E, now aged 19, suffered a genetic disorder leading to severe learning disability and lack of mental capacity. He had been in the care of his sister, the appellant, but had been removed by the local authority when his behaviour became disturbed. G, his sister sought an order for his return to F, his carer for several years. The judge found his detention unlawful, but ordered only a staged return. G appealed. The Official Solicitor, intervening, said that the issue amounted to ‘was the judge right or wrong to reject the appellant’s submission that Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) places distinct threshold conditions which have to be satisfied before a person accepted to be lacking capacity can be detained in his or her best interests under the statutory regime established by the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA 2005)?’
Held: Baker J’s judgment on the issue was correct, and the appeal failed. The 2007 Act satisfied the requirement for such detentions to bne according to law and was ECHR Article 5 compliant. There was no question of incompatibility. The appeal was based upon arguments which may have applied had E suffered mental illness, but he did not. The evidence of impairment was essentially paediatric.
Judges:
Sir Nicholas Wall P, Thorpe J, Hedley J
Citations:
[2010] EWCA Civ 822, [2010] 2 FLR 294, [2010] Fam Law 703, [2010] 4 All ER 579
Links:
Statutes:
European Convention on Human Rights 5 8, Mental Capacity Act 2005, Mental Health Act 2007
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – G v E and Others CoP 26-Mar-2010
E Was born with and still suffered severe learning difficulties. The court was asked as to the extent of his capacity to make decisions, and as to where he should live, with a family member, the carer or with the local authority, which had removed . .
Leave to appeal – G v E and Others CA 4-May-2010
E, now aged 19, suffered a genetic condition leading to severe learning disability, and a lack of mental capacity. After being in the care of F, but displaying potentially violent behaviours, he was removed against his and F’s will to the care of . .
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 – In re PS (an Adult), Re; City of Sunderland v PS by her litigation friend the Offcial Solcicitor and CA; Re PS (Incapacitated or Vulnerable Adult) FD 9-Mar-2007
The patient an elderly lady with limited mental capacity was to be returned from hospital, but her daughter said she was to come home. The local authority sought to prevent this, wanting to return her to a residential unit where she had lived for . .
Cited – Ashingdane v The United Kingdom ECHR 28-May-1985
The right of access to the courts is not absolute but may be subject to limitations. These are permitted by implication since the right of access ‘by its very nature calls for regulation by the State, regulation which may vary in time and place . .
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 – Witold Litwa v Poland ECHR 4-Apr-2000
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 5-1; Pecuniary damage – claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage – financial award; Costs and expenses partial award – Convention proceedings
A . .
Cited – Varbanov v Bulgaria ECHR 5-Oct-2000
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Preliminary objection rejected (abuse of right of petition); Violation of Art. 5-1; Violation of Art. 5-4; Pecuniary damage – claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage – . .
Cited – HL v United Kingdom ECHR 2004
Lack of Patient Safeguards was Infringement
The claimant had been detained at a mental hospital as in ‘informal patient’. He was an autistic adult. He had been recommended for release by the Mental Health Review Tribunal, and it was decided that he should be released. He was detained further . .
Cited – Surrey County Council v MB and Others FD 9-Oct-2007
The MCA 2005 had specifically codified the approach and principles previously recognised and applied under the inherent jurisdiction . .
Cited – In re PS (an Adult), Re; City of Sunderland v PS by her litigation friend the Offcial Solcicitor and CA; Re PS (Incapacitated or Vulnerable Adult) FD 9-Mar-2007
The patient an elderly lady with limited mental capacity was to be returned from hospital, but her daughter said she was to come home. The local authority sought to prevent this, wanting to return her to a residential unit where she had lived for . .
Cited – St George’s Healthcare National Health Service Trust v S (No 2); Regina v Collins and Others ex parte S (No 2) CA 3-Aug-1998
The patient came to hospital pregnant. The doctors advised a caesarian section but she refused it. The doctors said that she lacked capacity and applied to the court for leave to proceed.
Held: It was wrong to apply to the court to override . .
Cited – Gil v Baygreen Properties Ltd CA 5-Jul-2002
The applicant had defended an action for possession for arrears of rent, and counterclaimed for damages for failure to repair. A compromise was put to the court, and the court took that as consent and made a possession order. The tenant appealed. . .
Cited – G v G (Minors: Custody appeal) CA 1985
A court should take great care before setting aside a decision of a judge which had involved the exercise of a judicial discretion. The court considered the duty of an appellate court in a children case: ‘What this court should seek to do is to . .
Cited by:
See Also – G v E and Others FD 21-Dec-2010
(Court of Protection) Baker J awarded costs against a local authority which had been guilty of misconduct which, he held, justified departure from the general rule. He observed: ‘Parties should be free to bring personal welfare issues to the Court . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Health, Human Rights
Updated: 21 August 2022; Ref: scu.420800