Paul Bowen specialises in public law (judicial review) and human rights law. His primary focus is in the area of healthcare, community care and mental health, including issues around the use of detention and other forms of compulsion. Paul has a particular interest in the rights of children and adults with disabilities, regularly advising and appearing in cases engaging both public and private law, including: - Care and treatment of incapacitated adults and children under the High Court's 'best interests' jurisdiction (now exercised by the Court of Protection under the Mental Capacity Act 2005)
- Access to confidential information, freedom of information, protection of confidential information (including injunction proceedings restraining publication of confidential information)
- Protection of vulnerable adults procedures
- Prison law, including representation at parole board hearings and inquests involving deaths in custody of mentally disordered individuals
- Education law, particularly special educational needs
- Claims under Part III & IV of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (DDA)
- Claims under the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA).
Paul has been in many of the leading cases in healthcare and human rights, including HL v United Kingdom in the European Court of Human Rights and a number of cases in the House of Lords (Munjaz, R (MH) v Secretary of State for Health, Von Brandenburg, and Bournewood), and many cases in the Court of Appeal and Administrative Court. In four of his cases declarations of incompatibility under s 4 HRA have been made. In 2007 Paul was appointed to the Attorney-General's panel of Special Advocates appearing on behalf of terror suspects in deportation and 'control order' proceedings and has recently been instructed in such proceedings. Paul also undertakes criminal work with a public law element. This includes appellate work, especially cases raising human rights or mental health issues, including capital cases in the Privy Council. Paul is the author of the 'Blackstone's Guide to the Mental Health Act 2007' (OUP, January 2008). Although primarily a claimant lawyer, Paul is increasingly instructed by public authorities, particularly NHS Trusts and local authorities, seeking guidance on how to comply with their public law duties in the light, particularly, of the HRA and the new public authority duties in the DDA. He has a relatively informal style and enjoys working collaboratively with clients to find solutions which avoid litigation, where possible. What the directories say: Chambers & Partners 2008, leading junior in Human Rights law and Public and Administrative law: "Solicitors are full of admiration for Paul Bowen's "can-do spirit." One explained: "He is always on top of issues and looking for a new angle, trying to push the boundaries." and ""with every year that passes, Paul Bowen gets better and better." This "helpful and clear" junior wins plaudits for his attention to detail and hard work. "He has a real passion for protecting people's rights and takes a truly innovative approach to challenging the law." Legal 500 2007-8, leading junior in Civil Liberties and Human Rights law: "Paul Bowen is described as 'thoughtful and academic', and a lawyer who 'pushes the boundaries'". Chambers & Partners 2007, leading junior in Human Rights law and Public and Administrative law: ""Capable, compassionate and with a good strategic mind for handling cases," he excels in cases with mental health elements" Legal 500 2006-7, leading junior in Civil Liberties and Human Rights law: "demonstrates 'huge experience' when it comes to the interface of mental health/disability law and prison law" Chambers & Partners 2006, leading junior in Human Rights law and Public and Administrative law: "outstanding" and "probably the number one junior in mental health law." Chambers & Partners 2005, leading junior in Human Rights law: '"a tenacious civil liberties fighter". Accolades poured in for his "extraordinary ability in the field of mental health"'. Legal 500 2005-6, leading junior in Civil Liberties and Human Rights Outside practice: Paul is active as a committee member of the Law Society Mental Health & Disability Committee (since 2001) and he gave evidence on behalf of the Bar Council to the Joint Parliamentary Committee on the Mental Health Bill 2004 and he has since appeared before the House of Commons Committee on the Mental Health Bill 2007. He writes and lectures regularly, including organising and delivering much of the 2006-7 Doughty Street Mental Health Team Seminar programme in association with the Mental Health Lawyer's Association and a conference with the Disability Rights Commission, SCIE and Leigh Day entitled 'Human Rights: Transforming Services?' in March 2006. He is a member of the Editorial Advisory Board of the Community Care Law Reports. Paul is a keen runner, walker and cyclist and has competed in several marathons and triathlons, raising over £10,000 for a small disability charity in 2006. He is running the marathon again in 2008 for the Mental Health Foundation - you can sponsor him at www.justgiving.com/paulbowen Key cases include: European Court of Human Rights Wilkinson v United Kingdom, (2006) Application No. 14659/02, 28 February 2006 (European Court of Human Rights) (admissibility decision). Lawfulness of compulsory treatment of incapacitated detained patient Article 3 or Article 8. HL v United Kingdom, (2004) 40 EHRR 761 (European Court of Human Rights). Detention of learning disabled man under common law doctrine of 'necessity' violated Articles 5(1) and 5(4) (effectively reversing earlier Court of Appeal decision in Bournewood). Morley v United Kingdom (2006), Application no. 16084/03, 4 October 2004, (European Court of Human Rights) (admissibility decision). Lawfulness of transfer of a serving prison back to prison from a psychiatric hospital for Article 5(4) and Article 8 purposes.
