EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS
FIRST CHAMBER
Application No. 25601/94
Joseph Patrick Ferdinand Roux
against
the United Kingdom
REPORT OF THE COMMISSION
(adopted on 16 September 1997)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1
PART I : STATEMENT OF THE FACTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3
PART II : SOLUTION REACHED. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5
INTRODUCTION
1. This Report relates to the application introduced under
Article 25 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human
Rights and Fundamental Freedoms by Mr. Joseph Patrick Ferdinand Roux
against the United Kingdom on 12 July 1994. It was registered on
7 November 1994 under file No. 25601/94.
2. The applicant was represented by Mr. S.J. Rees, solicitor, of
Darwen.
3. The Government of the United Kingdom were represented by their
Agent, Mr. M.R. Eaton, of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, London.
4. On 4 September 1996 the Commission (First Chamber) declared the
application admissible. It then proceeded to carry out its task under
Article 28 para. 1 of the Convention which provides as follows:
"In the event of the Commission accepting a petition referred to
it:
a. it shall, with a view to ascertaining the facts, undertake
together with the representatives of the parties an examination
of the petition and, if need be, an investigation, for the
effective conduct of which the States concerned shall furnish all
necessary facilities, after an exchange of views with the
Commission;
b. it shall at the same time place itself at the disposal of
the parties concerned with a view to securing a friendly
settlement of the matter on the basis of respect for Human Rights
as defined in this Convention."
5. The Commission (First Chamber) found that the parties had reached
a friendly settlement of the case and on 16 September 1997 it adopted
this Report, which, in accordance with Article 28 para. 2 of the
Convention, is confined to a brief statement of the facts and of the
solution reached.
6. The following members were present when the Report was adopted:
Mrs. J. LIDDY, President
MM. M.P. PELLONPÄÄ
E. BUSUTTIL
A. WEITZEL
C.L. ROZAKIS
L. LOUCAIDES
B. MARXER
B. CONFORTI
N. BRATZA
I. BÉKÉS
G. RESS
A. PERENIC
C. BÎRSAN
K. HERNDL
Mrs. M. HION
Mr. R. NICOLINI
PART I
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS
7. The applicant is French / Canadian citizen born in 1945. When he
introduced his application he was detained at Ashworth Hospital.
8. The applicant was convicted in October 1974 after an argument
with a prostitute over money. In 1975 he was convicted of unlawfully
and maliciously administering a destructive thing, assault, and other
offences (one involving threats to a prostitute). A hospital order
without limit of time was made on 12 September 1975, and the applicant
was admitted to Broadmoor Hospital under Sections 60 and 65 of the
Mental Health Act 1959 (now Sections 37 and 41 of the Mental Health Act
1983) on 7 October 1975. He was transferred to Ashworth Hospital on
15 December 1980.
9. On 25 February 1994 the Mental Health Review Tribunal found that:
"...this patient continues to suffer from psychopathic disorder
but ... such disorder is no longer of a nature or degree which
makes it appropriate for him to be detained in a hospital for
medical treatment."
10. The Tribunal noted that the applicant had made remarkable
progress over the previous four years, and that the risk which was
inherent in such cases was minimal. It considered that he should be
liable to recall, and discharged him conditionally. The discharge
conditions were:
- that he resided at a named address or such other place
approved by his supervising team;
- that he received psychiatric treatment as and when
directed;
- that he received social work and / or probation
supervision; and
- that he received such psychological treatment as was
considered necessary by the supervising team.
11. The applicant was discharged on 11 April 1994. He returned to his
sheltered accommodation in a drunken state on the first night,
appearing to be in a distressed state about the breakdown of a
relationship with a nurse at Ashworth. On 16 April he described himself
as suicidal and he was admitted to a psychiatric clinic as a voluntary
patient the next day. In early May he returned to the sheltered
accommodation with the agreement of those supervising him, but there
was continued concern that he was exceeding the agreed levels of
alcohol intake.
