B v Mental Health Review Tribunal & Anor [2002] EWHC 1553 (Admin) (22 July 2002)

B v Mental Health Review Tribunal & Anor [2002] EWHC 1553 (Admin) (22 July 2002)

The tribunal's failure to manage the case effectively, including granting an adjournment without hearing the claimant's representatives and failing to give case management directions, resulted in an unjustified delay of over eight months in determining the lawfulness of the claimant's detention. This delay was not adequately explained and constituted a breach of Article 5(4) ECHR. The Secretary of State was not at fault for the delay or in seeking the adjournment.

Citation
[2002] EWHC 1553 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: B; First Defendant: Mental Health Review Tribunal; Second Defendant: Secretary of State for the Home Department
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 July 2002
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment
Outcome
Application for judicial review succeeds; declaration of breach of Article 5(4) ECHR against the tribunal; no relief against the Secretary of State.
Legal Topics
Article 5(4) ECHR, Mental Health Act 1983, Judicial Review, Natural Justice, Case Management, Detention Review
Human Rights Law Mental Health Law Administrative Law Article 5(4) ECHR Mental Health Act 1983 Judicial Review Natural Justice Case Management +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

B

Claimant

Mental Health Review Tribunal

First Defendant

Secretary of State for the Home Department

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the delay in hearing the claimant's case before the Mental Health Review Tribunal breached Article 5(4) ECHR
  2. 2 Whether the tribunal's adjournment and case management were unlawful or in breach of natural justice
  3. 3 Whether the Secretary of State acted unlawfully in seeking an adjournment

Ratio Decidendi

The tribunal's failure to manage the case effectively, including granting an adjournment without hearing the claimant's representatives and failing to give case management directions, resulted in an unjustified delay of over eight months in determining the lawfulness of the claimant's detention. This delay was not adequately explained and constituted a breach of Article 5(4) ECHR. The Secretary of State was not at fault for the delay or in seeking the adjournment.

Court Disposition

Application for judicial review succeeds; declaration of breach of Article 5(4) ECHR against the tribunal; no relief against the Secretary of State.

Orders

  • Declaration that the tribunal’s failure to hear the reference speedily was in breach of Article 5(4) ECHR
  • Issue of damages to be determined at a subsequent hearing