Stone v South East Coast Strategic Health Authority and Others [Admin. Ct.]
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 12 July 2006 |
| Neutral Citation | [2006] EWHC 1668 (Admin) |
| Date | 12 July 2006 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
[2006] EWHC 1668 (Admin)
Davis J
Appearances:R Clayton QC and G Nardell (instructed by Peter Edwards Law) for S; P Havers QC and B Collins (instructed by Capsticks) for the Defendants (South East Coast Strategic Health Authority, Kent County Council, Kent Probation Board); E Laing (instructed by Department of Health Solicitors) for the Secretary of State for Health (as Interested Party); J Badenoch QC (instructed by Harman and Harman) for Josephine Russell (as Interested Party)
Whether a report into the psychiatric care and treatment of a man convicted of homicide should be published in full in light of its extensive citation from his medical records; the application of Arts 8 and 10 European Convention and the Data Protection Act 1998
S was convicted of 2 murders and an attempted murder, though he continued to deny his guilt. He was at the time under the care of psychiatric services. An inquiry was commissioned by the authorities responsible for his care and supervision to investigate the adequacy of the care he was offered prior to the offences, including an issue about whether his condition amounted to a psychopathic disorder which was not treatable (so excluding his detention under the Mental Health Act 1983), and to comment on the adequacy of mental health law in relation to such patients. S allowed his medical and probation records to be used by the inquiry, though he declined to give evidence to it. However, he objected to the publication of the report in full in light of its extensive citation from his medical records. The broad outline of the material was already in the public domain from significant news reports about S, namely that he had suffered from mental illness, and had an antisocial personality disorder with obsessive traits, and had harboured fantasies about torture and killing.
The inquiry panel recommended that its report be published to serve the public interest. It noted that there was legitimate public concern as to whether the arrangements for S's treatment, care and supervision and the protection of the public were adequate; and that, as the agencies responsible had stated that the arrangements had been appropriate, the public had a right to know the outcome on an inquiry into that assertion and about matters such as whether any steps could be taken to prevent any failings uncovered by the inquiry from recurring. The panel also noted that there had been some inaccurate reporting and unsubstantiated speculation about the facts, and so there was a public interest in having an accurate version of the facts involved set out, both because the case was notorious and because it was often cited in discussion as to proposed reforms relating to the treatment of those suffering from severe personality disorders. It was also noted that much material relating to S was in the public domain, but not all of it was accurate and it would be unfair to him not to allow the accurate account to be published. Similarly, criticisms had been made in the media of various agencies and their employees: the panel felt that its conclusions as to whether they were ill-founded should be published, as should any criticisms which were upheld with reasons and an indication of any lessons that could be learned. On a more general level, the panel felt that publication was important for public confidence in the system of supervision and treatment of mentally disordered offenders: the actions of the relevant services should be open to scrutiny and any failings and corrective actions should be recorded to provide reassurance to the public.
Following correspondence, the commissioning authority decided to publish the report in full. S accepted that a redacted report could be published, but argued that publication of the full report would breach Art 8 European Convention and the Data Protection Act 1998.
Introduction
1. On 9 July 1996 Lin Russell and her daughter Megan, aged 6, were the subject of a vicious attack while walking with their dog in a country lane in Kent. They were savagely beaten about the head with a blunt instrument; both died from their injuries. Megan's sister, Josie, then aged 9, was also with them at the time. She too was viciously attacked: but in the event she somehow survived her injuries. The sheer guts with which she, and her father Dr Shaun Russell, have thereafter confronted the horrendous events of that day have been the subject of universal admiration.
2. In 1997 Michael Stone was arrested and charged with 2 counts of murder (of Lin and Megan Russell) and one of attempted murder (of Josie Russell). He was convicted after a trial on all counts. On 8 February 2001 his appeal against conviction was allowed. A retrial was ordered. At that retrial, Mr Stone was again convicted. He was sentenced to life imprisonment. His appeal against that conviction was dismissed on 19 January 2005.
3. Following the conviction of Mr Stone at his first trial, the three Defendants commissioned an independent Inquiry into the care, treatment and supervision of Mr Stone in the years prior to 1996. The members of the Inquiry Panel were Mr Robert Francis QC, Leading Counsel with extensive experience of medical law and litigation and inquiries; Dr James Higgins, Consultant Forensic Psychiatrist; Mr Emlyn Cassam, retired Director of Norfolk Social Services; and (until his resignation for professional reasons in 2004) Prof Ivor Gaber, then Professor of Broadcast Journalism at Goldsmith's College, London.
4. The report of the Inquiry was substantially completed by the end of 2000. Mr Stone cooperated with the Inquiry by giving it full access to his medical and probation and other records, although not giving evidence himself to the Panel. The intention of the Panel was that its report be published: but this inevitably had to await the outcome of the criminal proceedings and appeal process.
5. During the course of 2005 Mr Stone, through his lawyers, indicated that he objected to the report in its full form being published to the world at large. He accepted and accepts that the full version of the report may be provided to health professionals and relevant professional bodies and similar agencies (who would be under a duty of confidentiality with regard to its contents). He also accepted and accepts thatsomeversion of the report properly could, indeed should, be placed before the public. But it is asserted that the extensive citations from his private medical and other such notes and disclosure of psychiatric and other such information in the report would, if publicised, be a disproportionate and unlawful interference with his private life, contrary to Art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. It is also asserted that publication would breach the provisions of the Data Protection Act 1998.
6. The Defendants rejected these arguments. On 15 November 2005 they formally resolved to publish the report in its complete form. By Claim Form issued on 19 December 2005 Mr Stone challenged that decision, seeking declaratory relief and a quashing order. On 1 February 2006 Collins J granted permission. By consent the report has in the interim not been published.
7. During the course of the proceedings, the Secretary of State for Health and Josie Russell were joined to the proceedings as interested parties. At the hearing before me Mr Stone was represented by Mr Clayton QC and Mr Nardell; the Defendants by Mr Havers QC and Mr Collins; the Secretary of State by Miss Laing; and Josie Russell by Mr Badenoch QC.
8. It may be noted that Mr Stone continues to assert his innocence. However, so far as this Court is concerned it must proceed and does proceed on the footing that he committed these crimes, as the jury have decided. Further, the report of the Inquiry is in no way directed at the issue of guilt or innocence of Mr Stone, which of course formed no part of its terms of reference: although the reality is that the report itself is now to be read in the context of Mr Stone having been found guilty of these crimes.
9. It is also relevant to note at the outset that the horrific murders, and the lengthy trial process relating to Mr Stone, have attracted huge publicity and extensive media coverage, which has continued to the present day. Even the fact of these judicial review proceedings has itself received some press coverage and representatives of the press were in court at stages during the hearing before me: which was conducted in public albeit with certain agreed reporting restrictions.
The Background to the Inquiry
10. There is no dispute that the three Defendants were empowered to commission the Inquiry: see, in particular, s. 2(b) of the National Health Service Act 1977 (as amended); para 3(1) of the National Health Service etc Regulations 2002 (SI 2002 No 2375). In that regard also, guidance on the discharge of mentally disordered people and their continuing care in the community is proffered to Health Trusts and other such bodies in guidelines contained in HSG(94)27: whether such stated guidance is permissive or directory is not now of importance for present purposes. Paragraphs 34 to 36 of such guidelines relate specifically to the holding of independent inquiries (new, and more detailed, guidance was published in 2005). I was told that a significant number of such inquiries have taken place over the last few years; I was also told that, so far as is known, none has attracted the form of legal complaint to publication that this inquiry report now has.
11. The terms of reference of the Inquiry were:
"Fact-finding stage
To report on what care, supervision and services were provided by the Health Service, Social Services and the Probation Service in respect of Michael Stone and what professional judgements were made about his condition, its 'treatability', and his...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ian Alexander Mcphail Galt Against Inverclyde Advice And Employments Rights Centre
...the test of proportionality, that there has to be a pressing social need (Stone v South East Coast Strategic Health Authority [2006] EWHC 1668 (admin)), and that the sheriff erred in finding that conditions 5(a) and 7(1)(a) had been satisfied. The respondent had failed to aver and to lead a......
-
Andrew Smith Q.c. V. S.l.a.b.
... ... of counsel's fees, issued by the authority of the Faculty of Advocates and the Council of ... ...
-
Geoffrey Driver v Crown Prosecution Service
...and that it implies the existence of a ‘pressing social need.’” 113 In Stone v South East Coast Strategic Health Authority [2006] EWHC 1668 (Admin), [60], a case on the DPA 1998, Davis J said: “60. It is clear in this case – and is conceded on behalf of Mr Stone at this stage of the argume......
- Corporate Officer of the House of Commons v Information Commissioner and Others
-
The Duty of Confidentiality in Irish Medical Law: Individualistic and Communitarian Rationales
...Practitioners Disciplinary Committee [1986] 1 NZLR 513. 21 X v Y [1988] 2 All ER 649; Stone v South East Strategic Health Authority [2006] EWHC 1668 (Admin); Saha v GMC [2009] EWHC 1907. 2017] Irish Privacy Law: A Comparative Perspective 57 Whilst a doctor might be allowed to breach her dut......
-
Confidentiality in Disarray: Should Doctors in Ireland Disclose Genetic Information to Patients' Relatives?
...[2020] (n 3) [257]. 112 Gilbar and Foster ‘Doctors’ Liability’ (n 35) 119. 113 Stone v South East Coast Strategic Health Authority [2006] EWHC 1668 (Admin) [44]. 114 Z v Finland (1998) 25 EHRR 371 [95]. 115 ibid [94]. 38 sarah kelly As discussed, there are multiple sources of conidentiality......
-
Critical decisions and questions regarding serious case reviews – ideas from North West England
...ADULT PROTECTIONjPAGE 227 16. Michael Stone v. South East Coast Strategic Health Authority, Kent County Council, Kent ProbationBoard [2006] EWHC 1668 (Admin) at 45.2. In this case, the perpetrator had given consent for hismedical records to be accessed by the Independent Inquiry but opposed......