O'REILLY v. IRELAND
Doc ref: 24196/94 • ECHR ID: 001-45855
Document date: December 3, 1996
- 20 Inbound citations:
- •
- 1 Cited paragraphs:
- •
- 0 Outbound citations:
EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS
PLENARY
Application No. 24196/94
Mary O'Reilly
against
Ireland
REPORT OF THE COMMISSION
(adopted on 3 December 1996)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
INTRODUCTION ............................................. 1
PART I: STATEMENT OF THE FACTS ......................... 3
PART II: SOLUTION REACHED ............................... 4
INTRODUCTION
1. This report relates to the application introduced under
Article 25 of the European Convention on Human Rights by Mary O'Reilly
against Ireland on 23 March 1994. It was registered on 25 May 1994
under file No. 24196/94.
2. The applicant was represented before the Commission by
Lucy Collins, a solicitor practising in Limerick. The respondent
Government were represented by their Agent, Ms. Emer Kilcullen,
Department of Foreign Affairs.
3. On 22 January 1996, 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 3 December 1996 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:
Mr. S. TRECHSEL, President
Mrs. G.H. THUNE
Mrs. J. LIDDY
MM. E. BUSUTTIL
G. JÖRUNDSSON
A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK
A. WEITZEL
J.-C. SOYER
H. DANELIUS
F. MARTINEZ
L. LOUCAIDES
J.-C. GEUS
M.P. PELLONPÄÄ
B. MARXER
M.A. NOWICKI
I. CABRAL BARRETO
B. CONFORTI
I. BÉKÉS
J. MUCHA
D. SVÁBY
A. PERENIC
C. BÎRSAN
K. HERNDL
E. BIELIUNAS
E.A. ALKEMA
M. VILA AMIGÓ
PART I
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS
6. The applicant is an Irish citizen born in 1956 and is currently
resident in Limerick.
7. The applicant claims that on 12 December 1988 she had instructed
her solicitor to institute proceedings to obtain a barring order
against her husband due to alleged assaults by him. On the same day the
applicant's husband and father consulted with a doctor, expressed
concern about the applicant's behaviour and requested that doctor to
attend the family home that evening to examine the applicant with a
view to her involuntary committal to a psychiatric hospital under
section 184 of the Mental Health Act 1945. When the husband and the
doctor attended at the family home later that day, the applicant
reacted violently on seeing her husband at the door. The doctor, who
was standing 12 to 15 yards away from the door of the house, noted the
applicant's reaction and felt it confirmed the history already given
to him by the husband and father. The doctor took the view that it
would not be possible to interview the applicant and, therefore, he did
not speak to, physically examine or make his presence known to the
applicant.
8. Later that evening the applicant's husband signed the application
for the applicant's committal in the form prescribed by section 184 of
the 1945 Act. The doctor then certified, for the purposes of section
184, that he had "examined" the applicant and had formed the view that
she was suffering from mental illness requiring involuntary committal
on a temporary basis. Later that evening the applicant was conducted
to a psychiatric hospital where she was examined physically and
interviewed by a second doctor who noted certain bruising on the
applicant which the applicant explained was caused by marital violence.
The second doctor, before making her diagnosis, spoke on the telephone
with the first doctor and the consultant psychiatrist on duty. The
second doctor formed the opinion that the applicant might have been
suffering from mental illness and required detention to be assessed.
The applicant refused to voluntarily commit herself and thus the second
doctor signed a reception order thereby completing the procedure for
the applicant's involuntary detention in the psychiatric hospital for
a potential period of six months. On 15 December 1988 the applicant was
released as she was found not to be suffering from mental illness.
9. In order to take an action against the first doctor and the
Mid-Western Health Board (the second doctor's employer and the
proprietor of the hospital), the applicant had to apply to the High
Court for leave to institute proceedings and in such proceedings had
to demonstrate that she had "substantial grounds" for contending that
the proposed defendants had acted in bad faith or without reasonable
care.
The applicant's main argument in those proceedings was that the first
doctor did not "examine" her within the meaning of section 184 of the
1945 Act. On 7 June 1991 the High Court refused the applicant leave to
institute proceedings, finding that the examination of the applicant
by the second doctor showed the highest degree of care and that the
first doctor's examination was sufficient examination for the purposes
of section 184 of the 1945 Act. On 16 November 1993 the Supreme Court
rejected the applicant's appeal.
10. The applicant mainly complained that she was arbitrarily deprived
of her liberty (pointing mainly to the nature of the first doctor's
examination) and invoked Articles 5, 6, 8 and 13 of the Convention.
PART II
SOLUTION REACHED
11. 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.
12. 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.
13. In April 1996 the applicant outlined in detail her terms of
settlement and in July and September 1996 the Government indicated to
the Commission that the parties were close to reaching a friendly
settlement.
14. Accordingly, on 18 May 1996 and 19 October 1996, when the
Commission considered the state of proceedings of the case, the
Commission decided to await the outcome of the friendly settlement
negotiations between the parties.
15. By letter dated 21 October 1996 the Government forwarded an
original of a document which was signed by both parties and which
recorded the settlement reached between the parties as follows:
"The parties have now reached the following friendly settlement
on the basis of respect for human rights as defined in the
European Convention on Human Rights in order to terminate the
proceedings before the Commission.
(a) A sum of £14,000.00 will be paid to Mary O'Reilly.
(b) A sum of £51,950.40 will also be paid to Mary O'Reilly in
respect of legal costs and expenses.
(c) Both parties will observe confidentiality subject to what is
published under Article 28 para. 2 of the European Convention on
Human Rights.
(d) Mary O'Reilly declares that she has no further claims in the
matter."
16. With reference to part (c) of the above settlement, the
Commission notes that its decision as to the admissibility of the
application is public and that that decision has also been published
(No. 24196/94, Dec. 22.1.96, D.R. 84-A p. 72).
17. At its session on 3 December 1996 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.
18. For these reasons, the Commission adopted the present report.
H.C. KRÜGER S. TRECHSEL
Secretary President
to the Commission of the Commission