The claimant sought damages, saying that he had been unlawfully detained when found unfit to plead in 1997.
Held: The claim failed. (a) The 1964 Act, and its Scottish equivalent, did not authorise anything that was arbitrary. (b) It followed that Parliament did not, by the 1986 Order, pass subordinate legislation which authorised arbitrary detention at hospital. (c) It was clear from Dr Gray’s report to the Belfast Crown Court that the appellant’s compulsory hospitalisation was justified. No other interpretation of the report, when read as a whole, was tenable. (d) The subsequent transfers were lawful in terms of the legislation which authorised them. The key statutory word was ‘corresponding’ and the statutory provisions dealing with fitness to plea in the different parts of the United Kingdom came within that definition. (e) The appellant’s detention at hospital throughout the period of detention has been lawfully authorised by relevant domestic legislation. (f) The 1998 Act did not operate retrospectively and events at the Belfast Crown Court in 1997 could not be challenged under article 6 of the Convention.
Citations:
[2007] EWHC 3024 (Admin)
Links:
Statutes:
European Convention on Human Rights 5, Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984 81(1), Criminal Procedure (Insanity) Act 1964
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal from – Juncal, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department and others CA 25-Jul-2008
The claimant appealed dismissal of his claim for wrongful imprisonment having been detained in 1997 on being found unfit to plead to an offence of violence.
Held: Parliament had a legitimate concern for the protection of the public, and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Criminal Practice, Health
Updated: 04 December 2022; Ref: scu.262947