R (M) v Ashworth Hospital Authority

JurisdictionUK Non-devolved
JudgeLORD BINGHAM OF CORNHILL,LORD STEYN,LORD HOPE OF CRAIGHEAD,LORD SCOTT OF FOSCOTE,LORD BROWN OF EATON-UNDER-HEYWOOD
Judgment Date13 October 2005
Neutral Citation[2005] UKHL 58
CourtHouse of Lords
Date13 October 2005
Regina
and
Ashworth Hospital Authority (now Mersey Care National Health Service Trust)
(Appellants)
ex parte Munjaz (FC)
(Respondent)

[2005] UKHL 58

Appellate Committee

Lord Bingham of Cornhill

Lord Steyn

Lord Hope of Craighead

Lord Scott of Foscote

Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood

HOUSE OF LORDS

Appellants:

John Howell QC

Ms Phillippa Kaufmann

(Instructed by Capsticks)

Respondents:

Nigel Pleming QC

Ms Fenella Morris

(Instructed by Hogans)

Interveners

Mental Health Act Commission

Jonathan Swift

(Written intervention)

(Instructed by Treasury Solicitor)

MIND

Richard Gordon QC

Paul Bowen

(Instructed by Mind Legal Unit)

Secretary of State for Health

Clive Lewis

Ben Hooper

(Instructed by Solicitor, Department of Health)

LORD BINGHAM OF CORNHILL

My Lords,

1

In December 2002 the appellant, the Mersey Care National Health Service Trust, as managers of Ashworth Hospital, implemented a written policy governing the seclusion of patients detained at the hospital. The issue in this appeal is whether that policy is unlawful, either because it is inconsistent with the domestic law of England and Wales or because it fails to comply with the European Convention on Human Rights. Sullivan J at first instance held the policy to be lawful in both respects: [2002] EWHC 1521 (Admin). For reasons given in a judgment of the court delivered by Hale LJ, the Court of Appeal (also including Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers MR and Latham LJ) declared the policy to be unlawful: [2003] EWCA Civ 1036, [2004] QB 395. In this appeal the Trust challenges that decision. Its legal submissions are supported by the Secretary of State for Health as an interested party. Mr Colonel Munjaz seeks to uphold the Court of Appeal decision. His submissions are supported and elaborated by the National Association for Mental Health (Mind). The Mental Health Act Commission makes written submissions in support of Mr Munjaz.

2

Ashworth Hospital is one of three hospitals (the others are Broadmoor and Rampton) which provide high security hospital accommodation and services for persons liable to be detained under the Mental Health Act 1983. The Secretary of State is bound by sections 1 and 4(1) of the National Health Service Act 1977 to provide such accommodation for persons who "in his opinion require treatment under conditions of high security on account of their dangerous, violent or criminal propensities". It is not in doubt that among those detained at Ashworth there are patients who, for differing periods and in differing degrees, but sometimes to an extreme degree, exhibit such propensities. The Trust became the managers responsible for Ashworth with effect from 1 April 2002.

3

Mr Munjaz is a man now in his late 50s. After a number of spells in prison and hospital he was admitted to Ashworth from prison under sections 47 and 49 of the 1983 Act on 19 July 1984. He remained an in-patient until March 1992, when he was discharged by a Mental Health Review Tribunal. About a year later he was arrested and charged with a number of offences and was admitted, from prison, to a medium secure unit in August 1993. In that unit he became increasingly psychotic, aggressive and violent. He was placed in seclusion and transferred to Ashworth on 1 March 1994. Since then he has been secluded on a number of occasions for the protection of others. In these proceedings he originally complained of four periods of seclusion in the years 2001-2002, the longest of these lasting for 18 days and the shortest for 4. But, as will be seen, these complaints are not pursued. His claim now relates solely to the general lawfulness of the policy of the Trust with respect to medical reviews of seclusion and its application to patients at Ashworth.

The legislative background

4

The admission, detention and treatment in NHS hospitals of those suffering from mental disorder are largely governed by the 1983 Act. Part II of the Act governs compulsory admission to hospital and guardianship. Patients are ordinarily detained in hospital by the managers of the hospital acting on the authority of medical recommendations. At common law those who have custody of or treat or look after patients owe them a duty of care, but this duty is fortified by section 127 of the 1983 Act which makes it a criminal offence punishable by imprisonment to ill-treat or wilfully neglect a hospital in-patient.

5

Section 118(1) of the 1983 Act is central to this appeal and, as amended in 1995, provides:

"(1) The Secretary of State shall prepare, and from time to time revise, a code of practice?

