Kay v UK 17821/91 (1994) ECHR 51: Difference between revisions
m (Text replacement - "{{stub}} " to "") |
m (Text replacement - "Category:Ministry of Justice" to "Category:Ministry of Justice cases") |
||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
[[Category:Ministry of Justice]] | [[Category:Ministry of Justice cases]] | ||
[[Category:ECHR]] | [[Category:ECHR]] | ||
[[Category:Brief summary]] | [[Category:Brief summary]] | ||
[[Category:Transcript]] | [[Category:Transcript]] | ||
[[Category:1994 cases]] | [[Category:1994 cases]] | ||
Revision as of 20:36, 9 April 2021
(1) The recall to hospital without up-to-date objective medical expertise showing that the applicant suffered from a true mental disorder, or that his previous psychopathic disorder persisted - in the absence of any emergency - violated Article 5(1); (2) The subsequent MHRT proceedings were inherently too slow, which breached Article 5(4): the first hearing date offered was five months after referral, and final determination took just over two years.
Related judgments
Kay v UK 17821/91 [1994] ECHR 51
- Kay v UK 17821/91 [1993] ECHR 61 (admissibility)
External link
The following categories (in blue boxes) can be clicked to view a list of other pages in the same category: