25.65Collins v United Kingdom Application no 11909/02, (2003) 6 CCLR 388
It was lawful in national law to resile from a ‘home for life’ promise and in this case is had been proportionate and compatible with Article 8 ECHR
Facts: Ms Collins had been promised a ‘home for life’ at a bungalow in the hospital grounds, where she was a long-term resident. She sought to resist a proposal to re-locate her in a community setting on the ground that it was incompatible with her rights under Article 8 ECHR.
Judgment: the application was declared inadmissible: the local authority decision had been lawful as a matter of national law and, also, proportionate:
As regards the necessity of the decision, the court observes that the applicant’s principal objections to the decision are that it runs counter to her own wishes to remain where she is and to the promise made by the LHA that Long Leys would be a ‘home for life’. Though the applicant’s family sought to argue that a move would be harmful as the applicant disliked and reacted badly to a change in routine, the consultant psychiatrist who gave evidence to the court and who had experience of such moves took the view that the impact on the residents of the move would be beneficial in a wide range of areas. While it was noted that residents and their carers could often be resistant to change for understandable reasons, it was envisaged that with proper care and support the applicant would be able to cope with the move.
The court further notes that in reaching the decision to move the applicant and the other residents the LHA consulted the concerned parties and was careful to obtain legal advice as to the status of the promise of a ‘home for life’. It cannot therefore be said that the LHA did not give weight to the applicant’s wishes or the assurance given many years before. The propriety of the decision-making procedure was, in addition, subject to the scrutiny of the High Court which found that the LHA had acted with due regard to all the relevant factors.
Though the court considers that it was highly regrettable that a promise was apparently made that misled the applicant and her family into the belief that she would be able to remain at Long Leys indefinitely, this assurance was not, in the event, found to amount to a legally binding obligation on the LHA to comply with the applicant’s personal preferences. The court does not find that this an unreasonable or arbitrary conclusion, since, given the vagaries of future circumstances, a statement made in 1990 could not realistically have been expected to guarantee the continued suitability of Long Leys as a placement for the applicant, whether for practical, medical or other reasons.
In conclusion, the court finds that the decision to move the applicant from Long Leys into alternative social care was not disproportionate, gave proper consideration to her interests and was supported by relevant and sufficient reasons relative to her welfare. It may therefore be regarded as ‘necessary in a democratic society’ in the pursuit of protecting her rights.
It follows that the application must be rejected as manifestly ill-founded pursuant to Article 35(3) and (4) of the Convention.
For these reasons, the court unanimously declares the application inadmissible.