R v Bournewood Community and Mental Health NHS Trust, ex parte L
[1999] 1 AC 458
판결 이유
An informal (compliant but incapacitated) patient could be detained under the common law doctrine of necessity without recourse to the Mental Health Act 1983, creating a gap in safeguards later addressed by the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards.
사실관계
HL, a profoundly autistic man, was informally admitted to Bournewood Hospital. He did not resist but lacked capacity to consent. His carers argued he was effectively detained without the protections of the MHA 1983.
판결 요약
The House of Lords held (3-2) that HL was not detained because he had not attempted to leave and was compliant. He was an informal patient under s.131 MHA 1983. The common law doctrine of necessity justified his care. The ECtHR later disagreed in HL v UK (2004), finding a breach of Article 5.
주요 인용문
"The principle of necessity will justify actions taken in the best interests of a person who lacks the capacity to consent."
— Lord Goff
후속 처리
Effectively reversed by HL v United Kingdom (2004) in the ECtHR, leading to the introduction of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) in 2007.