CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 21 juin 2005

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 76 June 2005 Kolanis v. the United Kingdom - 517/02 Judgment 21.6.2005 [Section IV] Article 5 Article 5-1 Lawful arrest or detention Deferral of discharge from detentionin psychiatric hospital: no violation   Article 5-4 Speediness of review Adequacy of safeguards for a prompt review of lawfulness of psychiatric detention: violation   Facts : The applicant, who had been convicted of causing grievous bodily harm with intent and found to be suffering from a mental illness, was detained in hospital. She subsequently applied for her discharge from detention. Her application was reviewed by the Mental Health Review Tribunal (“MHRT”). Despite the contrary view of two experts, the MHRT concluded in August 1999 that the applicant was to be conditionally discharged on condition that she resided at the home of her parents and continue to take medication under proper psychiatric supervision. The discharge was deferred until arrangements had been made to meet these conditions. However, no psychiatrist or institution was found who was willing to supervise the applicant in accordance with the conditions imposed. The health authority concluded that there were no further steps it could take. The applicant’s application for judicial review was rejected by the High Court in June 2000, which found that the health authority was not under an absolute duty to implement the MHRT’s conditions, but rather to take all reasonable steps to attempt to satisfy those conditions. In August 2000, a differently constituted MHRT considered the applicant’s case afresh, concluding that the applicant should be discharged on condition that she resided in accommodation approved by her doctor and continued with the prescribed medication. After the necessary arrangements had been made to meet the conditions, the applicant was discharged from hospital to a resettlement project hostel in December 2000. Her subsequent appeals against the judgment of the High Court of June 2000 were rejected. Law : Article 5 § 1 – The Court could not accept the applicant’s contention that the first MHRT decision ordering her conditional discharge could be interpreted as meaning that her compulsory confinement was no longer warranted. Her discharge was only appropriate if there was continued treatment or supervision to protect her own health and the safety of the community. In the absence of that treatment, her detention continued to be necessary. Moreover, although the conditions imposed for her release could not be met, there was no absolute obligation on the authorities to ensure fulfilment of the conditions. The Court was not persuaded that local authorities or doctors could have wilfully blocked the discharge of the applicant into the community without proper grounds or excuse. In conclusion, the applicant continued to suffer from an illness which justified compulsory detention within the exception of Article 5 § 1(e). Conclusion : no violation (unanimously). Article 5 § 4– The issue to be determined was whether the MHRT’s inability to review with due speed the applicant’s continued detention (of its own motion or on that of the applicant) had complied with the requirements of this provision. The second review by the MHRT took place over a year after the initial decision by the MHRT. During this period, the applicant was unable to have the issues from supervening events examined by a court. These were only reviewed by the MHRT after the Secretary of State, in the exercise of his discretion, referred the case back to this body. The lapse of twelve months until this referral took place could not be regarded as sufficiently prompt to remedy this defect. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 5 § 5 – In view of the Court’s finding of a breach of Article 5 § 4, and the fact that there was no enforceable right to compensation in the United Kingdom prior to the entry into force of the Human Rights Act 1998 (as conceded by the Government), there had also been a violation of Article 5 § 5. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 41 – The Court awarded the applicant 6,000 euros in respect of non-pecuniary damage. It also made an award for costs and expenses.   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes