UK
government told to pay £3,730 by European court of human rights for distress
caused by hospital holding her for several months
theguardian.com,
Owen Bowcott, legal affairs correspondent, Tuesday 22 October 2013
The ECHR in Strasbourg ruled MH was detained illegally – against the wishes of her family. Photograph: Johanna Leguerre/AFP |
The
government has been ordered by the European court of human rights to pay
compensation to a severely disabled patient with Down's syndrome for detaining
her illegally.
The woman,
named only as MH, lived in Shropshire, where she was taken into hospital on
mental health grounds in January 2003, initially for assessment.
Her mother
tried to have her discharged but the hospital blocked the request on the
grounds that the woman would have been a danger to herself and others.
Social
workers then applied to the local county court to "displace" the
mother as her nearest relative. That application had the effect of extending
MH's detention indefinitely.
She was
eventually released in July 2003 but judicial review proceedings were begun
against the health secretary.
MH
complained that her right to challenge the lawfulness of her detention had been
violated because there was no provision under UK law for the automatic review
of the detention of persons without legal capacity.
Her lawyers
also argued that there had been no provision for a patient, whether
incapacitated or not, to take proceedings before a court or tribunal when the
detention had been extended indefinitely.
In a
unanimous judgment, the court in Strasbourg held that the UK had violated the
woman's right to liberty during the first 27 days of her detention.
It ordered
the UK government to pay the woman, who is now in her 40s, compensation of
€4,400 (£3,730). She also received a similar sum for her legal costs.
The judges
said: "It is clear that special safeguards are called for in the case of
detained mental patients who lack legal capacity to institute proceedings
before judicial bodies. However, it is not for this court to dictate what form
those special safeguards should take."
No comments:
Post a Comment