Reid v. Scotland (Secretary of State) et al., (1998) 234 N.R. 30 (HL)

• Case Date: December 03, 1998
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1998), 234 N.R. 30 (HL)

Reid v. Scotland (1998), 234 N.R. 30 (HL)

MLB headnote and full text

Hutchison Reid (respondent) v. Secretary of State for Scotland (appellant) and Another

(Scotland)

Indexed As: Reid v. Scotland (Secretary of State) et al.

House of Lords

London, England

Lord Slynn of Hadley, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, Lord Hope of Craighead,

Lord Clyde and Lord Hutton

December 3, 1998.

Summary:

Reid killed a woman by stabbing her with a knife. In 1967, Reid (aged 17) was con­vict­ed of culpable homicide. The court found that Reid was suffering from a mental defi­ciency. Instead of ordering his imprisonment (for life or a fixed term), the court ordered his detention for treatment at the State Hos­pital pursuant to s. 55 of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1960. The court restricted his discharge from hospital without limit of time. In 1980, it was determined that Reid was not suffering from a mental deficiency but from a psychopathic personality. In 1985, Reid was transferred to another hospi­tal. In 1986, Reid was convicted of an as­sault upon an eight year old girl. Reid was sentenced to three months' imprisonment and then returned to the State Hospital. By 1994, Reid had not received medication for years. Also, doubts had arisen as to the treatability of psychopathic disorders. Courts were then more likely to send psychopaths to prison than to hospital for treatment. Reid applied for release from the State Hospital pursuant to s. 64 of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984. Reid submitted that s. 17(1)(a)(i) of the Act indicated that a psychopath's deten­tion could be continued only where medical treatment was likely to alleviate or prevent a deterioration of his condition (the treatability test). The sheriff declined to release Reid after finding that medical treatment (eg., anger management) was alleviating his condition. The sheriff also claimed that despite s. 17(1)(a)(i), he could still exercise discretion in deciding whether to release when the applicant posed a very high risk of re-offending. Reid applied for judicial review.

The Lord Ordinary, in a decision reported [1995] S.L.T. 555, dismissed the application. The court found that there was sufficient evidence to support the sheriff's finding that Reid's condition was being alleviated by treatment. The court also observed that Reid's continued detention was not depend­ant upon his condition being treatable. Reid appealed.

The Inner House, in a decision reported [1997] S.L.T. 162, allowed the appeal. The court held that (1) treatability was a require­ment for continued detention and that (2) there was insufficient evidence before the sheriff to support the finding that medical treatment was alleviating Reid's condition. The Crown appealed.

The House of Lords, in allowing the appeal, held that the Inner House had erred in finding that there was insufficient evi­dence for the sheriff to rule that Reid's condition was being alleviated by medical treatment. However, the House (Lord Lloyd of Berwick, dissenting) observed that treatability was a requirement of continued detention. If the psychopath's condition could not be alleviated or prevented from deteriorating, he had to be granted an abso­lute discharge into the community. Lord Hutton observed that the balancing of the protection of the public as against the claim of an untreatable psychopath who had been detained for many years was an issue for Parliament to decide and not for judges.

Administrative Law - Topic 9103

Boards and tribunals - Judicial review - Scope of review - Reid was convicted of culpable homicide and detained at the State Hospital - Reid was later diagnosed a psychopath - After 27 years, Reid applied for release under ss. 17(1)(a)(i) and 64 of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984 on the ground that his detention could not continue because his condition was not treatable - The sheriff received written reports from seven psychiatrists - He also received their oral evidence - The sheriff dismissed the application because Reid's condition was being alleviated by treatment - Reid's application for judicial review was dismissed - After reading the psychiatrists' reports (but without the benefit of a tran­script of the oral testimony) an appeal court held that there was insufficient evi­dence to support the sheriff's finding - The House of Lords allowed a further appeal after finding that the court of appeal had exceeded the scope of judicial review by substi­tuting its assess­ment of the evidence made on the basis of an incom­plete record - See paragraphs 72 to 77.

