Search
document

Document text Analytics

LINES v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

Doc ref: 24519/94 • ECHR ID: 001-45924

Document date: October 28, 1997

Inbound citations: 1
•
Cited paragraphs: 0
•
Outbound citations: 0

LINES v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

Doc ref: 24519/94 • ECHR ID: 001-45924

Document date: October 28, 1997

Cited paragraphs only

EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS

FIRST CHAMBER

Application No. 24519/94

Pauline Lines

against

the United Kingdom

REPORT OF THE COMMISSION

(adopted on 28 October 1997)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

PART I: STATEMENT OF THE FACTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

PART II: SOLUTION REACHED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

INTRODUCTION

1. This Report relates to the application introduced under

Article 25 of the European Convention on Human Rights by Pauline Lines

against the United Kingdom on 25 April 1994. It was registered on

4 July 1994 under file No. 24519/94.

2. The applicant was represented before the Commission by

Sean Reynolds a solicitor practising in Hampshire. The respondent

Government were represented by their Agent, Mr. Martin Eaton, Foreign

and Commonwealth Office.

3. On 17 January 1997 the Commission declared the application

admissible. It then proceeded to carry out its task under Article 28

para. 1 of the Convention which provides:

"In the event of the Commission accepting a petition referred to

it:

a. it shall, with a view to ascertaining the facts, undertake

together with the representatives of the parties an examination

of the petition and, if need be, an investigation, for the

effective conduct of which the States concerned shall furnish all

necessary facilities, after an exchange of views with the

Commission;

b. it shall at the same time place itself at the disposal of

the parties concerned with a view to securing a friendly

settlement of the matter on the basis of respect for Human Rights

as defined in this Convention."

4. The Commission found that the parties had reached a friendly

settlement of the case and on 28 October 1997 adopted this Report

which, in accordance with Article 28 para. 2 of the Convention, is

confined to a brief statement of the facts and of the solution reached.

5. The following members were present when the Report was adopted:

Mrs J. LIDDY, President

MM M.P. PELLONPÄÄ

E. BUSUTTIL

A. WEITZEL

C.L. ROZAKIS

L. LOUCAIDES

B. MARXER

B. CONFORTI

N. BRATZA

I. BÉKÉS

G. RESS

A. PERENIC

C. BÎRSAN

K. HERNDL

M. VILA AMIGÓ

Mrs M. HION

Mr R. NICOLINI

PART I

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS

6. The applicant is a British citizen, born in 1939 and she is

currently resident in a group home in the United Kingdom following her

release in 1995 from a psychiatric hospital.

7. Since the age of fifteen the applicant has spent substantial

periods of her life in psychiatric hospitals.

8. With the introduction of the Mental Health Act 1983, the

applicant's then detention (consequent on her serious assault on a

fellow patient) under section 71(2) of the Mental Health Act 1959

became the equivalent of a hospital order together with a restriction

order without limit of time under the 1983 Act. The applicant was

conditionally discharged on 29 June 1984 by warrant of the Secretary

of State.

9. On 27 April 1992 she was re-admitted as an informal patient and

on 21 July 1992 she was admitted involuntarily under section 3 of the

1983 Act. On 4 March 1993 the applicant was formally recalled to

hospital by warrant of the Secretary of State pursuant to section 42(3)

of the 1983 Act. The Mental Health Review Tribunal ("MHRT") did not

recommend her discharge in April 1993 but she was conditionally

discharged on 30 June 1993 by the Secretary of State.

10. Having been again admitted to a psychiatric hospital in July 1993

under section 3 of the 1983 Act, the applicant was formally recalled

by warrant of the Secretary of State on 3 December 1993 pursuant to

section 42(3) of the 1983 Act on the grounds that whilst in hospital

the applicant's condition had not sufficiently improved.

11. Her case was referred on 7 December 1993 to the MHRT by the

Secretary of State and in February 1994 the MHRT, having reviewed the

applicant's case, did not recommend her discharge. In March 1995 the

applicant was discharged by the Secretary of State into a group home

in the community where she resides to date.

12. The applicant complained that she had no entitlement to apply for

a review of the legality of her detention between 27 July 1993 and

3 December 1993. She became entitled to a MHRT review in December 1993

only because the Secretary of State exercised his discretion to recall

her under section 42(3) of the 1983 Act and because of the consequent

obligation on the Secretary of State to refer her case within one month

of recall to the MHRT. The applicant invoked Article 5 para. 4 of the

Convention.

PART II

SOLUTION REACHED

13. Following its decision on the admissibility of the application,

the Commission placed itself at the disposal of the parties with a view

to securing a friendly settlement in accordance with Article 28

para. 1 (b) of the Convention and invited the parties to submit any

proposals they wished to make. In accordance with the usual practice,

the Secretary, acting on the Commission's instructions, contacted the

parties to explore the possibility of reaching a friendly settlement.

14. By letter dated 3 February 1997 the applicant made proposals for

a friendly settlement of the case including a request for legislative

change, for compensation and for the discharge of her legal costs

before the Commission. By letter 14 April 1997 the Government referred

to recent domestic jurisprudence which they considered indicated that

no legislative change would be required. The Government, however,

offered to settle the case on the basis of payment of the sum of £2000

in compensation together with the reasonable costs of the Strasbourg

application.

15. By letter dated 3 July 1997 the applicant stated that a friendly

settlement of the case had been agreed. By letter dated 7 July 1997 the

Government confirmed that the terms of the settlement reached were

those outlined in their letter of 14 April 1997. The Government also

enclosed a copy of a letter from the applicant's representatives which

acknowledged receipt of a sum of £3591.75, of which £2000 represented

compensation and the remainder represented the applicant's legal costs

before the Commission.

16. At its session on 28 October 1997 the Commission found that the

parties had reached agreement regarding the terms of a settlement. It

further considered, having regard to Article 28 para. 1 (b) of the

Convention, that the friendly settlement of the case had been secured

on the basis of respect for Human Rights as defined in the Convention.

17. For these reasons, the Commission adopted the present Report.

M.F. BUQUICCHIO J. LIDDY

Secretary President

to the First Chamber of the First Chamber

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant