FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 58851/00
by Balbir Singh VIRDI
against the United Kingdom
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 8 October 2002 as a Chamber composed of
MrM. Pellonpää, President,
SirNicolas Bratza,
MrA. Pastor Ridruejo,
MrsV. Strážnická,
MrR. Maruste,
MrS. Pavlovschi,
MrL. Garlicki, judges,
and Mr M. O’Boyle, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 4 May 2000,
Having regard to the parties’ submissions,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Balbir Singh Virdi, is a United Kingdom national who was born in 1953. He lives in a hostel in Birmingham. He is represented before the Court by Mr P. Kenny, a lawyer practising in Shropshire.
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
In 1993 the applicant pleaded guilty to rape. He was sentenced to hospital and restriction orders under sections 37 and 41 of the Mental Health Act 1983 (“the 1983 Act”). At the time of sentencing, he was diagnosed as suffering from paranoid schizophrenia.
On 24 November 1997 the Mental Health Review Tribunal found that he was no longer suffering from a psychiatric disorder requiring detention for treatment and ordered his discharge from hospital subject to certain conditions including his residence at a hostel approved by the medical team. Pending the fulfilment of, inter alia, that condition, his discharge was deferred (pursuant to section 73(7) of the 1983 Act).
Some difficulty was experienced in making the necessary arrangements to implement the conditions and, in particular, in finding suitable accommodation. Consequently, the applicant remained in the psychiatric hospital. His conditional discharge took effect on the 31 January 2000, when he was released to a hostel.
B. Relevant domestic law and practice
The Court recalls the outline of the domestic law and practice set out in its Johnson judgment (Johnson v. the United Kingdom judgment of 24 October 1997, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-VII, §§ 35-45).
COMPLAINT
The applicant complains that his detention between 24 November 1997 and 31 January 2000 violated Article 5 § 1(e) because he was no longer suffering from mental illness warranting detention for treatment.
THE LAW
By letter dated 6 March 2002 the Court invited the Government to submit observations on the admissibility and merits of the case. The Government, by letter dated 17 May 2002, made certain proposals regarding a settlement of the application on which proposals the applicant’s representatives subsequently submitted comments to the Government.
The Government then confirmed, by their letter to the applicant’s representatives of 9 August 2002, that they were prepared to pay the applicant 10,000 pounds sterling (GBP) in respect of any pecuniary and non-pecuniary loss suffered by him together with GBP 2,000 in respect of his legal costs and expenses, which payment would be made in full and final settlement of the present application. The applicant’s representatives accepted that offer on the applicant’s behalf by their letter to the Government of 14 August 2002.
By letter also dated 14 August 2002 to the Court, the applicant’s representatives confirmed that a friendly settlement had been reached in the application.
The Court notes that the matter has been resolved within the meaning of Article 37 § 1(b) of the Convention. It is further satisfied that the parties’ agreement is based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention or its Protocols (Article 37 § 1 in fine). Accordingly, the case should be struck out of the Court’s list of cases.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
Michael O’BoyleMatti Pellonpää
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy