2021
|
|
Cases Reported |
| Association for the Defence of Human Rights in Romania – Helsinki Committee on behalf of Ionel Garcea v Romania | 1 |
| Issue: Whether a death in custody of a prisoner with psychiatric disorders who had self-harmed breached Art 2 ECHR in its substantive and procedural limbs. | |
| Salihić v Bosnia and Herzegovina | 10 |
| Issue: Whether detention in a care home was in breach of Art 5(1) ECHR; whether the application should continue after the death of the applicant; whether it was admissible as it was lodged before a ruling of the Constitutional Court which ruled in his favour; whether just satisfaction should be awarded. | |
| Čutura v Croatia | 13 |
| Issue: Whether detention in a psychiatric hospital was in breach of Art 5(1) ECHR in light of inadequate legal representation. | |
| Nikolyan v Armenia | 21 |
| Issue: Whether proceedings to remove legal capacity were fair for the purposes of Art 6(1) ECHR; whether the loss of legal capacity breached Art 8; whether actions by the guardian to terminate existing proceedings breached Art 6; whether the lack of direct access to a court to seek to reinstate legal capacity breached Art 6. | |
| LR v North Macedonia | 37 |
| Issue: Whether the inappropriate placement of a child with mental and communication impairments in an institution for those with physical disabilities, which led to him being tied to a bed regularly, breached Art 3 ECHR; whether the investigation carried out was adequate for the purposes of the procedural obligation under Art 3. | |
| Kocherov and Sergeyeva v Russia | 58 |
| Issue: Whether restrictions on parental authority based on mental disability and past institutionalisation breached Arts 8 and/or 14 ECHR. | |
| Vershinin v Russia | 76 |
| Issue: Whether there was sufficient evidence to justify detention under Art 5(1)(e) ECHR. | |
| AL v Russia | 79 |
| Issue: Whether detention in a psychiatric hospital was in breach of Arts 5(1) and (4) ECHR; whether guardianship arrangements breached Art 8. | |
| Dogotar v Republic of Moldova | 84 |
| Issue: Whether detention ordered to assess fitness to stand trial was lawful for the purposes of Art 5(1)(e) ECHR. | |
| Cînța v Romania | 87 |
| Issue: Whether limitations on contact between a father and his daughter based on his mental disorder breached Art 8 ECHR and Art 14 with Art 8. | |
| AD’A v Cornwall Partnership NHS Trust | 101 |
| Issue: Whether a Tribunal hearing sought by a patient when detained under s3 Mental Health Act 1983 can continue if the patient is placed under guardianship under s7. | |
| GM v Dorset Healthcare NHS Trust and Secretary of State for Justice | 107 |
| Issue: Whether a reference to a Tribunal in relation to a patient detained under s3 Mental Health Act 1983 can continue if the patient is made subject to a hospital order under s37 before the reference is heard. | |
| Thomas Westwood v R | 112 |
| Issue: Whether an extended sentence combined with an order under s45A Mental Health Act 1983 for manslaughter by reason of diminished responsibility should be replaced by orders under ss37/41 of the 1983 Act. | |
| In re W (GRB) | 129 |
| Issue: Whether a person found unfit to stand trial but to have committed the act of murder was precluded from receiving pension benefits referable to the victim, his wife, by reason of the forfeiture rule. | |
| SM v Livewell Southwest CIC | 131 |
| Issue: The test of capacity to apply to a Tribunal for discharge from detention under the Mental Health Act 1983 and the approach to be adopted by a Tribunal if the issue was raised. | |
| Cameron John Cleland v R | 147 |
| Issue: Whether a sentence of life imprisonment should be replaced by orders under ss37/41 Mental Health Act 1983 | |
| MC v Cygnet Behavioural Health Ltd and Secretary of State for Justice | 157 |
| Issue: Whether a Tribunal can grant a conditional discharge to a patient detained under ss37/41 Mental Health Act 1983 who lacks capacity if the conditions amount to a deprivation of liberty but reflect the terms of a standard authorisation issued under the Mental Capacity Act 2005. | |
| AR v West London NHS Trust and Secretary of State for Justice | 168 |
| Issue: The correct approach to applications for public hearings of Tribunals by patients detained under the Mental Health Act 1983 who lacked capacity to apply; whether that had been followed; whether the decision should be remade or remitted. | |
| Aggerholm v Denmark | 176 |
| Issue: Whether placing a psychiatric patient in a restraint bed for some 23 hours breached Art 3 ECHR. | |
| Kotilainen and Others v Finland | 197 |
| Issue: Whether the right to life under Art 2 ECHR was breached by a police decision not to take away a gun from a person who then perpetrated a mass-shooting; whether the investigation breached the procedural obligations under Art 2. | |
| GL v (1) Elysium Healthcare Hospital and (2) Secretary of State for Justice | 217 |
