FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 47014/99
by J.M.
against the United Kingdom
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 15 January 2002 as a Chamber composed of
MrM. Pellonpää, President,
SirNicolas Bratza,
MrA. Pastor Ridruejo,
MrJ. Makarczyk,
MrM. Fischbach,
MrJ. Casadevall,
MrS. Pavlovschi, judges,
and Mr M. O’Boyle, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged with the Court on 4 March 1999 and registered on 23 March 1999,
Having regard to the written submissions of the parties,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant is a United Kingdom national, born in 1929 and living in a nursing home in Cambridge. She is represented before the Court by Ms Lindsay Messenger, a lawyer practising in Cambridge.
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
The applicant had a history of mental illness since 1957. Having attacked and killed a man in 1960, she was involuntarily detained in 1967 pursuant to hospital and restriction orders, which orders were transformed to detention under sections 37 and 41 of the Mental Health Act 1983. Although conditionally discharged in 1976 and 1986, she was recalled to hospital on each occasion.
On 24 August 1995 the Mental Health Review Tribunal (“MHRT”) considered her detention and found that she was not suffering from mental illness of a nature or degree which require her detention for treatment. The MHRT ordered her conditional discharge and deferred the discharge (pursuant to section 73(7) of the Mental Health Act 1983) until the relevant conditions were met. One of the conditions required her residence in approved accommodation. Arrangements to implement that condition were never made and the applicant therefore remained in hospital.
On 9 February 1998 the MHRT again found that she was not suffering from a mental illness requiring detention for treatment and ordered her conditional discharge. One of the conditions was again her residence in appropriate accommodation, pending the arrangement of which her discharge was deferred. On 13 April 1998 she was moved to an approved nursing home. By notice dated 20 September 1998 the MHRT acknowledged that the conditions fixed by it for her conditional discharge had been met and it ordered her conditional discharge to take effect.
B. Relevant domestic law and practice
The Courts recalls the outline of the domestic law and practice set out in its Johnson judgment (Johnson v. the United Kingdom judgment of 24 October 1997, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-VII, no. 55, §§ 35-45).
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained that her detention between 24 August 1995 and 20 September 1998 was in violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention because she was no longer suffering from mental illness warranting detention for treatment. She also complained under Article 5 § 4 about the inability of the MHRT to ensure the provision of the accommodation it considered necessary for her conditional discharge.
THE LAW
By letter dated 9 May 2001 the Court invited the Government to submit observations on the admissibility and merits of the case. By letter dated 30 October 2001 the Government confirmed that a settlement had been agreed by the applicant in the following terms:
“The Government has agreed to pay the applicant GBP 11,000 (eleven thousand pounds sterling) to cover any pecuniary or non-pecuniary loss the applicant may have suffered from the alleged violation, including costs, as full and final settlement of her complaint.
In addition, as part of the settlement negotiations, the Government has made the following observations to address the applicant’s concerns in relation to her complaint:
(a) The Government has issued new guidance in a revised Mental Health Act Code of Practice (Ref: Health Service Circular HSC 1999/050-Mental Health Act 1983 Revised Code of Practice) on how to proceed when undertaking duties under the Act. The Guidance emphasises hospital managers’ responsibilities for ensuring that, when a date for a tribunal hearing has been arranged, the relevant health and local social services authorities are informed promptly so that they can consider whether to hold a multi-agency aftercare planning meeting before the tribunal hearing. The guidance also highlights the need to ensure that, following a tribunal decision to direct a conditional discharge, action is taken to meet the conditions as soon as possible.
(b) The Government made new proposals for a reformed system of conditional discharge in the White Paper ‘Reforming the Mental Health Act’ (paragraphs 4.18 and 4.19). The Government intends to introduce legislation to implement these proposals as soon as parliamentary time allows.”
On 8 November 2001 the Court sent a copy of the Government’s letter to the applicant’s representatives requesting their confirmation of the applicant’s agreement to the settlement. In their letter of 13 November 2001 the applicant’s representative stated as follows:
“I confirm that the applicant has accepted the terms of the settlement, and that this has been confirmed to the Government, and accordingly the case may be struck out of the Court’s list of cases.”
The Court notes that the matter has been resolved within the meaning of Article 37 § 1(b) of the Convention. It is further satisfied that the parties’ agreement is based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention or its Protocols (Article 37 § 1 in fine). Accordingly, the case should be struck out of the Court’s list of cases.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
Michael O’BoyleMatti Pellonpää
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy