X v UK 7215/75 (1981) ECHR 6: Difference between revisions
m (Text replacement - "{{stub}} " to "") |
m (Text replacement - "\[http:\/\/www\.bailii\.org\/.*\/cases\/(UKSC|ECHR|UKPC|EWCOP|EWFC|UKHL|PBRA)\/(.*)\/(.*)\.html Bailii\]" to "{{#bailii:[$2] $1 $3}}") |
||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
==External link== | ==External link== | ||
[ | {{#bailii:[1981] ECHR 6}} | ||
Latest revision as of 11:15, 25 April 2021
(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: