CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 27 mai 2003

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s5FFF0A77 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:1pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s94935B0F { width:389.85pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s61E420C2 { font-family:Arial; font-variant:small-caps } .s69BE285C { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:85.05pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-85.05pt } .s18D96D33 { width:15.69pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sBF401EEE { width:32.35pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s3964C3A3 { width:1.36pt; display:inline-block } .s901C2590 { width:56.7pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS     281   27.5.2003   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER HEARING ON THE MERITS IN THE CASE OF H.L. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM   Tuesday 27 May 2003 at 9.30 a.m.   The applicant   The application (no. 45508/99) was brought by a United Kingdom national, born in 1949 and living in Surrey, England. He is autistic, suffers from a severe learning disability and a cyclical mood disorder and is prone to severe agitation and self-harm. He has spent most of his life in psychiatric care.   Summary of the facts   From March 1994 to July 1997 he spent a relatively successful period being looked after by carers in the community. In 1995 he started attending a day-care centre on a weekly basis. On 22   July 1997, while at the day-centre, he became particularly agitated, hitting his head and banging it against the wall. Staff could not contact his carers, so called a local doctor, who gave him a sedative. The applicant remained agitated and, on the recommendation of his social worker, was taken to hospital. A consultant psychiatrist diagnosed him as requiring in-patient treatment. With the help of two nurses, he was transferred to the hospital’s Intensive Behavioural Unit where he was admitted as an informal patient.   In or around September 1997 the applicant sought leave to apply for judicial review of the hospital’s decision to admit him. The High Court rejected his application, finding that he had not been “detained” but had been informally admitted in accordance with the principle of necessity under the common law as opposed to statute. The applicant appealed. On 29   October 1997 the Court of Appeal indicated that the appeal would be decided in his favour, whereupon the hospital admitted him on an emergency and involuntary basis under the Mental Health Act of 1983. The Court of Appeal found that the applicant had been “detained” in July 1997. A patient could be lawfully detained for treatment for mental disorder only under the provisions of the 1983 Act. Since the provisions of that Act had not been complied with, the applicant had not been lawfully detained. The relevant health-care authorities appealed. The applicant had applied, in the meantime, to the Mental Health Review Tribunal for a review of his detention. An independent psychiatric report was prepared, recommending his discharge. He was discharged to his carers on 12 December 1997. On 25   June 1998 the House of Lords allowed the appeal, finding that the applicant had been lawfully admitted as an informal patient on the basis of the principle of necessity under the common law.   Complaints   The applicant complains under Article 5 § 1 (right to liberty and security) of the European Convention on Human Rights that his detention between 22 July and 29 October 1997 was neither “in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law” nor “lawful”. In addition, he argues that his detention between 22 July and 12   December 1997 was not justified under Article 5 § 1 (e) because he was not of unsound mind. He complains further that the procedures available to him, as an informal patient between 22   July and 29 October 1997, for a review of the lawfulness of his detention did not satisfy the requirements of Article 5 § 4 (right to have lawfulness of detention decided speedily by a court).   Procedure   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 21 December 1998 and declared partly admissible on 10 September 2002.   Composition of the Court   The case will be heard by a Chamber composed as follows:   Matti Pellonpää (Finnish), President , Nicolas Bratza (British), Elisabeth Palm (Swedish), Viera Strážnická (Slovakian), Marc Fischbach (Luxemburger), Stanislav Pavlovschi (Moldovan), Lech Garlicki (Polish), judges , Josep Casadevall (Andorran) , Javier Borrego Borrego (Spanish) , substitute judges , and also Michael O’Boyle , Section Registrar .   Representatives of the parties   Government:   Helen Mulvein , Agent , Nigel Pleming and Rabinder Singh , Counsel , Lisa Venables , Adviser ;   Applicant:   Richard Gordon, Paul Bowen and Phillip King , Counsel, Robert Robinson , Adviser .   Mr E., the applicant’s carer, will also attend.   ***   After the hearing the Court will begin its deliberations, which are held in private. Judgment will be delivered at a later date.   Registry of the European Court of Human Rights F – 67075 Strasbourg Cedex Contacts:   Roderick Liddell (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 24 92)   Joanna Reynell (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 15)   Stéphanie Klein (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 21 54) Fax: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 27 91   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. On 1 November 1998 a full-time Court was established, replacing the original two-tier system of a part-time Commission and Court.