House of Lords R (Munjaz) v Mersey Care NHS Trust [2006] 2 AC 148; [2005] UKHL 58 (House of Lords) [2003] 3 WLR 1505, (Court of Appeal), lawfulness of seclusion of mental patients under Articles 3 and 8 (instructed by Mind (the National Association for Mental Health) as interveners) R (MH) v Secretary of State for Health [2006] 1 AC 441; [2005] UKHL 60 (House of Lords), [2005] 1 WLR 1209 (Court of Appeal), Compatibility of Sections 2 and 29 Mental Health Act with Article 5(4) in cases involving incapacitated adults. Currently subject of an application to the ECHR. R v Tower Hamlets Mental Health NHS Trust, ex p. Count Von Brandenburg, [2004] 2 AC 280, (House of Lords), [2002] QB 235 (Court of Appeal), lawfulness in domestic law & under Article 5 of section 3 MHA admission of patient recently discharged by a MHRT R v Bournewood Community Mental Health NHS Trust ex p L, [1999] 1 A.C. 458, House of Lords; Joined habeas corpus and judicial review applications as to whether hospital may lawfully admit a mentally disordered patient "informally", rather than under the Mental Health Act, in the absence of capacity to consent to such admission; lost at first instance, won in CA, lost in HL.
Privy Council
R v Kim John & Francis Phillip [2007] UKPC 31 (Privy Council) Successful appeal against conviction on behalf of two defendants on death row, extending the defence of insanity under the St. Lucia Criminal Code Benedetto v The Queen (No.1) [2003] 1 WLR 1545, (Privy Council), Successful appeal against murder conviction in British Virgin Islands on grounds that the prosecution's use of a jail-house informant rendered the trial unfair Pringle v Queen [2003] UKPC 9, (Privy Council) Successful appeal against conviction on behalf of prisoner on death row
Court of Appeal Savage v S Essex NHS Partnership Trust [2007] EWCA Civ 1375, Times, 9 January 2008 (Court of Appeal) (representing MIND as intervener), establishing that the duty owed by psychiatric hospital under Article 2 to a patient detained under the Mental Health Act 1983 is the same as that owed by a prison to a prisoner, namely that set out in Osman v United Kingdom. R (C) v Brent LBC, (2006) ELR 435 (Court of Appeal), lawfulness of policy of providing 'suitable education' under section 19 Education Act 1996 exclusively at Pupil Referral Unit R (B) v Dr. SS & Ors [2006] 1 WLR 810; [2006] EWCA Civ 28 (Court of Appeal); [2005] EWHC 1936 (Admin) (Administrative Court) Neither Article 3 nor 8 ECHR entitled the claimant patient to refuse compulsory medical treatment under section 58 Mental Health Act 1983 as (a) he lacked capacity to consent to treatment (b) in any event his doctor had concingly shown that treatment was a therapeutic necessity R (AN) v Mental Health Review Tribunal [2006] QB 468 (Court of Appeal), [2005] EWHC 587 (Admin) (Administrative Court) Whether the criminal standard of proof or a heightened civil standard is to be applied by the Mental Health Review Tribunal in determining the criteria for detention in sections 72 and 73 MHA 1983 R (Nejad) v Home Secretary [2004] EWCA Civ 33 (Court of Appeal), Home Secretary not entitled to substitute his own view on the appropriate discretionary life tariff for that recommended by the Lord Chief Justice under Sch. 12 para 9 Criminal Justice Act 1991 R (JE) v Criminal Injuries Compensation Appeal Panel [2003] EWCA Civ 234, Times, 17 March 2003 (Court of Appeal), appearing for appellant. CICAP had erred in refusing to compensate JE as the victim of sexual offences committed by his cell-mate while on remand in prison, having failed to address their minds to the question whether the 'consent' he gave was 'real' R (Morley) v Nottinghamshire Healthcare NHS Trust [2003] 1 All ER 784 (Court of Appeal), challenge to lawfulness of hospital and home secretary's joint decision to remit transferred lifer from mental hospital back to prison; R (Home Secretary) v MHRT (1) PH (2) (Interested Party) [2003] 1 MHLR 202, (Court of Appeal), appearing for interested party. Mental Health Review Tribunals have jurisdiction to discharge a restricted patient subject to a condition they reside in a 'hospital' and do not leave without an escort, provided the conditions taken together do not constitute a 'deprivation of liberty' within the meaning of Article 5(1) R (Wilkinson) v Broadmoor RMO (1) MHAC (2), [2002] 1 WLR 419 (Court of Appeal), lawfulness of compulsory treatment of detained patient under Articles 3, 6 & 8 R (H) v Mental Health Review Tribunal, [2002] Q.B. 1 (Court of Appeal), declaration of incompatibility made in respect of 'reverse burden of proof' requirement in Mental Health Review Tribunals under Mental Health Act 1983 Re F (Adult Patient: Court's jurisdiction) [2001] Fam 38 (Court of Appeal), considering extent of the High Court's inherent 'best interests' jurisdiction in relation to incapacitated adults) Broadmoor v R [2000] QB 775 (Court of Appeal), jurisdiction of Court to grant injunctions restraining publication of book by detained patient);
Other significant cases in the last two years
R (Rayner & Marsh) v Secretary of State for Health & Others [2007] 1 WLR 2239 (Administrative Court), Partially successful challenge to the Secretary of State's practice of waiting up to one month (or more) before referring the case of a recalled restricted patient to a Mental Health Review Tribunal, contrary to Art 5(4) R (Holloway) v Oxford County Council & Others (2007) 10 CCLR 264, [2007] EWHC 776 (Admin) (Administrative Court), unsuccessful challenge to an interim order, made ex parte and without notice, displacing H's nearest relative under the Mental Health Act 1983, thus allowing his detention JE v. DE (1) Surrey CC (2) (2007) 10 CCLR 149 (Family Division), finding that removal of an incapacitated adult from his home and placement in a residential care home amounted to a 'deprivation of liberty' for the purposes of Article 5(1) R (Bishop) v Bromley LBC (2006) 9 CCLR 635, [2006] EWHC 2148 Admin, (Administrative Court), challenge to the lawfulness of the closure of an Old People's Day Care centre R (T) v Haringey LBC (1) Haringey Teaching NHS PCT (2006) 9 CCLR 58; [2005] EWHC 2235 (Admin) (Administrative Court), Interrelationship between duties of PCT under National Health Service Act 1977 and of Local Authority under Children Act 1989, Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 and section 49 Health and Social Care Act 2001 to a disabled child R (J) v Southend Borough Council (2007) 10 CCLR 407 (Administrative Court) The defendant BC, which operated a day centre for learning disabled adults, did not owe any duty under community care legislation or Articles 8 and/ or 14 ECHR to long-term users of the day care centre who were not 'ordinarily resident' in its catchment area.
Last updated 17 January 2008
|
Year of Call
1993
Admitted Solicitor
1993
Education
LLB
Email Address
p.bowen@doughtystreet.co.uk
Specialist Teams
Paul Bowen is a member of the following specialist law teams:
|
