THIRD SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 39569/98 by Joseph Patrick ROUX against the United Kingdom

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section) , sitting on 11 July 2000 as a Chamber composed of

Mr J.-P. Costa, President ,

Mr W. Fuhrmann,

Mr P. KÅ«ris,

Mrs F. Tulkens,

Mr K. Jungwiert,

Sir Nicolas Bratza,

Mr K. Traja, judges ,

and Mrs S. Dollé, Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application introduced with the European Commission of Human Rights on 17 November 1997 and registered on 30 January 1998,

Having regard to Article 5 § 2 of Protocol No. 11 to the Convention, by which the competence to examine the application was transferred to the Court,

Having regard to the respondent Government’s letter of 28 January 2000 and the applicant’s letter of 4 April 2000,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant is a British national, born in 1945. He is represented before the Court by Mr Stephen J. Rees, a lawyer practising in Darwen . This is the applicant's third application to the Convention organs.  His first, no. 12039/86, was declared inadmissible by the European Commission of Human Rights on 18 July 1986.  His second, no. 25601/94, resulted in the adoption of a report under former Article 28 of the Convention on 18 September 1997.

A. The circumstances of the case

The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.

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.

After being discharged conditionally in April 1994 and recalled in May 1994, the applicant was released on 9 January 1995.

The applicant has not specified when he was recalled, but on 8 November 1996 the Secretary of State referred the applicant's case to a Mental Health Review Tribunal (MHRT).  On 26 February 1997 the MHRT found that it was satisfied that the applicant was not suffering from mental illness which required his detention in hospital for medical treatment, and that it was not necessary for the health or safety of the applicant or for the protection of others that he should receive such treatment.  It was not, however, satisfied that the applicant should not remain liable for recall.  The MHRT ordered the applicant's deferred, conditional discharge: the MHRT imposed conditions, inter alia, of residence and of social and psychiatric supervision and deferred the discharge of the applicant until satisfactory arrangements had been made to meet the conditions.  The MHRT announced that it would reconvene on 28 May 1997 if arrangements had not been made before then.

On 13 October 1997, the MHRT again met.  It noted that residence in Liverpool had proved impossible because there was no psychiatric supervisor, and that the only alternative was trial leave at St Andrews Hospital, Northampton, potentially followed by transfer and ultimate conditional discharge.  The Liverpool Area Health Authority were not happy to meet the cost, but their solicitor accepted that they had no other option.

On 10 December 1997, the Admissions Officer at St. Andrews Hospital informed Ashworth Hospital that the Liverpool Area Health Authority had rescinded the authorisation pending the approval of a "clinical treatment plan".

COMPLAINTS

The applicant alleged a breach of Article 5 of the Convention. He asserted that his detention did not amount to lawful detention of a person of unsound mind and that the detention was no more than a consequence of the administration's failure to implement the discharge within a reasonable time and its refusal to pay for offered private sector supervision. The applicant believed that the detention at Ashworth Hospital was merely because nowhere else in the community could be found for him to go.  He referred to the Johnson v. the United Kingdom judgment (24 October 1997, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-VII).

THE LAW

By a letter dated 28 January 2000, the Government informed the Court that the parties had agreed the terms of a settlement in the case. The Government will pay the sum of GBP 6,500 to the applicant, plus his reasonable and necessarily incurred costs for the Convention proceedings in full and final settlement of his complaints.

By a letter dated 4 April 2000, the applicant informed the Court of his acceptance of the Government’s proposal for settlement.

The Court considers, pursuant to Article 34 § 1 (b) of the Convention, that the matter has been resolved.

In accordance with Article 37 § 1 in fine of the Convention, the Court finds no special circumstances regarding respect for human rights as defined in the Convention which require the continuation of the examination of the application.

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

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

S. Dollé J.-P. Costa Registrar President