AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application No. 16397/90
by Robert TURNBRIDGE
against the United Kingdom
The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on
17 May 1990, the following members being present:
MM. C.A. NØRGAARD, President
S. TRECHSEL
E. BUSUTTIL
A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK
A. WEITZEL
J.C. SOYER
H.G. SCHERMERS
H. DANELIUS
J. CAMPINOS
H. VANDENBERGHE
Mrs. G.H. THUNE
Sir Basil HALL
M. F. MARTINEZ
Mrs. J. LIDDY
Mr. L. LOUCAIDES
Mr. H.C. KRÜGER, Secretary to the Commission
Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the
Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;
Having regard to the application introduced on 15 August 1989
by Robert TURNBRIDGE against the United Kingdom and registered on
4 April 1990 under file No. 16397/90;
Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 40 of the
Rules of Procedure of the Commission;
Having deliberated;
Decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant is a citizen of the United Kingdom, born in 1958
and compulsorily detained in Broadmoor Hospital, Crowthorne,
Berkshire.
The applicant complains of his continued detention in a secure
mental hospital. He states that he is "good, not mad or evil" and
that he is "greater than Jesus Christ". He alleges that the hospital
staff assault and poison him.
A medical report dated 21 February 1989 by the applicant's
responsible medical officer states that the applicant suffers from a
chronic psychotic, schizophrenic illness and that he shows violent,
disturbed behaviour which high levels of medication and treatment have
not managed to diminish. The Mental Health Review Tribunal decided on
12 December 1989 that the applicant should not be discharged as he is
seriously mentally ill, the applicant remaining "bizarrely deluded,
grandiose in his ideas, without insight, and sure of the workings of a
'power' upon him which makes him do things".
COMPLAINTS
The applicant claims to be a victim of a violation of Articles
5 and 6 of the Convention. He states that his further detention in
Broadmoor is unjustified and his treatment there in breach of Article
5. He also alleges that the right to a Mental Health Review Tribunal
decision but once a year is contrary to the reasonable time
requirements of Article 6 of the Convention.
THE LAW
1. The applicant has complained that his continued detention and
treatment in a secure mental hospital violates Article 5 (Art. 5) of the
Convention, the relevant part of which provides as follows:
"1. Everyone has the right to liberty and security of
person. No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in
the following cases and in accordance with a procedure
prescribed by law: ...
(e) the lawful detention ... of persons of unsound mind ...
4. Everyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or
detention shall be entitled to take proceedings by which
the lawfulness of his detention shall be decided speedily
by a court and his release ordered if the detention is
not lawful."
The Commission has examined the applicant's case, as it has
been submitted by him, but finds no evidence that the applicant is not
lawfully detained as a person of unsound mind within the meaning of
Article 5 para. 1 (e) (Art. 5-1-e) of the Convention. Moreover, the
applicant has had the benefit of a periodic review of the lawfulness
of his detention by the Mental Health Review Tribunal, which may be
considered as a court for the purposes of Article 5 para. 4 (Art. 5-4)
of the Convention in cases like that of the applicant.
In this connection, the applicant has complained that an
annual verification of the lawfulness of his detention by the Mental
Health Review Tribunal is insufficient for the purposes of the time
requirements of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention.
However, the appropriate Convention provision, the lex specialis, for
the discharge of mental patients is the aforementioned Article 5
para. 4 (Art. 5-4) of the Convention, which has been interpreted by
the Convention organs as requiring the periodic review of the
lawfulness of the continued compulsory detention. Once instituted
such reviews must be conducted speedily (Eur. Court H.R., Luberti
judgment of 23 February 1984, Series A no. 75, p. 15, paras. 31-32).
The Commission finds nothing to suggest that the period of a
year which the applicant must respect before he can reapply to the
Mental Health Review Tribunal for his discharge is an unreasonable
interval in the circumstances of the present case. Moreover, the
Commission notes that the applicant has not alleged that the Tribunal
has failed to deal with his applications, once instituted, with the
speed required by Article 5 para. 4 (Art. 5-4) of the Convention.
In these circumstances the Commission concludes that the
applicant's continued detention in Broadmoor Hospital does not
disclose any appearance of a violation of Article 5 (Art. 5) of the
Convention. These aspects of the case are, therefore, manifestly
ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the
Convention.
2. Finally, the applicant has complained of ill-treatment, namely
assault and poisoning, by the hospital staff. However, the Commission
is unable to deal with these matters as the applicant has made no
attempt to exhaust domestic remedies such as civil litigation in
trespass to person (assault) or negligence. This part of the
application must therefore be rejected under Articles 26 (Art. 26)
and 27 para. 3 (Art. 27-3) of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Commission
DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.
Secretary to the Commission President of the Commission
(H.C. KRÜGER) (C.A. NØRGAARD)
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy