Source: https://home.crin.org/issues/deprivation-of-liberty/using-the-law-to-challenge-child-detention
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 10:13:22+00:00

Document:
This page lists the summaries from CRIN’s case law database that relate to children in detention, including cases challenging the detention of children and implementing international standards. Each summary includes links to the full text of the relevant judgment. Many of these cases have been included in our database because they apply the Convention on the Rights of the Child.
We will continue to update this page with links to case summaries in our legal database, so please email us with suggested cases.
Case No. ԵԱՆԴ/0094/01/13  Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation of Armenia - detention as a last resort in the sentencing of minors.
SD (A Minor) v Commissioner of Police  Magisterial Appeal No. 4 of 2010, Supreme Court of Judicature, Court of Appeal - whether a detention sentence was too long, considering the CRC and the principle of detention as a last resort.
RB (a juvenile) v. Attorney General  SCCrimApp No. 205 of 2015, Court of Appeal - relationship between best interests of the child, detention as a last resort and decisions on bail.
Vargas (on behalf of IAF) v. Elia Tellez Rivero  Constitutional resolution 2008-18265-37, File No. 2365/2010-R, District Court of Cochabamba - regarding unlawful incarceration of a child for the purpose of questioning in light of art. 37 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child.
Kok Wah Kuan v. Pengarah Penjara Kajang, Selangor Darul Ehsan  4 LRC 395, High Court - refusing to directly apply the detention provisions of the Convention on the Rights of the Child because they have not been directly incorporated into Malaysian law.
Decision of the Plenary Session of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation  Case No. 1 of February 2011 - review of national law on juvenile justice.
Ulugia v. Police  WSCA 15, Court of Appeal of Samoa - on the appropriate sentencing of children for violent offences in light of the principle of detention as a matter of last resort for the shortest appropriate period.
Raduvha v. Minister of Safety and Security and Another  ZAC 24, Constitutional Court of South Africa - on whether detention was a measure of last resort.
Director of Public Prosecutions KwaZulu-Natal v. P  ILDC 492, Supreme Court of Appeal - finding that suspending sentencing on condition that a girl convicted of a homicide offence complete a period of “correctional supervision” was lawful. Decision taken considering the principle of detention as a last resort.
Masinga v. Director of Public Prosecutions and others  SZHC 58, High Court of Swaziland - finding that the imposition of mandatory minimum sentences on children violated the constitutional protection against inhuman treatment or punishment. Also discussed the detention as a last resort standard.
R v. Valu  TongaLawRp 10, Tonga LR 44, Supreme Court of Tonga - on detention as a last resort and absconding from non-detention placements.
B.J. v. Pauline Proudfoot, Children’s Reporter for Stirling and the Lord Advocate  CSIH 85, 2011 SC 201, Court of Session of Scotland - on the compatibility of a decision to transfer a child in a residential care centre to secure accommodation and its compatibility with the principle of detention as a last resort.
The Queen v. Everton Welch  Criminal Case No. ANUHCR 1994/0015, Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court - finding that age is a relevant consideration in determining the appropriate sentence for murder.
Scantlebury v. the Queen  68 WIR 88, Court of Appeal of Barbados - ruling that allowing a member of the executive to determine the duration of detention under a sentence of detention “at Her Majesty’s pleasure” violated the separation of powers under the constitution of Barbados.
Griffith and others v. the Queen  UKPC 58, Judicial Committee of the Privy Council - requiring the court to sentence and oversee release of children sentenced to be “detained at Her Majesty’s pleasure”.
Bowen and Jones v. Belize  Claim No. 214 of 2007, Supreme Court of Belize - mandatory life without parole sentences for children in Belize are unconstitutional.
Melendez v. the Queen  Criminal Appeal No. 9 of 1994, Court of Appeal - ruling that the sentence of detention at Her Majesty’s pleasure was unconstitutional insofar as it it allowed the executive to determine the length of detention.
R v. Wellwood and Moffat  BCSC 690, Supreme Court of British Columbia - on the sentencing of a child as an adult to life imprisonment.
Lai Hung wai v. Superintendent of Stanley Prison  Hong Kong Court of First Instance - finding indeterminate sentences for offences committed while under the age of 18 were lawful and did not violate art. 37 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child.
Kafkaris v. Cyprus  Application No. 21906/04, European Court of Human Rights - finding that irreducible life sentences are a violation of the prohibition on torture, inhuman or degrading punishment (does not specifically address sentences for children).
Director of Public Prosecutions of Jamaica v. Kurt Mollison (No. 2)  - UKPC 6, Judicial Committee of the Privy Council - replacing the sentence of “life imprisonment” for a child offender with “detention at the court’s pleasure and requiring sentencing and release under this sentence to be determined by the courts.
Moyo v. Attorney General  Case No. 12 of 2007, High Court of Malawi, sitting as the Constitutional Court - finding that the detention of a child with adults unlawful. Rejecting a claim that detention “at the pleasure of the President” is unconstitutional.
Browne v. the Queen  UKPC 21, Judicial Committee of the Privy Council - requiring judicial oversight over the release of children sentenced detention “during the Governor-General’s pleasure”.
Vinter and others v. United Kingdom  Application Nos. 66069/09 and 3896/10, European Court of Human Rights - regarding the compatibility of “whole life sentences” with the prohibition on torture, inhuman or degrading punishment. Does not specifically relate to children, but makes it clear that this line of case law does not address child offenders serving life sentences.
T and V v. United Kingdom  Application Nos. 24724/94 and 24888/94, European Court of Human Rights - ruling that allowing the Secretary of State to determine how long child offenders serving sentences of detention during Her Majesty’s pleasure would serve in detention violated the right to a fair trial.
R v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte V and T  AC 407, House of Lords - ruling that the tariff policy, allowing the Home Secretary to determine the minimum period child offenders must spend in detention when serving a sentence of detention during Her Majesty’s pleasure, was unlawful.
Singh v. United Kingdom; Hussain v. United Kingdom  Application No. 23389/94 and 21928/93, European Court of Human Rights - sentences of detention during Her Majesty’s pleasure violate article 5(4) of the ECHR insofar as those sentenced are not able to take proceedings to the courts to challenge the legality of ongoing detention to a court with the power of release.
Montgomery v. Louisiana  WL 280758, Supreme Court of the United States - ruling that the prohibition of mandatory life without parole sentences for juveniles applies retroactively in the United States.
Kansas v. Dull  Opinion No. 106,437, Supreme Court of Kansas - mandatory lifetime post-release supervision is unconstitutional when applied to juvenile non-homicide offenders in the United States.
Miller v. Alabama  567 US ---- (2012); 132 S.Ct. 2455)2-12), Supreme Court of the United States - mandatory sentences of life without the possibility of parole for child offenders are unconstitutional.
Graham v. Florida  560 US ___ (slip opinion), United States Supreme Court - life without parole sentences are unconstitutional for child offenders for non-homicide offences.
R v. Maygar; R v. WT  QCA 310, Supreme Court of Queensland - regarding the sentencing of child offenders for “heinous” offences.
Dr Subramanian Swamy and others v. Raju Thr. Member Juvenile Justice Board and another  SLP (Crl.) No. 1953 of 2013, Supreme Court of India - regarding the maximum age at which a person can be tried as a juvenile.
Minors in detention v. Honduras  Case 11.491, Inter-Am. CHR, report No. 41/99, American Court of Human Rights - finding the detention of children in adult prisons unlawful.
R v. Malefetsane Mohlomi and others  CR No. 10/2013, High Court of Lesotho - requiring all persons under the age of 18 to be prosecuted as children and requiring specialised procedures before permitting detention sentences for children.
Acórdão 326/2014  - on whether pretrial detention can be used when less restrictive options are available.
