Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 150
March 2012
Reynolds v. the United Kingdom - 2694/08
Judgment 13.3.2012 [Section IV]
Article 13
Effective remedy
Lack of remedy in damages for suicide of applicant’s son while in voluntary psychiatric care: violation
Facts – The applicant’s son, who had been diagnosed with schizophrenia, was hospitalised in March 2005 due to fear that he might attempt to commit suicide. He was admitted as a voluntary in-patient to a crisis room at an intensive support unit run by the local council. On the first night of his stay, he died after jumping out of the window of the crisis room. An internal investigation and an inquest were carried out and made recommendations for windows in crisis rooms to be reinforced. The applicant then lodged an action for damages under the Human Rights Act 1998. The action was, however, struck out since the court found that there were no reasonable grounds for bringing the claim as, in cases of alleged medical negligence, the claimant had to prove at least gross negligence. In her application to the European Court, the applicant complained that she had no remedy at her disposal that would allow her to claim compensation for non-pecuniary damage caused by her son’s death.
Law – Article 13 in conjunction with Article 2: The Court considered that there had been an arguable claim that an operational duty arose to take reasonable steps to protect the applicant’s son from a real and immediate risk of suicide and that that duty had not been fulfilled. The inquest had constituted a detailed examination of the circumstances of the applicant’s son’s death but could not examine individual civil liability. The applicant’s action under the Human Rights Act had been struck out on the basis that she had no reasonable grounds for bringing the claim. It was not until February 2012 that the Supreme Court had confirmed in a separate case* that an operational duty to protect suicide-risk patients could arise as regards voluntary psychiatric patients such as the applicant’s son, and that parents would be entitled to non-pecuniary damage following the loss of a child in such a situation. However, prior to that date the applicant had not had any remedy available in respect of her non-pecuniary loss.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
Article 41: EUR 7,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
* Rabone v. Pennine Care NHS Trust [2012] UKSC 2.
© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights
This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.
Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy