A GROUP of drug-addicted prisoners who said that they were forced to endure “cold turkey” withdrawal are to sue the Home Office in a test case that could prompt compensation claims from almost 200.

The prisoners, or former prisoners, from jails across Britain, have taken group legal action and are seeking substantial damages for the “short, sharp” detoxification that they went through in prison.

They allege that their human rights were violated as they did not give consent, and that their negligent treatment amounted to assault. All are claiming that they suffered injuries as a result of the enforced withdrawal.

Six tests cases will now be tried at the High Court in London in November and, if the prisoners are successful, it could lead to all 198 convicts or ex-convicts seeking payouts.

The Home Office is fighting the claims, which could also be directed at private contractors running the jails where 26 of the prisoners involved in the case are, or were, being held.

The prisoners all suffered from addiction to opiates such as heroin during their detention while on remand or while serving their sentences.

Mr Justice Langstaff, giving permission for the High Court hearing in November, said that the initial case should be against the Home Office alone. He told the court: “The claimants complain that they entered these prisons in a state of addiction. All claim that their treatment was handled inappropriately and so they suffered injuries and had difficulties with their withdrawal.”

The cases are to focus on alleged deficiencies in the medical treatment of prisoners. Richard Hermer, barrister for the claimants in the Opiate Dependant Prisoner Litigation, which includes prisoners from the public and private systems, said: “There is no distinction between the treatment in private prisons and public prisons. It is exactly the same.”

Mr Hermer said that many of the prisoners were receiving treatment with methadone, a heroin substitute, before they entered prison and that they were upset at the short period of time that they were allowed to continue using opiates after they were jailed.

He added: “Imposing the short, sharp detoxification is the issue.”

No details of the sentences or offences were revealed at yesterday’s preliminary High Court hearing. The prisoners are bringing the case based on trespass, as they claim that they did not give consent to the treatment, and also for alleged clinical negligence.

In addition, they claim breaches of Articles 3 and 14 of the Human Rights Convention, which can ban discrimination, torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, and Article 8, which enshrines the right to respect for private life.

Yesterday, a spokesman for the Home Office said: “We’re aware of the ongoing litigation about drug-withdrawal treatment that has been brought by a number of prisoners. We are unable to comment further on an ongoing case.”

If the six cases prove successful, the private prisons contractors — GSL, UK Detention Service, Premier Prisons and Group 4 Securicor — could also face claims for damages.

The hearing of the test cases against the Home Office is due to start on November 13. It is due to last a month.

The case comes after hundreds of claims for compensation by prisoners in Scotland for the practice of “slopping out”.

Lord Bonomy ruled in 2004 that the practice had breached the human rights of Robert Napier, an armed robber. Napier was awarded £2,400 for having to endure the degrading treatment at Barlinnie prison in Glasgow and the decision prompted other slopping-out claims.

In a separate case, George Knights, 46, a gunman serving nine life sentences in a maximum-security prison after shooting three police officers and support staff, sought £50,000 compensation after being refused extra luxuries for his cell.

Times Recommends

• Tower block death blaze ‘suspicious’
• Licence payers fund BBC chief's £8m pension
• Potter star falls victim to swine flu