The applicant was a restricted mental patient. His conditional release had been ordered, but required a consultant psychiatrist to be found who would agree to supervise him. None such could be found, and his detention continued. After two years he contended that his continued detention infringed his human rights.
Held: Campbell’s case required s73 to operate in two stages. The decision was made for a release, subject to conditions. The second stage was met once those arrangements were in place, and at that point the conditional release was ordered. Article 5.4 required a speedy decision, and there was a clear potential conflict. To avoid that conflict Campbell might no longer be followed. Instead, a provisional decision directing a conditional discharge should be made, but that direction should be deferred to allow for arrangements for psychiatric treatment in the community. The health authority was under a duty to provide assistance. If no such help was forthcoming, the tribunal might then be obliged to decide to continue the detention. That would avoid incompatibility.
Judges:
Lord Justice Jonathan Parker
Citations:
Times 24-May-2002, Gazette 20-Jun-2002, [2002] EWCA Civ 646, [2003] QB 320, [2002] 3 WLR 967
Links:
Statutes:
Mental Health Act 1983 73 117, European Convention on Human Rights 3 5.4
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
No longer compliant – Regina v Oxford Regional Mental Health Review Tribunal, Ex parte Secretary of State for the Home Department (Campbell’s Case) HL 1988
The House decided that section 73 of the 1983 Act provided a two-stage process in relation to a patient’s conditional discharge. The tribunal first decides that it will direct the discharge subject to conditions, but defers giving the direction so . .
Cited – Johnson v The United Kingdom ECHR 24-Oct-1997
Mr Johnson awaited trial for crimes of violence. He was diagnosed mentally ill, and on conviction made subject to a hospital order, and restricted without limit of time. He made progress, but was not discharged or re-classified. At a fourth tribunal . .
Appeal from – Regina (on the Application IH) v Nottinghamshire Healthcare NHS Trust and Others Admn 5-Dec-2001
Whether the 1983 Act, and in particular its provisions governing the conditional discharge and deferral of conditional discharge of ‘restricted patients’, are compatible with Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights. . .
Cited by:
Cited – Regina (C) v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 15-May-2002
A mental health review tribunal had recommended the conditional release of the applicant, a restricted patient in a high security hospital. A community social worker’s report was only later made available to the tribunal.
Held: There was no . .
Cited – Farnell, Regina (on Application By) v Criminal Cases Review Commission Admn 15-Apr-2003
The appellant sought judicial review of the respondents refusal to refer his case back to the Court of Appeal.
Held: The Commission had misunderstood the way in which the Court of Appeal worked, by anticipating that it would reconsider the . .
Appeal from – Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department and Another ex parte IH HL 13-Nov-2003
The appellant had been found unfit to plead after assaulting his son, and he had been detained under the 1964 Act. He alleged his detention was in breach of his right to a fair trial. His release had been authorised subject to the appointment of a . .
Appealed to – Regina (on the Application IH) v Nottinghamshire Healthcare NHS Trust and Others Admn 5-Dec-2001
Whether the 1983 Act, and in particular its provisions governing the conditional discharge and deferral of conditional discharge of ‘restricted patients’, are compatible with Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights. . .
Cited – Regina (W) v Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council Admn 13-Feb-2003
The claimant sought damages for false imprisonment. The mental health tribunal had ordered his release, but the respondent had delayed that release.
Held: False imprisonment is established on proof of imprisonment without lawful authority. An . .
Cited – Regina (C) v Mental Health Review Tribunal and Others QBD 17-Jan-2005
C applied for judicial review of the refusal by the respondent to order his absolute discharge, and the continuation of the restriction order. He said the tribunal had taken account of earlier reporst referring to a psychopathic personality . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Health, Human Rights
Updated: 02 September 2022; Ref: scu.170307
