Tracey, R (on the application of) v Cambridge University Hospital NHS Foundation & Ors [2012] EWHC 3670 (Admin) (19 December 2012)

Tracey, R (on the application of) v Cambridge University Hospital NHS Foundation & Ors [2012] EWHC 3670 (Admin) (19 December 2012)

The factual findings establish that the first DNACPR order was imposed without effective and informed involvement of Mrs Tracey or her family, and the Trust's policy was not accessible to patients or relatives. The second DNACPR order followed more extensive discussion with the family, but Mrs Tracey herself did not consent. The absence of clear, accessible policy and guidance, and the lack of effective involvement, resulted in procedural deficiencies relevant to the lawfulness of the DNACPR decisions under Articles 2 and 8 ECHR. The legal consequences of these findings are to be determined at a subsequent hearing.

Citation
[2012] EWHC 3670 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: David Tracey; First Defendant: Cambridge University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust; Second Defendant: Secretary of State for Health; Interested Party: Equality and Human Rights Commission
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 December 2012
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review and Human Rights Act Claim / Post Hearing Judgment on Disputed Facts; Legal Issues to Follow Depending on Findings
Outcome
Findings of fact made; legal issues reserved for further hearing.
Legal Topics
Do Not Attempt Cardio Pulmonary Resuscitation (dnacpr), Article 2 ECHR (right to Life), Article 3 ECHR (prohibition of Inhuman or Degrading Treatment), Article 8 ECHR (right to Respect for Private and Family Life), Mental Capacity Act 2005, Hospital Policy and Patient Rights
Administrative Law Human Rights Law Medical Law Do Not Attempt Cardio Pulmonary Resuscitation (dnacpr) Article 2 ECHR (right to Life) Article 3 ECHR (prohibition of Inhuman or Degrading Treatment) Article 8 ECHR (right to Respect for Private and Family Life) Mental Capacity Act 2005 +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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

David Tracey

Claimant

Cambridge University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust

First Defendant

Secretary of State for Health

Second Defendant

Equality and Human Rights Commission

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review and Human Rights Act Claim / Post Hearing Judgment on Disputed Facts; Legal Issues to Follow Depending on Findings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the imposition of DNACPR orders on Mrs Tracey was lawful and compliant with Articles 2, 3, and 8 ECHR
  2. 2 Whether there was effective and informed involvement of Mrs Tracey and her family in the DNACPR decision-making process
  3. 3 Whether the first defendant had and operated a lawful and accessible policy on DNACPR

Ratio Decidendi

The factual findings establish that the first DNACPR order was imposed without effective and informed involvement of Mrs Tracey or her family, and the Trust's policy was not accessible to patients or relatives. The second DNACPR order followed more extensive discussion with the family, but Mrs Tracey herself did not consent. The absence of clear, accessible policy and guidance, and the lack of effective involvement, resulted in procedural deficiencies relevant to the lawfulness of the DNACPR decisions under Articles 2 and 8 ECHR. The legal consequences of these findings are to be determined at a subsequent hearing.

Court Disposition

Findings of fact made; legal issues reserved for further hearing.