-11/21/91
16:02
NO. 579
P014/015
CAT/C/S.91 page 13
Provisions) Act 1989, for an excluded person to make representations against his or her exclusion. In connection with the information provided on articles 12 and 13 of the Convention, he asked whether prison warders were armed and what procedure was followed in the event of a serious incident, such as a pricon riet. With regard to article 14; he wished to know whether the State was directly responsible for compensating a victim of torture if the torturer was insolvent. In his view, the State should be responsible in all
cases.
68.
Mr. MIKHAILOV thanked the United Kingdom delegation for submitting an extensive report which went into great detail in certain areas, Paragraph 4 of the report mentioned section 134 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 and he requested a copy of the text of that section, which was clearly a key provision in efforts to combat torture. Paragraph 18 stated that, under section 6 of the Extradition Act 1989, a person could not be extradited if he had been accused or convicted of an offence of a political nature. He asked whether any distinction was made in such cases between the jurisdiction of the Secretary of State and a court, as the information given in paragraph 18 appeared to indicate that both were responsible for taking the relevant decisions.
69. He was somewhat surprised by the amount of power, as far as sentencing was concerned, that was vested in the Sheriff Court, which was mentioned in paragraph 29 and could impose a maximum sentence of three years, and he asked whether there was any form of judicial supervision of the Sheriff Court.
70. The information on the Mental Health Act Commission contained in paragraph 94, indicated that it was an independent statutory body appointed by the Secretary of State. He asked whether it was an administrative or a judicial commission, what its exact functions were and whether it was subject to judicial supervision. He also noted from paragraph 161 of the report that an employer, which he took to mean a private individual or an administrative body, was entrusted with the important task of investigating cases of suspected child abuse and with informing the police. He asked for details of the employer's responsibility in that regard, since the report did not make it clear whether administrative bodies took precedence over judicial bodies, and exactly what role was played by the Crown Prosecution Service in combating torture.
71. Mr. PERLAS thanked the United Kingdom delegation for its detailed report and introduction, which, in conjunction with the questions already put by the other members of the Committee, allowed him to refer only to a few points relating to the Mental Health Act. He had noted that suicidal or depressed prisoners were confined in strip cells in order to prevent them from harming themselves. He wished to know whether they were also referred to a psychiatric institution in order to receive treatment for their mental condition and whether the Mental Health Act Commission was responsible for monitoring the mental health of prisoners, as well as that of detained patients. He asked whether the Criminal Procedure (Insanity) Act 1964, which was referred to in paragraph 90 and under which a person charged with an offence and found unfit to plead to the charge, or not guilty of an offence by reason of insanity, must be admitted to a hospital, might not mean that the person would serve a longer sentence than would have been the case if