Individual Rights and the Law Case Study Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1500 words

Individual Rights and the Law - episode Study ExampleArticle 5of the Human Rights Act guaranteeing liberty is the most important article for detained mentally dis dispositioned people. Interpretations of article 5in the context of persons of rotted mind resulted from the decision of the European judicature in the wooing of Winterwerp V the Netherlands. Detention under article 5(1) e is considered lawful only if the patient is deemed to be of unsound mind. Also, it is necessary that the mental disorder must be of a kind or degree warranting mandatory confinement. Further, continued confinement should depend on the persistence of the disorder. Finally, the detention must be in conformance with the prescribed law. (Potential impact of the Human Rights Act on psychiatric practice the best of British value Rosanne MacgregorMorris, Jane Ewbank, Luke Birmingham). frugal and other European Cases challenging restricted medical treatment have largely been no-win as current clinical prac tice generally does not breach an individuals human rights and recent Scottish Case Laws, have high - lighted that an individual patients rights may be of a lower precession than public safety.Following the decision of the European Court of Human Rights, in X V unite Kingdom, 1981, 4EHRR 188, The Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1983, introduced a periodic right of stir for restricted patients enabling them to fool to the sheriff annually for a discharge. The relevant provision is section 63 of 1984 act. According to this section as abundant as it is required, the sheriff and Scottish ministers do not discharge a restricted patient from the hospital. This is in order to protect the public from serious harm, regardless of whether, the patient is treatable or not. These cases bring into focus the conflict betwixt the individuals right to liberty, now enshrined in The European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedom (The Convention) and the obligation o f the state to protect its citizens from harm. We will now, consider three very important cases in this context.Case One. The applier Karl Anderson formerly known as Karl Tonner pleaded guilty to manslaughter on the basis of diminished responsibility at Dundee Sheriff Court in 1968 to an indictment containing a charge of culpable homicide in respect of assaulting a girl elder 12 and then killing her, . Tonner was charged with culpable homicide and in the High Court at Edinburgh, on 6 December 1968, the judge authorized his admission to, and detention without time limit in, the State hospital at Carstairs under Section 55 of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1960 (the 1960 Act). On 8 July 1999 Anderson appealed to the Sheriff at Lanark under Section 63 of the 1984 Act for an absolute discharge under Section 64. This appeal was based on the 2 August 1999 judgment was given in the case of Ruddle v. The secretarial assistant of State for Scotland 1999 G.W.D. 29-1395. In this case Noe l Ruddle appealed to the Sheriff under Section 63(2) of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984.He sought an order in terms of Section 64(1) (a) of that Act directing his absolute discharge. Ruddles argument was that he was no longer liable to be detained in a hospital for treatment since he no longer suffered from a mental illness justifying his detention as a restricted pati