4. Letter from The Law Society
ACT 1983, SS
72 AND 73
I am writing in my capacity as Secretary to
the Mental Health and Disability Committee of the Law Society,
further to Jean Corston's letter requesting comments to your Committee
on the Draft Remedial Order. This matter was discussed by the
Mental Health and Disability Committee on Tuesday 18 September.
The collective view of the Committee was that, in terms of the
limited inquiry on the remedial order itself, that the remedial
order achieves its purpose in resolving the issue of incompatibility
with Article 5(1) and 5(4) of the European Convention on Human
Rights (as per Court of Appeal decision in R (H) v Mental Health
Review Tribunal, North and East London Region).
We understand that wider issues of mental health
law and policy are not included within the consultation. However,
there are two process and procedural issues that concern the Committee.
The first is the treatment of the declaration of incompatibility
and subsequent draft remedial order as a "non-urgent case".
The Committee's view is that the continued detention and deprivation
of an individual's liberty is indeed an urgent issue and should
be treated as such. Secondly, the Committee would be interested
to know what the criteria for urgent and non-urgent cases is,
and what the procedure would be to rectify the domestic legislation
in an urgent case.
If the later two points are outside of the remit
of the Joint Committee on Human Rights at this time, I would be
grateful if you could advise me on where these concerns might
usefully be taken.
Policy Adviser: Mental Health, Disability and Older