The claimants appealed against the imposition on them of smoking bans while they were compulsorily detained at Rampton Hospital. They said that other persons detained for example in prisons had been exempted fully.
Held: The right or freedom to smoke does not engage article 8(1) of the Convention. The appeal failed: ‘We reject the argument that the right to smoke was an aspect of the ‘right to establish and develop relationships with other human beings and the outside world’, which Lord Hope placed ‘ to a certain degree’, within the scope of the protection of article 8 . . We accept the submission . . that, although there is some evidence that smoking in a hospital like Rampton had some elements of social interaction, it was very limited because it could only take place in small smoking rooms with few if any others being present at the same time.’ The Secretary of State had successfully justified the difference of treatment between mental health units and prisons. The Exemption Regulations did not go beyond what was contemplated in the 2006 Act. They were intra vires and were both reasonable and proportionate.
Lord Clarke of Stone Cum Ebony MR, Keene LJ, Moses LJ
[2009] EWCA Civ 795, Times 10-Aug-2009, [2009] HRLR 31, [2010] PTSR 674
Bailii
Smoke-Free (Exemption & Vehicles) Regulations 2007 10, European Convention on Human Rights 8 1, Mental Health Act 1983 3, Health Act 2006
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Bruggeman and Scheuten v Federal Republic of Germany ECHR 12-Jul-1977
(Commission) The applicants complained at restrictions on the termination of unwanted pregnancies.
Held: Article 8(1) secures to the individual a sphere within which he can freely pursue the development and fulfilment of his personality. He . .
Cited – Countryside Alliance and others, Regina (on the Application of) v Attorney General and Another HL 28-Nov-2007
The appellants said that the 2004 Act infringed their rights under articles 8 11 and 14 and Art 1 of protocol 1.
Held: Article 8 protected the right to private and family life. Its purpose was to protect individuals from unjustified intrusion . .
Cited – Bensaid v The United Kingdom ECHR 6-Feb-2001
The applicant was a schizophrenic and an illegal immigrant. He claimed that his removal to Algeria would deprive him of essential medical treatment and sever ties that he had developed in the UK that were important for his well-being. He claimed . .
Cited – Raninen v Finland ECHR 16-Dec-1997
The complainant had been handcuffed unjustifiably and in public but not with the intention of debasing or humiliating him and not so as to affect him sufficiently to attain the minimum level of severity.
Held: The application was rejected The . .
Cited – Pretty v The United Kingdom ECHR 29-Apr-2002
Right to Life Did Not include Right to Death
The applicant was paralysed and suffered a degenerative condition. She wanted her husband to be allowed to assist her suicide by accompanying her to Switzerland. English law would not excuse such behaviour. She argued that the right to die is not . .
Cited – RJM, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions HL 22-Oct-2008
The 1987 Regulations provided additional benefits for disabled persons, but excluded from benefit those who had nowhere to sleep. The claimant said this was irrational. He had been receiving the disability premium to his benefits, but this was . .
Cited – Kjeldsen, Busk Madsen and Pedersen v Denmark ECHR 7-Dec-1976
The court discussed the meaning of ‘other status’ under article 14, saying: ‘Article 14 prohibits, within the ambit of the rights and freedoms guaranteed, discriminatory treatment having as its basis or reason a personal characteristic (‘status’) by . .
Cited – In re MB (Medical Treatment) CA 26-Mar-1997
The patient was due to deliver a child. A delivery by cesarean section was necessary, but the mother had a great fear of needles, and despite consenting to the operation, refused the necessary consent to anesthesia in any workable form.
Held: . .
Cited – Regina v Sectretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Razgar etc HL 17-Jun-2004
The claimant resisted removal after failure of his claim for asylum, saying that this would have serious adverse consequences to his mental health, infringing his rights under article 8. He appealed the respondent’s certificate that his claim was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Health, Prisons
Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.361455