References: [2000] MHLR 183
Coram: Jackson J
The claimant was detained iin a secure mental hospital. He complained of being held in seclusion for a long period, and as to the hospital’s policy.
Held: The hospital’s policy, by reducing the frequency of review of a patient’s seclusion below that provided for in the Code of Practice, was unlawful and was not justified by the fact that the hospital was a maximum secure hospital. In particular, the failure after the third day of seclusion to have twice-daily medical reviews of the continuation of seclusion was not justified.
The Code of Practice for Seclusions issued under the Act was directed at all seclusions, including those lasting more than three days. A departure would be lawful only if justified by ‘a good reason arising from the particular circumstances at Ashworth hospital. There was no justification for abandoning the requirement that one of the nurses reviewing the seclusion was not involved in the original decision to seclude, which should apply ‘where practicable’. The policy of reducing medical reviews to one per day was too great a departure from the Code but twice daily reviews after the patient had been secluded for three days would be appropriate. He granted a declaration that ‘a. the Ashworth Special Hospital Authority Seclusion Procedure is unlawful in that it does not require one of the nurses who carries out the 2 hourly review to be independent from the initial decision to seclude, and that it reduces the frequency of review by a doctor after a patient has been secluded for more than 24 hours b. the Ashworth Special Hospital Authority Seclusion Guidance at paragraph 6.8.1. is unlawful for the reasons set out at Part 3 of the judgment.’
Statutes: Mental Health Act 1983
This case is cited by:
- See Also – Munjaz -v- Mersey Care National Health Service Trust And the Secretary of State for Health, the National Association for Mental Health (Mind) Respondent interested; CA (Bailii, [2003] EWCA Civ 1036, Times 25-Jul-03, [2004] QB 395, [2003] Lloyds Rep Med 534, [2003] 3 WLR 1505, (2003) 74 BMLR 178, [2003] HRLR 38)
The claimant was a mental patient under compulsory detention, and complained that he had been subjected to periods of seclusion.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The hospital had failed to follow the appropriate Code of Practice. The Code was not . . - See Also – Regina -v- Ashworth Hospital Authority, Ex parte Munjaz (No 2) Admn ([2002] EWHC (Admin) 1521)
The court dismissed the claimant’s complaint that the seclusion policies operated at Ashworth Special Hospital infringed his human rights. The Special Hospitals operated policies for seclusion which differed from the Code of Practice laid down under . . - See Also – Regina -v- Ashworth Hospital Authority (Now Mersey Care National Health Service Trust) ex parte Munjaz HL (House of Lords, Times 18-Oct-05, Bailii, [2005] UKHL 58, [2005] 2 WLR 695, [2006] 2 AC 148, [2006] Lloyds Rep Med 1, [2006] 4 All ER 736, [2005] MHLR 276, [2005] HRLR 42, (2005) 86 BMLR 84)
The claimant was detained in a secure Mental Hospital. He complained at the seclusions policy applied by the hospital, saying that it departed from the Guidance issued for such policies by the Secretary of State under the Act.
Held: The House . . - First case – C Munjaz -v- United Kingdom ECHR (32913/06, Bailii, [2008] ECHR 215)
The applicant complained of his seclusion whilst being detaned at a secure mental hospital.
Held: The court referred several questions back to the parties to be answered. . . - First case – Munjaz -v- The United Kingdom ECHR (2913/06 – HEJUD, Bailii, [2012] ECHR 1704)
The applicant was detained in a secure mental hospital. He complained that he had been held in seclusion.
Held: The complaints under articles 5 and 8 were admissible, but there had been no violation of the applicant’s rights in these . .