Kay v UK 17821/91 (1994) ECHR 51: Difference between revisions
m (Text replacement - "Category:Ministry of Justice" to "Category:Ministry of Justice cases") |
m (Text replacement - "\[http:\/\/www\.bailii\.org\/.*\/cases\/(UKSC|ECHR|UKPC|EWCOP|EWFC|UKHL|PBRA)\/(.*)\/(.*)\.html Bailii\]" to "{{#bailii:[$2] $1 $3}}") |
||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
==External link== | ==External link== | ||
[ | {{#bailii:[1994] ECHR 51}} | ||
Latest revision as of 11:15, 25 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: