Lee-Hirons v Secretary of State for Justice: SC 27 Jul 2016

The appellant had been detained in a mental hospital after a conviction. Later released, he was recalled, but he was not given written reasons as required by a DoH circular. However the SS referred the recall immediately to the Tribunal. He appealed from refusal of a finding that his subsequent detention had been unlawful.
Held: Though there had been conceded breaches by the SS, ‘there is no link, let alone a direct link, between, on the one hand, the Minister’s wrongful failure for 12 days to provide to the appellant an adequate explanation for his recall and, on the other, the lawfulness of his detention. The failure did not delay reference of his case to the First-tier Tribunal. Nor has the appellant suggested that it delayed institution of the present proceedings. Even if it had created delay, the unequivocal statement of Lord Mance and Lord Hughes in the Kaiyam case about the limited effects of a violation of article 5(4) would appear to exclude the relevance of the delay to the validity of the detention itself.’
The SS did concede an infringement of the claimant’s human rights, and damages had to be assessed, as to which: ‘damages should not be payable to the appellant for the breach of his right under article 5(2) of the Convention any more than that they should be payable for the breach of his right at common law. He has failed to establish that their effects on him were sufficiently grave. Nor would a formal declaration in this court’s order add anything to my recording in this judgment of the Minister’s concessions’
Lady Hale, Deputy President, Lord Kerr, Lord Wilson, Lord Reed, Lord Toulson
[2016] UKSC 46, [2017] AC 52, [2016] 3 WLR 590, [2016] Med LR 551, [2016] WLR(D) 424, (2016) 151 BMLR 1, (2016) 19 CCL Rep 383, UKSC 2014/0248
Bailii, Bailii Summary, WLRD, SC, SC Summary
Human Rights Act 1998, Mental Health Act 1983 42(3)
England and Wales
Citing:
At AdmnLee-Hirons, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice and Another Admn 28-Jun-2013
This case raises, among other matters, an issue about whether reasons for a restricted patient’s recall to detention in a hospital have to be provided orally or in writing. . .
Appeal fromLee-Hirons, Regina (on The Application of) v The Secretary of State for Justice and Another CA 1-May-2014
The Court was asked significant questions as to the procedure to be followed when a person is recalled by the Secretary of State to be detained in a hospital under the power conferred by section 42(3) of the Mental Health Act 1983. The Appellant . .
CitedChristie v Leachinsky HL 25-Mar-1947
Arrested Person must be told basis of the Arrest
Police officers appealed against a finding of false imprisonment. The plaintiff had been arrested under the 1921 Act, but this provided no power of arrest (which the appellant knew). The officers might lawfully have arrested the plaintiff for the . .
CitedX v United Kingdom ECHR 5-Nov-1981
(Commission) The application was made a patient, restricted under the 1959 Act. A mental health review tribunal which concluded that the continued detention of a restricted patient was no longer justified had power to recommend but not to order the . .
CitedFox, Campbell and Hartley v The United Kingdom ECHR 30-Aug-1990
The court considered the required basis for a reasonable suspicion to found an arrest without a warrant: ‘The ‘reasonableness’ of the suspicion on which an arrest must be based forms an essential part of the safeguard against arbitrary arrest and . .
CitedRegina v Secretary of State for the Home Department Ex parte Saadi and others HL 31-Oct-2002
The applicants were Kurdish asylum seekers. The Home Secretary introduced powers to detain certain asylum seekers for a short period in order to facilitate the speedy resolution of their applications. Only those who it was suspected might run away . .
CitedCullen v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary (Northern Ireland) HL 10-Jul-2003
The claimant had been arrested. He had been refused access to a solicitor whilst detaiined, but, in breach of statutory duty, he had not been given reasons as to why access was denied. He sought damages for that failure.
Held: If damages were . .
CitedMM, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 6-Jul-2007
Challenge to directions given by the respondent for the recall of the appellant to a mental hospital.
Held: The breach of a condition would, if of ‘sufficient significance’ justify a recall. . .
CitedGreenfield, 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 . .
CitedSaadi v United Kingdom ECHR 29-Jan-2008
(Grand Chamber) The applicant sought judicial review of the decision to detain him for a short period while his asylum claim was being subject to fast-track processing. The decision was made pursuant to a policy under which all asylum claimants . .
CitedMandalia v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 14-Oct-2015
The Court considered the guidance given to UK Border Agency case workers when considering document submitted by persons applying for leave to enter or stay in the UK as foreign students. M had applied to study here, but had not accompanied his . .
CitedLumba (WL) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 23-Mar-2011
The claimants had been detained under the 1971 Act, after completing sentences of imprisonment pending their return to their home countries under deportations recommended by the judges at trial, or chosen by the respondent. They challenged as . .
CitedKambadzi (previously referred to as SK (Zimbabwe)) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 25-May-2011
False Imprisonment Damages / Immigration Detention
The respondent had held the claimant in custody, but had failed to follow its own procedures. The claimant appealed against the rejection of his claim of false imprisonment. He had overstayed his immigration leave, and after convictions had served a . .
CitedFaulkner, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice and Another SC 1-May-2013
The applicants had each been given a life sentence, but having served the minimum term had been due to have the continued detention reviewed to establish whether or not continued detention was necessary for the protection of the pblic. It had not . .
CitedZagidulina v Russia ECHR 2-May-2013
The Court limited itself to article 5(1)(e), when it stated that: ‘the notion of ‘lawfulness’ in the context of article 5(1)(e) of the Convention might have a broader meaning than in national legislation. Lawfulness of detention necessarily presumes . .
CitedHaney and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v The Secretary of State for Justice SC 10-Dec-2014
The four claimants, each serving indeterminate prison sentences, said that as they approached the times when thy might apply for parol, they had been given insufficient support and training to meet the requirements for release. The courts below had . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 07 January 2021; Ref: scu.567607