CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 17 mai 1990

.sDD6737AE { font-size:11pt } .s211D6B00 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:normal; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:8.5pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial }  AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF     Application No. 16397/90 by Robert TURNBRIDGE against the United Kingdom             The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 17 May 1990, the following members being present:                   MM.   C.A. NØRGAARD, President                      S. TRECHSEL                      E. BUSUTTIL                      A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK                      A. WEITZEL                      J.C. SOYER                      H.G. SCHERMERS                      H. DANELIUS                      J. CAMPINOS                      H. VANDENBERGHE                 Mrs.   G.H. THUNE                 Sir   Basil HALL                 M.    F. MARTINEZ                 Mrs.   J. LIDDY                 Mr.   L. LOUCAIDES                   Mr.   H.C. KRÜGER, Secretary to the Commission             Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;           Having regard to the application introduced on 15 August 1989 by Robert TURNBRIDGE against the United Kingdom and registered on 4 April 1990 under file No. 16397/90;           Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 40 of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission;           Having deliberated;           Decides as follows:   THE FACTS           The applicant is a citizen of the United Kingdom, born in 1958 and compulsorily detained in Broadmoor Hospital, Crowthorne, Berkshire.           The applicant complains of his continued detention in a secure mental hospital.   He states that he is "good, not mad or evil" and that he is "greater than Jesus Christ".   He alleges that the hospital staff assault and poison him.           A medical report dated 21 February 1989 by the applicant's responsible medical officer states that the applicant suffers from a chronic psychotic, schizophrenic illness and that he shows violent, disturbed behaviour which high levels of medication and treatment have not managed to diminish.   The Mental Health Review Tribunal decided on 12 December 1989 that the applicant should not be discharged as he is seriously mentally ill, the applicant remaining "bizarrely deluded, grandiose in his ideas, without insight, and sure of the workings of a 'power' upon him which makes him do things".   COMPLAINTS           The applicant claims to be a victim of a violation of Articles 5 and 6 of the Convention.   He states that his further detention in Broadmoor is unjustified and his treatment there in breach of Article 5.   He also alleges that the right to a Mental Health Review Tribunal decision but once a year is contrary to the reasonable time requirements of Article 6 of the Convention.   THE LAW   1.       The applicant has complained that his continued detention and treatment in a secure mental hospital violates Article 5 (Art. 5) of the Convention, the relevant part of which provides as follows:           "1.   Everyone has the right to liberty and security of         person.   No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in         the following cases and in accordance with a procedure         prescribed by law: ...           (e)   the lawful detention ... of persons of unsound mind ...           4.    Everyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or         detention shall be entitled to take proceedings by which         the lawfulness of his detention shall be decided speedily         by a court and his release ordered if the detention is         not lawful."           The Commission has examined the applicant's case, as it has been submitted by him, but finds no evidence that the applicant is not lawfully detained as a person of unsound mind within the meaning of Article 5 para. 1 (e) (Art. 5-1-e) of the Convention.   Moreover, the applicant has had the benefit of a periodic review of the lawfulness of his detention by the Mental Health Review Tribunal, which may be considered as a court for the purposes of Article 5 para. 4 (Art. 5-4) of the Convention in cases like that of the applicant.           In this connection, the applicant has complained that an annual verification of the lawfulness of his detention by the Mental Health Review Tribunal is insufficient for the purposes of the time requirements of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention. However, the appropriate Convention provision, the lex specialis, for the discharge of mental patients is the aforementioned Article 5 para. 4 (Art. 5-4) of the Convention, which has been interpreted by the Convention organs as requiring the periodic review of the lawfulness of the continued compulsory detention.   Once instituted such reviews must be conducted speedily (Eur. Court H.R., Luberti judgment of 23 February 1984, Series A no. 75, p. 15, paras. 31-32).           The Commission finds nothing to suggest that the period of a year which the applicant must respect before he can reapply to the Mental Health Review Tribunal for his discharge is an unreasonable interval in the circumstances of the present case.   Moreover, the Commission notes that the applicant has not alleged that the Tribunal has failed to deal with his applications, once instituted, with the speed required by Article 5 para. 4 (Art. 5-4) of the Convention.           In these circumstances the Commission concludes that the applicant's continued detention in Broadmoor Hospital does not disclose any appearance of a violation of Article 5 (Art. 5) of the Convention.   These aspects of the case are, therefore, manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.   2.       Finally, the applicant has complained of ill-treatment, namely assault and poisoning, by the hospital staff.   However, the Commission is unable to deal with these matters as the applicant has made no attempt to exhaust domestic remedies such as civil litigation in trespass to person (assault) or negligence.   This part of the application must therefore be rejected under Articles 26 (Art. 26) and 27 para. 3 (Art. 27-3) of the Convention.           For these reasons, the Commission           DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.     Secretary to the Commission          President of the Commission              (H.C. KRÜGER)                       (C.A. NØRGAARD)