Lexploria

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application No. 27560/95

by R.S.C.

against the United Kingdom

The European Commission of Human Rights (First Chamber) sitting

in private on 28 May 1997, the following members being present:

Mrs. J. LIDDY, President

MM. M.P. PELLONPÄÄ

A. WEITZEL

C.L. ROZAKIS

L. LOUCAIDES

B. MARXER

B. CONFORTI

N. BRATZA

G. RESS

A. PERENIC

C. BÎRSAN

K. HERNDL

M. VILA AMIGÓ

Mrs. M. HION

Mr. R. NICOLINI

Mrs. M.F. BUQUICCHIO, Secretary to the Chamber

Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection

of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;

Having regard to the application introduced on 30 May 1995 by

R.S.C. against the United Kingdom and registered on 9 June 1995 under

file No. 27560/95;

Having regard to:

- the reports provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure of

the Commission;

- the respondent Government's letter of 16 May 1997 informing the

Commission that agreement had been reached between the parties;

Having deliberated;

Decides as follows: THE FACTS

The applicant is a British citizen born in 1956. He is detained

in Broadmoor Hospital and is represented before the Commission by

Mr. S. Reynolds, solicitor, of Messrs. Brutton & Co., Fareham,

Hampshire.

The facts of the application, as they have been submitted by the

applicant, may be summarised as follows.

The applicant was convicted of false imprisonment, indecent

assault, assault occasioning actual bodily harm and arson in

August 1988. Hospital and restriction orders were made under Sections

37 and 41 of the Mental Health Act 1983.

The applicant's deferred conditional discharge was recommended

by the Mental Health Review Tribunal on 25 February 1994, and he left

hospital on 1 November 1994. He was recalled by a Home Office warrant

on 16 November 1994, after an alleged attack on a young woman.

On 22 November 1994 the Home Secretary referred the case to the

Mental Health Review Tribunal under Section 75 (1) (a) of the Mental

Health Act 1983.

An application for legal aid to apply for judicial review of the

Home Secretary's decision to recall the applicant was refused on

1 May 1995 on the ground that the applicant had not shown sufficient

grounds for taking the proceedings. In any event, the time limit for

an application for judicial review had passed, and there was no

reasonable prospect of obtaining leave to apply out of time.

On 20 September 1995 the Mental Health Review Tribunal adjourned

its consideration of the case for a supplementary report from one of

the doctors, so that the applicant would have a greater chance of

success when eventually discharged. In addition, the applicant's

counsel had asked for an adjournment as she only received certain

papers from a doctor on 9 September.

The case was again adjourned on 21 February 1996 for two doctors

to make further reports and to be able to attend the hearing, which was

fixed for 25 March 1996.

At the hearing on 25 March 1996 the Mental Health Review Tribunal

found that the applicant had suffered from and was continuing to suffer

from a psychopathic disorder, and that he continued to need treatment

for his condition in a secure unit, both for his own health and safety

and for the protection of others.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant alleges a violation of Article 5 para. 4 of the

Convention in two respects. He claims, first, that the allegations

brought against him were accusations of criminal conduct which should

have been put before a court, and, secondly, that the review by the

Mental Health Tribunal did not satisfy the requirements of Article 5

para. 4 because it failed to consider the reasons for his recall, and

because it did not decide "speedily".

The applicant claims that he has no right to compensation in

respect of the alleged breaches of Article 5 para. 4.

The applicant also alleges violation of Articles 8 and 13 of the

Convention in that his recall was disproportionate to the established

facts of the matter, and that he has no effective remedy in connection

with it.

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION

The application was introduced on 30 May 1995 and registered on

9 June 1995.

On 4 September 1996 the Commission (First Chamber) decided to

communicate the application to the respondent Government.

On 21 January 1997, at the Government's request, the Commission

decided to adjourn further examination of the case pending the outcome

of negotiations between the parties.

By letter of 16 May 1997 the Government informed the Commission

that an agreement had been reached between the Government and the

applicant. In the Memorandum of Agreement signed by the parties, the

Government agreed to pay to the applicant the sum of £2,000.00 by way

of compensation together with the sum of £2800.86 by way of costs. The

applicant agreed to withdraw the application. The Government also

undertook - after consultation and subject to Parliamentary approval -

(i) to amend the Mental Health Review Tribunal Rules 1983 so that when

a conditionally discharged patient is recalled to hospital there must

be a Tribunal hearing within two months from the date on which the case

is referred to the Tribunal (which must be within a month of recall),

and (ii) to include in a revised version of the Mental Health Code of

Practice (issued under Section 118 of the Mental Health Act 1983) 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 with the matters

to be monitored through the normal mechanisms for performance

monitoring in the National Health Service. The agreement also

contained ancillary declarations.

REASONS FOR THE DECISION

Article 30 para. 1 of the Convention provides as follows:

"The Commission may at any stage of the proceedings decide to

strike a petition out of its list of cases where the

circumstances lead to the conclusion that:

(a) the applicant does not intend to pursue his petition, or

(b) the matter has been resolved ...

However, the Commission shall continue the examination of a

petition if respect for human rights as defined in the Convention

so requires."

The Commission has had regard to the terms of the agreement

reached between the applicant and the respondent Government, and finds

that the applicant does not intend to pursue his petition, within the

meaning of Article 30 para. 1 (a) of the Convention, and that the

matter has been resolved, within the meaning of Article 30 para. 1 (b)

of the Convention.

Having regard to the terms of the agreement between the applicant

and the respondent Government, the Commission also finds no reasons

within the meaning of the final sentence of Article 30 para. 1 which

could require the Commission to continue the examination of the

application.

For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously,

DECIDES TO STRIKE THE APPLICATION OUT OF ITS LIST OF CASES.

M.F. BUQUICCHIO J. LIDDY

Secretary President

to the First Chamber of the First Chamber

Menu

R.S.C. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

R.S.C. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM