X v UK 7215/75 (1981) ECHR 6: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
m (Text replacement - "{{stub}} " to "") |
||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
[http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/1981/6.html Bailii] | [http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/1981/6.html Bailii] | ||
[[Category:Powers]] | [[Category:Powers]] | ||
Revision as of 21:28, 26 May 2015
(1) Under Article 5(1), the recall to hospital without the usual Winterwerp guarantees was lawful as it was an emergency; the further detention followed examination by the RMO so was also lawful; (2) Habeas corpus proceedings were inadequate for Article 5(4) purposes; the other legal machinery did not remedy this breach, in particular because the MHRT could not order discharge of restricted patients.
Related judgments
Winterwerp v Netherlands 6301/73 [1979] ECHR 4
External link
The following categories (in blue boxes) can be clicked to view a list of other pages in the same category: