Monitoring compliance of the MPS with Human Rights Act 1998

Report: 13
Date: 9 July 2009
By: Chief Executive

Summary

The report outlines police authority duties to monitor police force compliance with the Human Rights Act 1998, it proposes that the Strategic and Operational Policing Committee takes overall responsibility for monitoring MPS compliance and takes a strategic view of work carried out across MPA committees, boards and community monitoring networks.

A. Recommendation

That

1. the Strategic and Operational Policing Committee take overall responsibility for monitoring MPS human rights compliance and the terms of reference for SOP are amended appropriately;
2. the terms of reference of all MPA committees reflect the police authority duty in relation to monitoring compliance with Human Rights Act 1998 and are amended appropriately;
3. the civil liberties panel, on behalf of the committee, lead a programme of work to consider MPS compliance with Human Rights Act 1998 and consider long term proposals for MPA monitoring and scrutiny; and
4. once monitoring is established the committee receives an annual report from the MPS and MPA monitoring compliance of the service with HR Act 1998 from 2010-11.

B. Supporting information

1. From 14 March 2008, every police authority was required to monitor the performance of the police force in its area in complying with the duties imposed on that force by the Human Rights Act 1998 [1]. This duty is additional to the general duty on every police authority to maintain an efficient and effective police force for its area [2].

2. The Association of Police Authorities produced a comprehensive guide for police authorities on the duty in 2008. It notes that:

The duty to monitor the performance of the police force maintained for its area in complying with the duties imposed on that force by the Human Rights Act 1998 is mandatory. It is therefore not open to a police authority to choose not to comply with this duty. However, each police authority can choose how it carries out monitoring in its particular police area.

Some police authorities may choose to determine objectives, issue plans and reports that specifically relate to the performance of the police force maintained for its area in complying with the duties imposed on that force by the Human Rights Act 1998. But there is no reason why objectives and plans for compliance with the Human Rights Act 1998 should not be included among the local policing objectives and local policing plans required by the Police Act 1996 [3]. Equally there is no reason why reports on compliance with the Human Rights Act 1998 should not be included in the annual reports by police authorities required under the Police Act 1996 [4].

Although the duty on every police authority to monitor the performance of the police in complying with the Human Rights Act 1998 is additional to the general duty to maintain an efficient and effective police force for its area, the two duties complement each other. In addition, the duties imposed on the police by the Human Rights Act 1998 complement their duties and obligations under other legislation. So, as a general rule, acts of the police in complying with legislation such as the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (and the associated Codes of Practice under each) and anti-discrimination and equality legislation will be compatible with the Human Rights Act 1998.

The Human Rights Act 1998

3. The European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR) [5] is an international treaty of the Council of Europe. It was adopted in 1950, ratified by the UK in 1951 and entered into force in 1953. The unusual feature of the ECHR, as an international human rights instrument, is that it provides a mechanism for individuals to enforce their ECHR rights against state parties. It is administered by the European Court of Human Rights, which sits in Strasbourg, and the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe.

4. The Human Rights Act 1998 came into force on 2 October 2000. It is intended to give people in the UK the opportunity to enforce their ECHR rights in British courts rather than having to incur the cost and delay of taking a case to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.

5. The Human Rights Act 1998 requires all legislation (primary and secondary) to be interpreted so as to be compatible with ‘Convention rights’ (see below) if possible [6]. Although this applies to all legislation affecting the police, questions of statutory interpretation are primarily for the courts. Much more important for the police is the duty that the Human Rights Act 1998 places on all public authorities, including the police (and police authorities), to act in a way which is compatible with ‘Convention rights’’ [7]. Police staff are also covered whenever they perform public functions. There are special exemptions, but very few (if any) of these exemptions apply to policing.

6. The Human Rights Act 1998 also allows individuals who believe that their ‘Convention rights’ have been infringed to bring legal proceedings, including a claim for damages [8].

Human rights standards applicable to policing

7. The first stage to measuring compliance with the Human Rights Act 1998 is the development of meaningful standards against which the performance of the police can be monitored. Since the Human Rights Act 1998 protects ‘Convention rights, these standards must be based on the ECHR. That means they must be based on the rights in the ECHR themselves, as interpreted by the European Court of Human Rights or by our courts.

