in assessing the Appellant’s anxiety claim. |
| Polskiego v Poland | Example of an award based on loss of opportunity wording (“not unreasonable to regard”). | Cited as part of the linguistic variety in Strasbourg judgments. |
| Edwards and Lewis v United Kingdom | Grand Chamber endorsement of the strict causation requirement. | Relied on by the court when rejecting speculative loss claims. |
| Goddi v Italy | Damages may be awarded for “loss of real opportunities.” | Illustration of circumstances where compensation was allowed. |
| Colozza v Italy | Similar to Goddi. | Cited for comparative language on causation. |
| Lechner and Hess v Austria | Compensation for non-pecuniary loss due to uncertainty. | Part of review of distress-based awards. |
| Weeks v United Kingdom | Damages possible where a different outcome “cannot be entirely excluded.” | Cited to demonstrate flexible wording in Strasbourg cases. |
| O v United Kingdom | “Loss of real opportunities” recognised as compensable. | Referenced in causation discussion. |
| de Geouffre de la Pradelle v France | Reasonableness standard in assessing lost opportunities. | Part of linguistic survey. |
| Krcmár and Others v Czech Republic | Same principle as foregoing cases. | Included in overview. |
| PC and S v United Kingdom | Distress and anxiety as potential heads of damage. | Cited in evaluating the Appellant’s non-pecuniary claim. |
| Hooper v United Kingdom | Domestic judge’s opinion on potential outcome can establish causation. | Illustrative precedent; distinguished on the facts. |
| Saunders v United Kingdom | ECtHR refusal to award damages despite violation. | Supports the conclusion that awards are exceptional. |
| Granger v United Kingdom | Assumption of distress where justified by facts. | Considered in anxiety-based claim. |
| Darnell v United Kingdom | Stress arising from prolonged litigation recognised. | Part of non-pecuniary head discussion. |
| Hornsby v Greece | Feelings of injustice as potential non-pecuniary loss. | Cited but distinguished. |
| Massey v United Kingdom | Reasonable to assume applicant’s distress; low damages awarded. | Illustrates Strasbourg’s caution. |
| Nikolova v Bulgaria | Strasbourg awards are “relatively small.” | Relied on to justify restraint in domestic awards. |
| Migon v Poland | Describes awards as “modest.” | Reinforces modest-award principle. |
| Osman v United Kingdom | Emphasises that Convention is about rights, not compensation. | Quoted in court’s reasoning. |
| Curley v United Kingdom | Reiterates modesty of Strasbourg awards. | Supports refusal to award higher damages. |
| Bernard v Enfield LBC | Domestic case suggesting awards should not be “on the low side.” | Appellant relied on it; court declined to follow. |
| KB v South London & South and West Region Mental Health Review Tribunal | Domestic authority for higher damages under section 8. | Distinguished as non-Article 6. |
| Anufrijeva v Southwark LBC | Court of Appeal guidance cautioning against damages where a declaration is adequate. | Cited approvingly to refuse damages. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
Drawing extensively on Strasbourg jurisprudence, the Court underscored that the primary objective of the European Convention is the protection of rights, not the conferral of monetary awards. Under Article 41 and section 8, damages are to be granted only when “necessary to afford just satisfaction.” The Court observed that, in the majority of Article 6 cases, the European Court of Human Rights regards the mere finding of a violation as adequate redress and awards monetary compensation only when a clear causal link exists between the violation and a specific loss.
The Court rejected the Appellant’s “loss of opportunity” claim as speculative. Although the deputy controller lacked structural independence, his conduct was described as “exemplary,” and there was no evidence that legal representation would probably—or even possibly—have led to acquittal. On the anxiety claim, the Court held that participation in disciplinary proceedings inevitably causes some distress, and nothing in the record demonstrated anxiety attributable uniquely to the Article 6 breaches.
Addressing quantum, the Court emphasised that section 8(4) obliges domestic courts to take Strasbourg principles into account both in deciding whether to award damages and in fixing their amount. Domestic tort scales were considered inappropriate comparators because the Human Rights Act is “not a tort statute,” and its purpose is to provide the same, not superior, remedies to those available in Strasbourg.
Holding and Implications
Holding: The Court made declaratory relief acknowledging the Article 6 breaches but declined to award any damages. Written submissions on costs were invited.
Implications: The decision confirms that, in Article 6 cases, UK courts should ordinarily regard a declaration of violation as sufficient redress unless a concrete, causally-linked loss is proved. It re-affirms alignment with Strasbourg’s modest remedial approach and signals that speculative claims for loss of opportunity or general distress will not attract compensation under section 8.
Alert