Intellectual Disability in UK Law

Kuvan significantly ameliorates the effects of PKU: however, even in a responsive patient there still has to be some dietary management, and the patient will still have to take supplements (albeit a smaller amount). The European Commission granted a marketing authorisation for Kuvan, valid throughout the European Union, on 2 December 2008.

I acknowledge that a court should not lightly find a violation of article 3. The ECtHR has repeated many times that a minimum degree of severity of treatment is required. Whether that degree of severity is established on the facts of a particular case involves a question of judgment. The judge was better equipped than this court to be able to evaluate the seriousness of the treatment, taking all the circumstances of the case into account.

My Lords, it is difficult to think of an activity which is more person and situation specific than sexual relations. One consents to this act of sex with this person at this time and in this place. Autonomy entails the freedom and the capacity to make a choice of whether or not to do so. This is entirely consistent with the respect for autonomy in matters of private life which is guaranteed by article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

In considering that wider question the matters to which a judge will invariably have to have regard to include (1) the extent to which the offender needs treatment for the mental disorder from which the offender suffers, (2) the extent to which the offending is attributable to the mental disorder, (3) the extent to which punishment is required and (4) the protection of the public including the regime for deciding release and the regime after release.

The word “specialist” refers to the level of expertise delivered within a service, with “highly specialist” meaning a very high level of expertise. In contrast, “specialised” and “highly specialised” refer to the commissioning models used by NHS England to commission specialised and highly specialised services, respectively.

In my judgment, NICE was entitled to interpret this criterion in the way that it did. Applying this approach, “very few” means, normally, four or fewer, though there are some highly specialist services that are provided in a slightly higher number of centres.

It is well established that the omission of a good character direction is not necessarily fatal to the fairness of the trial or to the safety of a conviction— Jagdeo Singh's case [2006] 1 WLR 146 para 25 and Bhola v The State [2006] UKPC 9, paras 14–17.