Broadmoor Special Hospital Authority and Another v Robinson
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE MORRITT,the Master of the Rolls,LORD JUSTICE WALLER,LORD WOOLF MR,Lord Justice Waller |
| Judgment Date | 20 December 1999 |
| Neutral Citation | [1999] EWCA Civ J1220-20 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1999] EWCA Civ J1220-41 |
| Docket Number | Case No: QBENI 1998/1407/A2 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Date | 20 December 1999 |
[1999] EWCA Civ J1220-20
The Master of the Rolls
Lord Justice Morritt and
Lord Justice Waller
Case No: QBENI 1998/1407/A2
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
(MR JUSTICE POOLE)
ON APPEAL FROM THE QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
MR EDWARD FITZGERALD QC and MR MARK WARWICK (instructed by Messrs Reid Minty, London W1X for the appellants)
MR RICHARD GORDON QC and MR PAUL BOWEN (instructed by Messrs Gowans, Paignton, Devon TQ4 5BT for the respondent)
Tuesday, 20 December 1999
LORD WOOLF MR:
This case raises an issue of general importance. The issue is whether a statutory body is entitled to be granted an injunction in civil proceedings to support its performance of its statutory duties.
The claimants are Broadmoor Hospital Authority (the "Authority") and Dr. Vermeulen. Broadmoor is a special hospital provided by the Secretary of State for the Department of Health pursuant to S.4 of The National Health Service Act 1977 as amended. Special Hospitals are provided for the detention of persons who in the opinion of the Secretary of State "require treatment under conditions of special security on account of their dangerous, violent or criminal propensities". The Authority is responsible for the management and the provision of treatment at Broadmoor. Dr Vermeulen is the Responsible Medical Officer ("RMO") who has responsibility for treating the defendant.
The defendant is a patient suffering from paranoid schizophrenia. He is detained at Broadmoor as a result of his conviction for manslaughter of an occupational therapist in September 1991. At the time of his offence, the defendant was undergoing treatment for his mental illness. At the time of his offence, apparently, he had intended to kill a psychiatrist.
By May 1998, the defendant had written a book entitled "Armageddon Ahoy". The defendant at his own expense had made arrangements for the Book to be printed and published. On realising this, the Authority issued proceedings. Subsequently, Dr Vermeulen was added as a party. The Authority's legal advisers communicated with the Attorney General's office as to whether the Attorney General would be prepared to bring proceedings in his capacity as guardian of the public interest. The Attorney General was not prepared to do so.
In the amended statement of claim the claimants seek an injunction that that the defendant be restrained:
(a) from publishing or seeking to publish the Book entitled "Armageddon Ahoy" or any parts thereof.
(d) from posting to anyone save those persons identified in section 134(3) of the Mental Health Act 1983 (the "Act") the Book entitled "Armageddon Ahoy" or any part of the said Book.
The claimants also by an amendment pursuant to leave granted by this court at a directions hearing on 29 April 1999 seek declarations that:
(a) the first and/or second plaintiffs entitled to instruct the defendant not to keep in his possession and/or not to publish or seek to publish the Book.
(b) it would be unlawful for the defendant to publish the Book in its present form.
(c) the first and second (plaintiffs) are entitled to seize the Book or any parts thereof.
The claim for the declarations are not in issue on this appeal. Mr Richard Gordon QC, who appears on behalf of the defendant, accepted in argument that the jurisdiction of the court to grant the declarations which are now claimed may be wider than the jurisdiction to grant the injunctions.
On 1 May 1998 Mr Justice Colman made an ex parte order granting the injunctions. The defendant's agent delivered up the copies of the Book. That order in relation to the first injunction was then continued by Mr Justice Penry-Davis on 18 May 1998. On 12 October 1998 after hearing argument on behalf of the parties, Mr Justice Poole discharged the orders made by Mr Justice Colman and Mr Justice Penry-Davis. Mr Justice Poole also ordered that so much of paragraph 7 in the Statement of Claim as alleges (either expressly or by implication) that the plaintiff has power:
(a) to prevent the defendant keeping in his possession, custody or power any copies of the Book that are neither:
(i) within the confines of Broadmoor, or
(ii) in the course of transmission by post and/or
(b) to prevent the defendant from publishing the Book
be amended or struck out as disclosing no reasonable cause of action.
Mr Justice Poole also ordered that "all copies of the Book delivered by the defendant (whether personally or by his agent) from outside Broadmoor Hospital and received by the plaintiff" as a result of Mr Justice Colman's injunction should be delivered up to the defendants' solicitors within 7 days. Pending the hearing of this appeal, the order of Mr Justice Poole has been stayed.
The Statement of Claim
As the judge struck out part of the Statement of Claim its terms are relevant. The Statement of Claim recites the fact that Broadmoor at the relevant times only admitted patients "who would present a grave danger to the public" and that Sections 3 and 37 of the Act provide for the involuntary admission of patients and their detention in hospital for medical treatment. It also sets out that Section 63 confers an express power on the RMO to provide medical treatment without the patient's consent.
