FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 64509/01
by Paul PHILLIPS
against the United Kingdom
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 4 February 2003 as a Chamber composed of
MrM. Pellonpää, President,
SirNicolas Bratza,
MrsE. Palm,
MrsV. Strážnická,
MrM. Fischbach,
MrJ. Casadevall,
MrS. Pavlovschi, judges,
and Mr M. O’Boyle, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 6 December 2000,
Having regard to the parties’ submissions,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Paul Phillips, is a United Kingdom national, who was born in 1957 and lives in Birmingham. He is represented before the Court by Ms Cho, a lawyer practising in Liverpool.
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
In February 1974, following his conviction of an unspecified offence, the applicant, who was then aged 16, was committed to a psychiatric institution, pursuant to hospital and restriction orders made under sections 37 and 41 of the Mental Health Act 1983 (“1983 Act”).
On 25 August 1998 the Mental Health Review Tribunal (“MHRT”) found that the applicant was no longer suffering from mental illness requiring detention for treatment and ordered his conditional release. The conditions imposed included (a) that the applicant should be under appropriate psychiatric and social supervision; (b) that he should reside at a place to be designated (being initially a hostel with a key worker and other staff readily available and thereafter such accommodation as might be approved by his supervisors and/or as might be further particularised); and (c) that he should engage in such activities as may be prescribed by his supervisors and attend on and receive either of his supervisors as required. The applicant’s release was deferred until the necessary conditions were put in place. The MHRT adjourned the matter until 28 October 1998 to hear progress reports on the implementation of the conditions imposed on the applicant’s release.
The MHRT did not re-convene until 8 June 1999. Having heard the evidence, it refined the accommodation condition placed on release: the accommodation was to be designated by the applicant’s responsible medical supervisor (“RMO”) or by his psychiatric supervisor and was initially to be a hostel staffed on a 24-hour basis and registered with the local authority. The MHRT was to be informed as soon as possible after the address of the hostel was available. If that had not been completed by 13 September 1999, the RMO was to submit a progress report to the MHRT. Any difficulty in carrying out these directions was to be reported to the MHRT and the MHRT strongly recommended to the Home Secretary that the applicant be permitted such periods of unescorted leave as would enable him to become familiar with the proposed place of residence and supervisor. The applicant’s psychiatric and social supervisor were nominated.
By 20 September 1999 the RMO reported that the applicant would be likely to reside at Flint Green Hostel.
On 11 October 1999 the MHRT directed that the full and detailed plans for the supervision, residence and general aftercare of the applicant after his discharge were to be filed with it on or before 19 November 1999. The MHRT also required the health authority to explain why the planning of that supervision, residence and care had been allocated to a succession of acting consultants, why neither the psychiatric or social supervisors appointed by the MHRT on 8 June 1999 appeared to have been involved in the subsequent consideration of those discharge matters and had been substituted without reference to the MHRT, why the detail requested by the MHRT on 8 June 1999 had not been adhered to by September 1999 as required and why the applicant had been caused to “linger overlong” in the psychiatric hospital despite the MHRT’s decision as to his entitlement to discharge and as to the type of accommodation appropriate for his residence.
The MHRT had also been “astonished” to see that one of the substitute psychiatric supervisors had apparently recommended the applicant’s detention in a less secure hospital environment for six months prior to discharge, proposals the MHRT found went against its own findings and orders and would have “serious implications” for the statutory obligations of the health and social services’ authorities and for the applicant’s Convention rights. Accordingly, certain relevant parties, including the Home Secretary, were requested to confirm their positions and file relevant reports with the MHRT.
By report dated 26 November 1999 the local authority confirmed that it was committed to providing accommodation and other support to the applicant but that it was unable to do so without the necessary psychiatric supervision. The health authority, by report of the same date, pointed out that it had received advice from three consultant psychiatrists who, although committed to working with the applicant, were not able to offer appropriate supervision to him if he was discharged directly to Flint Green Hostel without the above-referenced period of detention in a less secure hospital.
The applicant received copies of those reports on 10 January 2000. On 28 February 2000 he applied for leave to take judicial review proceedings to challenge the health authority’s failure to provide the required facilities to allow him to be discharged. By the time that application was heard on 2 May 2000, the health authority had produced proposals to move the applicant towards discharge and the leave application was adjourned. Those proposals led to the applicant’s discharge on 4 August 2000.
The leave application was withdrawn by the applicant on 19 July 2000, the relevant consent order recording that the appropriate package of care had then been proposed and steps were being taken to ensure the implementation of the applicant’s conditional discharge.
B. Relevant domestic law and practice
The Court 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, §§ 35-45).
Subsequent to that judgment, the Government issued, through the Department of Health, guidance no. LAC (2000) 3 entitled “Aftercare under the Mental Health Act 1983 – section 117 Aftercare Services”. It pointed out, inter alia, that social service and health authorities were to ensure that the conditions of deferred conditional discharges were implemented timeously.
That circular referred back to a guidance letter circulated in June 1997 and entitled “Implementation of Mental Health Review Tribunal Decisions”. That letter referred to the unacceptable delay in implementing the conditional discharge of patients and recommended that priority be given to ensuring such implementation. Serious difficulties in implementation were to be notified to the MHRT and if such conditions were found impossible to fulfil in cases of restricted patients, the Home Secretary was to be notified so that consideration could be given to referring the matter back to the MHRT. Pending the publication of a code of practice, the MHRTs had been requested to compile a list of cases where implementation had not been completed after six months. The list was to be circulated to the relevant authorities so that appropriate action could be taken.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained that his detention from 25 February 1999 (being six months after the Mental Health Review Tribunal ordered his conditional release) and 4 August 2000 (when he was so released) was in violation of Article 5 § 1(e) because he was no longer suffering from mental illness warranting detention for treatment. He also complained under Article 5 § 5 that he had no enforceable right to compensation.
THE LAW
By letter dated 22 May 2002 the Court invited the Government to submit observations on the admissibility and merits of the case. The Government, by letter dated 2 August 2002, made certain proposals regarding a settlement of the application on which proposals the applicant’s representatives commented.
By their letter to the Court of 8 November 2002 the Government confirmed that, in the interests of a speedy resolution of the matter, they were prepared to pay to the applicant in full and final settlement of the matter 5,500 pounds sterling (GBP) in respect of any pecuniary and non-pecuniary loss suffered by him together with any legal costs and expenses necessarily and reasonably incurred. By letter to the Court dated 28 November 2002 the applicant’s representatives accepted the Government’s offer and forwarded their bill of costs in the sum of GBP 2,982.15 (inclusive of value-added tax).
By letter dated 24 December 2002 the Government confirmed that a cheque in the sum of GBP 8,482.15 had been forwarded to the applicant’s legal representatives, that amount representing the agreed sum of GBP 5,500 and the amount claimed in respect of costs and expenses (GBP 2,982.15).
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