Should convicted murderers be granted artificial insemination facilities in prison? Seamus Burns investigates
The decision of the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), in Dickson v United Kingdom (Application 44362/04) [2007] All ER (D) 59 (Dec) that the home secretary’s refusal to provide a convicted murderer in jail with facilities for artificial insemination violated Art 8 (right to family life) of the European Convention on Human Rights (the Convention), has generated considerable consternation.
ARTIFICIAL INSEMINATION
The applicant, Kirk Dickson, was sentenced to life imprisonment in 1994 with a tariff of 15 years. He met the second applicant (Lorraine Dickson) through a prison penpal network, when she was in prison serving a 12-month sentence. She was released and in 2001 the applicants married. had three children from previous relationships. In December 2002 they both applied for facilities for artificial insemination: given Kirk’s earliest release date (2009), and ’s age then (51), it was unlikely they would be able to have a child together without artificial insemination. The home secretary refused their application
