1 / 22

Tyrer case

This case summary discusses the facts, background, and legal issues surrounding the use of judicial corporal punishment in the case of Anthony Tyrer. The appeal against his sentence is dismissed, upholding the use of a birch rod for his unlawful assault. The case raises questions about the applicability of international treaties and the potential violation of human rights.

jazmine
Download Presentation

Tyrer case

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Tyrercase Summary

  2. Facts of the case • AnthonyTyrer, residentinCastletown, IsleofMan, aged 15, pleadedguiltybeforethelocaljuvenile court to unlawfulassaultoccasioningactualbodilyharmto a senior pupil at his school • Sentenced to threestrokesofthebirch • Appealedagainst sentence to theHigh Court ofJusticeoftheIsleofMan • Appealdismissed: unprovokedassaultoccasioningactualbodilyharm – veryserious; no reason to interferewiththe sentence

  3. Punishment • Sentenced pursuant to section 56 (1) of the Petty Sessions and Summary Jurisdiction Act 1927 (as amended by section 8 of the Summary Jurisdiction Act 1960)

  4. ‘Any person who shall • (a) unlawfully assault or beat any other person • (b) make use of provoking language or behaviour tending to a breach of the peace • Shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding 30 pounds or to be imprisoned for a term not exceeding 6 months and, in addition to or instead of, either such punishment, if the offender is a male child or male young person, to be whipped’

  5. ‘child’ vs. ‘young person’ • Child – an individual over the age of 10 and under 14 • Young person – an individual over the age of 14 and under 17

  6. Summary Jurisdiction Act 1960 • (a) The instrument: cane or a birch rod • (b) child: no more than 6 strokes; other persons: no more than 12 strokes • (c) whipping shall be inflicted privately • (d) whipping shall be inflicted by a constable in the presence of a police officer of higher rank; in the case of a child or a young person, also in the presence of a parent or guardian if he so desires

  7. B. General Background • Isle of Man – crown dependency with its own government, legislature and courts • The Crown – responsible for the good government of the Island through the Privy Council • Home Secretary – charged with prime responsibility for Isle of Man

  8. B. General Background • Prior to October 1950 international treaties applicable, in the absence of a contrary provision, to the Isle of Man • After that – international treaties applicable if here was an express inclusion • European Convention on Human Rights – applicable to the Isle of Man

  9. B. General Background • The Island’s parliament, Tynwald, one of the oldest in Europe • Composition of Tynwald: Lieutenant-General appointed by the Crown, an upper house (Legislative Council) and a lower house (House of Keys) • Tynwald legislates in domestic matters, the laws requiring ratification by the Queen

  10. B. General Background • UK Parliament can pass laws applicable to the Isle of Man, but does not legislate on domestic affairs, such as penal policy, without its consent • This constitutional convention followed unless overridden by some other consideration, such as an international treaty obligation

  11. Judicial corporal punishment • Abolished in England, Wales and Scotland in 1948 and in Northern Ireland in 1968 • Abolition followed upon the recommendation of the Cadogan Committee which issued its report in 1938 • The Berry report endorsed its findings in 1960; corporal punishment should not be reintroduced as a judicial penalty for any offences or offenders

  12. Judicial corporal punishment • Tynwald examined the question in 1963 and 1965 and decided to retain corporal punishment which was considered as a deterrent to hooligans visiting the Island and a means of preserving law and order • In May 1977 Tynwald passed a resolution retaining corporal punishmen for violent crimes against person committerd by males under the age of 21

  13. Judicial corporal punishment • 1978 Attorney-General informed Tynwald of a privately organized petition in favour of the retention of corporal punishment; since 1969 restricted to offences of violence • Criminal Law Bill 1978 – a proposal to limit the use of corporal punishment to young males for the more serious offences of violence • The offence for which Mr Tyrer was charged – omitted from the list of offences

  14. Proceedings before the Commission • BreachofArticle 3 • Destructiveoffamilywell-beingandcontrary to Article 8 • No remedies to rectifytheviolation, inconsistentwithArticle 13 • DiscriminatorywithinthemeaningofArticle 14 • ViolationofArticle 1 • Discrimination on groundsofsex/age contrary to Aricle 14 • Admissible: Aricle 3

  15. Proceedings before the Commission • In January 1976 the applicant wished to withdraw his application • The Commission could not accede to this request ‘since the case raised questions of a general character affecting the observance of the Convention which necessitated a further examination of the issues involved’

  16. Legal issues • The Commission expressed the opinion that corporal punishment, being degrading, constituted breach of Aricle 3 • The Court shares the Commission’s view that the punishment did not amount to ‘torture’ or ‘inhuman punishment’

  17. Degrading punishment • A person may be humiliated by the mere fact of being criminally convicted • Judicial punishment – unwilling subjection to the demands of the penal system • No derogation from Article 3

  18. Degrading punishment • Attorney-General of the Isle of Man argued that the punishment was not in breach of Art. 3 since it did not outrage the public opinion • Counter-argument – it may be regarded as effective deterrent precisely because of the element of degradation it involves • Punishment does not lose its degrading character because it is an effective deterrent or aid to crime control

  19. Degrading punishment • Convention – a living instrument and should be interpreted in the light of present-day conditions

  20. Judgment • Punishment – carried out in private and without publication of the name of the offender • It may suffice that the victim is humiliated in his own eyes, even if not in the eyes of others • Corporal punishment - one human being inflicting physical violence on another human being • Institutionalized violence permitted by the law, ordered by judicial authorities and carried out by the police authorities

  21. Judgment • The punishment – an assault on precisely that which it is one of the main purposes of Art. 3 to protect, namely a person’s dignity and physical integrity; also: adverse psychological effects • An interval of several weeks since the applicant’s conviction and a delay in the police station: in addition to the physical pain, Mr Tyrer subjected to mental anguish of anticipating the violence inflicted

  22. Conclusion • Applicant was subjected to a punishment in which the element of humiliation attained the level inherent in the notion of ‘degrading punishment’

More Related