State v. Metropolitan Police Commissioner, Khulna and others  60 DLR 660, Supreme Court of Bangladesh, High Court Division - regarding the procedural guarantees for children who are arrested.
Seas (on behalf of his son, DAZD) v. Vidal  Constitutional Resolution 0879/2011-R; File No. 2010-21415-43-AL, District Court of Santa Cruz - finding pre-trial detention of a child accused of a criminal offence had been unlawful and considering art. 37 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child.
Seniloli v. Voliti  - regarding compensation for unlawful pretrial detention, considering article 37 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child.
Grabowski v. Poland  Application No. 57722/12, European Court of Human Rights - on whether three months detention without judicial determination violates art. 5 of the ECHR.
K v. Regina  SHBC 150; SBCA 21  SBHC 53, High Court of Solomon Islands - regarding the granting of bail for children accused of serious offences and the compatibility of mandatory life imprisonment sentences with the Convention on the Rights of the Child.
The Queen on the application of HC (a child, by his litigation friend CC) v. Secretary of State for the Home Department EWHC 982, High Court of Justice - finding illegal a policy that did not offer 17-year-olds protection as children when detained at a police station.
Fahima Nasrin v. Government of Bangladesh and others  61 DLR 232, Supreme Court of Bangladesh, High Court Division - on the illegality of transferring a child to an adult prison upon reaching 18 without a court order.
Bulacio v. Argentina  Series C No. 100; IHRL 1483, Inter-American Court of Human Rights - regarding appropriate compensation and reparations for the death of a child in detention, including the need for investigation and prevention of recurrence.
Corey Brough v. Australia  Communication No. 1184/2003 - finding that the conditions in which a 17 year old was detained violated the right to be treated with dignity while in detention (art. 10, ICCPR) and the right to special protection of minors (art. 24, ICCPR). Ill-treatment included detention in a “safe cell” with no possibility of communication, under constant light and without age appropriate treatment.
Twyon Thomas v. Attorney General  2010 No. 12-M Demerara, High Court of the Supreme Court of Judicature - regarding the unlawful detention and torture of a 14 year old boy in connection with a murder investigation.
Minors incarcerated in the El Carmen Education Centre v. Director of the Honduran Institute for Children and Family (Menores de Edad Internos en el Centro Pedagogico El Carmen vs. Director o encardgao de La Junta Interventora del Instituto Hondureno de La Ninez Y La Familia, Suprema de Justicia de Honduras, Sentencia del 20 Abril de 2006) Supreme Court of Honduras - finding Honduras responsible for ill-treatment of children in detention facilities, including in light of article 3(3) of the Convention on the Rights of the Child.
Juvenile Re-education Institute v. Paraguay  Serie C no. 112, Inter-American Court of Human Rights - the first case in which the IACHR ruled on the conditions of detention for children and young people under the American Convention on Human Rights.
Gomez Paquiyauri brothers v. Peru  IHRL 1493, Inter-American Court of Human Rights - finding the detention, ill-treatment and murder of two teenage brothers violated the Inter-American Convention on Human rights.
Sharifova and others v. Tajikistan  Communication Nos. 1231/2003 and 1241/2004, Human Rights Committee - finding that the State had violated the rights of five people to be free from torture, to a fair trial and to be treated with dignity when deprived of liberty. Two of the detainees were children and their right to special protection under the ICCPR had also been violated.
Fa’aoso v. Paongo  - regarding unlawful detention of a child and ill-treatment while detained. Ruling considers article 37 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child.
Salduz v. Turkey  Application No. , European Court of Human Rights - ruling that the denial of access to a lawyer during his interrogation violated his right to a fair trial.
Kosrae v. Ned  13 FSM Intrm. 351, Kosrae State Court Trial Division - considering the compatibility of community service sentencing with the Convention on the Rights of the Child.
