Weekly Human Rights News: 21/02/25

This week’s news includes our new explainer on the Human Rights Act and outsourcing public services as well as an update on a human rights case settled out of court.

This week, Human Rights Officer Jacob was in London together with Lived Experience Expert Kirsten. They ran a human rights workshop focusing on applying human rights when supporting autistic people and people with a learning disability in the community.

Participants reflected on real-life examples and how applying human rights can support a least restrictive approach to care and support.

The workshop was part of a programme involving three sessions and a written resource to support staff to understand and meet their legal duties under the Human Rights Act. Practitioners have fed back how this training “will allow you to view your work from a different light, one we often forget to think about” and that “this training should be mandatory for all social workers and managers.”

The Human Rights Act places a legal duty on all public authorities to respect, protect and fulfil human rights wherever possible. However, with an increased number of services that were once delivered by traditional public bodies now being contracted out to private organisations, there is increasing confusion about who owes these duties. This has created a barrier to people accessing their human rights in practice.

Our new explainer looks at the definition of a “public authority”, why it matters, and what we think needs to happen to support everyone in the UK to access their human rights.

In particular, the explainer looks at a proposed change to the Mental Health Bill, which is currently being debated by Parliament. Baroness Barker and Baroness Keeley have suggested a change to the Bill to include a clause that confirms that when private care providers are delivering aftercare under the Mental Health Act, they have a duty to respect, protect and fulfil people’s human rights.

We believe this change is important to support people to access their human rights in practice. Our recent submission to the Joint Committee on Human Rights (JCHR) explained how this change would help meet the original aims of the Human Rights Act and also explained the recent legal case of a man called Paul, which highlighted the problem with the law as it is.

An NHS Trust paid damages to a man kept in detention and seclusion for 340 days

AP is an autistic man with learning disabilities. In 2020, his home needed significant repairs and adaptations, requiring him to move out temporarily. However, there was no safe alternative accommodation available, so he was moved into a “Section 136” suite at his local hospital. This is designed as a place people can be kept while undergoing a Mental Health Act assessment. People should not be kept there for more than 36 hours, but AP was kept there for 340 days.

While he was there AP had to live by a strict routine and was limited in the activities and exercise he was able to do. His experience left him traumatised and he brought a claim against the hospital for breaching his right to be free from inhuman or degrading treatment and right to private life, as well as for negligence and associated psychiatric injury.

The hospital agreed to pay AP damages and so the case was settled without going to court.

 Source: Doughty Street Chambers