Rights of prisoners - Fuad Awale

Fuad Awale (pictured) was convicted in January 2013 of the execution-style shooting of two teenagers and received a life sentence with a minimum term of 38 years. Subsequently, he was sentenced to a further six years for threatening to kill a prison officer.

Media reports (e.g. HERE) around the Christmas period commented - 'Double murderer wins compensation payout over human rights breaches in prison.' 

To find out the details it is necessary to look at the actual High Court decision - actually back in 2024.

The King (on the application of Fuad Awale) v Secretary of State for Justice [2024] EWHC 2322 (Admin).

Awale described himself

as "a British, Black African of Somali origin and a practising Muslim." In January 2013 he was convicted of the murders (committed in 2011) of two teenagers, both of whom he shot through the head. The sentencing judge formed the view that both murders had characteristics of an execution. He was sentence to life imprisonment and a minimum term of 38 years was set. 

Awale was subsequently involved in a serious incident during which he and two others took a prison officer hostage and made threats to kill him. (He received a 6 year consecutive sentence for this). In August 2013, Awale was referred for assessment at a close supervision centre (CSC) located within the long term and high security estate. 

In September 2014, he was made subject to a direction under Rule 46 of the Prison Rules. During his time as a CSC prisoner he was held either in CSC accommodation or in designated cells within other Category A prisons. 

He challenged the circumstances of his detention  and asserted that he had been mainly confined to his cell for up to 23 hours a day. His claim was decided on four grounds - referred to as Grounds One, Two, Three and Five.

Ground 1 was based on a requirement in Prison Rules for the Secretary of State (the defendant) to review and renew directions under Rule 46 at least every month. Throughout the relevant period of time, the Secretary of State did not conduct such reviews.

Ground 2 was that, under common law, decisions to place and maintain a prisoner in segregation must be made fairly, having regard to the serious consequences which can ensue. The prisoner must be provided with reasons for such a decision and must be able to make representations. Awale claimed that the process adopted in his case was unfair.

Ground 3 argued that his segregation engaged Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights ('the ECHR'). If he succeeded on Grounds One or Two then his segregation would not be 'in accordance with the law' and therefore a breach of Article 8.

Ground 5 was based on the public sector equality duty ('PSED') - section 149 of the Equality Act 2010.

The judge (Mrs Justice Ellenbogen) held that Awale succeeded on all four grounds. There was no review or renewal of Awale's segregation. Adequate reasons for segregation were not provided. Also, Article 8 was breached because the legal framework failed to afford the requisite measure of legal protection against arbitrary interference with Art 8 rights (see judgment para 125). Regarding the public sector equality duty, the judge held that, in all the circumstances, there was a failure to make enquiries as to the impact of a significant body of racist, including Islamophobic, prisoners in the CSC.

Turning to the relief, the judge made a number of declarations (see para 148) and then held that - 

a. In default of agreement between the parties, there shall be an assessment of non-pecuniary damages payable to the Claimant by reason of the Defendant's violation of his Article 8 ECHR rights ..... and

b. The Claimant shall be entitled to an appropriate award of the costs actually, necessarily and reasonably incurred in establishing the violation of his Article 8 ECHR rights ..... , to be assessed if not agreed.

Non-pecuniary damages are awarded for losses that cannot be quantified monetarily - e.g. for emotional distress etc.

The judgment contains a detailed discussion of the facts and law and should be read in full. The above is a summary of the key points only. 

Readers will have their own views as to whether the double-murderer Awale ought to have received any damages even though the prison regime had failed to manage his case as required by law. 

As already noted above, the relevant law is based on legislation enacted by Parliament (including the Prison Rules), common law and human rights law (given force in UK legal systems by the Human Rights Act 1998). The government is expected to abide by such law and judicial review is one method of seeking to ensure that it does. #

Human rights law applies to everyone in the jurisdiction and that includes those convicted of even the most heinous of crimes.  

As for the costs, they were reportedly in excess of £200,000. I have seen no detail of how those were either agreed or assessed. In the absence of legal aid, processes such as judicial review are well-beyond the financial resources available to most people.