Addiction Recovery

The right to life may be at risk if there is a real and immediate risk to life which authorities know (or should know) about and they are not taking reasonable steps to protect life.

"Cal is a female dependent drinker in her 40s of East European heritage, living in very poor circumstances. A few months ago, she tried to burn some rubbish in her sink. Neighbours smelled smoke and called the fire service. At the subsequent fire service home safety check, the officer described the situation as the worst he had encountered. In addition to rubbish, cigarette ends, empty bottles and discarded food, there was animal faeces everywhere including on her feet. There were at least three cats in the property.

This led to a safeguarding alert to the local authority. Adult social care attempted to visit Cal on three occasions but she failed to answer the door; and when spoken to on the phone, she insisted that she was fine and did not need any help. As a result, the adult social care inquiries ceased.

However, the fire officer remained very concerned about the risk posed to, and by, this woman and the Fire Service decided to make a referral to the local authority under Article 2 of the Human Rights Act citing a threat to her right to life and a threat to the lives of her neighbours because of the danger of fire. This encouraged social care services to become more actively involved."

This story comes from Alcohol Change UK's publication 'How to use legal powers to safeguard highly vulnerable dependent drinkers'.

The right to be free from inhuman or degrading treatment may be at risk if someone is denied essential healthcare, resulting in serious mental and physical harm.

Eddie had been on a methadone prescription for seven years and was on a full therapeutic dose which was dispensed daily. Eddie was subject to an Exclusion Order which prohibited him from visiting the town centre. Whilst experiencing withdrawals, Eddie attempted to get his prescription from a chemist in the town centre, breaching his Exclusion Order. He was arrested, taken to the police station, and held in a custody suite. Eddie was refused medical treatment because he was using abusive language.

When a local recovery worker visited Eddie to provide lived experience support, Eddie had already been denied medical attention for 72 hours, and he was in severe physical discomfort from opiate withdrawals and psychological distress from being denied essential treatment as a form of punishment.

The recovery worker was in the process of completing a human rights and recovery programme run by BIHR and SRC. Because he knew more about human rights and the HRA legal duties on public bodies, including the police, he had the confidence to raise Eddie’s right to be free from inhuman and degrading treatment (Article 3) to challenge the lack of appropriate medical care and highlight concerns about the severe impact on his physical and mental health. This brought about an immediate change to the situation – Eddie was seen by a doctor who immediately dispensed methadone, taking Eddie out of his withdrawals.

This story comes from a member of a recovery organisation that has worked with the Scottish Recovery Consortium (SRC) and has been anonymised. Read BIHR and SRC's joint guide, 'Using Human Rights in Recovery'.

The right to private and family life may be at risk if disproportionate restrictions are placed on this right without exploring less restrictive options.

Y.I. was living with her three young children when she was arrested on suspicion of being involved in drug trafficking. During her arrest, Y.I. told the police about her problems with addiction, including that she had recently been taking opiate drugs and allowing others to take drugs in her home. A few days later, the authorities removed Y.I.’s children from her care stating that she had been neglecting her parental responsibilities. She visited her children regularly and wanted to gain custody of them again, and sought treatment for her addiction as well as making repairs to her home. However, the authorities applied to the court to remove Y.I.’s parental authority for her three children and this was granted because the Russian Family Code allowed parental authority to be removed from parents who ‘suffer from chronic alcohol or drug abuse’.

Y.I. challenged this decision and the Russian Family Code, but her appeals were dismissed by domestic courts. She brought her case to the European Court of Human Rights, relying on her right to private and family life, protected by Article 8 of the Human Rights Act. Y.I. argued that the courts had failed to consider the fact that she had been undergoing rehabilitation treatment, had not given enough evidence to justify the family’s forced separation, and had not considered less restrictive measures. The ECtHR explained that efforts should be made to maintain relationships between children and parents, and although it acknowledged that the initial removal of the children and their placement in care was justified, depriving Y.I. of parental authority of her three children violated her right to family life.

The right to be free from discrimination may be at risk if someone does not receive appropriate healthcare because they are in prison, which they would receive if they were in the community.

Paul was a prisoner in HMP Magilligan. From February 2021 up to when he was released in April 2024, Paul had been waiting to be assessed for Opioid Substitution Treatment (OST). During this time, he told health services that he was self-medicating with illicitly obtained Subutex, which is used to treat opioid dependency, and that he was worried about the risks this posed to him, including accidental overdose. Paul wasn’t always able to get enough Subutex, which he said led him to experience physical pain, depression, and anxiety. During his time in custody, Paul made several applications to be released from prison. The panels who dealt with Paul’s applications commented on and criticised the delay in assessing of his suitability for OST.

Paul brought a human rights case against the Health and Social Care Trust responsible for providing medical treatment within prison facilities. The judge decided that the delay to assessing of Paul’s suitability for OST had breached his right to be free from inhuman and degrading treatment (Article 3), his right to private life (Article 8), and his right to be free from discrimination (Article 14).

The judge said the failure to assess Paul’s health and suitability for OST was inappropriate, and both his rights and the wider community’s interests were harmed by this failure. They also said Paul had been unlawfully discriminated against based on his status as a prisoner, stating that he would not have experienced such a delay if he had been seeking treatment for addiction in the community. This underlines that everyone is entitled to healthcare, including people in the justice system.