8. A set of detailed standards derived from the rights in the ECHR themselves, as interpreted by the European Court of Human Rights or by our courts, has been devised and is set out in Appendix 1 and is taken from the APA guidance. It covers:

• Protecting the public
• The prohibition of ill treatment.
• The use of force.
• Investigation and follow-up in cases of death and serious injury.
• Public order.
• Criminal investigations.
• Surveillance.
• Informers and undercover officers.
• Search and seizure.
• Arrest and detention.
• Reasons.
• Access to a lawyer.
• Questioning.
• The right to be brought promptly before a court.
• Bail.
• Children.
• Victims and vulnerable witnesses.

9. The detailed standards set out in Appendix 1 should be used in any assessment of the performance of the police in complying with the HRA. In addition the overarching principles set out below may provide useful starting point.

Overarching principles (taken from the APA guidance)

10. In the performance of their duties, police officers should respect and protect human dignity and maintain and uphold the human rights of all persons.

11. Police officers should not discriminate (or aid or incite others to discriminate) on any grounds including race, colour, sex, language, religion, disability, age, sexual orientation, marital or family status, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Any difference in treatment shall be required to be justified and proportionate.

12. The protection of national minorities and of the rights and freedoms of persons belonging to those minorities forms an integral part of the international protection of human rights.

13. Police officers have a duty:

• To protect life and property.
• To preserve order.
• To prevent the commission of offences.
• Where an offence has been committed, to take measures to bring the offender to justice.

14. When carrying out these duties, police officers should obey and uphold the law, protect human dignity and uphold the human rights and fundamental freedoms of all persons as enshrined in the Human Rights Act 1998, the European Convention on Human Rights and other relevant international human rights instruments.

15. Police officers should, as far as is practicable, carry out their functions in cooperation with the local community, with the aim of securing their support.

16. Police officers should act with fairness, self-control, tolerance and impartiality when carrying out their duties. They should use appropriate language and behaviour in their dealings with members of the public, groups from within the public and their colleagues. They should give equal respect to all individuals and their traditions, beliefs and lifestyles provided that such are compatible with the rule of law.

17. Police officers should act with integrity towards members of the public and their colleagues so that confidence in the police is secured and maintained. They should avoid all forms of behaviour that may reasonably be perceived to be abuse, harassment, bullying or victimisation.

The process of monitoring

18. The process of monitoring will vary depending on the priorities in any given police area. However, as noted above, it is the performance of the police as a whole that has to be monitored for compliance with the HRA and it is for this reason that the strategic focus of SOP is considered the most appropriate committee to take overall responsibility of HRA monitoring, however as stated in the recommendations all MPA committees should consider its responsibilities under the new duty. A number of common areas inevitably emerge. These include:

• Training.
• Policy.
• Complaints, discipline and civil actions against the police.
• Human rights awareness.

Each of these will be briefly considered below.

Training

19. Effective training in human rights principles and practice is fundamental to any organisation committed to compliance with the Human Rights Act 1998. Training is one of the keys to instilling a human rights based approach to policing in new recruits and experiences police officers. In some police areas human rights specific training is delivered. In other areas, human rights principles have been integrated into other training. But, whichever model is adopted, it is important to ensure that:

• Regular and up to date human rights training is provided in each police area.
• Course materials are of a high quality and regularly updated.
• Training is delivered in a way that is likely to ensure that human rights principles are easily accessible, understood and capable of practical application.

Policy

20. It is fundamental that all police policies should set a framework for police decision-making and conduct that requires, and seeks to ensure, human rights compatibility in all areas of police work. As a minimum, that requires:

• Clear identification of all policies adopted in any given police area
• An audit to ensure that all policies are compatible with the Human Rights Act 1998.
• An effective means of ensuring that policy changes are brought to the attention of those concerned.
• Making policies as accessible as possible both to police officers in the police area in question and also to the public.
• An effective system for ensuring that all policies are regularly updated.
  

Complaints, discipline and civil actions against the police

21. Complaints, discipline and civil actions against the police provide an important means of monitoring the performance of the police in complying with the Human Rights Act 1998. That is because they each subject the behaviour of individual police officers to scrutiny, either external or internal. Police authorities have very limited jurisdiction to investigate individual complaints themselves and should avoid duplicating the work carried out by other statutory bodies. However, they can review the general trends and patterns of complaints and, in particular, monitor how the police in their area respond to adverse findings and/or recommendations. It is recommended that this focus and analysis be incorporated into an annual report and regular reporting to SOP by the Independent Police Complaints Committee.

