header-logo header-logo

15 February 2012
Issue: 7501 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Supreme Court suicide ruling

Hospital had duty to protect suicidal voluntary patient

A hospital had a duty under human rights law to protect a severely depressed voluntary mental health patient who committed suicide, the Supreme Court has held.

The unanimous ruling means psychiatric patients at risk will be entitled to the same level of protection, whether they are detained under the Mental Health Act, or admit themselves voluntarily.

In Rabone & Anor v Pennine Care NHS Foundation [2012] UKSC 2, the justices held that Pennine breached Melanie Rathbone’s right to life under Art 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights, by allowing her to leave hospital. After leaving, she committed suicide.

They concluded there had been a “real and immediate” risk of death, and that Art 2 created a duty on the state to take operational measures to protect a voluntary mental health patient against a “real and immediate” risk of suicide. They held that the parents of the deceased were “victims”, and therefore able to bring an action under s 7(1) of the Human Rights Act 1998.

On the issue of whether the parents had lost their “victims” status by agreeing to settle for £7,500 in an earlier civil claim they brought against Pennine, the justices unanimously held they had not.

Lord Dyson said two conditions must be met before the parents could lose their “victims” status—the public authority must make “adequate redress” and they must acknowledge their breach of Art 2. Lord Dyson said the claim was settled with the deceased’s estate and not with the parents themselves, and there was no “adequate redress”.

Gill Edwards, partner at Pannone, which acted for the Rabones, says the judgment provides more certainty for patients and families in similar circumstances. “It also has an impact on inquests in this country. It means that families of such patients will be entitled to ask for a more detailed Art 2 inquest to investigate the circumstances surrounding the death of their loved one.”

Issue: 7501 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Partner hire strengthens global infrastructure and energy financing practice

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Legal director bolsters international expertise in dispute resolution team

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Corporate governance and company law specialist joins the team

NEWS

NOTICE UNDER THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925

HERBERT SMITH STAFF PENSION SCHEME (THE “SCHEME”)

NOTICE TO CREDITORS AND BENEFICIARIES UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925
Law firm HFW is offering clients lawyers on call for dawn raids, sanctions issues and other regulatory emergencies
From gender-critical speech to notice periods and incapability dismissals, employment law continues to turn on fine distinctions. In his latest employment law brief for NLJ, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School reviews a cluster of recent decisions, led by Bailey v Stonewall, where the Court of Appeal clarified the limits of third-party liability under the Equality Act
Non-molestation orders are meant to be the frontline defence against domestic abuse, yet their enforcement often falls short. Writing in NLJ this week, Jeni Kavanagh, Jessica Mortimer and Oliver Kavanagh analyse why the criminalisation of breach has failed to deliver consistent protection
Assisted dying remains one of the most fraught fault lines in English law, where compassion and criminal liability sit uncomfortably close. Writing in NLJ this week, Julie Gowland and Barny Croft of Birketts examine how acts motivated by care—booking travel, completing paperwork, or offering emotional support—can still fall within the wide reach of the Suicide Act 1961
back-to-top-scroll