European Human Rights in the Mental Health Act 2001 and
the Criminal Law (Insanity) Act 2006
Darius Whelan
Mental Health and Human Rights
Seminar
October 2007
3
Key Dates
31 Dec. 2003 – European Convention on Human Rights Act 2003 came into force
1 June 2006 – Criminal Law (Insanity) Act 2006 came into force
1 November 2006 – Main parts of Mental Health Act 2001 came into force
4
The 2001 and 2006 Acts in general conform with the ECHR
Acts are vast improvement on the previous law
ECHR had major influence on how ’01 and ’06 Acts were drafted
ECHR also impacted on amendments made during Oireachtas debates
5
Focus in this paper is on possible further improvements which might be made in light of ECHR
Note ECHR arguments will often be made in parallel with Irish constitutional law arguments
11
Right to liberty. No one to be deprived of liberty save in following cases and in accordance with procedure prescribed by law [art.5(1)]
One case: lawful detention of “person of unsound mind” [art. 5(1)(e)]
Right to information on “arrest” [art.5(2)] Right to take proceedings for decision on
lawfulness of detention [art.5(4)]
Article 5 ECHR
12
Winterwerp v Netherlands (1979)
Decision to detain must be based on finding of a true mental disorder determined by objective medical expertise
Mental disorder must be of kind or degree warranting compulsory confinement
and Validity of continued confinement must be
based on the persistence of the disorder
13
De Facto Detention
Voluntary Patient who does not have capacity to consent to admission,
and/or wishes to leave centre but fears re-grading as
involuntary patient
14
“Bournewood Gap”
R v Community and Mental Health NHS Trust, ex parte L. (1998) House of Lords: De Facto Detention justified by
common law doctrine of necessity H.L. v United Kingdom (2004)
European Court of HR: Detention of this kind breaches Article 5
17
See also Irish case: H. v Russell (2007) Relevant period where a patient was, apparently,
a “voluntary” patient was not in substance voluntary
Detention held to be unlawful
18
Speed of Tribunal Reviews
Reviews must be within 21 days of admission or renewal order
As regards first review, this may not be “speedy” enough to satisfy ECHR L.R. v France (2002) – 24 days too long
19
Note views of Dept of H & C, 2007: Tribunal hearings should take place at earliest
possible opportunity 14-day time period for second consultant’s report
should be reduced
20
Frequency of Reviews
While automatic reviews are desirable, they do not necessarily fully comply with Article 5
“The detainee’s access to the judge should not depend on the good will of the detaining authority.” Rakevich v Russia (2003)
21
Definition of “unsound mind”
ECHR has not defined “unsound mind” Irish case: R. v Byrne and Flynn (2007)
S.3(1)(a) – serious likelihood of immediate and serious harm to self/ others – envisages a high level of probability
“Harm” – physical and mental injury are included “Serious” – Infliction of minor physical injury to
person themselves could be regarded as not serious
22
Scope of Review
Tribunal has limited powers – only two main choices: confirm or revoke order
Arguable that Tribunals need to have more extensive powers, e.g. to order conditional discharge; defer discharge until place available
23
UK: Postponing Release until suitable place in community available
Johnson v UK (1997) J. no longer had a mental disorder Discharge must not be unreasonably delayed
24
Burden of Proof
Act is silent about burden of proof at Tribunal stage
On appeal to Circuit Court: Burden of proof on patient
Unclear whether this complies with ECHR R v MHRT, N. & E. London, ex parte H. (2001) Is an appeal stage different from first instance
stage? Delcourt v Belgium (1970) – Appeal courts should
comply with Art. 6
25
Impartiality
Patient appears to be only party to Tribunal hearing
Normal triangular model of Tribunal has not been established
Tribunals need to take care in questioning patient not to act as if “against” patient
26
Independence of executive
Minister appoints Mental Health Commission based on criteria in s.35
Commission appoints Tribunal members under s.48
27
Article 6
Fair and public hearing within reasonable time by independent and impartial Tribunal
Applies to determination of civil rights Right to liberty is civil right
Aerts v Belgium (1998) Equality of arms, reasons for decisions,
reasonable time, etc. Right to participate effectively
28
A v Refugee Appeals Tribunal (2006) Arguably selected previous decisions of
Mental Health Tribunals need to be made available
29
Restriction on right of access to court S.260 Mental Treatment Act 1945 ECHR upheld English equivalent –
Ashingdane v UK (1985) Blehein v Minister for Health and Children
(2004) Where does Blehein leave s.73 Mental
Health Act 2001?
30
Article 3
Freedom from inhuman or degrading treatment
No successful case in Europe yet Possible challenges can be envisaged
32
Article 5
No need for psychiatric report for 14-day detention for assessment [s.4(6) + s.5(3)]
Can be extended up to 6 months in insanity cases after consultation with psychiatrist [s.5(3)(b)]
Keys: This may breach Winterwerp principles
34
Lack of clarity re personality disorders Minister McDowell: “It may or may not be
that [s.8 of the 2001 Act] is a tacit admission that mental disorder could include a personality disorder and, therefore, section 8 was necessary to take it out of that realm. Alternatively, the whole Act could be read as stating mental disorder under the 2001 Act was not intended to cover personality disorder.” (176 Seanad Debates 259.)
35
Lack of clarity may breach requirement in art. 5 ECHR that detention be “in accordance with procedure prescribed by law”
36
Reviews
Initial detention involves judicial decision and therefore review not needed
Subsequent reviews at least every 6 months Human Rights Commission suggested 3
months Period of time from application for review by
patient to date of review – “as soon as may be” – s.13(8) + (9)
37
Procedures
Minister must consent to procedures of Review Board [s.12(6)]
Criticised as Ministerial “veto”
38
Powers of Courts and Review Board
More extensive than Mental Health Tribunals But different powers for different categories of
case - Unfit for trial cases: court may order out-patient
treatment – s.4(5) Insanity cases: court does not have this power –
s.5(2)
39
Information
No statutory right to information for patient Contrast Mental Health Act 2001
Care must be taken to comply with requirement of information on “arrest”
40
Impartiality
Only three members of Review Board have been appointed
How will RB deal with situation where member of RB has had previous dealings with patient?
What if successful Judicial Review? No alternative members available to re-hear case
41
Transfers from Prison
Aerts v Belgium (1998) Court can have regard to nature of treatment
available in prison In Mr A’s case, detention in prison breached Art. 5
as he had a mental disorder Contrast Bizzotto v Greece (1996)
42
Independence of executive
Minister appoints Review Board members. Very few criteria in Act for appointment
National Disability Authority feared this breached ECHR
Mental Health Commission: Questions about independence could be raised Could be unfair that composition of RBs would
vary
Top Related