N, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Health

N, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Health

The right or freedom to smoke does not engage Article 8(1) ECHR in the context of a high security mental health hospital. The ban on smoking is not within the ambit of Article 8 for the purposes of Article 14. Even if Article 8 or Article 14 were engaged, the Trust and the Secretary of State have justified the ban as necessary and proportionate for the protection of health. The difference in treatment between mental health units and prisons, care homes, or hospices is justified. The Exemption Regulations are not irrational or contrary to the common law principle of equality.

Parties
Claimant/appellant: R (N); Defendant/respondent: The Secretary of State for Health; Claimant/appellant: R (E); Defendant/respondent: Nottinghamshire Healthcare NHS Trust; Intervener: Equality and Human Rights Commission
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 July 2009
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Appeal From Divisional Court to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeals dismissed; Trust policy and Exemption Regulations upheld; permission to appeal on common law equality point refused.
Legal Topics
Article 8 ECHR (right to Private Life), Article 14 ECHR (prohibition of Discrimination), Judicial Review, Discrimination, Proportionality, Common Law Equality, Hospital Policy, Smoking Ban, Mental Health Detention
Constitutional Law Human Rights Law Administrative Law Health Law Article 8 ECHR (right to Private Life) Article 14 ECHR (prohibition of Discrimination) Judicial Review Discrimination +5 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 26 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

R (N)

Claimant/appellant

The Secretary of State for Health

Defendant/respondent

R (E)

Claimant/appellant

Nottinghamshire Healthcare NHS Trust

Defendant/respondent

Equality and Human Rights Commission

Intervener

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Appeal From Divisional Court to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does a ban on smoking in high security mental health hospitals engage Article 8 ECHR?
  2. 2 Is the ban discriminatory under Article 14 ECHR?
  3. 3 Is the ban justified under Article 8(2) and/or Article 14?

Ratio Decidendi

The right or freedom to smoke does not engage Article 8(1) ECHR in the context of a high security mental health hospital. The ban on smoking is not within the ambit of Article 8 for the purposes of Article 14. Even if Article 8 or Article 14 were engaged, the Trust and the Secretary of State have justified the ban as necessary and proportionate for the protection of health. The difference in treatment between mental health units and prisons, care homes, or hospices is justified. The Exemption Regulations are not irrational or contrary to the common law principle of equality.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed; Trust policy and Exemption Regulations upheld; permission to appeal on common law equality point refused.

Orders

  • Appeals against the Trust and Secretary of State dismissed.
  • Trust's smoke-free policy upheld as lawful.