55:. HL never attempted to leave the hospital, but his carers were prevented from visiting him in order to prevent him leaving with them. A report by the Health Service Ombudsman heard evidence from a range of professionals that the standard of HL's care had been poor in the hospital, and he had become distressed and agitated. Mr and Mrs 'E' sought from the court a
101:
stigmatise informal patients and have dire resource implications due to the costs of administering the Mental Health Act. In assessing whether HL had been detained, they concluded by a majority verdict that he had not been detained in the meaning of the common law tort of false imprisonment because there must be
154:
to contain the 'deprivation of liberty safeguards'. The deprivation of liberty safeguards were intended to plug the 'Bournewood gap' by providing administrative and judicial safeguards for adults who lack mental capacity who are deprived of their liberty in care homes and hospitals. The safeguards
149:
Following the ruling of the ECtHR, the UK government launched a widespread consultation about the potential consequences of 'the
Bournewood judgment', as it became known. During this consultation it was considered that compliant but incapacitated adults in care homes, as well as hospitals, might be
100:
The House of Lords considered whether HL had been unlawfully detained under the common law. They heard evidence that the ruling of the Court of Appeal might mean several tens of thousands of patients would have to be detained under the Mental Health Act. They considered that this might excessively
114:
would have been justified under the common law doctrine of necessity. Although concurring with this finding, Lord Steyn commented that this was an 'unfortunate' result as it left compliant but incapacitated patients without the safeguards of patients detained formally under the Mental Health Act.
113:
dissented from this aspect of the judgement, stating that the Trust's argument that HL, not being formally detained, was always free to go 'stretched credulity to breaking point' and was 'a fairytale'. Unanimously their
Lordships also held that even if HL had been found to have been detained, it
50:
from the age of 13 for over thirty years. In 1994 he was discharged into the community to live in an adult foster placement with carers Mr and Mrs 'E'. On 22 July 1997 HL became agitated at a day centre he attended and was admitted to the
Accident and Emergency Department at Bournewood Hospital
91:
only provided for situations not already encompassed by statute. The Court also commented that a troubling feature of the appeal was that the respondent Trust was not alone in misinterpreting the Act, and potentially the judgement could apply to many patients informally detained like HL. They
136:('the Convention'). The ECtHR concurred with Lord Steyn that HL had in fact been detained, finding that the distinction relied upon by the House of Lords between actual and potential restraint was not 'of central importance under the Convention'. They further found that the common law
261:
Department of Health, '“Bournewood” Consultation: The approach to be taken in response to the judgment of the
European Court of Human Rights in the Bournewood” case ' (Gateway Ref 267902 2005); Department of Health, Protecting the Vulnerable: the “Bournewood” Consultation (London
87:, however, held that the actions of the Trust had been based on a false premise that they were 'entitled to treat L as an in-patient without his consent as long as he did not dissent'. The court held that HL should have been detained under the Mental Health Act 1983, as the
82:
the judge considered whether HL had been unlawfully detained under the common law. He reasoned that 'there will be no restraint of the applicant until he has attempted to leave and the respondent, by its agent, has done something to prevent this'. The
140:
did not provide the requisite safeguards for informal detention of compliant but incapacitated patients to be described as 'in accordance with a procedure described by law' as required under
Article 5(1)(e).
330:
59:
of the decision of the
Bournewood Community and Mental Health NHS Trust "to detain the appellant on 22 July 1997 and the Trust's ongoing decision to continue the Appellant's retention" and a writ of
314:
155:
came into force in April 2009, but their uptake has not been as widespread as expected and their implementation has been subject to criticism from a wide range of interested parties.
92:
stated that the practice of informal detention in cases like HL could not justify disregarding the Act, especially in light of this bypassing its safeguards to detained patients.
335:
128:
Although HL was in fact released back into the care of Mr. and Mrs. E in
December 1997 after being held in hospital for five months, the case was pursued at the
51:
under sedation. Due to the sedative, HL was compliant and did not resist admission, so doctors chose not to admit him using powers of detention under the
31:
298:
26:
ruled that a man who had been admitted to a psychiatric hospital without capable consent had not been unlawfully detained under the common law. A later
345:
271:
R Hargreaves, 'Deprivation of
Liberty Safeguards: an initial review of implementation' (Briefing Paper 1, Mental Health Alliance, London 2010)
109:
restraint to engage the tort. Some commentators have suggested this reasoning might be at odds with other false imprisonment precedents.
350:
303:
23:
84:
169:
133:
340:
355:
132:(ECtHR) for a declaration that HL had been deprived of his liberty unlawfully in the meaning of Article 5 of the
150:
deprived of their liberty in the meaning of the
Convention. This consultation resulted in the amendment of the
129:
27:
308:
123:
179:
151:
30:
ruling, however, found that the man had been unlawfully deprived of his liberty in the meaning of
189:
184:
52:
137:
79:
8:
283:
164:
293:
288:
56:
47:
174:
324:
225:
K Horsey and E Rackley, Tort Law (Oxford
University Press, Oxford 2009) p 396
144:
60:
216:
R. v Bournewood Community and Mental Health NHS Trust Ex p. L EWCA Civ 2879
309:
The Mental Health Alliance Report on the deprivation of liberty safeguards
110:
88:
243:
R. v Bournewood Community and Mental Health NHS Trust Ex p. L UKHL 24
331:
European Court of Human Rights cases involving the United Kingdom
43:
65:
to direct that HL be discharged and returned to their care.
207:
Health Service Ombudsman, (2001) 'Case No. E. 2280/98-99 '
145:
Response of the UK government to 'the Bournewood judgment'
46:
and had profound learning disabilities. He had lived in
304:
The deprivation of liberty safeguards code of practice
32:
Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights
19:
R v Bournewood Community and Mental Health NHS Trust
336:Mental health legal history of the United Kingdom
117:
322:
234:Meering v Graham-White Aviation 122 LT 24 (CA)
294:Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights
252:HL v. UK (2004) - App no 45508/99; 40 EHRR 761
317:by the Equality and Human Rights Commission
346:Mental health law in the United Kingdom
323:
170:European Convention on Human Rights
134:European Convention on Human Rights
13:
351:United Kingdom disability case law
315:film about the Bournewood judgment
14:
367:
277:
95:
284:Judgment of the Court of Appeal
289:Judgment of the House of Lords
265:
255:
246:
237:
228:
219:
210:
201:
130:European Court of Human Rights
118:European Court of Human Rights
28:European Court of Human Rights
1:
299:The 'Bournewood' consultation
62:Habeas Corpus Ad Subjiciendum
42:HL was an adult male who was
7:
158:
68:
10:
372:
124:H.L. v. the United Kingdom
121:
73:
341:Insanity-related case law
195:
180:Mental Capacity Act 2005
152:Mental Capacity Act 2005
37:
356:Mental health case law
190:Mental Health Act 2007
185:Mental Health Act 1983
138:doctrine of necessity
48:Bournewood Hospital
165:False imprisonment
53:Mental Health Act
363:
272:
269:
263:
259:
253:
250:
244:
241:
235:
232:
226:
223:
217:
214:
208:
205:
371:
370:
366:
365:
364:
362:
361:
360:
321:
320:
280:
275:
270:
266:
260:
256:
251:
247:
242:
238:
233:
229:
224:
220:
215:
211:
206:
202:
198:
161:
147:
126:
120:
98:
85:Court of Appeal
76:
71:
57:judicial review
40:
12:
11:
5:
369:
359:
358:
353:
348:
343:
338:
333:
319:
318:
311:
306:
301:
296:
291:
286:
279:
278:External links
276:
274:
273:
264:
254:
245:
236:
227:
218:
209:
199:
197:
194:
193:
192:
187:
182:
177:
175:HL v UK (2004)
172:
167:
160:
157:
146:
143:
122:Main article:
119:
116:
97:
96:House of Lords
94:
75:
72:
70:
67:
39:
36:
24:House of Lords
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
368:
357:
354:
352:
349:
347:
344:
342:
339:
337:
334:
332:
329:
328:
326:
316:
312:
310:
307:
305:
302:
300:
297:
295:
292:
290:
287:
285:
282:
281:
268:
258:
249:
240:
231:
222:
213:
204:
200:
191:
188:
186:
183:
181:
178:
176:
173:
171:
168:
166:
163:
162:
156:
153:
142:
139:
135:
131:
125:
115:
112:
108:
105:and not just
104:
93:
90:
86:
81:
66:
64:
63:
58:
54:
49:
45:
35:
33:
29:
25:
21:
20:
267:
257:
248:
239:
230:
221:
212:
203:
148:
127:
106:
102:
99:
77:
61:
41:
18:
17:
15:
325:Categories
111:Lord Steyn
89:common law
80:High Court
107:potential
159:See also
69:Judgment
44:autistic
78:In the
74:Appeals
313:Short
103:actual
262:2006)
196:Notes
38:Facts
22:the
16:In
327::
34:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.