2012 mental health - Rabone decision eagerly awaited
Posted by John Sheath on 24th January 2012
On 7 November 2011 the Supreme Court heard the appeal of the parents of MR, a voluntary patient who committed suicide while on home release from Stepping Hill Hospital in April 2005.
Following the Inquest (which returned a verdict of suicide) MR’s parents brought a claim for negligence and breaches of the Human Rights Act 1998. The negligence claim was settled in May 2008 but there remained an alleged breach of Article 2 ECHR.
At trial, the claim was dismissed on the basis that the Pennine Care NHS Trust had no operational or investigatory obligation under Article 2 (and consequently there was no breach), that MR’s parents did not satisfy the definition of “victims” for the purposes of HRA 1998 Section 7 and it was not equitable to extend the limitation period of 12 months.
MR’s parents appealed to the Court of Appeal which upheld the trial Judge’s finding that as a voluntary mental patient MR was outside the operational obligation contained in ECHR Article 2. A comparison was made with the House of Lords’ decision in Savage (a detained patient subject to section under the Mental Health Act 1983) and it was decided that in addition to the “real and immediate risk of death” test, there must be some additional element before Article 2 is engaged.
The issues before the Supreme Court are (1) whether ECHR Article 2 imposes an obligation on the state to protect voluntary mental patients against real and immediate risk of suicide, (2) whether such a real and immediate risk of death was present in this case, (3) whether MR’s parents were a “victims” under ECHR Article 34 and HRA 1998 Section 7 (and if so, did they lose that status when the negligence claim was settled), (4) whether the time limit under HRA 1998 should be extended, (5) whether it was right to have interfered with the trial Judge’s quantification of damages (£1,500 awarded to each parent at first instance which the Court of Appeal considered was too low).
This could be a significant judgment for all mental health trusts, both in relation to civil liability and the way in which future Inquests into the deaths of voluntary patients are to be managed by local Coroners. We will keep you posted as to any progress.
