R v Bournewood Community and Mental Health NHS Trust [1997]

R v Bournewood Community and Mental Health NHS Trust [1997] EWCA Civ 2879 involved the admission of HL, an adult with profound learning disabilities and autism, to a psychiatric hospital without his capable consent. Despite his compliance due to sedation, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) later ruled that HL had been unlawfully deprived of his liberty under Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

HL, an autistic male adult with profound learning difficulties who had lived in Bournewood Hospital for over thirty years, was discharged into the community in 1994 and placed with foster carers. On July 22, 1997, he became agitated and was admitted to Bournewood Hospital under sedation. While HL did not attempt to leave, his carers were prevented from visiting him. Dissatisfied with the situation, Mr and Mrs E, his foster carers, sought judicial review and a writ of Habeas Corpus Ad Subjiciendum to secure HL's discharge.

In the High Court, it was considered whether HL had been unlawfully detained under common law. The judge emphasised that there would be no restraint until HL attempted to leave and the respondent took action to prevent it. However, the Court of Appeal disagreed, stating that HL should have been detained under the Mental Health Act 1983, as the common law applied only in situations not covered by statute.

The House of Lords, in a majority verdict, concluded that HL had not been detained under the common law tort of false imprisonment because there must be actual, not just potential, restraint. This decision raised concerns about the potential impact on tens of thousands of patients if the ruling of the Court of Appeal were upheld. The House of Lords also asserted that even if HL had been found to be detained, it would have been justified under the common law doctrine of necessity.

The ECtHR, however, concurred with Lord Steyn that HL had indeed been detained. The Court found that the distinction between actual and potential restraint, as emphasised by the House of Lords, was not of central importance under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Moreover, the common law doctrine of necessity did not provide sufficient safeguards for informal detention, rendering it inconsistent with the ECHR.

In response to the ECtHR's ruling, the UK government initiated a consultation about the potential consequences, leading to the amendment of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. The amended Act included the deprivation of liberty safeguards to address the concerns raised by the Bournewood judgment. These safeguards, aimed at protecting compliant but incapacitated adults in care homes and hospitals, came into force in April 2009. However, their implementation has faced criticism and challenges from various quarters.
Back to blog
UOLLB SQE Turbocharge

UOLLB SQE Turbocharge

Get ready for the SQE1 with high-performance SQE Study Guides developed by UOLLB and published by UOL Press to revolutionise your study method and exam strategy.

Turbocharge SQE Performance Here

UOL Case Bank

Upon joining, you become a valuable UOL student and gain instant access to over 2,100 essential case summaries. UOL Case Bank is constantly expanding.
Speed up your revision with us now👇

Subscribe Now

Where are our students from?

Council of Europe
Crown Prosecution Service
Baker Mckenzie 
Yale University
University of Chicago
Columbia University
New York University
University of Michigan 
INSEAD
University of London
University College London (UCL)
London School of Economics (LSE)
King’s College London (KCL)
Royal Holloway, University of London 
Birkbeck, University of London
SOAS, University of London
University of Manchester
University of Zurich
University of York
Brandeis University
University of Exeter
University of Sheffield
Boston University
University of Washington
University of Leeds
University of Law
University of Kent
University of Hull
Queen’s University Belfast
Toronto Metropolitan University
Hong Kong University of Science and Technology
University of Buckingham
ESSEC Business School

  • Criminal Practice

    Diagrams and Charts

    Our carefully designed diagrams and charts will guide you through complex legal issues.

  • Criminal Law

    Clear and Succinct Definitions

    Key concepts are concisely defined to help you understand legal topics quickly.

  • Property Law

    Statutory Provisions

    Statutory provisions are provided side by side with legal concepts to help you swiftly locate the relevant legislation.

  • Public Law

    Case Summaries

    We have summarised important cases for you so that you don't need to read long and boring cases.

  • Evidence

    Rules and Exceptions

    Rules and exceptions are clearly listed so that you know when a rule applies and when it doesn't.

  • Company Law

    Terminology

    Legal terms and key concepts are explained at the beginning of each chapter to help you learn efficiently.

  • Case Law

    Case law is provided side by side with legal concepts so that you know how legal principles and precedents were established.

  • Law Exam Guide

    Law Essay Guide

    You will learn essential law exam skills and essay writing techniques that are not taught in class.

  • Law Exam Guide

    Problem Question Guide

    We will show you how to answer problem questions step by step to achieve first-class results.

  • Conflict of Laws

    Structured Explanations

    Complex legal concepts are broken down into concise and digestible bullet point explanations.

  • Legal System and Method

    Legal Research

    You will learn legal research techniques with our study guide and become a proficient legal researcher.

  • Jurisprudence and Legal Theory

    Exam-focused

    All essential concepts, principles, and case law are included so that you can answer exam questions quickly.