Human rights awareness

22. The promotion of human rights awareness is vital not only to facilitate the development of a tangible human rights culture within the police but also to demonstrate the commitment of the police to human rights in their dealing with others. The assessment of human rights awareness is not easy, but could include some sort of assessment of the effectiveness of training, knowledge of policies and/or assessing human rights awareness in appraisal and promotion decision-making.

Northern Ireland Policing Board – Best Practice

23. The Northern Ireland Policing Board has had specific duties in relation to Human Rights monitoring, set out in the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000. To help the Board fulfil its statutory duty it appointed two Human Rights Advisors; Keir Starmer QC and Jane Gordon. Alongside the APA guidance their work sets out a platform from which the Authority can usefully adapt to establish its work programme to monitor MPS compliance with the Human Rights Act.

24. The NIPB bases monitoring against three key principles:

• It is the performance of the police as a whole that has to be monitored: i.e. success as well as failure.
• A positive dialogue between the police authority and the police in which problems are recognised and addressed as they arise is by far the preferred model.
• The process of monitoring should not be retrospective. It is how the police are complying with their obligations under the Human Rights Act 1998 now that has to be monitored, not how well they may or may not have complied with those obligations in the past.

25. The Board have produced a number of annual reports and the 2008 report can be downloaded on the following link: www.nipolicingboard.org.uk/human_rights_annual_report_2008_final_version.pdf

26. In his 2008 forward Sir Desmond Rea states; for policing to be effective and secure the confidence of the community it is essential that human rights standards are integrated into and applied to all aspects of policing. This ensures that both the rights of the police and the public are properly protected. By taking the NIPB lead the Human Rights Act provides an overarching principle for monitoring standards across the police service, in particular the use of force, equality and diversity, public protection and public order. The NIPB HR advisors devised a monitoring framework to focus on the following areas (based on the 4 key areas identified as the key performance areas above).

27. Whilst the constitutional relationship between PSNI and the Board is set in the context of the Good Friday Agreement and within different policing structures, the approach to Human Rights monitoring is widely regarded as best practice and is relevant to all UK forces and authorities. In a recent interview for the Guardian the newly appointed ACPO president, Sir Hugh Orde, stated that learning from Northern Ireland should be transferred across to England and Wales, stating that an emphasis on human rights should shape modern policing and will have a positive impact across the service.

MPA monitoring

28. The MPA has not previously conducted a specific programme of work to monitor MPS compliance with HRA. Nevertheless the Authority has established programmes across its business areas that focus on the 4 key areas identified above. Notably via formal business at committee, particularly professional standards, human resources, counter terrorism and equality and diversity monitoring; and also via its independent custody visiting scheme, the hate crime forum, stop and search monitoring networks and the domestic and sexual violence board.

29. Under the new duty, HRA provides a logical framework to underpin this work and ensures that both the authority and service has a corporate understanding of human rights compliance across the MPS. It is for this reason that this report recommends an annual report to SOP evaluating MPS compliance with HRA taking evidence from these established MPA monitoring programmes and that the civil liberties panel has explicit reference to human rights compliance within its draft TOR. Notably the proposals are that panel will:

• Develop a clear understanding of civil liberties and human rights and the consequences this has for policing. This will include establishing a clear understanding of the legislation around public protest.
• Within each area of review (e.g. public order), develop a clear understanding of the full range of tactics, the situations within which various tactics are deployed and how decisions about proportionality are made.
• On a programmed basis undertake a review of the use of police tactics and tools (as outlined in purpose above) to understand the wider impact on civil liberties and human rights.

30. It is therefore proposed that on behalf of the Authority the panel takes responsibility for initial stages of monitoring human rights compliance across the MPS (focusing on key areas of public order tactics and use of force); reporting back to the Authority with findings on a rolling basis. Officers will then work to prepare a corporate analysis of human rights compliance across all areas of established MPA scrutiny (including the race and faith inquiry) to be presented in an annual report in 2010-11. In the interim, reports will be commissioned across committees to ensure that work-plans are complicit with amended terms of reference and to work positively with the MPS to ensure that all strands of MPS policy and tactics are in compliance with HRA 1998.

