In working on an ECtHR application which hopefully over time we will publish I have reviewed X v Croatia that refers to two pieces of international law (nothing to do with the EU). The European Convention on Adoption is one. This shows how far out of line England is on these issues. The second is Principles concerning the legal protection of incapable adults this is not available in a text form although I am going to try to run it through an OCR and post it later. In England we seem to use the mental capacity process to remove rights from people rather than protect their rights.
The link is in Russian about the imprisonment of Norman Scarth who is actually 85. He has a complex history including a court hearing which found that he used a chainsaw to fight off bailiffs when he was 75. [a court judgment which is disputed see comments] However, that does not justify imprisoning him for 6 months for recording a court hearing (see the link and ask google to translate it if your Russian is not up to it).
It has got into the Argyll News
Because he has been held such that people cannot get to him to sign paperwork an application for a writ of Habeas Corpus was made today. This has been adjourned until next week.
The English judicial system is really not good at responding to major abuses of human rights by the judicial system.
Comments
How does it show that? I'm curious.
dispense with the consent of any person mentioned in paragraph 1 of this article, or
overrule the refusal to consent of any person or body mentioned in the said paragraph 1,
save on exceptional grounds determined by law.
We don't use "exceptional" grounds. It is more like "run of the mill".
The process of 'removing rights' is not just a process. It takes place in the context of an automatic assumption of capacity.
The question of mental capacity is a completely different piscine kettle.
There are a lot of problems here that are being raised in Strasbourg.