HL v United Kingdom [2004]
Share
HL v United Kingdom [2004] 40 EHRR 761 ruled that the informal admission of a compliant but incapacitated adult to a psychiatric hospital contravened Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights. This decision was a significant departure from the position taken by the House of Lords in the case of R v Bournewood Community and Mental Health NHS Trust [1997], where it was asserted that HL, an autistic adult male with profound learning disabilities, had not been formally detained.
The ECtHR held that the distinction drawn by the House of Lords between actual and potential detention was not a central consideration under Article 5. The critical factor, according to the ECtHR, was that the informal admission of compliant but incapacitated adults, who were, in reality, de facto detained, did not align with the requirements of Article 5.
Furthermore, the ECtHR emphasised that the practice of informal admission, without a clear and lawful procedure, did not meet the standard of being in accordance with a procedure described by law as stipulated in the European Convention on Human Rights. Consequently, the ECtHR found such practices to be in violation of the Convention.
As a result of this landmark decision, substantial changes were implemented in the admission procedures for incapacitated adults to care homes and hospitals in the United Kingdom. These changes aimed to address the issues raised by the court and ensure that the admission of individuals who may be deprived of their liberty adheres to legal procedures and safeguards. This shift in approach is reflected in the establishment of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards, which seek to protect the rights of incapacitated individuals while balancing the necessity of their care and treatment.
The ECtHR held that the distinction drawn by the House of Lords between actual and potential detention was not a central consideration under Article 5. The critical factor, according to the ECtHR, was that the informal admission of compliant but incapacitated adults, who were, in reality, de facto detained, did not align with the requirements of Article 5.
Furthermore, the ECtHR emphasised that the practice of informal admission, without a clear and lawful procedure, did not meet the standard of being in accordance with a procedure described by law as stipulated in the European Convention on Human Rights. Consequently, the ECtHR found such practices to be in violation of the Convention.
As a result of this landmark decision, substantial changes were implemented in the admission procedures for incapacitated adults to care homes and hospitals in the United Kingdom. These changes aimed to address the issues raised by the court and ensure that the admission of individuals who may be deprived of their liberty adheres to legal procedures and safeguards. This shift in approach is reflected in the establishment of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards, which seek to protect the rights of incapacitated individuals while balancing the necessity of their care and treatment.
