R (B) v Camden London Borough Council
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 05 July 2005 |
| Neutral Citation | [2005] EWHC 1366 (Admin) |
| Date | 05 July 2005 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
[2005] EWHC 1366 (Admin)
Court and Reference: Administrative Court; CO/1780/2004
Stanley Burnton J
Appearances: P Bowen (instructed by Kaim Todner) for B; C Lewis (instructed by the solicitor to Camden LBC) for the Defendants; S Kovats (instructed by the solicitor to the Department of Work and Pensions) for the Health Secretary as interested party.
Whether public authorities responsible for the provision of s. 117 after-care to a conditionally discharged patient had breached their duty by delay; whether they were liable under s. 47 National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 ; whether the patient's rights under Arts 5 and 8 ECHR had been infringed; damages.
B was detained under ss. 37 and 41 Mental Health Act 1983 in late 1998 following his conviction for inflicting grievous bodily harm and unlawful wounding; the offences were committed in Camden, where B lived. When the Home Office permitted B to have unescorted leave, in August 2002, it also imposed an exclusion zone comprising the Camden area. In October 2002, B was transferred from a Regional Secure Unit to Avesbury House, a low secure hospital in Edmonton. On 11 September 2003, a Mental Health Review Tribunal made a deferred order for his conditional discharge, proposing conditions including residence at a hostel. B's Responsible Medical Officer felt that he could be conditionally discharged to a suitable hostel, which would have to be outside Camden, though he would require testing by way of overnight leaves first. B was not actually discharged until 12 July 2004.
The defendants (collectively 'Camden') were both responsible for B's aftercare under s. 117 of the 1983 Act. Prior to the September 2003 tribunal, they had been involved in seeking to identify a suitable hostel, following a request made in March 2003 by a social worker at Avesbury House; however, as a Care Programme Approach risk assessment concluded that B remained appropriately placed in Avesbury House, Camden thought that there was no urgency in arranging a community placement. By the time of the tribunal, several potential placements had assessed B and had either rejected him or had been rejected by him. The tribunal decision indicated that a hostel was to be identified within 6 months.
Camden were informed of the tribunal decision on 5 November 2003. Their care manager, Mr H, undertook an updated assessment of B's needs, commencing on 3 December 2003. On 9 December 2003, Holtwhites Villa, a specialist hostel, provisionally offered B a place, which Avesbury approved and which B was keen to take up. On 14 January 2004 Camden confirmed that Holtwhites' had become a housing service funded by the LB of Enfield, so that it was no longer subject to social services registration and inspection. At a CPA/s117 meeting on 19 January 2004, it was noted that Holtwhites had not yet been recognised in its new status by Enfield, and that further liaison between Camden and Enfield would be required to solve difficulties relating to the funding of the placement.
Camden completed a draft Community Care Assessment on 22 January 2004; it did not specify any placement as being the appropriate accommodation for B. On 27 January 2004, Camden's care manager went on sick leave: B's case was initially covered by the team manager, but on 29 March 2004 his case was re-allocated. On 5 February 2004 Camden were informed that Enfield would not fund the Holtwhites placement. On 24 February 2004 Avesbury wrote to inform Camden that Hotlwhites would hold B's referral to 14 March 2004, after which it would consider other applicants, and that it was doubtful that an alternative would be found in the short term. The funding complications continued to be addressed by Camden into March 2004.
In February 2004 B's solicitors had requested a date for a further hearing of the tribunal, and commenced correspondence with Camden's solicitors, eventually threatening proceedings in relation to the delay and requesting the approval of interim funding because the placement was at risk. Camden's solicitors asserted that Holtwhites had not been identified as an appropriate placement for B. On 2 April 2004, Avesbury confirmed to B's solicitors that he had been assessed and accepted by Holtwhite, that his clinical team considered it to be suitable, that B wanted to go there, but that Camden had yet to agree funding. Upon learning of the threatened judicial review, Camden's assistant director decided that the most expeditious way of funding the placement would be through the social services budget; a Camden care manager would therefore have to visit Holtwhites to confirm its suitability, and a contract would have to be agreed.
B commenced proceedings on 6 April 2004, seeking injunctive relief in relation to funding for the placement in the interim, an order that Camden fund the placement, and damages under s. 8 Human Rights Act 1998 on the grounds that Camden were in breach of the after-care duty owed to B under s. 117 of the 1983 Act and had infringed his rights under Arts 5 and 8 ECHR. On 21 April 2004 Goldring J ordered Camden to fund B's placement at Holtwhites in the sum of £3,000 on the proviso that it was satisfied that it was suitable and it was willing to contract on Camden's standard terms, and to use its best endeavours to do so before the impending tribunal. A Camden social worker had visited Holtwhites on 20 April 2004, and between 21 and 23 April 2004 contractual terms were agreed between Camden and Holtwhites.
The further tribunal hearing took place on 26 April 2004. In a report to the tribunal, B's RMO said that he remained appropriately detained while the facilitation of his placement was completed. The tribunal repeated its decision that B should be discharged on satisfaction of the conditions set out in its order dated the 11 September 2003; it expressed concern at the delay in implementing its decision. On the same day, B's RMO requested a grant of overnight leave for B at Holtwhites; the request was granted on 14 May 2004.
A CPA/s117 meeting on 21 June 2004, final clarification of the funding arrangements for the hostel was still required from Camden. B had used his overnight leaves to the hostel successfully, and the hostel was prepared to accept him. The relevant outreach team had assessed B and agreed with his discharge to the hostel. Camden confirmed funding, and a care plan was agreed. On 2 July 2004, the tribunal confirmed that the conditions specified in its decision of 11 September 2003 had been met to its satisfaction. B moved to Holtwhites Villa on 12 July 2004.
Introduction
1. On 12 October 1998, the Claimant was convicted of offences of inflicting grievous bodily harm and unlawful wounding contrary to s. 20 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861. Orders were made for his detention under ss. 37 and 41 of the Mental Health Act 1983. He remained so detained until 2 July 2004, when he was conditionally discharged by a mental health review tribunal to reside at Holtwhites Villa in the LB Enfield. The tribunal had previously, on 11 September 2003, made a deferred order for his conditional discharge, which depended, among other things, on the availability of suitable hostel accommodation. He contends that part at least of the delay between that date and his eventual conditional discharge was due to the breach of statutory duty by the Defendants, who were the authorities responsible for his after-care under s. 117 of the Act.
2. In these proceedings the Claimant, B, seeks damages against the Defendants for alleged infringements of his rights under Arts 5 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights that he contends were caused by the Defendants' breach of statutory duty.
3. The Defendants were both s. 117 authorities in relation to B. They are the local authority and mental health trust for the area where he resided before his arrest. They have sensibly joined forces to oppose his claim, and do not make any allegations against each other. It is accordingly unnecessary to distinguish between them, and I shall refer to them both as "Camden". They deny that they acted in breach of statutory duty or that B is entitled to any damages against them.
4. The Secretary of State appeared by Mr Kovats in view of the contentions advanced by B as to the nature and extent of the duties of s. 117 authorities and the remedies that are or should be available to a claimant who establishes a breach of their duties. In the event, however, Mr Kovats did not advance any different submissions to those of Mr Lewis.
The facts
5. The facts set out below are taken from the contemporaneous documents in the trial bundle and the witness statements filed by the parties. I have replaced reference to B's name with his initial in all quotations. Save for a date (26 May 2004, when B started his overnight leaves to Holtwhites Villa) that does not prejudice the Defendants, I have not taken into account a letter of Carol Chester, to whom I refer below, dated 20 April 2005, produced by Mr Bowen during his reply. It is far too late then to introduce controversial evidence, which the Defendants have no opportunity to address. In any event, the letter was unspecific as to crucial dates, namely those when conditions B and C stipulated in the tribunal's decision of 11 September 2003 were satisfied.
6. Following his arrest for the offences referred to above, B was admitted to Camlet Lodge Regional Secure Unit in Enfield on 6 May 1998. He continued to be detained there after the making of the s. 37 and s. 41 orders in October 1998. His offences were committed in Camden, where he had lived, and in order to avoid any possibility of contact with the victims the Home Office imposed an exclusion zone consisting of the LB Camden on the unescorted leaves that he was permitted from August 2002.
7. In...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R (on the application of Worcestershire County Council) v Secretary of State for Health and Social Care
...but failure to use reasonable endeavours without strong reasons may amount to an unlawful exercise of the discretion: see R (B) v Camden London Borough Council [2005] EWHC 1366 (Admin), [2006] LGR 19, paras 3 The facts 10 This case concerns a particular individual who, to preserve her ano......
-
R NM v The London Borough of Islington Northamptonshire County Council First (Interested Party) The Parole Board Second (Interested Party)
...on the issue. 72 Ms Williams relied more particularly on R v Bristol City Council, ex p. Penfold (1998) 1 CCLR 315 and R(B) v Camden London Borough Council (2005) EWHC 1366 (Admin). In Penfold Scott-Baker J said: "The question is whether in conducting the first stage of the exercise under S......
-
Worcestershire County Council v Secretary of State for Health and Social Care
...the person's needs, as well as continuity of care, is consistent with the pragmatic approach in R(B) v London Borough of Camden [2005] EWHC 1366 [57]–[60] which, at the very least, encourages responsible bodies to plan ahead even where the section 117 duty has not yet 154 Paragraph 57 of th......
-
(1) Mahammad Razai (2) Arben Draga and Another v Secretary of State for the Home Department
...of discretion – see [20]. Lord Phillips M.R. endorsed these concessions-see [29]. Although, as Stanley Burnton J. observed in R (B) v Camden London Borough Council [2005] EWHC 1366 (Admin) at [60], the point was not the subject of competing argument, a similar conclusion was expressed by th......
-
Table of Cases
...Review Tribunal (Northern Region) [2005] EWCA Civ 1605 157 R (on the application of B) v Camden London Borough Council & Others [2005] EWHC 1366 (Admin) 190 R (on the application of C) v MHRT London South and South West Region [2000] MHLR 220 178 R (on the application of C) v South London &......
-
After-care under Section 117 of the Mental Health Act 1983
...to actually make those arrangements. This was considered in R (on the application of B) v Camden London Borough Council & Others [2005] EWHC 1366 (Admin), where it was suggested that although the duty to provide after-care only arises at the point of discharge, ‘practicality requires sectio......