A convicted double murderer who killed an elderly Newhaven couple has launched a High Court claim for the right to have laser treatment to remove a "humiliating" birthmark from his face.
A judge said today the case of Dennis Harland Roberts raised important wider issues over whether prisoners are entitled to the same treatment on the NHS as the general public. (Not unless they are dying)
The court heard the delay in medical treatment had caused the 59-year-old Category A prisoner humiliation and led to depression. (Boo Hoo, I expect the family of the murdered couple probably felt a bit down as well)
The Prison Service had written a letter last July saying the number of escorts of prisoners to hospitals from Frankland Prison had risen dramatically and "operational requirements" had led to "non-urgent appointments" being delayed.
Today Adam Straw, appearing for Roberts, accused Justice Secretary Jack Straw of departing - "for no good reason" - from his policy of giving prisoners the same range and quality of healthcare services as the general public. (Except for the obvious reason that they are shits who don't deserve it)
Mr Straw also argued there had been a breach of Roberts' rights under Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights not to be subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment, and his Article 8 right to protection of his private life. (That's the bit I was waiting for)
The judge agreed to adjourn today's hearing for two weeks after hearing that the Justice Secretary still needed more time to fully prepare his case.
He said it was "a disgraceful, lamentable state of affairs" that it had been necessary for Mr Straw's legal team to seek an adjournment without even a "remotely satisfactory excuse".
He ordered the Justice Secretary to pay legal costs on an indemnity basis - the highest level available - to "send a message" to the Government to "get its tackle in order" in future similar cases. (Which we will all be paying for)
Each day brings another story of how the HRA is being misapplied and we are paying for all of it
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The judged oes't seem to have seen fit to throw this out summarily on th egrounds that it's absurd and obscene.
ReplyDeleteI suppose there must be some important point of law involved here, but I suspect it doesn't take into account such naive terms as 'criminal' and 'innocent' only used seriously and without laughter by laymen and victims' groups.
fhksokfsonf! I feel slightly better after hammering with my fists on the keyboard. What a joke. It amazes me that such scum can rely upon human rights when they have breached the most fundamental of all of them - the right to life. What anguish would this bring on the family of those he killed? Every day we step closer to the abyss. Some would argue we've gone into it and will be the first nation to ever discover that it has a bottom.
ReplyDeleteWhen Charles Dickens coined the phrase, 'The law is an ass' he could have been referring to something like this.
ReplyDeleteIf he wins it will set an expensive precedent, ears pinned back, teeth straightened, liposuction. I can see it all now.
Bluefright, as far as you are concerned..... Charles Dickens was right.
ReplyDelete