THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 65822/01
by Earl SWABY
against the United Kingdom
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 23 May 2002 as a Chamber composed of
MrG. Ress, President,
MrI. Cabral Barreto,
SirNicolas Bratza,
MrP. Kūris,
MrB. Zupančič,
MrJ. Hedigan,
MrsM. Tsatsa-Nikolovska, judges,
and Mr V. Berger, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 22 December 2000,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Earl Swaby, is a United Kingdom national, who was born in 1960 and lives in Bristol. He is represented before the Court by Mr I. Dumont, a lawyer practising in Bristol.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
On 19 June 1986, the applicant was convicted inter alia of kidnapping, and causing grievous bodily harm. On 15 July 1996, he was admitted to Broadmoor Hospital under sections 37 and 41 of the Mental Health Act 1983. In November 1996, he was transferred to Fromeside Clinic, Bristol.
On 5 March 1999, a Mental Health Review Tribunal decided that the applicant would be conditionally discharged, but that the discharge was to be deferred until satisfactory arrangements were made to meet conditions mandated by the Tribunal. It decided that the applicant was not now suffering from mental illness or any of those forms of disorder which would make it appropriate for the patient to be liable to be detained in a hospital.
After this decision, the applicant remained detained at Fromeside Clinic as accommodation that met the Tribunal’s conditions had not been located. Under section 117 of the Mental Health Act 1983, it was the duty of the Bristol City Council and of the Avon Health Authority to make arrangements necessary to meet the conditions imposed by the Mental Health Review Tribunal.
On or around 8 December 1999, the applicant commenced judicial review proceedings seeking, inter alia, an order requiring Bristol City Council to arrange for provision of after-care services to the applicant.
On 22 June 2000, the applicant was moved to live outside the clinic.
By order dated 10 July 2000, the judicial review proceedings were finalised by a consent order whereby the applicant discontinued his claim and the respondents were ordered to pay the applicant’s legal costs.
COMPLAINT
The applicant complained under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention that his detention was prolonged unreasonably as a result of the failure of the local and health authorities to locate suitable accommodation for the applicant after a Mental Heath Review Tribunal ordered his conditional release from hospital.
THE LAW
By letter dated 15 March 2002, the Government notified the Court that the applicant had accepted their offer to settle the case on the payment of 10,000 pounds sterling (GBP). By letter dated 22 March 2002, the applicant confirmed that he wished to withdraw his case in light of this settlement.
The Court notes that the applicant has reached agreement with the Government and wishes to withdraw his application in light of the payment of GBP 10,000 by way of compensation.
The Court finds that the applicant no longer wishes to pursue his application within the meaning of Article 37 § 1(a) of the Convention. Furthermore, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 in fine, the Court finds no special circumstances regarding respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols which require the examination of the application to be continued.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
Vincent BergerGeorg Ress
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy