- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Reid v. Secretary of State for Scotland and Another
Factual and Procedural Background
The Respondent, then aged 17, was convicted of culpable homicide in 1967. Instead of a custodial sentence, the criminal court imposed a hospital order and an unlimited-time restriction order after receiving medical evidence that the Respondent suffered from mental disorder. Subsequent assessments concluded that he was not mentally handicapped but suffered from a persistent personality disorder characterised by abnormally aggressive and seriously irresponsible behaviour (“psychopathic disorder”).
In 1994 the Respondent applied to a sheriff under section 64 of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984 for discharge from hospital. The sheriff refused, finding a very high risk of serious re-offending. The Respondent sought judicial review. The Lord Ordinary dismissed the petition, but the Inner House allowed a reclaiming motion, quashed the sheriff’s decision and ordered the Respondent’s discharge. The Appellant (Secretary of State) appealed to the House of Lords.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether section 64(1)(a) of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984 obliges a sheriff to discharge a restricted patient when the disorder is no longer “treatable,” i.e. when medical treatment is unlikely to alleviate or prevent deterioration.
- Whether the Inner House exceeded the proper scope of judicial review by substituting its own assessment of medical evidence for that of the sheriff.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- Section 64(1) stands on its own wording and does not incorporate the “treatability” qualification found in section 17(1)(a)(i); therefore, lack of treatability is not decisive.
- The Inner House erred in treating Reg. v. Canons Park Mental Health Review Tribunal, Ex parte A as binding; that decision misread analogous English provisions.
- The sheriff’s findings on ongoing medical benefit and public-safety risk were supported by evidence; the Inner House strayed into merits review.
Respondent's Arguments
- All three admission criteria in section 17(1) (appropriateness, treatability, and safety) must remain satisfied; once any fails, continued detention is unlawful.
- European Convention jurisprudence (X v. United Kingdom) requires a reviewing court to examine whether initial justifications for detention still exist, including treatability.
- The sheriff acted irrationally in rejecting unanimous or majority psychiatric opinion that the disorder was untreatable.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Reg. v. Canons Park Mental Health Review Tribunal, Ex parte A [1995] QB 60 | English Court of Appeal view that “treatability” is a mandatory discharge criterion | House of Lords disapproved and declined to follow, holding the case was wrongly decided |
| Reg. v. Mersey Mental Health Review Tribunal, Ex parte Dillon (unreported, 1986) | Earlier English authority treating treatability as decisive | Overruled implicitly; Court held approach erroneous |
| X v. United Kingdom (1981) 4 E.H.R.R. 188 | Article 5(4) requires periodic judicial review of detention grounds | Court distinguished; review need only cover persistence of disorder and necessity for detention, not treatability per se |
| Reg. v. Bournewood Community & Mental Health NHS Trust, Ex parte L [1998] 3 WLR 107 | Legislative purpose of voluntary admission and limited compulsory powers (Part V context) | Used to contrast aims of Part V with those of Part VI, supporting different construction of section 64 |
| F. v. Management Committee of Ravenscraig Hospital 1988 SC 158 | Distinction between supervisory review and merits appeal | Quoted to show limits of judicial review and deference to sheriff’s fact-finding |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
Delivering separate but concurring speeches, Judge Lloyd (with Judges Slynn, Hope, Clyde and Hutton agreeing) allowed the appeal on two grounds:
- Statutory construction.
- Section 64 appears in Part VI, governing restricted patients whose detention stems from criminal conviction; it deliberately omits any explicit reference to the “treatability” language of section 17(1)(a)(i).
- The phrase “appropriate for him to be liable to be detained in a hospital for medical treatment” in section 64(1)(a) is satisfied if the disorder persists and some form of medical supervision (broadly defined in section 125) remains justified; continuing therapeutic benefit need not be proved.
- Reading section 64 as importing treatability would compel unconditional release of dangerous psychopaths and undermine public-protection purposes of restriction orders—an outcome Parliament cannot have intended.
- Scope of judicial review.
- The Inner House substituted its own evaluation of conflicting psychiatric opinions for that of the sheriff, contrary to the limited Wednesbury standard applicable in supervisory proceedings.
- Evidence from the Respondent’s responsible medical officer supported the sheriff’s finding that structured hospital supervision alleviated behavioural manifestations; therefore the decision was neither irrational nor unsupported.
Holding and Implications
APPEAL ALLOWED. The interlocutor of the Lord Ordinary dismissing the petition for judicial review is restored; the sheriff’s refusal to discharge the Respondent stands.
Implications include: (1) confirmation that treatability is not a stand-alone statutory requirement for continued detention of restricted patients; (2) overruling of English authority treating treatability as decisive, thereby affecting numerous Scottish and English cases applying Canons Park–style reasoning; (3) affirmation that supervisory courts must not re-weigh expert evidence absent legal error. No new cause of action was created, but the decision clarifies discharge criteria for restricted patients and reinforces the public-protection function of restriction orders.
Alert