Skip to main content
×
×
Home

Article 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998: implications for clinical practice

  • Martin Curtice
Abstract

The Human Rights Act 1998 was introduced into UK law in 2000. It must be considered in all clinical cases, including mental health review tribunals. The number of mental health cases brought to the European Court of Human Rights that breach Article 3 has been very few. However, Article 3 will need to be considered in the clinical setting in complaints arising from conditions of detention, seclusion, control and restraint. This article analyses the case law, illustrating its evolution and also demonstrating the fundamental and core concepts that underpin the Act that can be used in clinical practice.

  • View HTML
    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      Article 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998: implications for clinical practice
      Available formats
      ×
      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      Article 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998: implications for clinical practice
      Available formats
      ×
      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      Article 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998: implications for clinical practice
      Available formats
      ×
Copyright
References
Hide All
Bar Council (2004) Report of the Joint Committee on the Draft Mental Health Bill: Volume II, November. TSO (The Stationery Office).
Bonesana, C. (1764) Dei Delitti e delle Pene. Reprinted (1953) as An Essay on Crimes and Punishments. Academic Reprints.
Curtice, M. (2002) Force-feeding: implications for the Mental Health Act 1983 and the Human Rights Act 1998. Journal of Mental Health, 11, 235242.
Department for Constitutional Affairs (2006) Declarations of Incompatibility Made under Section 4 of the Human Rights Act 1998. Department for Constitutional Affairs (http://www.dca.gov.uk/peoples-rights/human-rights/pdf/decl-incompattabl.pdf).
General Medical Council (2006) Good Medical Practice. GMC.
Hale, B. (2007) The Human Rights Act and Mental Health Law: has it helped? Journal of Mental Health Law, May, 718.
House of Lords House of Commons (2007) Joint Committee on Human Rights: The Human Rights of Older People in Healthcare. Eighteenth Report of Session 2006–07. Volume 1 – Report and Formal Minutes. TSO (The Stationery Office).
Langbein, J. H. (1977) Torture and the Law of Proof. Europe and England in the Ancien Regime. University of Chicago.
Mannix, D. P. (2003) The History of Torture. Sutton Publishing.
McCoy, A. W. (2006) A Question of Torture: CIA Interrogation, from Cold War to the War on Terror. Metropolitan Books.
Office of Public Sector Information (2007) Mental Health Act 2007 – Chapter 12. OPSI (http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2007/pdf/ukpga_20070012_en.pdf).
Voltaire (1764) Torture. In Dictionnaire Philosophique (reprinted 1962) as Philosophical Dictionary (ed. Gay, Peter) Basic Books.
A and others (Appellants) v. Secretary of State for the Home Department [2004] EWCA 1123.
Aerts v. Belgium [1998] Application no. 25357/94, 30th July.
Bolam v. Friern Hospital Management Committee [1957] 1 WLR 582.
Handyside v. UK [1976] 1 EHRR 737.
Herczegfalvy v. Austria [1992] 15 EHRR 437.
Holomiov v. Moldova [2006] Application no. 30649/05, 7th November.
Hurtado v. Switzerland [1994] Application No. 1754/90, 28th January.
Ireland v. The United Kingdom [1978] 2 EHRR 25.
Keenan v. UK [2001] 33 EHRR 913.
Khudobin v. Russia [2006] Application no. 59696/00, 26th October.
Kudla v. Poland [2000] Application no. 30210/96, 26th October.
Matencio v. France [2004] Application no. 58749/00, 15th January.
McGlinchey v. UK [2003] 37 EHRR 41.
Naumenko v. Ukraine [2004] Application no. 42023/98, 10th February.
Nevmerzhitsky v. Ukraine [2005] Application no. 54825/00, 5th April.
Olsson v. Sweden [1988] 11 EHRR 25.
Pretty v. UK [2002] 35 EHRR 1.
R (Howard) v. Health Secretary [2002] 3 WLR 738.
R (on the application of A) v. North West Lancashire Health Authority [2000] 1 WLR 977.
R (on the application of B) v. (1) Dr SS (Responsible Medical Officer, Broadmoor Hospital) (2) D G (Second Opinion Appointed Doctor) (3) Secretary of State for the Department of Health [2005] EWHC 1936.
R (on the application of Wilkinson) v. (1) The RMO Broadmoor Hospital, (2) The Mental Health Act Commission Second Opinion Appointed Doctor & Secretary of State for Health [2001] EWCA Civ 1545.
Riviere v. France (2006) Application no. 33834/03, 11th July.
Sentges v. Netherlands (2003) Application no. 27677/02. 8th July.
Tanko v. Finland (1994) Application no. 23634/94, unreported.
Tyrer v. United Kingdom (1978) Application no. 5856/72, 25th April.
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

BJPsych Advances
  • ISSN: 1355-5146
  • EISSN: 1472-1481
  • URL: /core/journals/bjpsych-advances
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed

Article 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998: implications for clinical practice

  • Martin Curtice
Submit a response

eLetters

No eLetters have been published for this article.

×

Reply to: Submit a response


Your details


Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *