Mark Anthony Sammut & Ors v Next Steps Mental Healthcare Limited & Anor

A private care provider is not a hybrid public authority merely because it provides state-funded care, is regulated, or performs a function with social utility. The question under sections 6(3)(b) and 6(5) of the Human Rights Act 1998 concerns the nature of the relevant function or act. The absence of special statutory powers, particularly powers of compulsory detention, is highly significant. Section 73 of the Care Act 2014 creates a limited statutory extension and does not apply outside its specified circumstances. Article 2 is not engaged by serious clinical negligence alone. In healthcare cases, engagement requires either knowingly denying life-saving emergency treatment where the patient’s life is known to be at risk, or a genuinely systemic dysfunction causing deprivation of access to such treatment.

The claimants brought proceedings arising from Paul Sammut’s residence at a secure facility operated by the first defendant and his subsequent death. The estate alleged clinical negligence and false imprisonment. The claimants also sought remedies under sections 6 and 7 of the Human Rights Act 1998 for alleged breaches of Articles 2, 3, 5 and 8 against both defendants.

The first defendant applied to strike out parts of the proposed amended particulars of claim or obtain summary judgment. Its principal case was that it was not a public authority for Human Rights Act purposes. Alternatively, it argued that Article 2 was not engaged. The second defendant made a more limited application. The court considered whether the first defendant’s care and detention-related functions were functions of a public nature and whether the pleaded facts satisfied the Article 2 threshold.

1. Public authority. The first defendant could only be a hybrid public authority under section 6(3)(b) of the Human Rights Act 1998. Section 73 of the Care Act 2014 did not apply because the statutory conditions concerning the arrangement or funding of care were not met.
2. Application of YL. The reasoning in YL v Birmingham City Council and others [2007] UKHL 27 remained central outside section 73. State funding, regulation, social utility, vulnerability of residents and contracting-out were insufficient, individually or collectively, to make the relevant functions public. The absence of special statutory powers was particularly important. The first defendant had no power to detain Paul compulsorily. The court distinguished R(A) v Partnership in Care Limited [2002] EWHC 529 (Admin) because that case concerned compulsory detention.
3. Imputation. An assessment that a placement was imputable to the State for Article 5 purposes did not establish that the provider was exercising functions of a public nature. The assessor’s view was only an opinion and could not determine the legal issue.
4. Article 2. Following R (Maguire) v HM Senior Coroner for Blackpool and Fylde [2023] UKSC 20, Article 2 includes systems, operational and procedural duties. In healthcare, exceptional circumstances are required beyond medical negligence. The pleaded failures alleged serious clinical negligence, but did not allege that treatment was knowingly denied while practitioners were fully aware that Paul’s life was at risk, nor a genuinely identifiable systemic dysfunction depriving him of life-saving emergency treatment. Alleged recklessness without the required full awareness was insufficient.
5. The Human Rights Act claims against the first defendant were struck out. Alternatively, summary judgment was entered for the first defendant. The Article 2 claim would also have been struck out or summarily dismissed if the public-authority issue had been decided otherwise. The remaining substantial claims were left to proceed subject to agreement on the order.