Key Facts
- •Abdullah Ahmed Ali, a life sentence prisoner convicted of terrorism offences, appealed a County Court decision dismissing his claim for human rights violations.
- •The claim alleged breaches of Article 9 ECHR (freedom of religion) due to infrequent Friday prayers (Jumuah) in the High Security Unit (HSU) of HMP Belmarsh.
- •The appellant was held in the HSU, a separate unit within the prison, and denied access to Jumuah services in the main prison when the HSU service was unavailable.
- •The HSU's operating instructions prevented attendance at services outside the unit without the Director's approval, which was not granted.
- •Jumuah services in the HSU were unavailable on 14 occasions due to factors like low Muslim prisoner numbers or Imam absence.
- •The appellant argued that the lack of individual risk assessment before denying access to the main prison's Jumuah services was a breach of his rights.
Legal Principles
Prisoners retain fundamental rights except liberty.
Korostelev v Russia (2022) 75 EHRR 17 at [57]
Article 9 ECHR imposes both positive (reasonable measures to secure rights) and negative (refrain from unjustified limitations) obligations on the state.
Jakobski v Poland (2012) 55 EHRR 8 at [47]; Yalcin v Turkey (No 2) (2023) 76 EHRR 23 at [29] to [30]
Article 9(2) limitations must be prescribed by law and necessary in a democratic society.
Article 9(2) ECHR
Appellate courts should not interfere with trial judge's findings of fact unless unreasonable.
Henderson v Foxworth Investments Ltd [2014] UKSC 41; Fage UK Limited v Chobani UK Limited [2014] EWCA Civ 5
Positive obligations under Article 9(1) require reasonable and appropriate measures to secure religious freedom, with a margin of appreciation for the state.
Kovalkovs v Latvia (35021/05) 31 January 2012; Jakobski v Poland; Soltany v SSHD [2020] EWHC 2291 (Admin)
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed.
The judge correctly applied Article 9(1) focusing on the positive obligation to facilitate religious practice. The prison had a system in place for Jumuah, albeit imperfect, and the appellant had no right to leave the HSU to attend services elsewhere. The lack of individual risk assessment was not a breach of Article 9.