The Statement of Claim alleges that the hospital had the power and (by amendment) the right to control and discipline patients in Broadmoor including the defendant and to take all necessary steps to secure a safe and therapeutic environment for patients detained at Broadmoor. By amendment it also alleges that Dr Vermeulen, as the defendant's RMO, had the right and power to instruct the defendant to surrender or hand over any offensive or potentially harmful book in his possession that would damage or interfere with his effective treatment. It is also alleged that Dr Vermeulen had the power and the right to instruct the defendant not to publish a book or to court publicity in a way that would damage his treatment. Reliance is also placed on Section 134 of the Act which gives the authority to withhold from the post office a postal package addressed "to any person by a patient detained" if in the opinion of the managers of the hospital they consider the package is likely to cause distress to the person to whom it is addressed or to any other person (not being a person on the staff of the hospital) or cause danger to any person or staff.
An allegation is also made that by necessary implication Broadmoor has a general duty to ensure that patients do not transmit to the outside world materials or documents that are likely to cause distress to the person to whom they are addressed or to cause danger to any person. Reliance is also placed on a duty which those working in Broadmoor but to patients to preserve the confidentiality of details concerning the patients mental condition, their history, their treatment and their progress in Broadmoor. It is also alleged that the defendant owes a similar duty to his fellow detainees.
Paragraph 7 (now paragraph 9.1) of the Statement of Claim, referred to in Mr Justice Poole's judgment, in its amended form states that not only have the claimants the power to do the matters referred to in the judge's order, but they now have the duty and/or right to do those things and the claimants are entitled to instruct the defendant to deliver up the Book or material which relates to the Book.
The Amended Statement of Claim also refers to the publication by the defendant of an earlier book about his life and the fact that the publication caused a deterioration in the defendant's mental state and distress to the family of the occupational therapist who the defendant killed. The likely effect of the publication of the Book particularly if this attracted the attention of the media is amplified in the witness statements and affidavits prepared by Dr Vermuelen.
Dr Vermuelen's Evidence
In his evidence Dr Vermuelen refers to the contents of the Book which the court has had the opportunity to read. As he explains, the Book describes how the defendant killed his victim and sets out his justification for doing so. That description includes the fact that the defendant states that he had "behaved without malice and with the highest motives" and that he knew he was moral. A feature of the Book is that the defendant explains that he wanted publicity for himself and that the crime was committed to "make me newsworthy". The Book describes how he enquired of the police whether his killing had been reported. He "wanted to know whether the media had yet picked upon my case". Dr Vermuelen states that the defendant had no prior knowledge or encounter with his victim and in his, the doctor's opinion, the publication of the Book would cause distress to the victim's family.
Dr Vermuelen also points out that the Book contains references to thirteen other Broadmoor patients. And that if any of those patients had the opportunity to read the Book they would recognise themselves from its contents. The Book sets out details of his fellow patients history and offences including in at least one case what the doctor had written about that patient. Some of the details are said to be intimate or embarrassing and there are references to two suicide attempts on the part of fellow patients. He says that if the contents of the Book were to come to the patients attention they would be deeply disturbed. There is also a suggestion made that the patients could attack the defendant as a result of the publication.
The Judgment
The argument which was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The Police Federation v The Commissioner of The Independent Commission of Investigations
...authorities such as R v Rollins; Gouriet v Union of Post Office Workers and Others [1977] 3 All ER 70; and Broadmoor Special Hospital Authority and Another v Robinson [2000] QB 775, Campbell J noted that it had long been established that criminal proceedings may be commenced by a private ......
-
Police Federation and Others v Commissioner of The Independent Commission of Investigations and Attorney General
...authority. Sir John Dyson, who delivered the judgment on behalf of the court, referred to Broadmoor Hospital Authority v Robinson [2000] Q.B 775 at (25), where Lord Woolf said; The statutes only rarely provide that a particular public body may institute proceedings in protection of specific......
- Interstate M & E Sdn Bhd v Fore-Sight Trading Sdn Bhd
-
His Honour Judge Alan P. Mahon, Her Honour Judge Mary Faherty and His Honour Judge Gerald B. Keys (members of the Tribunal of Inquiry into Certain Planning Matters and Payments) v Post Publications Ltd trading as The Sunday Business Post
...415 TOULSON & PHIPPS CONFIDENTIALITY 2ED 2006 FRASER v EVANS 1969 1 QB 349 BROADMOOR SPECIAL HOSPITAL AUTHORITY v ROBINSON 2000 2 AER 727 2000 QB 775 AG v JONATHAN CAPE LTD 1976 QB 752CROSSMAN DIARIES OF A CABINET MINISTER COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA v JOHN FAIRFAX & SONS LTD 1980 147 CLR 39 ......