Solitary confinement, a practice involving prolonged isolation, casts a long shadow over penal systems globally. While often presented as a necessary tool for order and safety, a growing body of evidence and legal challenges underscores its profound and potentially devastating effects, particularly on vulnerable children. The UK court cases of BOURGASS and AB offer critical insights into the intricate legal and ethical issues surrounding this controversial practice.

The BOURGASS case, heard by the UK Supreme Court in 2015, centered on the legality of solitary confinement for adult prisoners. The court carefully examined evidence detailing the detrimental effects of segregation. A 2008 report cited in the judgment revealed that solitary confinement could induce "serious psychological and sometimes physiological ill effects." Disturbingly, the report indicated that a significant proportion of prisoners, ranging from one-third to as high as 90 percent, experienced adverse symptoms while in solitary confinement.

A 2011 report highlighted the damaging effects on the "mental, somatic and social health of those concerned," emphasizing that these risks intensified with the duration of the confinement, making indeterminate isolation especially dangerous. Consequently, if such profound risks exist for adults, they must apply even more to children, whose developing minds and bodies are even more susceptible to harm.

The inherent vulnerability of children in isolation was central to the AB case, which involved a 15-year-old boy held in solitary confinement at Feltham. The Court of Appeal ruled that the boy's isolation had been unlawful because it breached prison rules regarding education. Furthermore, the court referenced a statement made by the Committee on the Rights of the Child in 2007, which condemned corporal punishment, placement in a dark cell, solitary confinement, or any other punishment that could compromise a child's physical or mental health or well-being. Such practices were deemed violations of Article 37 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) and were "strictly forbidden."

Although the court acknowledged that the isolation in AB's case was purportedly imposed "for his protection and for the protection of others," this justification did not absolve the state of its obligations under international human rights law. The court further ruled that the boy's detention did not amount to "inhuman or degrading treatment" as prohibited by Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. However, the judgment underscores the conflict between isolating a child and safeguarding their fundamental rights to education, well-being, and freedom from harmful treatment.

Together, these cases illuminate the complex legal and ethical terrain surrounding solitary confinement. BOURGASS provides compelling evidence of the harm this practice can inflict on adults, implicitly highlighting the even greater risks for children. AB directly addresses juvenile solitary confinement, firmly establishing its incompatibility with international human rights standards and emphasizing the importance of protecting the rights and well-being of children within the justice system.

The implications of these cases are far-reaching, serving as a stark reminder of the potential for solitary confinement to inflict lasting psychological and physical damage. For children, whose development is still unfolding, the isolation can be particularly traumatic, potentially leading to long-term mental health issues, impaired social skills, and a diminished capacity for rehabilitation. The ruling in AB sends a clear message that the detention of children should prioritize their welfare and development, and that isolation, even under the guise of protection, should be an absolute last resort, employed only in the most exceptional circumstances and with stringent safeguards in place.

Moving forward, legal systems and correctional facilities must heed the lessons learned from BOURGASS and AB. A greater emphasis must be placed on exploring alternative methods of managing challenging behaviour that do not involve the damaging effects of solitary confinement. This includes investing in therapeutic interventions, de-escalation techniques, and creating environments that prioritize safety and rehabilitation over isolation and punishment. These cases serve as a call to re-evaluate our approach to detention, particularly when it involves children, and to ensure that human dignity and the best interests of the child are not sacrificed in the shadows of isolation.

Written By: Md.Imran Wahab, IPS, IGP, Provisioning, West Bengal
Email: imranwahab216@gmail.com, Ph no: 9836576565