2019
|
|
Cases Reported |
| R v Rachel Julie Tunstill | 1 |
| Issue: Whether the mental disorder supporting a verdict of infanticide had to arise solely from the effects of giving birth or lactation; the potential relevance of a pre-existing mental disorder. | |
| LW v Cornwall Partnership NHS Trust; SE v Devon Partnership NHS Trust; TS v Birmingham and Solihull Mental Health NHS Trust | 6 |
| Issue: The test for upholding a Community Treatment Order based on the likelihood of relapse from not taking medication. | |
| R (CXF, acting by his mother, his litigation friend) v (1) Central Bedfordshire Council (2) North Norfolk Clinical Commissioning Group | 16 |
| Issue: Whether the duty to provide aftercare under s117 Mental Health Act 1983 arose in relation to a patient granted daily leave under s17 to take accompanied bus trips to various activities. | |
| Liuiza v Lithuania | 24 |
| Issue: Whether detention pre-trial and after a finding criminal responsibility was lacking breached Art 5(1) ECHR. | |
| Petukhova v Russia | 37 |
| Issue: Whether detention for the purposes of a psychiatric examination breached Art 5(1)(b) ECHR. | |
| Koroviny v Russia | 46 |
| Issue: Whether conditions in a psychiatric hospital and tying a patient to a bed for 24 hours breached Art 3 ECHR; whether the failure of domestic courts to consider complaints breached Art 6; whether there was censorship of correspondence in breach of Art 8; the appropriate remedy. | |
| Akopyan v Ukraine | 55 |
| Issue: Whether the applicant was a victim of a breach of Art 5(1) ECHR in relation to a detention in a psychiatric hospital that was unlawful in domestic law and for which compensation had been paid; whether treatment without consent during the unlawful detention breached Arts 3 and/or 8. | |
| LM v Slovenia | 67 |
| Issue: Whether placement on an open ward in a psychiatric hospital was a deprivation of liberty; whether various circumstances breached Art 5(1) and/or (2) ECHR; whether there was a breach of Art 5(4) and of Art 5(5); whether the regime for treatment without consent breached Art 8. | |
| Hadžimejlić and others v Bosnia and Herzegovina | 95 |
| Issue: Whether continued detentions in a social care home despite court rulings that detention was not necessary breached Art 5(1) ECHR; whether administrative detention in a social care home without a court order breached Art 5(1); appropriate remedy. | |
| IC v Romania | 106 |
| Issue: Whether Art 3 ECHR was breached when charges of unlawful intercourse with a minor rather than rape were brought when the victim, a 14 year old girl with an intellectual impairment, alleged that she had been raped. | |
| OG v Latvia | 114 |
| Issue: Whether detention in a psychiatric hospital was in breach of Art 5(1) ECHR. | |
| OG v Latvia (No 2) | 118 |
| Issue: Whether detention in a psychiatric hospital breached Art 5(1)(b) ECHR. | |
| IN v Ukraine | 124 |
| Issue: Whether there was a breach of Art 5(1) ECHR arising from the quality of the law applicable and its processes; whether compensation in domestic proceedings were adequate to remove victim status; whether there was a breach of Art 5(5); whether domestic proceedings met the reasonable time requirement in Art 6(1). | |
| Trutko v Russia | 137 |
| Issue: Whether detention for a psychiatric assessment breached Art 5(1)(b) ECHR; whether detention for treatment based on medical recommendations some 2 years old breached Art 5(1)(e). | |
| DR v Australia | 144 |
| Issue: Whether various complaints arising out of an ongoing institutional placement of a man with intellectual and mental impairment were admissible in light of a failure to exhaust domestic remedies | |
| Makarov and Makarova v Lithuania | 155 |
| Issue: Whether failures to ensure the participation of a victim with disabilities in a court process relating to the incident that led to her injuries breached Arts 12 and 13 CRPD. | |
| Ruslan Makarov v Russia | 160 |
| Issue: Whether the breach of domestic time limits for an application to court for an order to detain on the basis of mental disorder breached Art 5(1) ECHR. | |
| Kadusic v Switzerland | 165 |
| Issue: Whether imposing a therapeutic measure towards the end of a sentence of imprisonment breached Art 5(1) and/or Art 7 and or Art 4 of Protocol No 7 ECHR. | |
| Bacher v Austria | 180 |
| Issue: Whether the approach to a dispute about property rights breached the rights of accessibility under Art 9 Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities 2006 of a man with a variety of impairments, both alone and in conjunction with the general principles set out in Art 3. | |
| X v Russia | 192 |
| Issue: Whether there was adequate evidence of a mental disorder warranting detention for the purposes of Art 5(1) ECHR. | |
| DR v Lithuania | 199 |
| Issue: Whether detention for assessment in a psychiatric hospital and/or a subsequent detention for treatment were in breach of Art 5(1) ECHR. | |
| SS v Slovenia | 213 |
| Issue: Whether ending the parental rights of a woman with schizophrenia breached Arts 8 and/or 14 with 8 ECHR. | |
| Milićević v Montenegro | 238 |
| Issue: Whether a failure to prevent an attack by a man with a mental disorder breached Arts 2 and/or 8 ECHR. | |
| Klinkenbuss v Germany | 246 |
| Issue: Whether ongoing detention in a psychiatric hospital following a conviction in 1983 was lawful for the purposes of Art 5(1)(a) ECHR. | |
| WP v Germany | 253 |
| Issue: Whether there were breaches of Arts 5(1) and 7(1) ECHR in relation to the retrospective extension of preventive detention beyond the maximum term permissible at the time of sentence. | |
| Ilnseher v Germany | 262 |
| Issue: Whether there were breaches of Arts 5(1), 5(4), 6 and 7 ECHR in the imposition of provisional and final orders for retrospective preventive detention. | |
| Ilnseher v Germany | 278 |
| Issue: Whether there were breaches of Arts 5(1), 5(4), 6 and 7 ECHR in the imposition of provisional and final orders for retrospective or subsequent preventive detention. | |
| Fernandes De Oliveira v Portugal | 358 |
| Issue: Whether the suicide of a patient in a psychiatric hospital revealed a breach of the substantive aspect of Art 2 ECHR; whether the length of domestic proceedings relating to the death revealed a breach of the procedural aspect of Art 2. | |
| R v Alexander Wayne Blackman | 397 |
| Issue: The approach to unanimous psychiatric evidence that a person’s responsibility for a killing was diminished; whether a conviction for manslaughter should be substituted on the facts. | |
| Lorenz v Austria | 412 |
| Issue: Whether the ongoing preventive detention of a mentally-ill offender in an institution which could not prepare him for release and in light of the lack of recent expert evidence breached Art 5(1) ECHR; whether the conduct of reviews breached Art 5(4). | |
| Ecila Henderson (by her Litigation Friend) v Dorset Healthcare University NHS Foundation Trust | 426 |
| Issue: Whether recovery of tortious damages flowing from a community patient killing her mother in circumstances of a negligent failure to recognise a deterioration in her condition was precluded by public policy when responsibility for the killing was diminished. | |
View as
Sort by
Display
per page