S. 780. XLIV, “Arresto Preventivo con Fines de Extradition”  Supreme Court of Argentina - the court permitted the extradition of a child for trial in the United States on drug charges.
Aboussedra v. Libyan Arab Jamahiriya  Communication No. 1751/2008, Human Rights Committee - finding the illegal detention of a man was a violation of the prohibition on torture and inhuman treatment and that the corresponding rights of his wife and children were also violated by his detention.
Chiramba and others v. Minister of Home Affairs N.O. and others  ZWHHC 82, High Court of Zimbabwe - finding the arrest and incommunicado detention of a mother with her child was unlawful.
P and S v. Poland  Application No. 57375/08, European Court of Human Rights - regarding ill-treatment and detention of a girl seeking a legal abortion.
D, E and their two children v. Australia  Communication No. 1050/2002, Human Rights Committee - finding arbitrary detention in light of the failure of the state to justify the length of detention (three years).
Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs v. B and others  HCA 20, 20 April 2004, A246/2003, High Court of Australia - ruling that the Australian family courts do not have the authority to order the release of children from immigration detention or to make orders on the welfare of children in immigration detention.
Bakhtiyari v. Australia  Communication No. 1069/2002, Human Rights Committee - finding the detention of children with their mother for 2 years and eight months pending the outcome of an application to remain in the country was arbitrary and violated art. 9(1) of the ICCPR.
Baban et al v. Australia  Communication No. 1014/2001, Human Rights Committee - finding the detention of a father and son amounted to arbitrary detention because it extended beyond the time for which the state could provide an appropriate justification and because the state could not demonstrate less intrusive measures would have been insufficient.
UNICEF and others v. Belgium  A. 214.331/XI-20.421, Council of state, Administrative Section of Litigation - on detention of children awaiting determination of their immigration status.
Mubilanzila Mayeka and Kaniki Mitunga v. Belgium  Application No. 13178/03, European Court of Human Rights - finding the detention of an unaccompanied child in a centre for adults violated art. 3 of the ECHR; separation from family violated art. 8 and detention in a facility for adults violated art. 5.
Rahimi v. Greece  Application No. 8687/08, European Court of Human Rights - ruling that the detention of an unaccompanied minor without regard for particular circumstances violated art. 5 of the ECHR.
R (AA) v. Secretary of State for the Home Department  EWHC 1453, High Court of England and Wales - on the legality of immigration detention for asylum seeking children. Detention unlawful from moment Secretary of State received an age assessment.
R (on the application of Suppiah and others) v. Secretary of State for the Home Department  EWHC 2 (Admin), High Court of England and Wales - on the detention of asylum seeking families and the requirement to safeguard the welfare of children (finding detention in the current case illegal.
Decision of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Belarus No. P-704/2012 of 17 May 2012 on the constitutionality of the Law "On amendments and additions to some laws of the Republic of Belarus on the prevention of child neglect and juvenile delinquency" - on the constitutionality of a law on curfews and juvenile justice.
Llanto et al v. Corrales  Constitutional resolution 0733/2011-R, File No. 2009-21028, District Court of Cochabamba - finding a girl had been unlawfully detained in a hospital as a means of securing payment of medical fees.
In the matter of A.C., a patient at Thunder Bay Regional Health Sciences Centre, Thunder Bay Ontario  CanLii 7115 (ON C.C.B.), Ontario Consent and Capacity Board - regarding an order for involuntary treatment at a psychiatric facility in light of art. 37 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

References: v. 
 v. 
 art. 37
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 UKPC 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 art. 37
 v. 
 Application No. 21906
 v. 
 UKPC 
 v. 
 v. 
 UKPC 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 Application No. 23389
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 art. 37
 v. 
 v. 
 Application No. 57722
 art. 5
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 Application No. 57375
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 art. 9
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 Application No. 13178
 art. 3
 art. 8
 art. 5
 v. 
 Application No. 8687
 art. 5
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 art. 37