The claimant was detained as a mental patient. He complained that a consultant employed by the NHS Trust which detained him, also sat on the panel of the tribunal which heard the review of his detention.
Held: Such proceedings did engage the applicant’s right to a fair trial. The issue was whether a fair-minded and informed observer, having considered the facts would perceive a real possibility of subconscious bias. The tribunal had to offer sufficient guarantees to exclude any legitimate doubt as to its impartiality. The consultant’s denial of bias was of no consequence. The consultant had no contact outside the tribunal with the case or any party to it. He was acting outside the roles in which he might be subject to any pressure, and his employment rights were established. No threat of bias was established.
Judges:
Silber J
Citations:
[2003] EWHC 2469 (Admin), Times 31-Oct-2003, Gazette 02-Jan-2004
Links:
Statutes:
Mental Health Act 1983 3, Mental Health Review Tribunal Rules 1983 (SI 1983/942) 2
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Porter and Weeks v Magill HL 13-Dec-2001
Councillors Liable for Unlawful Purposes Use
The defendant local councillors were accused of having sold rather than let council houses in order to encourage an electorate which would be more likely to be supportive of their political party. They had been advised that the policy would be . .
Cited – Aerts v Belgium ECHR 30-Jul-1998
A person detained as a person of unsound mind should not be kept in a prison, but if the institution concerned is within the appropriate category, there is no breach of Article 5. While measures depriving a person of his liberty often involve an . .
Cited – Findlay v The United Kingdom ECHR 25-Feb-1997
The applicant complained that the members of a court-martial were appointed by the Convening Officer, who was closely linked to the prosecuting authorities. The members of the court-martial were subordinate in rank to the Convening Officer who had . .
Cited – Johnson v Johnson 7-Sep-2000
(High Court of Australia) When looking to test whether a member of the public would perceive bias in a court, it is unnecessary to delve into the characteristics to be attributed to the fair-minded and informed observer. One is entitled to conclude . .
Cited – Regina v Boyd, Hastie, Spear (Courts Martial Appeal Court), Regina v Saunby, Clarkson, English, Williams, Dodds, and others HL 18-Jul-2002
Corts Martial System Complant with Human Rights
The applicants were each convicted by courts martial of offences under civil law. They claimed that the courts martial were not independent tribunals because of the position of the president of the court, and that it was wrong to try a serviceman by . .
Cited – Lawal v Northern Spirit Limited HL 19-Jun-2003
Counsel appearing at the tribunal had previously sat as a judge with a tribunal member. The opposing party asserted bias in the tribunal.
Held: The test in Gough should be restated in part so that the court must first ascertain all the . .
Cited – Sramek v Austria ECHR 22-Oct-1984
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1; Pecuniary damage – claim rejected; Costs and expenses award – domestic proceedings; Costs and expenses award – Convention proceedings
The . .
Cited – Belilos v Switzerland ECHR 29-Apr-1988
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Preliminary objection rejected (validity of declaration); Violation of Art. 6-1; Costs and expenses award – domestic proceedings; Costs and expenses award – . .
Cited – Langborger v Sweden ECHR 22-Jun-1989
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1; Pecuniary damage – claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage – finding of violation sufficient; Costs and expenses award – Convention proceedings
Cited – Morris v The United Kingdom ECHR 26-Feb-2002
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1 with regard to general structure of court martial system; No violation of Art. 6-1 with regard to specific complaints; No violation of Art. . .
Cited – Re A Company CA 1980
The court considered that even when not narrowly construing the word ‘officer’ in the Act, that word meant, in that context, ‘a person in a managerial position in regard to the company’s affairs’ . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Health, Human Rights
Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.187120