QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
London WC2A 2LL
Monday 21st January 2002
B e f o r e :
|T H E Q U E E N|
|ON THE APPLICATION OF|
|(1) MENTAL HEALTH REVIEW TRIBUNAL||Defendants|
|(2) THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR HEALTH|
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 190 Fleet Street
London EC4A 2AG Tel: 020 7404 1400
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
Crown Copyright ©
"The unopposed professional evidence was that he requires a high level both of procedural and relational security, whilst the need for physical security is less paramount.
In total we conclude his treatment could only safely be delivered in a high secure hospital.
We note that a recent assessment from Dr Thomas from a specialist medium secure unit with expertise in autism concluded that he could not be treated there since he is too dangerous.
We conclude that the detention in Rampton Hospital is not currently in excess of his requirements.
The tribunal is satisfied that the clinical team will take appropriate steps to obtain a placement elsewhere when this is feasible in the light of his complex treatment needs which are currently met at Rampton Hospital.
The Tribunal find no breach of the provisions of the Human Rights Act."
"... totally misplaced in an admission ward in a high secure setting";
and the view that:
"In a ideal world he should be in a medium secure unit with six others in North London with staff trained to work with people with autism. The nurses would have particular skills in working with people with autism."
"I understand that, at the last such hearing on 26 February 2001, the Tribunal concluded that Mr H.'s detention at Rampton was not in excess of his requirements and that his human rights have not been breached".
"I understand that there are units elsewhere in the country which might be suitable... I am advised that one of these, in Bristol, was involved in his care prior to his admission to Rampton, but declined to admit him. I understand that the Nottinghamshire Health Care NHS Trust, which covers Rampton Hospital, continues to keep the position under review."
"Nevertheless, there have been a number of incidents of aggression, some recent, and he has required seclusion on two occasions in the last two months. It was suggested to the Tribunal that the projection of danger relies only upon a disputed episode of threat with a knife towards a woman. It does not. It includes assault in hospital which led to facial injuries and rib fracture in staff.
He responds adversely to high expressed emotion; the Tribunal recognise the sincere view of his mother that he would be safely supported by extensive family contact. However, it concludes that unfortunately this is not wholly realistic, nor, on the evidence, would it necessarily be beneficial to his overall treatment."
"In principle, the 'detention' of a person as a mental health patient will only be 'lawful' for the purposes of sub-paragraph (e) of paragraph (1) if effected in a hospital, clinic or other appropriate institution authorised for that purpose. However, subject to the forgoing, Article 5(1)(e) is not in principle concerned with suitable treatment or conditions."
"... the injustice suffered by Mr Ashingdane is not a mischief against which Article 5(1)(e) of the Convention protects."
MR OWUSU: My Lord, may I apply for my taxed costs in relation to this application?
MR JUSTICE MAURICE KAY: There is no certificate on the file. Assuming one is filed within seven days you may have the order.
MISS GIOVANETTI: I have an application on behalf of the defendant. We have in mind the practice direction. We are not aware of any decision of the courts dealing expressly with the recommendation point in the context of mental health. My Lord, you have heard full argument and you have had skeleton arguments. We would ask you to direct that there is no duty to rely upon this judgment.
MR JUSTICE MAURICE KAY: Yes.