2023

Cases Reported

Sy v Italy (Note)	1
Issue: Whether failure to place a detainee with mental health needs in a therapeutic setting even after court orders breached Arts 3, 5(1), 6 and 13 ECHR; whether 35 days to transfer him to a suitable setting after the Court made an order under r39 Rules of Court breached Art 34.

Peter Tredget v R	3
Issue: WWhether convictions for multiple arson and manslaughter charges to which the appellant confessed and pleaded guilty were safe in light of further evidence, including as to his vulnerability and suggestibility; the approach to appeals following guilty pleas.

Marc Traylor and Kitanna Traylor v Kent and Medway NHS Social Care Partnership Trust	39
Issue: Whether there was a breach of a duty of care to a patient removed from a Community Treatment Order who subsequently deteriorated after not taking prescribed medication, attacked his daughter during a psychotic episode, was shot by police officers and later detained in hospital after being found Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity of attempted murder; whether there was a breach of the duty to protect the daughter under Arts 2 or 3 ECHR.

Dragan Kovačević v Croatia	62
Issue: Whether the refusal to award legal costs for making a complaint before the Constitutional Court concerning divestment of legal capacity breached Art 6 ECHR.

Alexander Lewis-Ranwell v (1) G4S Health Services (UK) Ltd, (2) The Chief Constable of Devon and Cornwall Police, (3) Devon Partnership NHS Trust, and (4) Devon County Council	77
Issue: Whether an action alleging negligent treatment of a man who killed 3 people but was found Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity should be struck out on account of the defence of illegality.

AY v Russia	96
Issue: Whether Art 5(1)(e) ECHR was breached when the person detained in a psychiatric setting was not present at the relevant court hearing but was represented by family members and a lawyer.

Neil Anthony Johnson v R	98
Issue: Whether pleas of guilty to various sexual offences and an offence of harassment by a man with a learning disability were equivocal and should be withdrawn.

Hodžić v Croatia	105
Issue: Whether Art 6(1) ECHR applied to and was breached by proceedings in which a criminal court ordered detention in a psychiatric hospital following a finding that the applicant committed criminal acts whilst lacking mental capacity, and a civil court ruled on the modalities of detention.

PW v Austria	118
Issue: Whether confinement in an institution for mentally ill offenders after attempting to resist arrest by the police breached Arts 5 and 6 ECHR and Art 14 read in conjunction with Art 5.

Paul Crerand v R	132
Issue: Whether a discretionary life sentence for a serious assault should be replaced with orders under ss37/41 Mental Health Act 1983 in light of further evidence that the offender had paranoid schizophrenia at the time of his offending.

R v Thomas Salmon	138
Issue: Whether a Restriction Order under s41 Mental Health Act 1983 was properly added to a Hospital Order under s37 when the index offences were of relatively low seriousness but the expert evidence supported the use of a Restriction Order.

Traskunova v Russia	142
Issue: Whether the death of a participant in a trial of a new medicine for schizophrenia breached Art 2 ECHR; the requirements for such trials when persons with mental illness are involved.

AK v Germany	157
Issue: Whether extended detention on the basis of risk arising from mental disorder was in breach of Art 5(1)(e) ECHR.

R v Paul Richard Surrey	159
Issue: Whether a sentence of Detention for Public Protection imposed in 2007 should be replaced by orders under ss37 and 41 Mental Health Act 1983 in light of fresh evidence that the appellant had paranoid schizophrenia and other mental disorders at the time of the offending; whether that fresh evidence should be admitted and the time for appeal extended.

GM, TM and MP v Republic of Moldova	171
Issue: Whether non-consensual abortions and non-consensual contraception applied to applicants with intellectual impairments detained in a psychiatric hospital who were the victims of rape by the head doctor breached Art 3 ECHR; whether the investigations were inadequate and breached the procedural obligation under Art 3; the approach to allegations of breaches of the substantive aspects of Art 3 when there was an inadequate investigation.