The Supreme Court awarded M.C. her costs in the Supreme Court, Court of Appeal and High Court after finding that her judicial review was not moot and that the Clinical Director of the Central Mental Hospital had a statutory obligation concerning arrangements for her conditional discharge.
The ruling deals with costs and the wording of the order. It says the High Court had treated the judicial review as moot, an approach upheld by the Court of Appeal, and costs had been awarded against M.C. in both courts. On appeal, the Supreme Court found the proceedings were not moot and decided that the Clinical Director had not met the statutory obligation to assess and make the arrangements needed to give effect to the Review Board’s decision that M.C. be released on conditions.
M.C. sought costs in all three courts. The Clinical Director argued that the Court should make no costs order because there had been no finding of personal culpability, negligence, recklessness or bad faith, and the relevant legislation had been unclear. The Court said the relevant “event” was its decision on mootness and the Clinical Director’s statutory obligation. It ordered that M.C. receive her costs in the Supreme Court, Court of Appeal and High Court. It noted that the action concerned the Clinical Director’s statutory role, not his personal or professional capacity.
The Court also resolved disagreement over the form of the declaration. It noted its earlier findings that the statutory duty had been breached and that the Clinical Director had acted unlawfully. It said the declaration should reflect that M.C.’s personal and family rights had been breached, but that the order did not need to use the words “breach” or “fail” to describe the Clinical Director’s failure to perform his obligation. The Court said the matter involved a misinterpretation of statutory provisions, with no finding or argument that he acted in bad faith.
The final declaration states that the respondent did not meet the mandatory statutory obligations under section 13(A)(2) of the Criminal Law (Insanity) Act 2006–2010 to assess and give effect to arrangements set out in the Review Board’s conditional discharge order.
M.C.’s claim for damages for breach of constitutional rights and/or statutory duty had failed. Her European Convention on Human Rights damages claim had been adjourned and later compromised between the parties. This costs and order ruling does not set out the terms of that compromise.