We have successfully concluded a judicial review challenge on behalf of Edward Szuluk against the Secretary of State for Justice, the Government Minister with responsibility for the Prison Service, and Serco Home Affairs Ltd, the private company who run HMP Dovegate, in relation to the failure to adequately assess and address Mr Szuluk’s disability needs during his imprisonment between November 2001 and November 2008.
The parties have agreed a settlement shortly before the matter was due to be heard at a 11/2 day hearing in the High Court. As part of the settlement, the Secretary of State accepted that he “unlawfully delayed in assessing and addressing the Claimant’s [Mr Szuluk’s] neurological condition and needs”. As part of the settlement, Mr Szuluk also accepted the equivalent of £6,000 - £7,000 in compensation. In addition, the Secretary of State agreed to pay all of Mr Szuluk’s legal costs.
Mr Szuluk’s disabilities
Mr Szuluk suffered a brain haemorrhage in April 2001. As a result of the injury, he suffers a range of very significant health problems. These include problems with his memory, particularly in remembering events before the injury, and learning new information. He has also suffered a number of other related problems. He suffers regular headaches, becomes tired / fatigued very easily, suffers hearing problems and becomes disorientated. He also finds it difficult to concentrate on anything for any length of time.
During his imprisonment, Mr Szuluk has been transferred to seven different prison establishments throughout England. Most recently, he was an inmate at HMP Dovegate, a privately run prison, between May 2007 and his release in November 2008.
As part of his legal action, which was commenced while he was an inmate at HMP Dovegate, Mr Szuluk challenged various aspects of his past and ongoing treatment and care.
Offending behaviour courses
First of all, it was argued that the prison authorities failed to make reasonable adjustments to meet his disability needs, including allowing him to access suitably adapted offending behaviour courses whilst in prison. It is important that inmates are able to complete these courses as it increases the prospects of earlier release on parole and being recategorised and then transferred to a lower security prison.
After much delay, Mr Szuluk was belatedly assessed as being suitable for these courses in April 2007 on the basis that a number of identified adaptations to the courses were made to take into account Mr Szuluk’s memory and concentrations problems. However, nothing was then done to organise or allow him to attend any suitably adapted courses.
It was argued that the failure to make the adjustments identified to enable him to undertake offending behaviour work represented unlawful discrimination contrary to the Disability Discrimination 1995 Act, a breach of Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights (prohibition of discrimination) and was contrary to the Prison Service’s own policies.
Treatment for his amnestic disorder
As part of our investigation of this matter, we instructed an independent Consultant Psychiatrist to assess Mr Szuluk and advise on the adequacy of his treatment and care. The expert advised that our client would benefit from treatment by a neuropsychologist aimed at addressing and reducing his memory problems (including the employment of learning principles and the use of external memory aids). The psychiatrist has also confirmed that he would be receiving this treatment if he was living in the wider community rather than prison and that he considered it unreasonable that he was not receiving this treatment in prison.
As part of the legal action, it was therefore also argued that the prison authorities failed to provide him with adequate treatment and care in relation to his Amnestic Disorder and that this represented unlawful discrimination contrary to the Disability Discrimination 1995 Act, a breach of Articles 8 (right to private and family life) and 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights (prohibition of discrimination) and was contrary to the Prison Service’s own policies.
Transfer to a prison establishment closer to the family home
The independent Consultant Psychiatrist also confirmed that, on account of his memory problems, it was particularly important, as part of his recovery, that he was visited by family and friends in prison in order to improve his memory of his life before the brain haemorrhage. This was not possible when our client was transferred far from the family home.
As part of the legal action, it was also argued that the prison authorities failed to transfer Mr Szuluk to a prison establishment closer to his family and friends in Gloucestershire and that and that this represented unlawful discrimination contrary to the Disability Discrimination 1995 Act and a breach of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Legal aid
During the course of the case, Mr Szuluk was in receipt of public funding ("legal aid"). Mr Szuluk is grateful for the vital support of the Legal Services Commission in allowing this matter to be brought to a successful conclusion. This case also has significant relevance in clarifying the responsibilities of the Prison Service in relation to assessing and addressing the disability needs of the thousands of prisoners with disabilities in prison establishments throughout England and Wales.
Other cases
Leigh Day & Co is currently acting for a number of prisoners with disabilities in legal actions against the Prison Service in relation to its failure to adequately assess or address their disability needs. This includes prisoners with visual impairments, hearing impairments and reduced mobility.
In addition, we are also instructed by prisoners with learning difficulties, autistic spectrum conditions and / or mental health needs in relation to the failure to provide adequate treatment and care. Those within these groups have historically found it difficult to obtain legal advice in relation to their rights.
For more information please contact
Sean Humber or
Benjamin Burrows on 020 7650 1200.
Information was correct at time of publishing. See terms and conditions for further details.