AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application No. 27560/95
by R.S.C.
against the United Kingdom
The European Commission of Human Rights (First Chamber) sitting
in private on 28 May 1997, the following members being present:
Mrs. J. LIDDY, President
MM. M.P. PELLONPÄÄ
A. WEITZEL
C.L. ROZAKIS
L. LOUCAIDES
B. MARXER
B. CONFORTI
N. BRATZA
G. RESS
A. PERENIC
C. BÎRSAN
K. HERNDL
M. VILA AMIGÓ
Mrs. M. HION
Mr. R. NICOLINI
Mrs. M.F. BUQUICCHIO, Secretary to the Chamber
Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection
of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;
Having regard to the application introduced on 30 May 1995 by
R.S.C. against the United Kingdom and registered on 9 June 1995 under
file No. 27560/95;
Having regard to:
- the reports provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure of
the Commission;
- the respondent Government's letter of 16 May 1997 informing the
Commission that agreement had been reached between the parties;
Having deliberated;
Decides as follows: THE FACTS
The applicant is a British citizen born in 1956. He is detained
in Broadmoor Hospital and is represented before the Commission by
Mr. S. Reynolds, solicitor, of Messrs. Brutton & Co., Fareham,
Hampshire.
The facts of the application, as they have been submitted by the
applicant, may be summarised as follows.
The applicant was convicted of false imprisonment, indecent
assault, assault occasioning actual bodily harm and arson in
August 1988. Hospital and restriction orders were made under Sections
37 and 41 of the Mental Health Act 1983.
The applicant's deferred conditional discharge was recommended
by the Mental Health Review Tribunal on 25 February 1994, and he left
hospital on 1 November 1994. He was recalled by a Home Office warrant
on 16 November 1994, after an alleged attack on a young woman.
On 22 November 1994 the Home Secretary referred the case to the
Mental Health Review Tribunal under Section 75 (1) (a) of the Mental
Health Act 1983.
An application for legal aid to apply for judicial review of the
Home Secretary's decision to recall the applicant was refused on
1 May 1995 on the ground that the applicant had not shown sufficient
grounds for taking the proceedings. In any event, the time limit for
an application for judicial review had passed, and there was no
reasonable prospect of obtaining leave to apply out of time.
On 20 September 1995 the Mental Health Review Tribunal adjourned
its consideration of the case for a supplementary report from one of
the doctors, so that the applicant would have a greater chance of
success when eventually discharged. In addition, the applicant's
counsel had asked for an adjournment as she only received certain
papers from a doctor on 9 September.
The case was again adjourned on 21 February 1996 for two doctors
to make further reports and to be able to attend the hearing, which was
fixed for 25 March 1996.
At the hearing on 25 March 1996 the Mental Health Review Tribunal
found that the applicant had suffered from and was continuing to suffer
from a psychopathic disorder, and that he continued to need treatment
for his condition in a secure unit, both for his own health and safety
and for the protection of others.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant alleges a violation of Article 5 para. 4 of the
Convention in two respects. He claims, first, that the allegations
brought against him were accusations of criminal conduct which should
have been put before a court, and, secondly, that the review by the
Mental Health Tribunal did not satisfy the requirements of Article 5
para. 4 because it failed to consider the reasons for his recall, and
because it did not decide "speedily".
The applicant claims that he has no right to compensation in
respect of the alleged breaches of Article 5 para. 4.
The applicant also alleges violation of Articles 8 and 13 of the
Convention in that his recall was disproportionate to the established
facts of the matter, and that he has no effective remedy in connection
with it.
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION
The application was introduced on 30 May 1995 and registered on
9 June 1995.
On 4 September 1996 the Commission (First Chamber) decided to
communicate the application to the respondent Government.
On 21 January 1997, at the Government's request, the Commission
decided to adjourn further examination of the case pending the outcome
of negotiations between the parties.
By letter of 16 May 1997 the Government informed the Commission
that an agreement had been reached between the Government and the
applicant. In the Memorandum of Agreement signed by the parties, the
Government agreed to pay to the applicant the sum of £2,000.00 by way
of compensation together with the sum of £2800.86 by way of costs. The
applicant agreed to withdraw the application. The Government also
undertook - after consultation and subject to Parliamentary approval -
(i) to amend the Mental Health Review Tribunal Rules 1983 so that when
a conditionally discharged patient is recalled to hospital there must
be a Tribunal hearing within two months from the date on which the case
is referred to the Tribunal (which must be within a month of recall),
and (ii) to include in a revised version of the Mental Health Code of
Practice (issued under Section 118 of the Mental Health Act 1983) 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 with the matters
to be monitored through the normal mechanisms for performance
monitoring in the National Health Service. The agreement also
contained ancillary declarations.
REASONS FOR THE DECISION
Article 30 para. 1 of the Convention provides as follows:
"The Commission may at any stage of the proceedings decide to
strike a petition out of its list of cases where the
circumstances lead to the conclusion that:
(a) the applicant does not intend to pursue his petition, or
(b) the matter has been resolved ...
However, the Commission shall continue the examination of a
petition if respect for human rights as defined in the Convention
so requires."
The Commission has had regard to the terms of the agreement
reached between the applicant and the respondent Government, and finds
that the applicant does not intend to pursue his petition, within the
meaning of Article 30 para. 1 (a) of the Convention, and that the
matter has been resolved, within the meaning of Article 30 para. 1 (b)
of the Convention.
Having regard to the terms of the agreement between the applicant
and the respondent Government, the Commission also finds no reasons
within the meaning of the final sentence of Article 30 para. 1 which
could require the Commission to continue the examination of the
application.
For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously,
DECIDES TO STRIKE THE APPLICATION OUT OF ITS LIST OF CASES.
M.F. BUQUICCHIO J. LIDDY
Secretary President
to the First Chamber of the First Chamber
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy