FGP v Serco Plc & Anor

FGP v Serco Plc & Anor

The application of restraints on the claimant during his in-patient hospital stay between 15 and 23 July 2010 was disproportionate and breached Article 3 ECHR, as there was a failure to consider whether restraints were necessary during treatment and at all times. However, the use of restraints during the three short hospital visits did not breach the claimant's rights. The first defendant's policy was not unlawful, and the second defendant's guidance, while imperfect, did not create an unacceptable risk of unlawful decision-making.

Parties
Claimant: FGP; 1st Defendant: Serco PLC; 2nd Defendant: Secretary of State for the Home Department
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
05 July 2012
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Judgment After Full Hearing
Outcome
Claim against the first defendant succeeds in part; claim against the second defendant dismissed.
Legal Topics
Use of Restraints on Detainees, Article 3 ECHR (degrading Treatment), Article 8 ECHR (private Life), Proportionality of Security Measures, Policy Guidance on Restraint
Human Rights Immigration Law Administrative Law Use of Restraints on Detainees Article 3 ECHR (degrading Treatment) Article 8 ECHR (private Life) Proportionality of Security Measures Policy Guidance on Restraint

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

FGP

Claimant

Serco PLC

1st Defendant

Secretary of State for the Home Department

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Judgment After Full Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the use of restraints on the claimant during hospital visits breached Article 3 or Article 8 ECHR
  2. 2 Whether the first and second defendants' policies and their application were lawful and proportionate

Ratio Decidendi

The application of restraints on the claimant during his in-patient hospital stay between 15 and 23 July 2010 was disproportionate and breached Article 3 ECHR, as there was a failure to consider whether restraints were necessary during treatment and at all times. However, the use of restraints during the three short hospital visits did not breach the claimant's rights. The first defendant's policy was not unlawful, and the second defendant's guidance, while imperfect, did not create an unacceptable risk of unlawful decision-making.

Court Disposition

Claim against the first defendant succeeds in part; claim against the second defendant dismissed.

Orders

  • Declaration to be considered after hearing counsel; anonymity order granted for the claimant.