  • (a) for the guidance of registered medical practitioners, managers and staff of hospitals and mental nursing homes and approved social workers in relation to the admission of patients to hospitals and mental nursing homes under this Act and to guardianship and after-care under supervision under this Act; and

  • (b) for the guidance of registered medical practitioners and members of other professions in relation to the medical treatment of patients suffering from mental disorder."

This is followed by subsection (2) which makes more particular provision for the Code to address forms of treatment not falling within section 57(1)(a) or specified by the Secretary of State in regulations made by him for purposes of section 57(1)(b) but nonetheless calling for special care in ensuring that the patient consents. Subsection (2) provides:

"(2) The code shall, in particular, specify forms of medical treatment in addition to any specified by regulations made for the purposes of section 57 above which in the opinion of the Secretary of State give rise to special concern and which should accordingly not be given by a registered medical practitioner unless the patient has consented to the treatment (or to a plan of treatment including that treatment) and a certificate in writing as to the matters mentioned in subsection (2)(a) and (b) of that section has been given by another registered medical practitioner, being a practitioner appointed for the purposes of this section by the Secretary of State."

Before preparing or altering the Code of Practice the Secretary of State is required to consult such bodies as appear to him to be concerned (subsection (3)). The Code and any revised Code must be laid before Parliament, and either House may within a specified period require its alternation or withdrawal (subsections (4), (5)). The Code must be published (subsection (6)).

6

By section 120(1) of the 1983 Act the Secretary of State is required to keep under review the exercise of the powers and the discharge of the duties conferred or imposed by the Act so far as they relate to the detention of patients under the Act, and is further required to make arrangements for persons authorised by him in that behalf to visit and interview privately patients detained in hospital under the Act and to investigate complaints made by persons who are or have been detained under the Act. By section 121(2) the Secretary of State must direct that these functions shall be performed by the Mental Health Act Commission, an authoritative professional body established under section 11 of the 1977 Act and continued by section 121(1) of the 1983 Act.

7

As is now well known, section 6(1) of the Human Rights Act 1998 makes it unlawful for a public authority to act in a way which is incompatible with a Convention right. It is not in doubt that the Trust is a public authority. The victim of an act made unlawful by section 6(1) may bring proceedings under section 7(1) and obtain redress under section 8. The main Convention rights here in issue are those provided in article 3, which prohibits the subjection of any person to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, and article 8, which guarantees to everyone the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence. This guarantee in article 8(1) is supplemented and qualified by paragraph (2):

"There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of … the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others."

Reference should also be made to article 5. This guarantees to everyone the right to liberty and security of person, and provides that no one shall be deprived of his liberty save in specified cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law. The relevant case for present purposes is "(e) the lawful detention … of persons of unsound mind." Article 5(4) provides:

"Everyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings by which the lawfulness of his detention shall be decided speedily by a court and his release ordered if the detention is not lawful."

8

If in any proceedings one of the higher courts determines that any provision of primary legislation is incompatible with a Convention right, the court may so declare: section 4(1),(2) of the 1998 Act. But the courts are subject to an unusual interpretative duty designed to obviate the need for such a declaration save exceptionally. Section 3(1) of the Act provides that:

"So far as it is possible to do so, primary legislation and subordinate legislation must be read and given effect in a way which is compatible with the Convention rights."

The Secretary of State's Code of Practice

9

Pursuant to his duty under section 118(1) of the 1983 Act, following long and detailed consultation with appropriate bodies including the Mental Health Act Commission, and in accordance with the procedure prescribed by statute, the Secretary of State promulgated in March 1999 the Code of Practice relevant to...

To continue reading

Request your trial
145 cases
  • The Queen (on the application of Pitt and Tyas) v General Pharmaceutical Council
    • United Kingdom
    • Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court)
    • 11 Abril 2017
    ...paras. 54 and 73. However, that line of cases, which began with the decision of the House of Lords in R (Munjaz) v Mersey Care NHS Trust [2006] 2 AC 148, was explained in Haidar Ali Hussein at paras. 70–71. Citing the earlier judgment of Richards LJ in R (Tabbakh) v Staffordshire and West M......
  • Chandler v Camden London Borough Council
    • United Kingdom
    • Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court)
    • 13 Febrero 2009
    ...relevant government guidance and only depart from its terms for reasons that are clear and cogent: see Munjaz ~v~ Mersey Care NHS Trust (2006) 2 AC 148. 85 Mr Wolfe pointed out that the relevant ministerial guidance current at the time of the Council's July and November 2007 decisions was t......
  • R (v) v Independent Appeal Panel for Tom Hood School
    • United Kingdom
    • Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court)
    • 2 Marzo 2009
    ...it and Mr. Wolfe contends that that it must be followed unless there is a good stated reason to depart from it Munjaz v Mersey NHS Trust [2006] 2 AC 148. 77 The version of the guidance “Improving Behaviour and Attendance: Guidance on Exclusion from School and Pupil Referral Units” which was......
  • R (on the application of BF (Eritrea)) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
    • United Kingdom
    • Supreme Court
    • 30 Julio 2021
    ...Re [2018] UKSC 27; [2019] 1 All ER 173 R v Ashworth Hospital Authority (now Mersey Care National Health Service Trust) ex parte Munjaz [2005] UKHL 58; [2006] 2 AC 148; [2005] 3 WLR 793; [2006] 4 All ER 736 R (on the application of A) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2021] UKSC ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
4 firm's commentaries
  • A v. SSHD: Supreme Court Decides The Standards For Judicial Review Of Public Policies
    • United Kingdom
    • Mondaq UK
    • 1 Septiembre 2021
    ...risk of ill-treatment of the kind that falls within the scope' of article 3 ECHR referred to in R (Munjaz) v Mersey Care NHS Trust [2005] UKHL 58; [2006] 2 AC 148 [80] was found to be specific to article 3 and not a principle of general application for the assessment of The separate test of......
  • A v. SSHD: Supreme Court Decides The Standards For Judicial Review Of Public Policies
    • United Kingdom
    • Mondaq UK
    • 1 Septiembre 2021
    ...risk of ill-treatment of the kind that falls within the scope' of article 3 ECHR referred to in R (Munjaz) v Mersey Care NHS Trust [2005] UKHL 58; [2006] 2 AC 148 [80] was found to be specific to article 3 and not a principle of general application for the assessment of The separate test of......
  • BF (Eritrea): Challenging The Lawfulness Of The Secretary Of State's Policy Guidance
    • United Kingdom
    • Mondaq UK
    • 30 Agosto 2021
    ...that in Gillick, as it involves comparison of two normative statements. Finally, the Court held that R (Munjaz) v Mersey Care NHS Trust [2005] UKHL 58 and Storck v Germany (2006) 43 EHRR 6 did not apply as, in the case of the former, it is concerned with a distinct obligation pursuant to Ar......
  • BF (Eritrea): Challenging The Lawfulness Of The Secretary Of State's Policy Guidance
    • United Kingdom
    • Mondaq UK
    • 30 Agosto 2021
    ...that in Gillick, as it involves comparison of two normative statements. Finally, the Court held that R (Munjaz) v Mersey Care NHS Trust [2005] UKHL 58 and Storck v Germany (2006) 43 EHRR 6 did not apply as, in the case of the former, it is concerned with a distinct obligation pursuant to Ar......
3 books & journal articles
  • Table of Cases
    • United Kingdom
    • Wildy Simmonds & Hill A Practitioner's Guide to Mental Health Law Part One. Overview of the Mental Health Act 1983
    • 29 Agosto 2014
    ...[2011] UKUT 143 (AAC) 145 R v Antoine [2000] UKHL 20 276 R v Ashworth Hospital Authority (now Mersey Care NHS Trust) ex parte Munjaz [2005] UKHL 58 15, 85 R v B [2012] EWCA Crim 1799 273 R v Birch (1989) 11 Cr App R (S) 202 98, 99, 102, 110, 119 R v Broadmoor Special Hospital Authority ex p......
  • Mental Health Act 1983 - Overview
    • United Kingdom
    • Wildy Simmonds & Hill A Practitioner's Guide to Mental Health Law Part One. Overview of the Mental Health Act 1983
    • 29 Agosto 2014
    ...part of professionals to comply with the 1983 Code, but in R v Ashworth Hospital Authority (now Mersey Care NHS Trust) ex parte Munjaz [2005] UKHL 58, the House of Lords concluded that (at [21]): the guidance should be given great weight. It is not instruction, but it is much more than mere......
  • Medical Treatment Authorised under Part IV of the Mental Health Act 1983
    • United Kingdom
    • Wildy Simmonds & Hill A Practitioner's Guide to Mental Health Law Part Three. Detention and treatment under the Mental Health Act 1983
    • 29 Agosto 2014
    ...but is confirmed in Chapter 15 of the 1983 Code, while in R v Ashworth Hospital Authority (now Mersey Care NHS Trust) ex parte Munjaz [2005] UKHL 58, Lord Bingham offered the view that, ‘the power to seclude a patient within the hospital is implied from the power to detain as a “necessary i......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT