Summary of Judgment - In re JR 148
| Jurisdiction | Northern Ireland |
| Neutral Citation | Summary of Judgment - In re JR 148 |
| Court | Court of Judicature (NI) |
| Date | 22 October 2021 |
Judicial Communications Office
1
22 October 2021
COURT REJECTS CHALLENGE TO REGULATION AND
INSPECTION OF COMMUNITY MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES
Summary of Judgment
Mr Justice Colton today dismissed an application for leave to apply for a judicial review of the
arrangements for the regulation and inspection of community mental health services.
The applicant, a man in his 50s, has a long history of very serious mental health illness which has
resulted in regular admissions to mental health hospitals. Since 2017 he has been receiving mental
health treatment in the community. The applicant contended that since the beginning of the
restrictions imposed as a result of the Covid-19 pandemic he has struggled with the Home
Treatment Crisis Response Team (“HTCR”) which provides intensive home treatment and support
to those experiencing severe mental health problems who would otherwise have no option but to be
admitted to hospital. He claimed that he has had to make repeated admissions to a mental health
institution as an in-patient because he considers the treatment is receiving through the community
does not adequately meet his individual treatments.
The applicant met representatives of the Trust and reviewed all his referrals to the HTCR in the
previous six months. The Director of Mental Health and Disability Services in the Trust undertook a
review of calls made by the applicant. He addressed a number of issues at the meeting and
apologised for the distress that one incident caused to the applicant. The applicant sought to bring
a judicial review focussing on an allegation that the Trust had failed to make adequate arrangements
for an independent inspection of the HTCR and his dissatisfaction with the response he received to
complaints he raised with the Trust. He based his claim on alleged breaches of Articles 2 and 3 of
the European Convention on Human Rights (“ECHR”) and separately Article 14 ECHR in
conjunction with Articles 2 and 3.
In its judgment, the court outlined the structure for the provision of health care in Northern Ireland
and the key statutory provisions. It also considered the current arrangements for the regulation and
inspection of community mental health services, the formal complaints mechanisms, and the role of
the Regulation Quality Improvement Authority (“RQIA”).
Articles 2 and 3 ECHR
It is well established in both European case law and domestic law that a sufficient evidential
threshold is required before an applicant’s rights under Articles 2 or 3 can be engaged or breached.
Article 2(1) places a positive obligation on States to ensure that there are in force suitable laws for the
protection of human life and to provide the necessary means of enforcing those laws. Article 3
provides protection against inhuman or degrading treatment. The court commented that context is
essential in assessing each case.
In relation to Article 2, the applicant contended that his medical condition is such that he is a suicidal
risk and that that State has an obligation to provide ongoing medical care and treatment. It was also
argued that the State is required to put in place a system of regulation and supervision of that care.
To continue reading
Request your trial