The appellant had been found unfit to plead after assaulting his son, and he had been detained under the 1964 Act. He alleged his detention was in breach of his right to a fair trial. His release had been authorised subject to the appointment of a supervising psychiatrist. He complained that his detention was unlawful from that date until a decision was taken correctly.
Held: Though the tribunal lacked the power to secure compliance with its conditions, it did not lack the coercive power which is one of the essential attributes of a court. The lengthy failure to find accomodation did infringe the applicant’s rights. However the detention was not unlawful since there was no concensus for his release. A decision to defer is to be treated as a provisional decision which can be altered if there is a material change of circumstances.
Judges:
Lord Bingham Of Cornhill Lord Steyn Lord Hobhouse Of Woodborough Lord Scott Of Foscote Lord Rodger Of Earlsferry
Citations:
[2003] UKHL 59, Times 14-Nov-2003, Gazette 15-Jan-2004, [2003] 3 WLR 1278
Links:
Statutes:
Criminal Procedure (Insanity) Act 1964 5, European Convention on Human Rights 5
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Regina (IH) v Secretary of State for the Home Department and Another CA 15-May-2002
The applicant was a restricted mental patient. His conditional release had been ordered, but required a consultant psychiatrist to be found who would agree to supervise him. None such could be found, and his detention continued. After two years he . .
Cited – Regina (on the application of K) v Camden and Islington Health Authority CA 21-Feb-2001
The duty of a local authority to seek to provide resources to care for a mental patient after release into the community, is not absolute, and is subject to the limitations of the availability of a sufficient budget. A continued detention in . .
Cited – Winterwerp v The Netherlands ECHR 24-Oct-1979
A Dutch national detained in hospital complained that his detention had divested him of his capacity to administer his property, and thus there had been determination of his civil rights and obligations without the guarantee of a judicial procedure. . .
Cited – X v United Kingdom ECHR 5-Nov-1981
(Commission) The application was made a patient, restricted under the 1959 Act. A mental health review tribunal which concluded that the continued detention of a restricted patient was no longer justified had power to recommend but not to order the . .
Cited – Johnson v The United Kingdom ECHR 24-Oct-1997
Mr Johnson awaited trial for crimes of violence. He was diagnosed mentally ill, and on conviction made subject to a hospital order, and restricted without limit of time. He made progress, but was not discharged or re-classified. At a fourth tribunal . .
Cited – Regina v Oxford Regional Mental Health Review Tribunal, Ex parte Secretary of State for the Home Department (Campbell’s Case) HL 1988
The House decided that section 73 of the 1983 Act provided a two-stage process in relation to a patient’s conditional discharge. The tribunal first decides that it will direct the discharge subject to conditions, but defers giving the direction so . .
Cited by:
Cited – Secretary of State for Home Department, Regina (on the Application of) v Mental Health Review Tribunal Admn 7-Oct-2004
Order for release of mental patient conditional upon facilities being made available – infringement of human rights through continued detention. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Human Rights, Health
Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.187759
