Search
document

Document text Analytics

TURNBRIDGE v. the UNITED KINGDOM

Doc ref: 16397/90 • ECHR ID: 001-685

Document date: May 17, 1990

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

TURNBRIDGE v. the UNITED KINGDOM

Doc ref: 16397/90 • ECHR ID: 001-685

Document date: May 17, 1990

Cited paragraphs only

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application No. 16397/90

by Robert TURNBRIDGE

against the United Kingdom

The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on

17 May 1990, the following members being present:

MM. C.A. NØRGAARD, President

S. TRECHSEL

E. BUSUTTIL

A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK

A. WEITZEL

J.C. SOYER

H.G. SCHERMERS

H. DANELIUS

J. CAMPINOS

H. VANDENBERGHE

Mrs. G.H. THUNE

Sir Basil HALL

M. F. MARTINEZ

Mrs. J. LIDDY

Mr. L. LOUCAIDES

Mr. H.C. KRÜGER, Secretary to the Commission

Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the

Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;

Having regard to the application introduced on 15 August 1989

by Robert TURNBRIDGE against the United Kingdom and registered on

4 April 1990 under file No. 16397/90;

Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 40 of the

Rules of Procedure of the Commission;

Having deliberated;

Decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant is a citizen of the United Kingdom, born in 1958

and compulsorily detained in Broadmoor Hospital, Crowthorne,

Berkshire.

The applicant complains of his continued detention in a secure

mental hospital. He states that he is "good, not mad or evil" and

that he is "greater than Jesus Christ". He alleges that the hospital

staff assault and poison him.

A medical report dated 21 February 1989 by the applicant's

responsible medical officer states that the applicant suffers from a

chronic psychotic, schizophrenic illness and that he shows violent,

disturbed behaviour which high levels of medication and treatment have

not managed to diminish. The Mental Health Review Tribunal decided on

12 December 1989 that the applicant should not be discharged as he is

seriously mentally ill, the applicant remaining "bizarrely deluded,

grandiose in his ideas, without insight, and sure of the workings of a

'power' upon him which makes him do things".

COMPLAINTS

The applicant claims to be a victim of a violation of Articles

5 and 6 of the Convention. He states that his further detention in

Broadmoor is unjustified and his treatment there in breach of Article

5. He also alleges that the right to a Mental Health Review Tribunal

decision but once a year is contrary to the reasonable time

requirements of Article 6 of the Convention.

THE LAW

1. The applicant has complained that his continued detention and

treatment in a secure mental hospital violates Article 5 (Art. 5) of the

Convention, the relevant part of which provides as follows:

"1. Everyone has the right to liberty and security of

person. No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in

the following cases and in accordance with a procedure

prescribed by law: ...

(e) the lawful detention ... of persons of unsound mind ...

4. 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."

The Commission has examined the applicant's case, as it has

been submitted by him, but finds no evidence that the applicant is not

lawfully detained as a person of unsound mind within the meaning of

Article 5 para. 1 (e) (Art. 5-1-e) of the Convention. Moreover, the

applicant has had the benefit of a periodic review of the lawfulness

of his detention by the Mental Health Review Tribunal, which may be

considered as a court for the purposes of Article 5 para. 4 (Art. 5-4)

of the Convention in cases like that of the applicant.

In this connection, the applicant has complained that an

annual verification of the lawfulness of his detention by the Mental

Health Review Tribunal is insufficient for the purposes of the time

requirements of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention.

However, the appropriate Convention provision, the lex specialis, for

the discharge of mental patients is the aforementioned Article 5

para. 4 (Art. 5-4) of the Convention, which has been interpreted by

the Convention organs as requiring the periodic review of the

lawfulness of the continued compulsory detention. Once instituted

such reviews must be conducted speedily (Eur. Court H.R., Luberti

judgment of 23 February 1984, Series A no. 75, p. 15, paras. 31-32).

The Commission finds nothing to suggest that the period of a

year which the applicant must respect before he can reapply to the

Mental Health Review Tribunal for his discharge is an unreasonable

interval in the circumstances of the present case. Moreover, the

Commission notes that the applicant has not alleged that the Tribunal

has failed to deal with his applications, once instituted, with the

speed required by Article 5 para. 4 (Art. 5-4) of the Convention.

In these circumstances the Commission concludes that the

applicant's continued detention in Broadmoor Hospital does not

disclose any appearance of a violation of Article 5 (Art. 5) of the

Convention. These aspects of the case are, therefore, manifestly

ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the

Convention.

2. Finally, the applicant has complained of ill-treatment, namely

assault and poisoning, by the hospital staff. However, the Commission

is unable to deal with these matters as the applicant has made no

attempt to exhaust domestic remedies such as civil litigation in

trespass to person (assault) or negligence. This part of the

application must therefore be rejected under Articles 26 (Art. 26)

and 27 para. 3 (Art. 27-3) of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Commission

DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.

Secretary to the Commission President of the Commission

(H.C. KRÜGER) (C.A. NØRGAARD)

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant