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

Foot Anstey—Jasmine Olomolaiye

Foot Anstey—Jasmine Olomolaiye

Investigations and corporate crime expert joins as partner

Fieldfisher—Mark Shaw

Fieldfisher—Mark Shaw

Veteran funds specialist joins investment funds team

Taylor Wessing—Stephen Whitfield

Taylor Wessing—Stephen Whitfield

Firm enhances competition practice with London partner hire

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll