Lexploria

EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS

FIRST CHAMBER

Application No. 25601/94

Joseph Patrick Ferdinand Roux

against

the United Kingdom

REPORT OF THE COMMISSION

(adopted on 16 September 1997)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

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

PART I : STATEMENT OF THE FACTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3

PART II : SOLUTION REACHED. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5

INTRODUCTION

1. This Report relates to the application introduced under

Article 25 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human

Rights and Fundamental Freedoms by Mr. Joseph Patrick Ferdinand Roux

against the United Kingdom on 12 July 1994. It was registered on

7 November 1994 under file No. 25601/94.

2. The applicant was represented by Mr. S.J. Rees, solicitor, of

Darwen.

3. The Government of the United Kingdom were represented by their

Agent, Mr. M.R. Eaton, of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, London.

4. On 4 September 1996 the Commission (First Chamber) declared the

application admissible. It then proceeded to carry out its task under

Article 28 para. 1 of the Convention which provides as follows:

"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."

5. The Commission (First Chamber) found that the parties had reached

a friendly settlement of the case and on 16 September 1997 it 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.

6. 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

Mrs. M. HION

Mr. R. NICOLINI

PART I

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS

7. The applicant is French / Canadian citizen born in 1945. When he

introduced his application he was detained at Ashworth Hospital.

8. The applicant was convicted in October 1974 after an argument

with a prostitute over money. In 1975 he was convicted of unlawfully

and maliciously administering a destructive thing, assault, and other

offences (one involving threats to a prostitute). A hospital order

without limit of time was made on 12 September 1975, and the applicant

was admitted to Broadmoor Hospital under Sections 60 and 65 of the

Mental Health Act 1959 (now Sections 37 and 41 of the Mental Health Act

1983) on 7 October 1975. He was transferred to Ashworth Hospital on

15 December 1980.

9. On 25 February 1994 the Mental Health Review Tribunal found that:

"...this patient continues to suffer from psychopathic disorder

but ... such disorder is no longer of a nature or degree which

makes it appropriate for him to be detained in a hospital for

medical treatment."

10. The Tribunal noted that the applicant had made remarkable

progress over the previous four years, and that the risk which was

inherent in such cases was minimal. It considered that he should be

liable to recall, and discharged him conditionally. The discharge

conditions were:

- that he resided at a named address or such other place

approved by his supervising team;

- that he received psychiatric treatment as and when

directed;

- that he received social work and / or probation

supervision; and

- that he received such psychological treatment as was

considered necessary by the supervising team.

11. The applicant was discharged on 11 April 1994. He returned to his

sheltered accommodation in a drunken state on the first night,

appearing to be in a distressed state about the breakdown of a

relationship with a nurse at Ashworth. On 16 April he described himself

as suicidal and he was admitted to a psychiatric clinic as a voluntary

patient the next day. In early May he returned to the sheltered

accommodation with the agreement of those supervising him, but there

was continued concern that he was exceeding the agreed levels of

alcohol intake.

12. On 25 May 1994 the applicant was recalled to Ashworth, pursuant

to Section 42 (3) of the Mental Health Act 1983. A decision was taken

by the supervising team not to inform the applicant of the pending

recall as it was feared that he would react in a negative way to the

news, and would be likely to abscond from the accommodation. A letter

giving the reasons for the recall was sent to Dr. Cooney, the

supervising psychiatrist at Ashworth, and he has confirmed that he

discussed the reasons for recall with the applicant shortly after the

applicant's recall.

13. On 12 July 1994 the applicant's then representatives wrote to the

Home Office asking for the reasons for recall. The reasons were given

by letter of 4 August 1994.

14. The applicant's case was referred to a Mental Health Review

Tribunal under Section 75 (1) (a) of the Mental Health Act 1983 on

17 June 1994. Section 75 (1) (a) provides that the Secretary of State

must refer the case of a recalled, conditionally discharged restricted

patient to the Mental Health Review Tribunal within one month of the

day on which the patient is returned to hospital.

15. The applicant was not able himself to refer the case to a Mental

Health Review Tribunal, but applied for judicial review of the

Secretary of State's decision to recall.

16. The Mental Health Review Tribunal met on 16 December 1994. It

considered statements from the responsible medical officer and the Home

Secretary, and reports from the social worker and the probation

officer. The Home Secretary opposed discharge, primarily on the ground

that the applicant continued to pose a serious danger to the public.

The Mental Health Review Tribunal directed the applicant's conditional

discharge, subject to residence and supervision conditions. It gave as

its reasons:

"The patient continues to suffer from psychopathic disorder. He

has had the benefit of substantial psychological assistance and

treatment in a secure hospital over many years. He continues to

require treatment in the form of advice and social support and

psychological treatment in the forms of alcohol and sex

education. The risk of a recurrence of the sort of behaviour

which led to his index offences remain, but is fairly low, and

could be monitored in the community with the strict observance

of certain conditions. The treatment required does not need to

be undertaken in conditions of high security."

17. The applicant was released on 9 January 1995, after appropriate

arrangements had been made.

18. The judicial review proceedings were terminated on

23 February 1995 as there was no longer any reason to continue.

19. The applicant complained of his recall and of the time taken for

the case to be brought before a tribunal, alleging violation of

Articles 5 and 13 of the Convention.

PART II

SOLUTION REACHED

20. Following the decision on the admissibility of the application,

the Commission (First Chamber) 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.

21. In accordance with the usual practice, the Chamber Secretary,

acting on the Commission's instructions, contacted the parties to

explore the possibilities of reaching a friendly settlement.

22. After an exchange of correspondence, the following agreed terms

of settlement were submitted on 3 July 1997:

"The Government will pay £2,000.00 to the applicant together with

the agreed costs of his application. The Government has also

undertaken that, after consultation, the Mental Health Tribunal

Rules of 1983 will be amended to introduce a fixed time limit of

two months for a hearing to take place in the case of

applications of patients who have been recalled. The Government

also intends, following consultation and subject to parliamentary

approval, to include in a revised version of the Mental Health

Act Code of Practice (issues under Section 118 of the Act) new

guidance about the responsibility of hospital managers to ensure

that reports to Tribunals are prepared and submitted in

accordance with the time limits set down in the Tribunal rules.

Compliance on these matters will be monitored through the normal

mechanisms for performance monitoring in the National Health

Service."

23. At its session on 16 September 1997, the Commission noted that

the parties had reached an 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.

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

M.F. BUQUICCHIO J. LIDDY

Secretary President

to the First Chamber of the First Chamber

Menu

ROUX v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

ROUX v. THE UNITED KINGDOM