Introduction

Mazhar v. Birmingham Community Healthcare Foundation NHS Trust & Ors (Rev 1) ([2020] EWCA Civ 1377) is a pivotal case heard by the England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division). The appellant, Aamir Mazhar, a 26-year-old individual with Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy, challenged an order authorizing his removal from home to a hospital under the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court. This case delves into the complexities surrounding the protection of vulnerable adults, the application of the inherent jurisdiction, and the interplay with human rights under the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA).

Summary of the Judgment

The Court of Appeal dismissed Mazhar's appeal against the High Court's order to remove him from his home due to alleged inadequate care provisions. However, the Court identified significant procedural and evidential shortcomings in how the order was granted. Key findings include:

• The High Court judge failed to adequately assess the evidence or consider whether Mazhar was under undue influence, which is essential for exercising inherent jurisdiction.
• The application was made without proper notice to Mazhar, violating procedural fairness.
• The order lacked a clear recital of the reasons and legal basis for depriving Mazhar of his liberty.
• The Court emphasized the need for stringent judicial scrutiny, especially in urgent and out-of-hours applications involving vulnerable adults.

Ultimately, the Court of Appeal set aside the High Court's decision, highlighting breaches of Mazhar's Article 6 rights under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively references prior case law to delineate the boundaries and proper application of the inherent jurisdiction:

• Re SA (Vulnerable Adult with Capacity: Marriage) [2005] EWHC 2942 (Fam): Established the framework for inherent jurisdiction, emphasizing protection against coercion or undue influence.
• Winterwerp v Netherlands (1979) 2 EHRR 387: Highlighted the necessity of medical evidence to establish "unsound mind" for lawful detention under Article 5(1)(e) of the ECHR.
• Re SK (Proposed Plaintiff) [2004] EWHC 3203 (Fam): Affirmed the court's power to assess a vulnerable adult's capacity and free will.
• LL v Lord Chancellor [2017] EWCA Civ 237: Explored liability for judicial acts breaching human rights, setting limits on claims against judicial officers.
• G v E [2010] EWCA Civ 822: Discussed the balance between urgency and fairness in emergency applications.
• Re CM (Adult: Refusal of Medical Treatment) [1993] Fam 95: Addressed coercion and undue influence in decision-making regarding medical treatment.

Legal Reasoning

The Court's reasoning centered on the following points:

• Inherent Jurisdiction: The inherent jurisdiction remains a vital tool for protecting vulnerable adults, even post the Mental Capacity Act 2005. However, its application must be judicious, ensuring that deprivation of liberty aligns with both the inherent jurisdiction's purpose and ECHR standards.
• Compliance with Article 5 ECHR: Deprivation of liberty must meet the strict criteria set out in Article 5, requiring objective justification and procedural safeguards, including the necessity of medical evidence in most cases.
• Judicial Scrutiny: The High Court judge failed to perform adequate judicial scrutiny, neglecting to thoroughly evaluate evidence or ensure procedural fairness by notifying the appellant, thus violating Article 6 rights.
• Human Rights Act 1998: The Act governs the compatibility of public authority actions with Convention rights. The Court reaffirmed the limited scope for claims against judicial acts, emphasizing that only specific remedies like damages are permissible, not declarations.

Impact

This judgment has significant implications for future cases involving the inherent jurisdiction and the protection of vulnerable adults:

• Enhanced Scrutiny: Courts must ensure thorough evidence evaluation and adhere to procedural fairness, especially in urgent cases.
• Procedural Safeguards: Clear guidelines are needed for making orders without notice, ensuring that such measures are exceptional and well-justified.
• Human Rights Compliance: Reinforces the necessity for public authorities, including courts, to align their actions with human rights standards, particularly concerning liberty and security.
• Guidance Development: The judgment suggests the need for updated practice guidelines to aid judges and practitioners in handling inherent jurisdiction applications effectively.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Inherent Jurisdiction

The inherent jurisdiction refers to the High Court's inherent power to make decisions concerning the welfare of vulnerable adults, even outside statutory frameworks. It is a protective measure intended to safeguard individuals who may be under coercion, undue influence, or unable to make free choices.

Article 5 ECHR

Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights guarantees the right to liberty and security. It outlines specific conditions under which an individual's liberty can be lawfully deprived, such as for the prevention of the spreading of disease or for individuals of unsound mind. Any deprivation must follow a lawful procedure and respect the individual's rights.

Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA)

The HRA incorporates the rights set out in the ECHR into UK law, allowing individuals to seek redress in UK courts when their rights are breached by public authorities. Sections 7 to 9 of the HRA specifically address proceedings and remedies for such breaches.

Deprivation of Liberty

This term refers to the act of restricting an individual's freedom of movement, typically by placement in a hospital, care home, or similar facility. Under Article 5, such deprivation must be lawful, justified, and proportionate to the reasons for its execution.

Conclusion

The Mazhar v. Birmingham Community Healthcare Foundation NHS Trust & Ors case underscores the critical need for meticulous judicial scrutiny when exercising inherent jurisdiction, particularly in urgent and out-of-hours situations. It highlights the balance courts must maintain between protecting vulnerable individuals and upholding their fundamental rights to liberty and due process. The judgment serves as a cautionary tale for public authorities, emphasizing that protective measures must not override procedural fairness and legal standards. Moving forward, the legal framework must evolve to provide clearer guidelines, ensuring that the inherent jurisdiction is applied consistently, justly, and in alignment with human rights obligations.