The petitioner challenged his detention and treatment as a mental patient under the 1984 Act, claiming that his human rights to a fair trial had been infringed. It was argued that since the Act automatically dispensed with his common law right to refuse treatment, he had had denied to him the chance to have this issue determined by a court.
Held: The Act created a class of people, membership of which gave certain rights and took others away. He had rights to challenge his membership of that class, but he now sought to challenge the consequences of that membership. The attempt was misplaced under article 6. Under article 8, he questioned whether the interference in his rights was necessary. Given the acceptance that some limitation was permissible, it was a question of degree. It was not shown that the provisions were so far out of line with other states as to justify affirmation that the legislation was disproportionate.
Judges:
Lord Eassie
Citations:
Times 26-Aug-2002
Statutes:
Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984, European Convention on Human Rights 1 6 8
Jurisdiction:
Scotland
Citing:
Cited – James and Others v The United Kingdom ECHR 21-Feb-1986
The claimants challenged the 1967 Act, saying that it deprived them of their property rights when lessees were given the power to purchase the freehold reversion.
Held: Article 1 (P1-1) in substance guarantees the right of property. Allowing a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Health, Human Rights
Updated: 05 May 2022; Ref: scu.174738
