England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
(Mr Justice Stanley Burnton)

		Royal Courts of Justice The Strand London Wednesday 2 October 2002

Wednesday 2 October 2002

LORD JUSTICE BROOKE:

1. This is an appeal against an order of Master Venne when he refused expedition of the appeal. It is also an appeal against the substantive appeal against an order of Stanley Burnton J dated 10 July 2002, when he refused to grant a writ of habeas corpus. It is clear that the appellant has received notice that the case is listed today because he has sent a message to the Civil Appeal Office, expressing concern that the matter was not being listed before three Lords Justices and stating that a "nominal rejection" either on 2 October 2002 or in the course of normal listing in 2003 would be a waste of court time and not serve him any purpose.
2. The matter has remained in the list. The case has been called outside. Mr Lee does not attend.
3. This is in many respects a sad case. Mr Lee formerly lived in North Wales. He moved to the Doncaster area in early 2001. He has never been registered with a general practitioner in the Doncaster area and has never been treated by the first respondents, Doncaster & South Humber Healthcare NHS Trust.
4. When he was in North Wales nearly five years ago he was admitted to hospital there for assessment pursuant to section 2 of the Mental Health Act 1983, but he was unconditionally discharged from that section 2 order by a Mental Health Review Tribunal shortly afterwards. He discharged himself from the hospital care and he has had no subsequent treatment.
5. He applies for habeas corpus. He is not detained. I have read with care the papers that he has put before the court. Stanley Burnton J rejected the application, ruling that habeas corpus was an inappropriate procedure in his case. If he wished to proceed by way of judicial review, that was a matter for him. In those circumstances Stanley Burnton J dismissed the application.
6. Mr Lee appeals as of right, since the liberty of the subject is at the centre of habeas corpus proceedings. There is nothing in the papers which he put before this court on appeal which suggests that in any way habeas corpus is the appropriate form of relief. In those circumstances there is no need for me to make any order on the appeal against Master Venne's order since the substantive appeal is being heard today. I dismiss the appeal. I also direct that he should pay the respondents' costs, to be assessed.
ORDER: Appeal dismissed; costs to be assessed.