Resolution CM/ ResDH (2013)175

M.S. against the United Kingdom

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

(Application No. 24527/08, judgment of 3 May 2012, final on 3 August 2012)

(Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 11 September 2013 at the 1177th meeting of the Ministers ’ Deputies)

The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which provides that the Committee supervises the execution of final judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” and “the Court”),

Having regard to the final judgment transmitted by the Court to the Committee in the above case and to the violation established;

Recalling the respondent State ’ s obligation , under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention , to abide by all final judgments in cases to which it is party and that this obligation entails, over and above the payment of any sums awarded by the Court, the adoption by the authorities of the respondent State, where required:

- of individual measures to put an end to violations established and erase their consequences so as to achieve as far as possible restitutio in integrum ; and

- of general measures preventing similar violations;

Having invited the government of the respondent State to inform the Committee of the measures taken to comply with the above-mentioned obligation;

Having examined the action report provided by the government indicating the measures adopted in order to give effect to the judgment, including the information provided regarding the payment of the just satisfaction awarded by the Court (see document DH-DD(2013)682 );

Having satisfied itself that all the measures required by Article 46, paragraph 1, have been adopted,

DECLARES that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in this case and

DECIDES to close the examination thereof.

Execution of j udgments of the European Court of Human Rights

Action r eport

MS v . UK (A pplication No. 24527/08, judgment final on 03/08/2012 )

Information submitted by the United Kingdom Government on 31 May 2013

Case s ummary

On 6 December 2004 , the applicant was detained arrested and transferred to a police station where it was noted that he was suffering from some form of mental illness and that a doctor would be required. His detention was authorised under S ection 136 of the Mental Health Act 1983 (the 1983 Act) which permits the detention of a mentally disordered person “in a place of safety” for up to 72 hours to allow them to be examined by appropriate health professionals and for appropriate arrangements to be made for their care. The applicant was detained for more than 72 hours (approximately 75 hours period) before being transferred to a psychiatric clinic (the Reaside Clinic).

While the applicant was in detention, his condition deteriorated considerably to the extent that he removed all his clothing, was drinking water from the toilet bowl, had smeared himself in food or faeces and was rocking to and fro on a bench, talking to himself, banging his chest and ranting. During the latter stages of his detention, he also refused all offers of food and drink.

The Court noted that t he situation appeared to have arisen essentially out of difficulties of co-ordination between the relevant authorities when suddenly confronted with an urgent mental health case. Even though the Court accepted that there had been no intention to humiliate or debase the applicant, the Court found that the conditions which the applicant was required to endure were an affront to human dignity and reached the threshold of degrading treatment for the purposes of Article 3. It concluded that the applicant had suffered degrading treatment in breach of Article 3 of the ECHR.

Individual m easures

The just satisfaction award for non-pecuniary damage has been paid and evidence previously supplied.

The g overnment considers that no further individual measures are necessary.

General m easures

On 24 April 2008 , the legal department of the Reaside Clinic ’ s NHS Trust reported that a protocol had been agreed between the Trust and the West Midlands Police in order to avoid such a situation recurring. The West Midlands has since become the model of good practice on S ection 136 ( Police Powers a nd Places o f Safety) of the Mental Health Act 1983 (2007) on which subsequent national guidance was based.

As set out at paragraph 29 of the judgment, at the time of the applicant ’ s detention in 2004, once a person had been detained in one place of safety, they could not be transferred to another place of safety. An important amendment has since been made to S ection 136 of the 1983 Act by the Mental Health Act 2007 to allow a person to be transferred from one place of safety (e.g. a police station) to another place of safety (e.g. a hospital). Chapter 10 of the 2008 revised version of the Code of Practice Mental Health Act 1983 (the full text of which can be found at the link below) clarifies that, if a police station is used as a place of safety, consideration should be given to the possibility of a transfer to an alternative place of safety as soon as possible and further states that a police station should only be used as a place of safety “on an exceptional basis”. The Code of Practice also sets out the importance of ensuring jointly agreed local policies which define responsibilities for the provision and identification of places of safety and co-ordination between police forces and other services in such circumstances; as well as the necessity of training for any professionals involved.

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20130107105354/http://www.dh.gov.uk/prod_consum_dh/groups/dh_digitalassets/@dh/@en/documents/digitalasset/dh_087073.pdf

In addition, in 2010 the National Policing Improvement Agency published “Guidance on Responding to People with Mental Ill Health or Learning Disabilities, a Briefing Note on Recognising Mental Ill Health and Learning Disabilities” and a “Briefing Note on Establishing Multi-Agency Protocols for Responding to Mental Ill Health and Learning Disabilities”. These publications, aimed at providing a “robust mechanism for the development and improvement of police responses in the field of mental health”, can be found at the links below. They set out further detail with regard to the use of the police station as a place of safety and reiterate, inter alia, that a police station should only be used on an exceptional basis; that all police forces should have access to suitable non-police places of safety rapidly; and that there be co-operation between the police and healthcare trusts to ensure that there are not only sufficient places of safety across each entire force but also sufficient resources for the same.

www.acpo. police .uk/documents/edhr/2010/201004EDHRMIH01.pdf www.ohrn.nhs.uk/resource/policy/PoliceBNMentalHealth2010.pdf http://library.npia.police.uk/docs/npia/Briefing-Note-Multiagency-Protocols-Mental-Health-2010.pdf

The g overnment considers no further general measures to be necessary because all the steps that needed to be taken to avoid a repetition of this experience have already been taken.

The judgment has been published on:

http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2012/804.html

http://www.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/MS_v_UK_24527/08_(2012)_ECHR_804,_(2012)_MHLO_46

The judgment was disseminated to the bodies immediately concerned and more general remedial action has already been taken as explained in the g eneral measures section above.

The g overnment considers that all necessary measures have been taken and the case should be closed.