A patient detained under the Mental Health Act 1983 (MHA) may be released from compulsory detention in hospital subject to a community treatment order. The question arising on this appeal is whether a patient’s responsible clinician (may impose conditions in a CTO which amount to the deprivation of his liberty within the meaning of article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Held: There is no power to impose conditions in a CTO which have the effect of depriving a patient of his liberty.
Lady Hale (President), Lord Kerr, Lord Wilson, Lady Black, Lord Lloyd-Jones
 UKSC 66, UKSC 2018/0037
Bailii, Bailii Summary, SC, SC Summary, SC Summary Video, SC 2018 Oct 22 am Video, SC 2018 Oct 22 pm Video
Mental Health Act 1983, European Convention on Human Rights 5
England and Wales
Appeal from – The Secretary of State for Justice v MM CA 29-Mar-2017
Power of FTT to deprive patient of liberty
Two patients who had been confined to a secure hospital, appealed against orders which would continue to restrict their liberty upon being conditionally released. The parties now disputed the jurisdiction of the FTT to make such an order.
At UTAA – MM v WL Clinic and Another UTAA 23-Nov-2015
Mental Health : All – whether for the purposes of Article 5 a restricted patient who has the capacity to do so can give a valid consent to the terms of a conditional discharge that, when it is implemented, will on an objective assessment create a . .
Cited – The Secretary of State for Justice v RB and Another CA 20-Dec-2011
The court considered and rejected the possibility of the First Tier Tribunal making orders under the 2005 Act which would have the effect of depriving a patient of his liberty. The respondent, now aged 73, suffered a persistent delusional condition . .
Cited – P (By His Litigation Friend The Official Solicitor) v Cheshire West and Chester Council and Another and similar SC 19-Mar-2014
Deprivation of Liberty
P and Q were two adolescent sisters without capacity. They complained that the arrangements made for their care amounted to an unjustified deprivation of liberty, and now appealed against rejection of their cases. In the second case, P, an adult . .
Cited – Guzzardi v Italy ECHR 6-Nov-1980
The applicant, a suspected Mafioso, had been detained in custody pending his trial. At the end of the maximum period of detention pending trial, he had been taken to an island where, he complained, he was unable to work, keep his family permanently . .
Cited – Austin and Others v The United Kingdom ECHR 15-Mar-2012
Grand Chamber – The applicants complained that their restriction within a police cordon (a measure known as ‘kettling’) for up to seven hours during the course of a demonstration in central London amounted to a deprivation of their liberty in breach . .
Cited – Austin and Another v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis HL 28-Jan-2009
Movement retsriction was not Liberty Deprivation
The claimants had been present during a demonstration policed by the respondent. They appealed against dismissal of their claims for false imprisonment having been prevented from leaving Oxford Circus for over seven hours. The claimants appealed . .
Cited – HM Treasury v Ahmed and Others SC 4-Feb-2010
The Court had declared unlawful as ultra vires terrorism related orders made against the several claimants. The court now considered how restrictions imposed by banks should be dealt with.
Held: (Lord Hope dissenting as to the order required) . .
Cited – AXA General Insurance Ltd and Others v Lord Advocate and Others SC 12-Oct-2011
Standing to Claim under A1P1 ECHR
The appellants had written employers’ liability insurance policies. They appealed against rejection of their challenge to the 2009 Act which provided that asymptomatic pleural plaques, pleural thickening and asbestosis should constitute actionable . .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex Parte Pierson HL 24-Jul-1997
The Home Secretary may not later extend the tariff for a lifer, after it had been set by an earlier Home Secretary, merely to satisfy needs of retribution and deterrence: ‘A power conferred by Parliament in general terms is not to be taken to . .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for The Home Department Ex Parte Simms HL 8-Jul-1999
Ban on Prisoners talking to Journalists unlawful
The two prisoners, serving life sentences for murder, had had their appeals rejected. They continued to protest innocence, and sought to bring their campaigns to public attention through the press, having oral interviews with journalists without . .
Cited – In re S-C (Mental Patient: Habeas Corpus) CA 22-Nov-1995
The Court of Appeal issued habeas corpus because the applicant was committed to a mental institution pursuant to an application which was made by somebody who lacked the statutory authority to make it. The right of personal freedom is fundamental. . .
Cited – Regina v Special Commissioner And Another, ex parte Morgan Grenfell and Co Ltd HL 16-May-2002
The inspector issued a notice requiring production of certain documents. The respondents refused to produce them, saying that they were protected by legal professional privilege.
Held: Legal professional privilege is a fundamental part of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Health, Human Rights
Updated: 31 December 2021; Ref: scu.631395