CONCURRING OPINION OF JUDGE POWER-FORDE

1. It was with some unease that I cast my vote in the instant case. There is something disconcerting about the imprisonment of a sixty-seven-year-old man with medical complications for failure to pay a tax debt.

2. The Court of Appeal on the 28 th of June 2010 found that there were ‘ extraordinary reasons ’ that warranted the detention of the applicant. Those reasons were said to be ( i ) the size of the debt, (ii) the value of the hidden property and (iii) the fact that the applicant had maintained his refusal to reveal the property ’ s location ( § 18).

3. The first review of his detention took place on 30 June 2010 (see § 19). The court reiterated its reasons for detaining the applicant. A second review took place on 13 July 2010. On this date, the applicant, in seeking to be released, informed the district court that he suffered from high blood pressure, panic and anxiety attacks which caused him difficulties in sleeping. He apprised the court of the fact that he had recently been treated for prostate cancer and that he was not permitted to take his normal medication for panic attacks. Somewhat disconcertingly, the district court did not address the applicant ’ s medical condition. It maintained that there remained ‘ extraordinary reasons ’ for the applicant ’ s continued detention (see § 21).

4. A third review of detention took place on 27 July 2010. An additional medical complication exacerbated by incarceration was brought to the district court ’ s attention, namely, the applicant ’ s asthmatic condition. Once again, he called attention to his general health problems and submitted that, having regard to his age and his medical condition, his detention was disproportionate to the aim pursued. The district court failed, again, to consider and/or respond to these submissions. It continued to find that there were ‘ extraordinary reasons ’ for the applicant ’ s detention.

5. On 9 August 2010 a fourth review took place and the district court concluded that there were no longer ‘ extraordinary reasons ’ for the applicant ’ s detention. To where, one wonders, did those ‘ extraordinary reasons ’ that had justified his incarceration for 42 days disappear? The size of the debt, the value of the hidden property, and the applicant ’ s attitude to disclosing its whereabouts had not changed.

6. I accept that the applicant was obliged to obey the law and that his own conduct contributed to the events that unfolded. Nevertheless, having regard to the foregoing and, in particular, to the failure of the domestic courts to address issues pertaining to the applicant ’ s health, I cannot but have doubts about the proportionality of the coercive measure deployed in this case.