Damages were claimed by three mental health patients whose rights under Article 5(4) had been infringed because of inordinate delay in processing their claims to mental health review tribunals.
Held: Article 5.5 did not make an award of damages mandatory. It was complied with provided that it was possible to make an application for compensation; it did not preclude the Contracting States from making the award of compensation conditional upon proof that procedural delay had resulted in damage. Should compensation be awarded where delay has caused frustration and distress? ‘I conclude that there is no ‘clear and constant jurisprudence’ of the European Court on the recoverability of damages for distress under Article 5.5 in the absence of deprivation of liberty. There are two principles applied by the Court: that damages are not recoverable in the absence of deprivation of liberty, and that damages are recoverable for distress which may be inferred from the facts of the case. It follows that this Court must itself determine the principles it is to apply.’ Having regard for the vulnerability of detained mental health patients: ‘Thus, even in the case of mentally ill claimants, not every feeling of frustration and distress will justify an award of damages. The frustration and distress must be significant: of such intensity that it would in itself justify an award of compensation for non-pecuniary damages. In my judgment, an important touchstone of that intensity in cases such as the present will be that the hospital staff considered it to be sufficiently relevant to the mental state of the patient to warrant its mention in the clinical notes.’
Judges:
Stanley Burnton J
Citations:
[2002] EWHC 639 (Admin), [2003] EWHC 193 (Admn), [2004] 1 QB 936
Links:
Statutes:
European Convention on Human Rights 5.4 5.5
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Appealed to – KB v National Health Service Pensions Agency and Secretary of State for Health ECJ 7-Jan-2004
The claimant had for a number of years had a relationship with a trans-sexual. They had been unable to marry because English law would not recognise a marriage. She compained that on her death her partner would be unable to claim the pension awarded . .
Cited by:
Cited – Anufrijeva and Another v London Borough of Southwark CA 16-Oct-2003
The various claimants sought damages for established breaches of their human rights involving breaches of statutory duty by way of maladministration. Does the state have a duty to provide support so as to avoid a threat to the family life of the . .
Cited – P, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department Admn 11-Dec-2003
The applicant was a discretionary life prisoner compulsorily detained in a mental hospital. His tariff had now expired. If not detained under the 1983 Act he would now be entitled to a review. He argued that there should be a joint hearing.
Appeal from – KB v National Health Service Pensions Agency and Secretary of State for Health ECJ 7-Jan-2004
The claimant had for a number of years had a relationship with a trans-sexual. They had been unable to marry because English law would not recognise a marriage. She compained that on her death her partner would be unable to claim the pension awarded . .
Cited – Greenfield, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 16-Feb-2005
The appellant had been charged with and disciplined for a prison offence. He was refused legal assistance at his hearing, and it was accepted that the proceedings involved the determination of a criminal charge within the meaning of article 6 of the . .
Cited – Degainis, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice Admn 3-Feb-2010
The claimant sought damages. He had been released from prison and recalled, but the review of his continued detention was not undertaken as it should have been. The defendant said that the acknowledgement and apology were sufficient just . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Health, Human Rights
Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.172200