CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 4 mai 2004

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; 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 64 May 2004 Kolanis v. the United Kingdom (dec.) - 517/02 Decision 4.5.2004 [Section IV] Article 5 Article 5-1-e Persons of unsound mind Deferral of discharge from detentionin psychiatric hospital: admissible The applicant, who had been convicted of causing grievous bodily harm and found to be suffering from a mental illness, was detained in hospital. She subsequently applied for her discharge from detention. A review by a Mental Health Review Tribunal (“MHRT”) took place in May 1999. Despite the contrary view of two psychiatrists, the MHRT concluded that the applicant was to be conditionally discharged on condition that she reside 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 there were no further steps it could take. The applicant's application for judicial review was rejected by the High Court, which found that the health authority was not under an absolute duty to implement the MHRT 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 conditionally discharged. After the necessary arrangements had been made to meet the conditions, the applicant was discharged from hospital in December 2000. Admissible under Articles 5 and 13.   © 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