B v Mental Health Review Tribunal & Anor, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, July 22, 2002, [2002] EWHC 1553 (Admin)

Reporting Judge: [2002] EWHC 1553 (Admin)

President: B v Mental Health Review Tribunal & Anor

Linked as:

Extract

B v Mental Health Review Tribunal & Anor, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, July 22, 2002, [2002] EWHC 1553 (Admin)

Case No: CO/1586/2001

Neutral Citation Number: [2002] EWHC 1553 (Admin)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION

ADMINISTRATIVE COURT

Royal Courts of Justice

Strand,

London, WC2A 2LL

Monday 22 July 2002

Before :

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Between :

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of

Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 190 Fleet Street

London EC4A 2AG

Tel No: 020 7421 4040, Fax No: 020 7831 8838

Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Mr Paul Bowen & Miss D Teipley (instructed by Scott Moncrieff, Harbour and Sinclair) for the Claimant

Mr Tim Mould (instructed by Treasury Solicitor) for the First Defendant

Mr Martin Chamberlain (instructed by Treasury Solicitor) for the Second Defendant

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Judgment

As Approved by the Court

Mr Justice Scott Baker:

Introduction

1. Article 5(4) of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms ("the ECHR") provides that:

"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."

2. B, who is the Claimant in these proceedings is a restricted patient under Sections 37 and 41 of the Mental Health Act 1983 ("the 1983 Act"). He was recalled to hospital under Section 42(3) of the 1983 Act by the Secretary of State on 2 February 2001. His case was heard substantively by the Mental Health Review Tribunal ("the tribunal") on 8, 9 and 10 October 2001 and its decision not to discharge him was promulgated on 18 October 2001. He claims the delay of between 8 and 9 months amounts to a breach of Article 5(4) of the ECHR. All parties agree that a delay of this length is on the face of it unacceptable and requires justification if the court is not to find a breach of Article 5(4).

Chronology

3. In order better to understand the issues in this case it is helpful to have in mind the chronology. B is a paedophile with a psychiatric disorder. On 7 February 1992, following conviction for two counts of abducting a child, one of indecent assault and one of assault occasioning actual bodily harm, he was made the subject of a restriction order under Sections 37 and 41 of the 1983 Act. Whilst...

See the full content of this document