C. Race and equality impact

This report is has an explicit impact on the development of equality, diversity and human rights across the MPA and MPS. It sets out a framework within which the MPA can establish HRA monitoring and use evidence from established scrutiny networks to consider how human rights principles can underpin fair and effective policing.

D. Financial implications

1. There are no direct financial implications in this report. There may be some resource implications for MPA teams in the future (particularly in relation to compiling an annual report, or possible legal support) however it is currently anticipated that such work can be delivered within current MPA teams.

E. Legal implications

1. As set out in the report.

F. Background papers

• Human Rights Act 1998 and Explanatory Notes
• APA Guidance, Monitoring Compliance with HRA
• Police Act 1996
• The Police Authorities (Particular Functions and Transitional Provisions) Order 2008 (SI 2008/82), Article 3(a)

G. Contact details

Report author: Sally Benton, Policy Advisor to Chief Executive, MPA.

For information contact:

MPA general: 020 7202 0202
Media enquiries: 020 7202 0217/18

Appendix 1

Human rights standrads applicable to policing

These standards should be read together with the overarching principles set out in the report, taken from the APA guidance.

Protecting the public

1. In certain well-defined circumstances, the police are under an obligation to take preventative operational measures to protect individuals whose lives are at risk from the criminal acts of others.

2. Bearing in mind the difficulties involved in policing modern societies, the unpredictability of human conduct and the operational choices, which must be made in terms of priorities and resources, such an obligation must be interpreted in a way, which does not impose an impossible or disproportionate burden on the police.

3. What is required of the police is that they take all steps that could reasonably be expected of them to avoid a real and immediate risk to life about which they know or ought to have known.

4. This obligation can also arise where the risk to life does not come from the criminal acts of others: for, example, it can extend to an obligation to take reasonable steps to prevent self-imposed risks to life (e.g. suicide).

5. Failing to pass on important information concerning a risk to an individual’s life to the appropriate person or body can breach this obligation.

The prohibition on ill-treatment

6. Under Article 3 ECHR, torture and cruel, inhuman and/or degrading treatment and/or punishment are prohibited absolutely.

7. Torture includes deliberate inhuman treatment causing very serious and cruel suffering, which has a purpose, such as the obtaining of information or confession, or the infliction of punishment.

8. Treatment/punishment will be inhuman if it ‘causes intense physical or mental suffering.’ It is less severe than torture but can include threats of torture and the infliction of psychological harm.

9. Treatment/punishment will be degrading if it arouses in the victim a feeling of fear, anguish and inferiority capable of debasing him or her and breaking his or her physical or moral resistance, but only if it reaches a particular level of severity.

The use of force

10. Article 2 ECHR applies to the use of lethal and requires that such force be no more than is “absolutely necessary” to defend any person from unlawful violence, to make an arrest or to stop a riot. But it is unlikely to be “absolutely necessary” to use lethal force to make an arrest or to stop a riot except where an identified individual is using violence that poses a threat to life or limb.

11. Article 2 ECHR can also apply where potentially lethal force is used.

12. The test of 'absolute necessity' under Article 2 ECHR is very strict. Lethal force must be 'strictly proportionate' to the danger posed. It will be difficult to justify the use of firearms as “absolutely necessary” where less life-threatening equipment is available and could have been used.

13. Under the UN Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials, which the European Court of Human Rights has used in interpreting Article 2 ECHR:

“law enforcement officers shall not use firearms against persons except in self-defence or the defence of others against the imminent threat of death or serious injury, to prevent the perpetration of a particularly serious crime involving grave threat to life, to arrest a person presenting such a danger and resisting their authority, or to prevent his or her escape, and only when less extreme means are insufficient to achieve those objectives. In any event, the intentional lethal use of firearms may only be made when strictly unavoidable in order to protect life.”

14. It is the genuine, honest and reasonable belief of the officer using force that is important. So long as s/he genuinely, honestly and reasonably believes that lethal or potentially lethal force is “absolutely necessary” for one of the permitted reasons, Article 2 ECHR will be satisfied, even if that belief subsequently turns out to be mistaken.

