Docsity
Docsity

Prepare for your exams
Prepare for your exams

Study with the several resources on Docsity


Earn points to download
Earn points to download

Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan


Guidelines and tips
Guidelines and tips

Clunis v. the United Kingdom: A Case of Negligence and Human Rights Violations, Slides of History

The case of clunis v. The united kingdom, where the european court of human rights unanimously declared the application inadmissible. The applicant, who had a history of psychiatric illness, attacked a fellow resident and was discharged from the mental hospital. After failing to attend appointments, he killed a stranger without reason. The applicant brought a negligence action against the responsible authorities, but it was barred on public policy grounds. The applicant's complaints of violations of his rights to a fair trial, private life, and effective remedy, as well as his denial of access to a court for determination of his civil claim.

Typology: Slides

2021/2022

Uploaded on 09/12/2022

prouline
prouline 🇬🇧

4.6

(7)

221 documents

1 / 2

Toggle sidebar

This page cannot be seen from the preview

Don't miss anything!

bg1

  []
CLUNIS v. the UNITED KINGDOM
Right to a fair trial –
inadmissible
Article 6, Section 1
Right to respect for private life –
inadmissible
Article 8
Right to an effective remedy –
inadmissible
Article 13
Civil claim barred on public policy grounds without any examination of merits of claim
On  September  a Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights unani-
mously declared inadmissible the application in the case of Clunis v. the United
Kingdom.
Summary of the facts
The applicant has a history of serious psychiatric illness. In May  he attacked
a fellow resident at the mental hospital where he had been placed. In September
 he was discharged from hospital and after-care arrangements were made with
Friern Hospital, then under the management and control of the local Health Au-
thority. The applicant subsequently failed to attend appointments made with S., a
doctor at the hospital. In the meantime, ocial documents had been addressed to
the hospital indicating that the Mental Health Act required that after-care be ar-
ranged for the applicant. S. was later informed of the applicant’s aggressive tenden-
cies and of the fact that he had been off medication for several weeks. In November
 the applicant managed to leave his home unnoticed in the course of an assess-
ment visit. No further assessment visit was planned, S. intending to see him infor-
mally. Another appointment was made with S., this time at the applicant’s initia-
tive, but he again failed to attend. S. took no further steps from that stage. In
December  the police reported that the applicant had been seen “waving screw-
drivers and knives and talking about devils”. S. advised that an assessment be made
as soon as possible and opened lengthy discussions with the competent authorities
to determine which hospital was responsible for him – it appeared that he re-
mained under the care of Friern Hospital. The same day, the applicant killed a
stranger at a tube station without any reason. He was convicted of manslaughter
by reason of diminished responsibility and ordered to be detained under the Men-
tal Health Act without limit in time. The way his treatment and care had been
pf2

Partial preview of the text

Download Clunis v. the United Kingdom: A Case of Negligence and Human Rights Violations and more Slides History in PDF only on Docsity!



  []

CLUNIS v. the UNITED KINGDOM

Right to a fair trial – inadmissible Article 6, Section 1

Right to respect for private life – inadmissible Article 8

Right to an effective remedy – inadmissible Article 13

Civil claim barred on public policy grounds without any examination of merits of claim

On  September  a Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights unani- mously declared inadmissible the application in the case of Clunis v. the United Kingdom.

Summary of the facts

The applicant has a history of serious psychiatric illness. In May  he attacked a fellow resident at the mental hospital where he had been placed. In September  he was discharged from hospital and after-care arrangements were made with Friern Hospital, then under the management and control of the local Health Au- thority. The applicant subsequently failed to attend appointments made with S., a doctor at the hospital. In the meantime, official documents had been addressed to the hospital indicating that the Mental Health Act required that after-care be ar- ranged for the applicant. S. was later informed of the applicant’s aggressive tenden- cies and of the fact that he had been off medication for several weeks. In November  the applicant managed to leave his home unnoticed in the course of an assess- ment visit. No further assessment visit was planned, S. intending to see him infor- mally. Another appointment was made with S., this time at the applicant’s initia- tive, but he again failed to attend. S. took no further steps from that stage. In December  the police reported that the applicant had been seen “waving screw- drivers and knives and talking about devils”. S. advised that an assessment be made as soon as possible and opened lengthy discussions with the competent authorities to determine which hospital was responsible for him – it appeared that he re- mained under the care of Friern Hospital. The same day, the applicant killed a stranger at a tube station without any reason. He was convicted of manslaughter by reason of diminished responsibility and ordered to be detained under the Men- tal Health Act without limit in time. The way his treatment and care had been



  []

handled by the hospital and hence the local health authority was seriously criti- cised in a subsequent official report. The applicant brought a negligence action against the responsible authorities. These authorities contested it on the ground that the applicant could not rely on his own criminal act to show that their duty of care had been breached, according to the public policy principle ex turpi causa non oritur actio. The High Court re- jected the argument. However, the Court of Appeal found, on the local authority’s appeal, that the applicant’s case at common law was barred on public policy grounds. The court further held that Parliament in enacting the after-care provisions in the Mental Health Act had not intended that a local authority should be exposed to liability in the event of its failure to discharge its statutory after-care functions properly. Moreover, the court found that it would not be just and reasonable in the circumstances to superimpose on the local authority’s statutory duty a common law duty of care which would be owed to the applicant with respect to the per- formance of its statutory duties to provide after-care.

Complaints

The applicant complained of a violation of his rights under Article  of the Con- vention in that the authorities failed to comply with their positive obligation to ensure effective protection for his right to respect for his private life, in particular his psychological and psychiatric well-being. The applicant also maintained that he was denied an effective remedy for the breach of his rights under Article . He invoked Article  of the Convention in this connection and pointed to the fact that his negligence action was barred on public policy grounds. The applicant complained that he was denied access to a court for a determination of his civil claim against the defendant Health Authority (Camden), since his cause of action was struck out for reasons of public policy.

Decision

The applicant contended before the domestic courts that he had a right to recover damages from the Health Authority on account of the harm he suffered as a result of its negligence. He based his claims, derived from the tort of negligence, on breach of a common law duty of care and a statutory duty owed to him. It was assumed, for the purpose of the proceedings before the Court, that the domestic courts had been asked to rule on a serious and genuine dispute about the existence and scope in domestic law of a right, asserted by the applicant, to sue the authority on the grounds of negligence, and that, at the material time, they had not definitely