Magna Carta in UK Law

Delay of this order appears to me to infringe at least two human rights recognised, and therefore protected, by English law. This hallowed principle of our law is now reinforced by the European Convention on Human Rights to which it is now the duty of our public authorities in administering the law, including the Immigration Act, and of our Courts in interpreting and applying the law, including the Act, to have regard: see the case of Bhajan Singh in this Court, 19th May 1973.

As we are all well aware, no adult citizen of the United Kingdom is liable to be confined in any institution against his will, save by the authority of law. That is a fundamental constitutional principle, traceable back to chapter 29 of Magna Carta 1297, and before that to chapter 39 of Magna Carta 1215. There are, of course, situations in which the law sanctions detention. The most obvious is in the case of those suspected or convicted of crime.

Powers therefore exist to ensure that those who suffer from mental illness may, in appropriate circumstances, be involuntarily admitted to mental hospitals and detained. But, and it is a very important but, the circumstances in which the mentally ill may be detained are very carefully prescribed by statute. Thus we find in the statute a panoply of powers combined with detailed safeguards for the protection of the patient.

Proceedings between the applicant and the bank started in July 1992 when they sued him for the overdraft on one of his business accounts. The applicant wants to argue this point in the Court of Appeal saying that if he cannot argue it here he will try and argue it in Europe, adding breach of Magna Carta on this aspect of the case for good measure.

The short answer to this point is that there is no conflict between Article 6 and the CPR. Article 6 gives a right to a fair and public hearing, but if (in the words of CPR 24.2) a defendant has no real prospect of successfully defending the claim against him there can be no objection to the matter being heard summarily. Indeed, there are good policy reasons why it should be so determined. Each of the hearings in which the applicant has been involved were public hearings.

Section 141 of the Mental Health Act 1959 places a hindrance on the recourse of a class of citizens to the courts of justice. The mischief and the parliamentary objective must be similar. It must have been conceived that, unless such classes of potential litigant enjoy something less than ready and unconditional access to the courts, there is a real risk that their fellow-citizens would be, on substantial balance, unfairly harassed by litigation.

It was urged that we ought not to strike out a man's action without trial because it meant depriving him of his right to come to the Queen's Courts. Magna Carta was invoked against us as if we were in some way breaking its provisions. To this there is a short answer. The delay of justice is a denial of justice. Magna Carta will have none of it. "To no-one will we deny or delay right or justice". Magna Carta: Ch. 40.