| Issue: Whether a Tribunal decision to proceed rather than adjourn was unreasonable. | |
| R v Keith Nelson | 219 |
| Issue: Whether orders under ss37/41 Mental Health Act 1983 should be made in place of a sentence of imprisonment for public protection combined with an order under s45A of the 1983 Act. | |
| R v James Steele | 226 |
| Issue: Whether the judge had given adequate credit for the appellant’s mental disorder in arriving at the proper sentence for an aggravated burglary. | |
| EB v (1) Dorset Healthcare NHS Trust and (2) The Lord Chancellor | 230 |
| Issue: Whether a Tribunal decision not to allow a Pre-Hearing Examination of a patient detained under the Mental Health Act 1983 was lawful; the relationship between the Tribunal Procedure Rules 2008 and Practice Directions issued by the Senior President of Tribunals. | |
| Benjamin Reynolds v R | 236 |
| Issue: Whether the judge had given adequate credit for the appellant’s mental disorder in arriving at the proper sentence for sexual offending; whether orders under ss37/41 Mental Health Act 1983 should be made in place of imprisonment and an order under s45A of the 1983 Act in light of the medical evidence available, including further medical evidence. | |
| Devon Partnership NHS Trust v Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (NHS Commissioning Board as Interested Party) | 248 |
| Issue: Whether the medical assessment supporting an application for compulsory admission under the Mental Health Act 1983 required a face-to-face examination or could be carried out remotely. | |
| R v Yahya Rashid | 258 |
| Issue: Whether leave to appeal should be granted on grounds including the failure to provide an intermediary for the entirety of the trial. | |
| R v Gareth William Jones | 268 |
| Issue: Whether a conviction was safe in light of fresh evidence as to the extent of the defendant’s learning disability. | |
| R v Joseph Biddle | 277 |
| Issue: Whether (i) replacing a pre-trial direction that the defendant have an intermediary for the entire trial with direction that one attend only for when the defendant gave evidence and (ii) giving an adverse inference direction when the defendant decided to not give evidence made a conviction unsafe. | |
| G v Germany | 284 |
| Issue: Whether the refusal to reopen a decision to impose preventive detention after an ECtHR ruling that its imposition breached Art 7 ECHR was in breach of Arts 5 and/or 7 ECHR. | |
| JJ v Hungary | 294 |
| Issue: Whether the applicant had exhausted domestic remedies and/or lost victim status in a claim under Art 5 ECHR about an initial urgent admission which had been found lawful and a further period of detention which had been found unlawful. | |
| James David Pringle v R | 296 |
| Issue: Whether a conviction was safe in light of the failure to take special measures for the communication difficulties of the appellant. | |
| R v Dean Thomas | 306 |
| Issue: Whether a conviction was unsafe in light of the refusal to allow an intermediary except for if the defendant gave evidence, to not direct the appointment of an intermediary when the legal aid authorities declined funding, and to not agree with an expert view that the defendant was not fit to stand trial in the absence of an intermediary. | |
| TI v Bromley Youth Court | 316 |
| Issue: Whether a decision not to appoint an intermediary for a defendant was wrong in law. | |
| R (Sam Gisagara) v Upper Tribunal (AAC) | 323 |
| Issue: Whether permission should be granted to judicially review a refusal to allow leave to appeal in relation to a decision to uphold liability to detention under s3 Mental Health Act 1983 to allow a Community Treatment Order to be put in place in relation to a person who had been released on leave under s17 of the 1983 Act. | |
| Liliya Ivanivna Dergachenko v Ukraine | 327 |
| Issue: Whether allegations of treatment breaching Art 3 ECHR and detention for assessment in a psychiatric hospital breaching Art 5(1) were admissible. | |
| DB v Betsi Cadawaldr University Health Board | 335 |
| Issue: Whether a patient who had been detained under s3 Mental Health Act 1983 was “liable to detention” for the purposes of s72 of the Act when he had been on s17 leave for 11 months and had not been in hospital during that period. | |
| Crystal Hunnisett v R | 337 |
| Issue: Whether fresh evidence supporting diminished responsibility for a homicide should be admitted. | |
| R v Gurjeet Lall (Reference under s36 Criminal Justice Act 1988) | 346 |
| Issue: Whether orders under ss37/41 Mental Health Act 1983 for a manslaughter by reason of diminished responsibility were unduly lenient and should be replaced by an indeterminate custodial sentence and an order under s45A of the 1983 Act. | |
| YS v Russia | 357 |
| Issue: Whether court-ordered detention in a psychiatric hospital was in breach of Art 5(1) ECHR. | |
View as
Sort by
Display
per page