12. On 25 May 1994 the applicant was recalled to Ashworth, pursuant
to Section 42 (3) of the Mental Health Act 1983. A decision was taken
by the supervising team not to inform the applicant of the pending
recall as it was feared that he would react in a negative way to the
news, and would be likely to abscond from the accommodation. A letter
giving the reasons for the recall was sent to Dr. Cooney, the
supervising psychiatrist at Ashworth, and he has confirmed that he
discussed the reasons for recall with the applicant shortly after the
applicant's recall.
13. On 12 July 1994 the applicant's then representatives wrote to the
Home Office asking for the reasons for recall. The reasons were given
by letter of 4 August 1994.
14. The applicant's case was referred to a Mental Health Review
Tribunal under Section 75 (1) (a) of the Mental Health Act 1983 on
17 June 1994. Section 75 (1) (a) provides that the Secretary of State
must refer the case of a recalled, conditionally discharged restricted
patient to the Mental Health Review Tribunal within one month of the
day on which the patient is returned to hospital.
15. The applicant was not able himself to refer the case to a Mental
Health Review Tribunal, but applied for judicial review of the
Secretary of State's decision to recall.
16. The Mental Health Review Tribunal met on 16 December 1994. It
considered statements from the responsible medical officer and the Home
Secretary, and reports from the social worker and the probation
officer. The Home Secretary opposed discharge, primarily on the ground
that the applicant continued to pose a serious danger to the public.
The Mental Health Review Tribunal directed the applicant's conditional
discharge, subject to residence and supervision conditions. It gave as
its reasons:
"The patient continues to suffer from psychopathic disorder. He
has had the benefit of substantial psychological assistance and
treatment in a secure hospital over many years. He continues to
require treatment in the form of advice and social support and
psychological treatment in the forms of alcohol and sex
education. The risk of a recurrence of the sort of behaviour
which led to his index offences remain, but is fairly low, and
could be monitored in the community with the strict observance
of certain conditions. The treatment required does not need to
be undertaken in conditions of high security."
17. The applicant was released on 9 January 1995, after appropriate
arrangements had been made.
18. The judicial review proceedings were terminated on
23 February 1995 as there was no longer any reason to continue.
19. The applicant complained of his recall and of the time taken for
the case to be brought before a tribunal, alleging violation of
Articles 5 and 13 of the Convention.
PART II
SOLUTION REACHED
20. Following the decision on the admissibility of the application,
the Commission (First Chamber) placed itself at the disposal of the
parties with a view to securing a friendly settlement in accordance
with Article 28 para. 1 (b) of the Convention and invited the parties
to submit any proposals they wished to make.
21. In accordance with the usual practice, the Chamber Secretary,
acting on the Commission's instructions, contacted the parties to
explore the possibilities of reaching a friendly settlement.
22. After an exchange of correspondence, the following agreed terms
of settlement were submitted on 3 July 1997:
"The Government will pay £2,000.00 to the applicant together with
the agreed costs of his application. The Government has also
undertaken that, after consultation, the Mental Health Tribunal
Rules of 1983 will be amended to introduce a fixed time limit of
two months for a hearing to take place in the case of
applications of patients who have been recalled. The Government
also intends, following consultation and subject to parliamentary
approval, to include in a revised version of the Mental Health
Act Code of Practice (issues under Section 118 of the Act) new
guidance about the responsibility of hospital managers to ensure
that reports to Tribunals are prepared and submitted in
accordance with the time limits set down in the Tribunal rules.
Compliance on these matters will be monitored through the normal
mechanisms for performance monitoring in the National Health
Service."
23. At its session on 16 September 1997, the Commission noted that
the parties had reached an agreement regarding the terms of a
settlement. It further considered, having regard to Article 28
para. 1 (b) of the Convention, that the friendly settlement of the case
had been secured on the basis of respect for Human Rights as defined
in the Convention.
24. For these reasons, the Commission adopted the present Report.
M.F. BUQUICCHIO J. LIDDY
Secretary President
to the First Chamber of the First Chamber
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy