Warren v UK 36982/97 [1999] ECHR 186

Detention under the MHA following an order made by a criminal court should be considered under Art 5(1)(e) ECHR. [MHLR.]

Related cases

Warren v UK 36982/97 [1999] ECHR 186

R (Warren) v Oxfordshire MHRT [1997] EWCA Civ 1311

MHLR

The summary below has been supplied by Kris Gledhill, Editor of the Mental Health Law Reports. The full report can be purchased from Southside Online Publishing (if there is a "file not found" error, it means this particular report is not yet available online). More similar case summaries from the year 1999 are available here: MHLR 1999.

Whether there was a breach of Art 5(1) ECHR based on a misinterpretation of the powers of detention in the MHA 1983 – Warren v UK [1999] MHLR 42

Points arising: Detention under the MHA following an order made by a criminal court should be considered under Art 5(1)(e) ECHR

Facts and outcome: W’s detention under ss37/41 MHA 1983, which followed his conviction for the attempted murder of his children, had been upheld by successive Tribunals (which found that he had an enduring mental illness, not a transient problem caused by the stress of divorce proceedings). He raised a number of complaints that repeated those made in another application that had been found inadmissible (which the Chamber decided not to reconsider in the absence of new arguments), including that his detention breached Art 5§1(a) ECHR on the basis that it breached domestic law (his contention being that s37 MHA allowed detention for 28 days only, which had been rejected by the domestic courts). The Court found that the lawfulness of detention should be considered under Art 5§1(e) alone (even if it followed a conviction, such that Art 5§1(a) applied), that there was no basis for arguing that domestic law was breached, and that the findings of successive Tribunals meant that the necessary conditions for detention were met – namely a true mental disorder was established before a competent authority on the basis of objective medical expertise, it was of a kind or degree warranting compulsory confinement, and it persisted – and so the application was manifestly ill-founded and inadmissible.

Old wiki summary

The applicant's various complaints regarding his detention under the Mental Health Act were all declared inadmissible.

External link

Bailii