R (Dale Lee-Hirons) v Secretary of State for Justice
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Jackson,Patten LJJ,Sir Stanley Burnton |
| Judgment Date | 01 May 2014 |
| Neutral Citation | [2014] EWCA Civ 553 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Docket Number | C1/2013/2111 |
| Date | 01 May 2014 |
Human rights - Liberty - Restricted patient - Patient recalled to hospital - Reasons for recall given orally when warrant for recall executed - Whether adequate - Further oral reasons given over two weeks later - Written reasons for recall not given - Whether failure to provide adequate reasons promptly after detention breaching Convention rights to liberty and to reasons for detention - Whether breaches rendering recall and detention unlawful -
The claimant, having been detained in hospital pursuant to hospital and restriction orders made under the Mental Health Act 1983F1, was conditionally discharged following a review by the First-tier Tribunal. He was later recalled to hospital by the Secretary of State pursuant to section 42(3) of the 1983 Act. The warrant recalling the claimant gave no reason for his recall but at the time of its execution the claimant was informed orally that he was being recalled because his mental health had deteriorated. A Department of Health circular stated that a patient being recalled to hospital under section 42(3) should be told the reasons for his recall as soon as possible after readmission and that in any event oral and written explanations should be provided within 72 hours of his readmission. No such explanations were given to the claimant. Over two weeks after his recall, the claimant was read a copy of the report of his social supervisor which had formed the basis of his recall. The claimant sought judicial review by way of, inter alia, a declaration that the defendant’s decision to recall him absent written reasons had been unlawful, thereby rendering his subsequent detention unlawful, and damages for false imprisonment or breach of his right to liberty in article 5 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental FreedomsF2. The judge dismissed the claim, holding that, while fairness required that reasons be provided to a person being recalled under section 42(3), the provision of written reasons was not a condition precedent to lawful recall and, on the facts, the decision to recall the claimant had been lawful because his mental health had deteriorated and, since oral reasons for his recall had been given to him when the warrant had been executed, his subsequent detention was not unlawful.
On the claimant’s appeal—
Held, dismissing the appeal, that article 5.1 of the Convention did not require that a patient be given the reasons for his detention, either orally or in writing, at the time when he was detained, but article 5.2 required those reasons to be adequately and promptly given to him following his detention; that the common law did not require more to be given to a patient at the time when a warrant under section 42(3) of the Mental Health Act 1983 was executed than had been given to the claimant, and in particular did not require written reasons to be given at that time; that since a failure timeously to provide full reasons for a lawful detention did not of itself affect the decision to detain or to continue to detain it did not render the detention unlawful at common law or under article 5.1 of the Convention; and that, accordingly, while the Secretary of State had breached both the policy set out in the circular and the claimant’s rights under article 5.2 of the Convention, such breaches did not render unlawful either what had been a lawful recall or the claimant’s subsequent detention (post, Court of Appeal judgments, paras 27–28, 36, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 48, 51, 52, 54, 55–56, 57).
Per Jackson LJ. The Secretary of State’s current practice of including brief reasons for the individual’s recall in the warrant is good (post, para 55).
The following cases are referred to in the judgment of Sir Stanley Burnton in the Court of Appeal:
Christie v Leachinsky [
Fox, Campbell and Hartley v United Kingdom (
R (SK (Zimbabwe)) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
R (WL (Congo)) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
R (Wooder) v Feggetter
Van der Leer v The Netherlands (
X v United Kingdom (
The following additional cases were cited in argument before the Court of Appeal:
R v Westminster City Council, Ex p Ermakov [
R (Hirst) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
R (O) v West London Mental Health NHS Trust
The following additional cases, although not cited, were referred to in the skeleton arguments before the Court of Appeal:
IT v Secretary of State for Justice
Kay v United Kingdom (
Murray v United Kingdom (
R v Birch (
R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex p Doody [
R (M) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
R (MM) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
R (Munjaz) v Mersey Care NHS Trust
R (Rayner) v Secretary of State for Justice
Winterwerp v Netherlands (
The following cases are referred to in the judgment of Dingemans J:
Bubb v Wandsworth London Borough Council
Christie v Leachinsky [
IT v Secretary of State for Justice
R v Westminster City Council, Ex p Ermakov [
R (WL (Congo)) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
R (M) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
R (MM) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
R (O) v West London Mental Health NHS Trust
R (Von Brandenburg) v East London and The City Mental Health NHS Trust
R (Wooder) v Feggetter
The following additional cases were cited in argument before Dingemans J:
Fox, Campbell and Hartley v United Kingdom (
R (KB) v South London and South and West Region Mental Health Review Tribunal
R (L) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
Van der Leer v The Netherlands (
Winterwerp v Netherlands (
X v United Kingdom (
CLAIM for judicial review
By a claim form the claimant, Dale Lee-Hirons, claimed judicial review by way of (i) a declaration that the decision of the Secretary of State for Justice of 19 July 2012 to recall him to hospital as a detained psychiatric patient, pursuant to section 42(3) of the Mental Health Act 1983, and his subsequent detention there were unlawful, and (ii) damages for false imprisonment, on the grounds that (1) the recall decision had partly and wrongly related to a supposed delusional disorder and had therefore taken into account an irrelevant consideration; (2) there was no proper medical evidence to substantiate a delusional disorder; (3) the statutory test for recall had not been applied; and (4) the claimant should have, but had not, been supplied with written reasons at the time of his recall. Partnerships in Care Ltd, which operated the hospital where the claimant was detained, was named as an interested party.
The facts are stated in the judgment.
John McKendrick (instructed by
Marina Wheeler (instructed by
Susanna Rickard (instructed by
The court took time for consideration.
28 June 2013. DINGEMANS J handed down the following judgment.
Introduction1 This case raises, among other matters, an issue about whether reasons for a restricted patient’s recall to detention in a hospital have to be provided orally or in writing.
2 The claimant, Mr Lee-Hirons, claims that the decision of the defendant, the Secretary of State for Justice, to recall him, pursuant to section 42(3) of the Mental Health Act 1983, to be detained in a hospital...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R (on the application of Lee-Hirons) v Secretary of State for Justice
...UKSC 46 before Lady Hale, Deputy President Lord Kerr Lord Wilson Lord Reed Lord Toulson THE SUPREME COURT Trinity Term On appeal from: [2014] EWCA Civ 553 Appellant Jenni Richards QC John McKendrick (Instructed by Stephens Scown LLP) Respondent Martin Chamberlain QC Oliver Jones (Instructe......
-
The King on the application of MKA v Secretary of State for Defence
...v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry [2008] EWCA Civ 1312 at [19] and [21]; R (Lee-Hirons) v Secretary of State for Justice [2014] EWCA Civ 553). The context is relevant to determine the scope and the detail of the reasoning and what coherent reasoning would consist in, in a case su......