Skip to content
Law Society of Scotland
Search
Find a Solicitor
Contact us
About us
Sign in
Search
Find a Solicitor
Contact us
About us
Sign in
  • For members

    • For members

    • CPD & Training

    • Membership and fees

    • Rules and guidance

    • Regulation and compliance

    • Journal

    • Business support

    • Career growth

    • Member benefits

    • Professional support

    • Lawscot Wellbeing

    • Lawscot Sustainability

  • News and events

    • News and events

    • Law Society news

    • Blogs & opinions

    • CPD & Training

    • Events

  • Qualifying and education

    • Qualifying and education

    • Qualifying as a Scottish solicitor

    • Career support and advice

    • Our work with schools

    • Funding your education

    • Social mobility

  • Research and policy

    • Research and policy

    • Research

    • Influencing the law and policy

    • Equality and diversity

    • Our international work

    • Legal Services Review

    • Meet the Policy team

  • For the public

    • For the public

    • What solicitors can do for you

    • Making a complaint

    • Client protection

    • Find a Solicitor

    • Frequently asked questions

    • Your Scottish solicitor

  • About us

    • About us

    • Contact us

    • Who we are

    • Our strategy, reports and plans

    • Help and advice

    • Our standards

    • Work with us

    • Our logo and branding

    • Equality and diversity

  1. Home
  2. News and events
  3. Legal news
  4. Sheriff rejects double handcuffing damages claim

Sheriff rejects double handcuffing damages claim

14th October 2016 | criminal law , human rights

A prisoner who claimed he was humiliated by being double handcuffed when taken to hospital appointments has failed in a claim for damages for breach of his human rights.

Sheriff Nigel Ross at Edinburgh Sheriff Court found for the defenders, G4 Care & Justice Services (UK) Ltd, in an action by James McDowall, who was serving a nine year sentence for attempted murder and had a history of violence, drug and alcohol misuse and mental health issues.

The action is one of a number brought by prisoners seeking compensation for the "double cuffing" practice. The pursuer claimed that he had been subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment, contrary to article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, and breach of his right to private and family life, contrary to article 8, when on three hospital visits his wrists were handcuffed together and in addition he was handcuffed to a security guard. The visits involved use of public areas; the sheriff found that double cuffing was visible to passers-by, but could be done discreetly, and that the most visible part of the escort was the number of prison custody officers accompanying the prisoner.

The pursuer spoke in evidence to being "affronted", "humiliated", feeling he was "nobody, like a piece of dirt", and "led around like a dog". However the sheriff said he was "unable to regard the pursuer's evidence as either credible or reliable". In any event, he had made no complaint about single cuffing and he had failed to establish a causal connection between the feelings to which he spoke and being double cuffed. Uncuffed, he would have required several more security officers in attendance.

Sheriff Ross further found that there were a number of good reasons why single cuffing was insufficient, including risks to others, to property and to the prisoner himself. "Double cuffing appears to be reasonable and proportionate", he concluded. "It is also said to be widespread practice. No contrary evidence was led to show any support for a contrary view. The pursuer has failed to prove that the use of double cuffing was inhumane. I would have expected some expert evidence to the contrary if this were to be placed in issue."

In neither alleged breach of human rights had the necessary criteria been satisfied.

The sheriff added: "I would note for completeness that, had damages been appropriate, the events complained of were so minor and of such a limited duration that I would have awarded £100."

Click here to view the judgment.

Add To Favorites
Law Society of Scotland
Atria One, 144 Morrison Street
Edinburgh
EH3 8EX
If you’re looking for a solicitor, visit FindaSolicitor.scot
T: +44(0) 131 226 7411
E: lawscot@lawscot.org.uk
About us
  • Contact us
  • Who we are
  • Strategy reports plans
  • Help and advice
  • Our standards
  • Work with us
Useful links
  • Find a Solicitor
  • Sign in
  • CPD & Training
  • Rules and guidance
  • Website terms and conditions
Law Society of Scotland | © 2025
Made by Gecko Agency Limited