15. Before firearms are employed, police officers should identify themselves and give clear warning of their intent to use firearms, affording sufficient time for the warning to be observed, unless to do so would place the law enforcement officer at risk or create a risk of death or serious harm to other persons.

16. Whenever the use of firearms is unavoidable, police officers should:

• Exercise restraint in such use, acting in proportion to the seriousness of the offence and the legitimate objective to be achieved.
• Minimise damage and injury and respect and preserve human life.
• Render assistance and medical aid to any injured or affected persons at the earliest opportunity.
• Notify relatives or close friends of injured or affected persons at the earliest opportunity.

17. Police officers should be provided with effective training on the use of force “with the objective of complying with international standards for human rights and policing.” The police should also receive “clear and precise instructions as to the manner and circumstances in which they should make use of firearms”.

18. Article 2 ECHR also requires the relevant authorities to plan and control operations in which lethal or potentially lethal force might be used “so as to minimise, to the greatest extent possible, recourse to lethal force”.

19. Police officers should not use force against persons in custody or detention except where strictly necessary for the maintenance of security and order within the institution or when personal safety is threatened.

Investigation and follow up in cases of death or serious injury

20. Effective reporting and review procedures should be put in place regarding injuries and/or deaths resulting from the use of force and firearms by police officers. In cases of death and serious injury, a detailed report should be sent to the competent authorities.

21. In addition, an effective official investigation is required whenever an individual is killed as a result of force being used by an agent of the state and/or when it is arguable that there has been a breach of Article 2 or Article 3 of the ECHR.

22. The investigation must be prompt, thorough, impartial and careful so as to ensure accountability and responsibility.

23. The investigation must involve an assessment of the organisation and planning of the operation during which lethal force was used. The training, instructions and communications of those who used lethal force and those who lay behind the operation are relevant to that determination.

24. An effective official investigation requires the appropriate authorities to secure all the relevant evidence concerning the incident causing death and to analyse the cause of death; it also requires a degree of public and independent scrutiny and the involvement of the family of the deceased in the procedure to the extent necessary to safeguard their legitimate interests.

Public order

25. Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association.

26. These are qualified rights; they can be restricted, but only where a restriction is:

• Prescribed by law.
• Legitimate.
• Necessary and proportionate.

27. The right to peaceful assembly is not confined to static meetings; it also covers marches and processions.

28. The purpose of an assembly, march, protest or demonstration is largely irrelevant, so long as it is peaceful and the mere fact that it may annoy or offend others is not enough to justify a restriction.

29. Where there is a threat of disruption or disorder from others, the police may be under a duty to take appropriate steps to protect those who want to exercise their right of peaceful assembly, march, protest or demonstration.

30. But there is no absolute duty to protect those who want to exercise their right of peaceful assembly, march, protest or demonstration. The obligation on the police is to take ‘reasonable and appropriate measures’ and they have a fairly wide discretion in deciding how to police a peaceful assembly, march, protest or demonstration.

31. A requirement of prior notice or authorisation for a peaceful assembly, march, protest or demonstration is not necessarily a breach of Article 11 ECHR, so long as the purpose behind the procedure is not to frustrate the event in question.

32. Orders banning peaceful assemblies, marches, protests or demonstrations altogether will only be justified in extreme circumstances, where there is a real danger of disorder that cannot be prevented by other less extreme measures.

Criminal investigations

33. Most criminal investigations will interfere with privacy. Therefore, as a basic rule, they must be:

• Prescribed by law.
• Legitimate.
• Necessary and proportionate.

34. Criminal investigations should also be objective and fair; and they should be sensitive and adaptable to the needs of vulnerable persons.

35. The retention of information, data and samples will usually amount to an interference with privacy. Therefore it must also be:

• Prescribed by law.
• Legitimate.
• Necessary and proportionate.

Surveillance

36. All covert investigations must comply with the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 and associated Codes of Practice.

37. Matters of a confidential nature in the possession of police officers shall be kept confidential, unless the performance of duty or the needs of justice strictly require otherwise.

38. The use of CCTV cameras, even in public places, and the retention of data, can raise privacy issues under Article 8 ECHR and therefore must be prescribed by law, legitimate, necessary and proportionate.

39. There must be proper methods of accountability regarding both the authorisation and the use of police surveillance and other information-gathering activities.

