View source for Rabone v Pennine Care NHS Trust (2010) EWCA Civ 698

''Health trusts do not have the [[Article 2]] operational obligation to voluntary patients in hospital, who are suffering from physical or mental illness, even where there is a "real and immediate" risk of death.'' [Caution.]

==Related judgments==
[[Rabone v Pennine Care NHS Foundation Trust (2012) UKSC 2]]
*[[Rabone v Pennine Care NHS Trust (2010) EWCA Civ 698]]
**[[Rabone v Pennine Care NHS Trust (2009) EWHC 1827 (QB)]]

==ICLR==
{{ICLR|Rabone v Pennine Care NHS Trust (2010) EWCA Civ 698}}

==Supreme Court's case summary==
The following is an extract from the Supreme Court's 'Case Details' page (link at bottom of page):

===Issues===
1. Whether Article 2 ECHR imposes an obligation on the state to take preventative operational measures to protect a voluntary mental patient against a “real and immediate” risk of suicide?

2. Whether there had been a “real and immediate” risk of death in this case?

3. Whether the Appellants, as parents of the deceased, were “victims” under Article 34 ECHR & s7(7) Human Rights Act 1998, and, if so, did they lose that status on settlement of a negligence claim brought by the First Appellant as Administrator of the Estate under the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1934 arising from the same facts?

4. Whether the s7(5) time limit for raising a Human Rights Act claim should be extended?

5. Whether, in the event the claim succeeds, the Court of Appeal was correct to have interfered with the trial judge’s quantification of damages?

===Facts===
Following suicide attempts, Melanie Rabone was voluntarily admitted to the Respondent’s hospital. She requested, and medical staff agreed to, a period of home leave, during which she committed suicide. The decision to agree to the request for home leave was negligent. There was a 5% risk that Melanie would commit suicide on the first day of home leave, 10% on the second day and 20% on the third. Had medical staff refused to agree to Melanie’s request, and had she insisted on leaving the hospital, she should have been assessed under the Mental Health Act 1983 and would likely have been detained. The Appellants, Melanie’s parents, claimed damages for breach of Article 2 ECHR and her father brought a claim on behalf of her estate in negligence. The parties settled the negligence claim.

===Subject Matter catchwords for indexing===
Human Rights; Right to life; Operational obligation to take preventative steps to protect voluntary mental patient from suicide risk; Status of relatives as victims; Effect of settlement of common law claims; Articles 2 & 34 ECHR; s7(5) & (7) Human Rights Act 1998

==External link==
{{#bailii: [2010] EWCA Civ 698}}

[http://www.lawreports.co.uk/WLRD/2010/CACiv/Rabone_v_PennineCareNHS.html ICLR summary]

[http://www.bevanbrittan.com/articles/Pages/RaboneClarityandArticle2Anoxymoron.aspx?filter=fdeaadc0-4896-4248-b4f2-ca75fddf5374 Bevan Brittan: Rabone - Clarity and Article 2 - an oxymoron?] 30/6/10

[http://www.iclr.co.uk/case-search/supreme-court-applications/2010-supreme-court-judgments ICLR: Supreme Court permission to appeal]. Permission to appeal given on 20/10/10

[http://www.supremecourt.gov.uk/docs/michaelmas_term_2011.pdf Supreme Court and Privy Council: Judicial sittings for Michaelmas term (3/10/11 - 21/12/11)]. This case will be heard by the Supreme Court on 7/11/11.

[http://www.supremecourt.gov.uk/current-cases/CCCaseDetails/case_2010_0140.html Supreme Court: Case Details].

[http://ukscblog.com/case-previewrabone-and-another-v-pennine-care-nhs-trust Kirsten Sjvoll, 'Case Preview: Rabone & Anor v Pennine Care NHS Trust' (UKSC Blog, 10/11/11)]

[[Category:Inquest cases]]
[[Category:Detailed summary]]
[[Category:Transcript]]
[[Category:2010 cases]]