The MHA still offers protection where the wrong nearest relative is identified

Hempsons specialises in community and continuing care. The firm has three offices, in London, Manchester and Harrogate, and its teams are frequently called upon to advise on relevant statute law and on the drafting and implementation of policies and entitlement criteria. They have been involved in some of the most significant legal cases in the field.

A recent High Court judgment provides guidance on the impact of the
European Convention on Human Rights on applications for detention
under the Mental Health Act.

In McLarnon v Bradford District Care Trust and two others, a
patient had been detained under section 3 of the Mental Health Act
1983 (‘MHA 1983’).  When the Trust learned that her
nearest relative had been incorrectly identified. The approved
social worker thought the mother was the nearest relative, but it
was someone else. The ASW consulted the mother before making a
detention application but did not consult the true nearest
relative. The question was whether the Trust was liable for false
imprisonment where it had acted on the basis of the ASW’s
application. It discharged the patient, but she sued for both false
imprisonment and a breach of the “right to liberty”
contained in article five of the ECHR.

The Trust asked for the claim to be struck out, arguing that
because the application appeared to be “duly made”,
section 6(3) of the MHA entitled it to detain the patient.  It
cited a Court of Appeal decision, Re S-C, on the power to detain
under MHA 1983, and in particular, the comment of Sir Thomas
Bingham that:

“A mental hospital is not obliged to act like a private
detective; it can take documents at face value provided they appear
to conform with the requirements of the statute the hospital is
entitled to act upon them.” 

The patient argued that, since the coming of the Human Rights Act
1998, false imprisonment was a tort of strict liability and Re S-C
was no longer good law.  She said that although the Trust might
have had no reason to suspect that her mother was not her nearest
relative, it could not rely on the MHA protection. 

The Court found for the Trust.  Whilst it accepted that article
5(1) of the Human Rights Act requires detention to be in accordance
with a procedure prescribed by law, it said that the requisite
procedure is the one set out in MHA 1983, section 6.  The Court
held that section 6 is not incompatible with Human Rights Act
Article 5, so that if MHA 1983 is complied with, there can be no
question of an unlawful detention.  Here, the hospital managers had
followed the correct procedure, so the patient’s detention
was authorised by statute and complied with the ECHR.  As in Re
S-C, MHA 1983 section 6(3) gave the hospital a defence and the
patient’s claim would be struck out.

The patient appealed to the High Court, but on 22 July 2004, Mr
Justice Eady upheld the original decision and dismissed the
appeal.

David Roberts
Solicitor, Hempsons