A v United Kingdom
The defence of reasonable chastisement, which allowed a stepfather who had beaten a boy with a cane to be acquitted, failed to protect the child from ill treatment contrary to article 3.
Facts
A, a nine year old boy, was beaten by his stepfather with a garden cane on several occasions, causing severe bruising. The stepfather was prosecuted for assault occasioning actual bodily harm, but was acquitted by a jury after relying on the defence that the beating was reasonable chastisement of a child. A complained that the law had failed to protect him from ill treatment.
Legal principle
The European Court of Human Rights held that there had been a violation of article 3. The court said that the treatment reached the level of severity prohibited by article 3, and that the state's obligation under article 1, read with article 3, required it to take measures designed to ensure that individuals within its jurisdiction are not subjected to ill treatment, including ill treatment administered by private individuals. Children and other vulnerable individuals are entitled to effective protection in the form of deterrence. The law did not provide adequate protection, and the defence of reasonable chastisement was later restricted by section 58 of the Children Act 2004.
Related cases on prohibition of torture and inhuman treatment (article 3)
- A v Secretary of State for the Home Department (No 2) [2005] UKHL 71, [2006] 2 AC 221
- AM (Zimbabwe) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2020] UKSC 17, [2021] AC 633
- Chahal v United Kingdom (1997) 23 EHRR 413
- Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis v DSD [2018] UKSC 11, [2019] AC 196
- Gäfgen v Germany (2011) 52 EHRR 1
- Ireland v United Kingdom (1979) 2 EHRR 25
- R (AAA) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2023] UKSC 42
- R (Limbuela) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2005] UKHL 66, [2006] 1 AC 396
Studying human rights law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
