|
|
JT v UK 26494/95 (2000) ECHR 133From WikiMentalHealthCase struck out of list, as friendly settlement reached to ensure MHA compliant with Article 8: MHA to be amended to allow patient to apply for displacement of NR where reasonably objected; and to allow exclusion of certain persons from acting as NR. FactsJT had been detained under s3 between 1984 and 1996. JT complained under Article 8 that she could not change her nearest relative. MHA 1983 s26 determines the identity of a patient's NR. The nearest relative may authorise another person to carry out the functions of NR (Regulation 14). The NR can be displaced under s29 but the patient can have no involvement in this. The reports during detention detailed JT's difficult relationship with her mother; her repeated allegations of sexual abuse by her step-father, and her fear and hatred of him; that she did not want her mother to know her whereabouts as the step-father lived with her mother; and her wish to replace her mother as NR and replace her with a social worker. The mother had not agreed to delegate her NR function so the matter remained unresolved. The Commission (First Chamber) had unanimously concluded that there had been a violation of Article 8. DecisionThe court noted the terms of the government's proposed friendly settlement:
The government also had paid £500 compensation plus legal fees. Therefore, the court decided to strike the case out of the list. OtherThe proposed changes were never made, but see the Mental Health Bill 2006 for proposals. Under the current proposals, the patient will be able to make a s29 displacement application on the existing four grounds (see MHA 1983 s29(3)). There is to be an additional fifth ground: where it is reasonable that the person should not be able to act as the NR. For more detail, see the links below. ResourcesBailii - full text |