Persons of Unsound Mind - Topic 803

Release from committal - General - Un­treatable conditions - In 1967, Reid was convicted of culpable homicide - Because he suffered from a mental deficiency, the court ordered his detention at the State Hospital - However, Reid was later diag­nosed a psychopath - There were doubts as to the treatability of psychopaths - Courts were likely to sentence them to imprison­ment - By 1994, Reid had not received medication for years - Reid applied for release under ss. 17(1)(a)(i) and 64 of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984 on the ground that his detention could not con­tinue because his condition was not treat­able (i.e., alleviated or prevented from deteriorating) - There was no statutory provision allowing the transfer to prison of untreatable convicted psychopaths - The Crown submitted that Reid presented a very high risk of re-offending - The House of Lords (Lord Lloyd of Berwick dissent­ing) observed that a psychopath had to be released into the community if his condi­tion was not treatable.

Statutes - Topic 510

Interpretation - General principles - Strict interpretation - Reid was convicted of culpable homicide - Because he suffered from a mental deficiency, the court ordered his detention at the State Hospital - How­ever, Reid was later diagnosed a psycho­path - Twenty-seven years later, Reid applied for release under ss. 17(1)(a)(i) and 64 of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984 on the ground that his detention could not continue because his condition was not treatable (i.e., alleviated or pre­vented from deteriorating) - Also, there was no provision allowing his transfer to prison - The House of Lords observed that a psychopath had to be released into the community if his condition was later deter­mined to be untreatable - Lord Hutton observed that the balancing of the protec­tion of the public as against the claim of a detained untreatable psychopath was an issue for Parliament to decide and not for judges - See paragraph 107.

Words and Phrases

Medical treatment - The House of Lords considered the meaning of the phrase "medi­cal treatment" as contained in s. 17(1)(a) of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984 - See paragraphs 43, 44 and 75.

Words and Phrases

Treatment - The House of Lords con­sid­ered the meaning of the word "treat­ment" as contained in s. 17(1)(a)(i) of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984 - See paragraphs 43, 44 and 75.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Mersey Mental Health Review Tribunal; Ex parte Dillon, [1987] C.L.Y. 2420 (Div. Ct.), not apprvd. [para. 4].

R. v. Canons Park Mental Health Review Tribunal; Ex parte A, [1995] Q.B. 60 (C.A.), reving. [1994] 1 All E.R. 481 (Div. Ct.), not apprvd. [paras. 4 and 65].

R. v. Secretary of State for Scotland, [1989] S.C.L.R. 784 (Sheriff's Ct.), not apprvd. [para. 5].

R. v. Mental Health Review Tribunal; Ex parte Macdonald, [1998] C.O.D. 205, refd to. [para. 5].

R. v. Bournewood Community and Mental Health N.H.S. Trust; Ex parte L, [1998] 3 W.L.R. 107 (H.L.), consd. [para. 15].

X v. United Kingdom, [1981] 4 E.H.R.R. 188 (E.C.H.R.), consd. [para. 21].

F. v. Management Committee and Managers of Ravenscraig Hospital, [1988] S.C. 158, refd to. [para. 72].

Statutes Noticed:

Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act (1995), sect. 58(1)(a)(i), sect. 58(1)(a)(ii), sect. 58(b), sect. 59(1)(a), sect. 59(1)(b), sect. 59(1)(c) [para. 8].

Mental Health (Scotland) Act (1960), sect. 55(1), sect. 55(5), sect. 60(1) [para. 24].

Mental Health (Scotland) Act (1984), sect. 17(1)(a)(i), sect. 17(1)(a)(ii), sect. 17(1)(b) [para. 8]; sect. 33, sect. 62(1) [para. 16]; sect. 64(1)(a), sect. 64(1)(b), sect. 64(1)(c), sect. 64(2) [para. 8].

Counsel:

Matthew C. Clarke, Q.C., and Robert A. McCreadie, Adv., for the appellant;

Graham Bell, Q.C., and Simon G. Collins, Adv., for the respondent.

Agents :

Treasury Solicitor, for the appellant;

Balfour & Manson, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard in London, England, on October 12-13, 1998, by Lord Slynn of Hadley, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Clyde and Lord Hutton of the House of Lords.

The decision of the House of Lords was given on December 3, 1998, when the fol­lowing speeches were given:

Lord Slynn of Hadley - see paragraph 1;

Lord Lloyd of Berwick - see paragraphs 2 to 23;

Lord Hope of Craighead - see para­graphs 24 to 48;

Lord Clyde - see paragraphs 49 to 78;

Lord Hutton - see paragraphs 79 to 107.