R (C) v London South and West Region Mental Health Review Tribunal

Article 5(4) requires an application challenging compulsory detention to be heard as soon as reasonably practicable in its individual circumstances. Speed cannot be defined by an abstract period. A tribunal may allow the time reasonably necessary to obtain the evidence and conduct a fair and adequate hearing, but administrative convenience and resource constraints cannot justify delay.

An eight-week maximum target is lawful because some cases may require that preparation time. A practice of automatically listing every application after the same period is unlawful where it makes no effort to accommodate cases capable of earlier determination.

C was compulsorily detained for treatment under section 3 of the Mental Health Act 1983 and immediately applied to the Mental Health Review Tribunal for discharge. In accordance with the Tribunal's admitted practice, the hearing was initially fixed precisely eight weeks later. C was discharged before that hearing.

Scott Baker J dismissed C's application for judicial review, although he determined it because the issue was of public importance and might affect C again. Brooke LJ granted permission to appeal.

The central issue was whether the practice of uniformly listing section 3 applications eight weeks after the request was compatible with the requirement in article 5(4) of the European Convention on Human Rights that the lawfulness of detention be decided speedily.

Appeal allowed unanimously. Lord Phillips MR delivered the judgment, with which Jonathan Parker LJ and Lord Mustill agreed.

1. The Strasbourg authorities established that whether a decision is made speedily cannot be determined by fixing an abstract permissible period. The court must examine whether the case proceeded with reasonable despatch in all its circumstances. Contracting states must organise their legal systems to meet Convention requirements; resource constraints do not determine the content of the right.

2. Article 5(4) requires speed and justice. A tribunal deciding whether detention for treatment remains justified must have enough time to obtain the relevant medical material and adjudicate adequately and fairly. Undue haste is not required. The responsible authority may take up to three weeks under rule 6 of the Mental Health Review Tribunal Rules 1983 to provide its statement and medical report, after which the patient may require further preparation.

3. The preparation needed after receipt of that material varies between cases. An independent psychiatric assessment may require additional time, while a represented patient who requests an early hearing may be ready sooner. Allocating hearing dates according to the preparation genuinely required would not constitute unlawful discrimination under article 14.

4. An eight-week maximum target is compatible with article 5(4). Some applications may reasonably require the whole period. The unlawful feature was the practice of routinely using a uniform eight-week lead time without attempting to identify and accommodate cases capable of earlier determination. Cogent evidence had not shown that individualised listing within the target was impracticable.

5. The practice was founded on administrative convenience rather than necessity and would inevitably prevent speedy determination in some cases. C's case was one such instance. The court declared both the uniform listing practice and the listing of C's hearing eight weeks after his request unlawful. The Tribunal was ordered to pay C's costs of the appeal and proceedings below.

1. Court of Appeal: The appeal was allowed unanimously. The court declared unlawful both the Tribunal's uniform listing practice and its listing of C's hearing eight weeks after his request.
2. High Court, Administrative Court: Scott Baker J dismissed the application for judicial review on 21 December 2000. Brooke LJ granted permission to appeal on 27 February 2001.