Henry and Noel vs Attorney General

This case involved the unlawful detention of Mr. Henry and Mr. Noel, who were held in prison for extended periods without trial due to their mental illness, raising significant constitutional issues.

TLDR:

• Mr. Henry and Mr. Noel were detained in prison for extended periods without trial due to mental illness.
• Their detention was found to be unlawful and in breach of their constitutional rights.
• The Privy Council ruled that damages should be reassessed by the High Court.
• The case highlighted the need for periodic reviews of detainees' mental health status and fair trial possibilities.

Mr. Henry and Mr. Noel were detained in prison after being found unfit to stand trial due to mental illness. Their detention lasted for extended periods, far exceeding the maximum lawful custodial sentence that could have been imposed had they been convicted. This led to claims that their detention was unlawful and in breach of their constitutional rights.

The Privy Council examined whether the detention of the appellants was unlawful from the outset or became unlawful at a later date when it no longer served its intended purpose. The court also considered whether the failure to periodically review their fitness to plead rendered their detention unlawful and whether their treatment amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment.

The court found that the detention of Mr. Henry and Mr. Noel was unlawful from the outset because they were not detained in a mental hospital as required by law. Instead, they were held in prison without the necessary legal procedures being followed. This failure to operate the correct legal procedure meant that their detention was not 'authorised by law' within the meaning of section 3(1) of the Constitution.

Furthermore, the court determined that the absence of periodic reviews of the appellants' fitness to stand trial contributed to the unlawfulness of their detention. Although the appellants were provided with medical treatment for their mental illness, the lack of formal periodic reviews by the executive meant that their cases were not properly assessed over time.

In terms of inhuman and degrading treatment, the Privy Council concluded that the conditions and regime under which Mr. Henry and Mr. Noel were held did not meet the high threshold required for such a finding. While their detention in prison rather than a mental hospital was inappropriate, it did not amount to inhuman or degrading treatment under section 5 of the Constitution.

Regarding damages, the Privy Council found that the Court of Appeal had assessed damages on the wrong basis by applying a fixed daily rate. Instead, the amount should be tapered to reflect the injury suffered considered in the round. The case was remitted to the High Court for a fresh assessment of damages, with permission for the parties to adduce fresh evidence.

The Privy Council's decision underscores the importance of following legal procedures for the detention of individuals with mental illness and ensuring periodic reviews of their fitness to stand trial. It also highlights the need for a proper assessment of damages in cases of unlawful detention.

Legal representatives: Mr. A Baker for Mr. Henry, Ms. C Adams for Mr. Noel, Mr. D Clark for the Attorney General.

Judicial Panel: Lord Reed, Lord Hodge, Lady Arden, Lord Kitchin, Lord Sales

Case Citation Reference: [2023] UKPC 12