[]
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