40. Investigations into allegations that an individual’s privacy has been breached by surveillance must be independent. Generally speaking, such investigations are carried out by the body or tribunal specifically charged with such responsibility under statute: e.g. the Investigatory Powers Tribunal established under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000.

Informers and undercover officers

41. It is legitimate for the police to use informers and undercover officers in the investigation of crime.

42. But informers and undercover officers should not incite an individual to commit a crime s/he would not otherwise commit.

43. As a general rule, if an individual freely takes advantage of an opportunity to break the law given to him by a police officer, the police officer is not to be regarded as being guilty of ‘entrapment’.

Search and seizure

44. Search and seizure interfere with privacy and therefore must be:

• Prescribed by law.
• Legitimate.
• Necessary and proportionate.

45. The right to privacy can extend to business or work premises.

46. Consent to search and seizure will not be valid unless it is genuine and informed.

Arrest and detention

47. Everyone has the right to liberty and security of their person. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest or detention. Arrest and detention should be carried out strictly in accordance with the law.

48. In ordinary criminal cases, there must be a reasonable suspicion that an individual has committed a criminal offence before an arrest is made. That presupposes the existence of facts or information which would satisfy an objective observer that the person concerned may have committed the offence.

49. All persons under any form of detention or imprisonment should be treated in a humane manner and with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person.

50. Those detained have a right to a medical examination on admission, their health should be fully protected and medical attention should be provided when required.

51. Any unnecessary force used against those detained is likely to be classified as inhuman.

52. All money, valuables, clothing and other property belonging to a detainee which he is not allowed to retain should be placed in safe custody.

Reasons

53. Everyone arrested should be informed, in a language s/he understands, of the reasons for his/her arrest.

54. Notification should be at the time of arrest or as soon as practicable thereafter.

55. Sufficient details should be given to enable the person arrested to know the basis upon which s/he is being held.

56. Detained persons should also be provided with information on, and an explanation of, their rights and how to avail themselves of their rights.

57. The reasons for arrest, the time of the arrest, the identity of the police officers concerned and the place of custody of the detained person should be recorded.

58. Those detained (particularly vulnerable individuals such as children) are entitled to notify or to require the police to notify members of their family or other appropriate persons of their choice of their arrest, detention or imprisonment.

Access to a lawyer

59. Everybody detained by the police should be informed of the right to be assisted by a lawyer upon arrest. This is fundamental and should not be delayed.

60. Communications between a suspect and his/her lawyer should be confidential unless there are highly exceptional circumstances, such as evidence that the lawyer is engaged in crime.

Questioning

61. Resort to violence, threats or methods of questioning that impair a suspect’s capacity to make decisions or judgments is prohibited.

62. In addition, all suspects have the right to remain silent during questioning, although, within limits, adverse inferences can be drawn from silence in certain circumstances.

63. The time and place of all questioning should be recorded.

The right to be brought promptly before a court

64. Everyone arrested for a criminal offence has the right to be brought promptly before a court.

65. Ordinarily the period of detention before a person is brought before a court should not be longer than about four days.

66. The court before which a person is brought must have power to order release.

Bail

67. The general presumption is that those awaiting trial should not be detained, but released on bail.

68. But bail may be refused if it is necessary and for a good reason, such as a fear of absconding, interference with the course of justice and protection of others. The reasons for refusing bail must be both relevant and sufficient.

69. Bail may be conditional.

Children

70. Where children are concerned, the best interests of the child should always prevail.

71. Arrest, detention or imprisonment of a child should be used only as a measure of last resort and for the shortest appropriate period of time.

72. In principle, no information that may lead to the identification of a child offender should be published.

73. Records of child offenders should be kept strictly confidential and closed to third parties.

74. While in custody, children should receive care, protection and all necessary individual assistance (social, educational, vocational, psychological, medical and physical) that they require in view of their age, sex and personality.

75. A child’s parents of guardian should be immediately notified of the apprehension of their child and a judge or other competent official or body should without delay consider the issue of release.

76. Adaptations to the criminal justice system are needed where children are on trial and all procedures should take account of the child’s age and the need to promote their rehabilitation.

Victims

77. Victims should always be treated with compassion and respect for their dignity.

78. They are entitled to access to the mechanisms of justice and to be treated without discrimination.

79. Victims should be informed of the timing and progress of the investigation of their cases and subsequent proceedings.

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback