A person detained as a person of unsound mind should not be kept in a prison, but if the institution concerned is within the appropriate category, there is no breach of Article 5. While measures depriving a person of his liberty often involve an element of suffering or humiliation, it cannot be said that detention in a high security prison facility, be it on remand or following a criminal conviction, in itself raises an issue under Article 3 of the Convention. The Court’s task is limited to examining the personal situation of the applicant who has been affected by the regime concerned (Article 3).
25357/94, (1998) 29 EHRR 50, [1998] ECHR 64
Worldlii, Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights 3 5-1 5-4 6-1
Human Rights
Cited by:
Cited – 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 16-Jul-2003
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 . .
Cited – Lorse and Others v The Netherlands ECHR 4-Feb-2003
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 3 with regard to the first applicant ; No violation of Art. 3 with regard to the other applicants ; No violation of Art. 8 ; No violation of Art. 13 . .
Cited – PD, Regina (on the Application of) v West Midlands and North West Mental Health Review Tribunal Admn 22-Oct-2003
The claimant was detained as a mental patient. He complained that a consultant employed by the NHS Trust which detained him, also sat on the panel of the tribunal which heard the review of his detention.
Held: Such proceedings did engage the . .
Cited – Regina v Parole Board ex parte Smith, Regina v Parole Board ex parte West (Conjoined Appeals) HL 27-Jan-2005
Each defendant challenged the way he had been treated on revocation of his parole licence, saying he should have been given the opportunity to make oral representations.
Held: The prisoners’ appeals were allowed.
Lord Bingham stated: . .
Cited – B, Regina (on the Application of) v Ashworth Hospital Authority HL 17-Mar-2005
The House was asked whether a patient detained for treatment under the 1983 Act can be treated against his will for any mental disorder from which he is suffering or only for the particular form of mental disorder from which he is classified as . .
Cited – Regina v Ashworth Hospital Authority (Now Mersey Care National Health Service Trust) ex parte Munjaz HL 13-Oct-2005
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Human Rights, Health, Prisons
Updated: 10 January 2022; Ref: scu.165642
