header-logo header-logo

Supreme Court suicide ruling

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

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

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Group partner joins Guernsey banking and finance practice

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

London labour and employment team announces partner hire

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Double partner appointment marks Belfast expansion

NEWS
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has not done enough to protect the future sustainability of the legal aid market, MPs have warned
Writing in NLJ this week, NLJ columnist Dominic Regan surveys a landscape marked by leapfrog appeals, costs skirmishes and notable retirements. With an appeal in Mazur due to be heard next month, Regan notes that uncertainties remain over who will intervene, and hopes for the involvement of the Lady Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls in deciding the all-important outcome
After the Southport murders and the misinformation that followed, contempt of court law has come under intense scrutiny. In this week's NLJ, Lawrence McNamara and Lauren Schaefer of the Law Commission unpack proposals aimed at restoring clarity without sacrificing fair trial rights
The latest Home Office figures confirm that stop and search remains both controversial and diminished. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort University analyses data showing historically low use of s 1 PACE powers, with drugs searches dominating what remains
Boris Johnson’s 2019 attempt to shut down Parliament remains a constitutional cautionary tale. The move, framed as a routine exercise of the royal prerogative, was in truth an extraordinary effort to sideline Parliament at the height of the Brexit crisis. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC dissects how prorogation was wrongly assumed to be beyond judicial scrutiny, only for the Supreme Court to intervene unanimously
back-to-top-scroll