Resolution CM/ResDH(2013)76
Reynolds against the United Kingdom
Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights
(Application No. 2694/08, judgment of 13 March 2012, final on 13 June 2012)
(Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 30 April 2013
at the 1169th 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)271E);
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.
Action report
Reynolds v UK (application No. 2694/08; final judgment on 13/06/2012)
Case summary
1.Case description:
-The death of a mental health patient led to a case being brought by the applicant (initially the patient’s mother, then, after her death, the patient’s sister). They argued that the lack of civil proceedings available in the UK with regards to compensation for the patient’s death due to a failure to take reasonable steps to prevent his suicide was a breach of Article 2 (right to life) and 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the European Convention on Human Rights.
-The patient had a history of schizophrenia and was known to local mental health services. He suffered a relapse of his psychotic symptoms, which included hearing voices telling him to kill himself. He was assessed as a low suicide risk and transferred as a voluntary patient by the South West Yorkshire NHS Trust to an Intensive Support Moving on Scheme (ISMOS) Unit for which the local authority was responsible. At one point during the evening before he died, he was found wandering outside the Unit and was encouraged by staff to return, which he did. The patient later broke a sixth floor window in the Unit from which he fell to his death.
-The Court held that there had been a violation of Article 13 in conjunction with Article 2 as
there was an arguable claim that the position of the patient was such that an operational duty arose to take reasonable steps to protect him from a real and immediate risk of suicide and that that duty was not fulfilled; and there were no civil domestic proceedings available to his mother to establish any liability and compensation due as regards non-pecuniary damage suffered as a result of her son’s death.
Individual measures
2.The case concerned only the question of the lack of civil proceedings available to the applicant to establish liability and compensation for the non-pecuniary damage suffered as a result of her son’s death. In this respect, noting that the applicant had had the benefit of a detailed inquest which had elucidated the central facts of the case but considering that nevertheless the lack of a civil remedy had likely caused her some frustration and distress, the Court awarded the applicant non-pecuniary damages of EUR 7 000. No further individual measures appear necessary.
General measures
3.General measures:
- Corrective action in response to the judgment has been taken by the local agencies involved. In the light of the information obtained at the inquest, the Coroner was concerned that a psychiatric facility had been located on the sixth floor of a building and has reported the incident to the NHS Trust under Rule 43 of the Coroner’s Rules 1984. We understand that the windows have since been reinforced and that the longer-term plan is to transfer the ISMOS Unit to a two-storey building.
- A relevant case was decided by the Supreme Court in March 2012, before judgment in the Reynolds case was given, but after the pleadings had been submitted. The case of Rabone v Pennine Care NHS Foundation Trust[2012]UKSC 2 held that on the particular facts of the case, the NHS Trust had an operational duty and Article 2 did apply even though the patient had been an informal patient and not compulsorily detained. The Supreme Court held that the parents of the deceased had a claim under article 2 for damages for non-pecuniary loss for bereavement and awarded the parents £5 000 each. The judgment may be found at:
- The UK considers that the Supreme Court has now made clear that an action could be brought under Article 2 seeking compensation for non-pecuniary damages. Whether it would be successful would depend on the specific facts of the case.
- The government therefore considers that no further general measures are needed.
4. Publication and dissemination:
- The judgment has been published on :
-
- (2012)_ECHR_437,_(2012)_MHLO_30
- The NHS Litigation Authority was the defendant in the case of Rabone and they have disseminated the judgment in that case to all the relevant NHS bodies.
5.State of execution of judgment:
-The government considers that all necessary measures have been taken and the case should be closed.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy