Wright, Re Judicial Review

Factual and Procedural Background

The Applicant is a 23-year-old man with severe learning disabilities, assessed with an IQ of 44, placing him well within the bottom 2% of the population in intellectual functioning. He was arrested on 29 April 2016 for an alleged rape and subsequently charged and brought before the court. The Applicant was remanded in custody and applied for bail, which was refused due to unsuitable accommodation at his home address where his sisters, who also suffer from learning disabilities, reside. The refusal was primarily based on concerns about the appropriateness of accommodating the Applicant at that location.

The core issue concerns the duty of the Health Trust (the first respondent) under Article 15 of the Health and Personal Social Services (Northern Ireland) Order 1972 to provide or secure suitable accommodation. The second respondent is a charity involved in providing accommodation. Leave for judicial review was granted, and the matter was set for a full hearing. However, the case was adjourned due to the Applicant’s imminent transfer from custody to a hospital under mental health legislation following a psychiatric report indicating deterioration in his mental health.

The Applicant was transferred to Muckamore Hospital as a detained patient in December 2016. The judicial review remains pending, with the court now considering whether the full application should proceed or if it is academic given the changed circumstances.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Health Trust complied with its duty under Article 15 of the Health and Personal Social Services (Northern Ireland) Order 1972 to provide suitable accommodation for the Applicant within a reasonable time;
2. Whether the judicial review should proceed despite the Applicant’s transfer to hospital, or whether the matter is now academic;
3. Whether there has been a breach of Articles 3 and 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights in relation to the Applicant’s detention and accommodation;
4. Whether the Applicant’s claim for damages related to deterioration in mental health due to delay in accommodation provision should be pursued within the judicial review or by way of writ action.

Arguments of the Parties

Applicant's Arguments

• The Health Trust has not acknowledged any breach of its Article 15 duty, and there is an ongoing obligation to address accommodation despite the Applicant’s detention in hospital.
• The case raises public interest considerations because it concerns the fair treatment of a vulnerable individual and potentially others similarly situated who may lack legal representation.
• There may be breaches of Articles 3 and 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
• The Applicant has a claim for damages related to the deterioration of his mental health, though this might be better pursued as a writ action.
• The case requires further adjudication to address these issues, supported by precedents such as R v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Salem and Re E's Application for Judicial Review.

Health Trust's Arguments

• The case is academic because the bail issue has been resolved by the Applicant’s transfer to hospital.
• The difficulty in placing the Applicant in the community was due to community sensitivities.
• The Trust accepts that Article 15 applied prior to detention but argues the duty was met within a reasonable time.
• Relied on the decision in Re JR47's Application as authoritative on the Article 15 duty.
• Argued the case is not exceptional and should not proceed further on the basis of academicity.

Charity’s Arguments

• The charity is not the primary focus of the challenge and has a limited role as it is not a public authority.
• Supported the Trust’s position that the case is academic and should not proceed.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court noted that the Health Trust’s duty under Article 15 required provision of suitable accommodation within a reasonable time. The issue involved a factual and practical analysis, evidenced by numerous affidavits. The deterioration in the Applicant’s mental health raised potential civil liability beyond judicial review, more appropriately addressed by writ action. The court recognized that the accommodation issue might arise again but emphasized that the law on Article 15 was clear and that any future breach could be litigated separately.

Drawing on established case law, the court applied the principle that judicial review should not proceed if the matter is academic unless a significant public interest exists. The facts were highly specific to the Applicant, and no broad public interest was identified. Consequently, the court found no utility in proceeding to a full hearing for declaratory relief. The case was rooted in individual circumstances with factual disputes better resolved in another forum.

Holding and Implications

The court’s final decision was to DISPOSE OF the judicial review application without a full hearing.

The direct effect is that the judicial review will not proceed further at this stage. The court left open the possibility of future proceedings if there is an alleged breach of Article 15. Potential claims for damages and Convention rights violations are to be pursued through writ action. No new precedent was established, and the decision is confined to the particular facts of this case.