COMMONS AMENDMENT. (Hansard, 29 May 1930)

EARL RUSSELL
My Lords, this is an Amendment for the purpose of giving protection to the medical profession against vexatious actions, and your Lordships will remember that I explained when the Bill was in this House that everything possible had been done to give that protection, but in another place, on reconsideration, they were able to think of a form of words which made the clause more effective. Therefore paragraph (2) is left out and the words on the Paper are inserted. They do, to some extent, strengthen the clause, and I recommend your Lordships to agree to them.

§ VISCOUNT BRENTFORD
My Lords, I think I ought to make one observation, although I said I would not again intervene on the Bill. This is an extension even of the clause as originally in the Bill, and I think it does not apply only to the medical profession but to any one who has taken part in putting a man into what is now called a home. The proposed new paragraph says: No proceedings, civil or criminal, shall be brought against any person in any court in respect of any such matter as is mentioned in the last preceding subsection, without the leave of the High Court. The matters in the last preceding subsection apply to anybody who applies for a reception order, or has signed or carried out or done any act with a view to signing or carrying out an order purporting to be a reception order. That would apply, I think, to the relations of a man.
I think that I ought to call your Lordships' attention to the fact that this is an extension of the protection as it was before your Lordships' House. We gave pretty full protection, I think, in the original Bill to the medical profession, and this Amendment makes it impossible for any man who has been put in an asylum wrongfully, by his family or by a medical man signing a reception order, to get any redress without first going to the High Court and establishing that he has a prima facie case. That is a very unusual proceeding to take. The Courts of Law have always been open to a man, who could take his case before a jury. That is impossible under this clause. The man must first satisfy a Judge of the High Court that he has a prima facie case before he can take action and submit it to a jury. I thought it was only right to point that out. The responsibility must be on the shoulders of the Government for carrying the clause in this form.

§ LORD DANESFORT
My Lords, before the noble Earl replies may I ask him if there is any precedent in a case of this sort for a subject, who thinks he is injured, and who thinks he has got a right to claim damages from some one who has injured him—is there any precedent for compelling that man to go to the High Court for leave to bring his action? I am aware that in the Privy Council, on appeal from certain of the Dominions, 1197 you have to get leave to appeal, but that is a very different thing. Is there any case at all resembling the present case where, before bringing an action for damages, a subject has to go before a Judge and satisfy him that he has a prima facie case?

§ LORD DARLING
My Lords, will the noble Earl allow me to answer that question? There is already on the Statute Book such a provision, and the Courts have acted upon it frequently. There are people—there have been several of them—who apparently have an idée fixe and who are a positive nuisance.

§ LORD DANESFORT
Cases of nuisance.

§ LORD DARLING
I should not have used a word known in the Courts of Chancery. I am referring to a tiresome set of half-crazed people, suffering from an idée fixe, which leads them to bring actions against all sorts of well known people, and there is a section by which they can be put upon a list and not allowed to bring an action against anybody unless they satisfy the proper authority that they really have a prima facie case. Then they can come into Court. When I was in the King's Bench there was one particular man—I think he must be dead for I have not seen him for a long time, although it may be because he is still on the list—his name was Boaler, and he was constantly coming before the Courts and trying to bring actions until at last he was put upon the list. Even then he came before us in the King's Bench and tried to ventilate the question whether he could apply to be taken off the list. Lord Danesfort naturally had not heard of it in the Courts with which he is familiar.

§ LORD DANESFORT
Oh yes, I have heard of it, but that is quite a different case.

§ LORD DARLING
It is aimed at the same sort of people—people with an idée fixe who after they have been put away for a short time want to revenge themselves upon society and particular individuals.

§ THE EARL OF HALSBURY
My Lords, I am afraid I have not the slightest idea what is meant by the noble and learned Lord who has just spoken. Lord Danes-fort asked if there was any precedent for 1198 a person who has a grievance coming into Court and claiming the right of trial by jury. Lord Darling suggested that there is such a thing as vexatious litigation, and that if a person goes on bringing actions which have no substance in them he can be put upon a list. Apparently the noble and learned Lord assumes that a person who has been wrongfully shut up in an asylum has an idée fixe. The whole basis of the action is that he has not an idée fixe, and I fail to see that it has anything to do with the matter raised by Lord Danesfort.

EARL RUSSELL
My Lords, I do not propose to follow noble and learned Lords into these legal subtleties, but it was felt that more protection should be given to doctors, and the Bill passed in this form. In another place the matter was very carefully considered by all the legal talent on both sides, and was argued at very considerable length in Committee in that House, and ultimately they thought this protection was not too much. I think that one may quite safely say that no person with a genuine case will be stopped by this protection from starting his case. It is only the person who imagines he has a case, and in fact has none, who will be stopped from giving all this trouble and causing all this expense. I ought also perhaps to say that this Bill had a fairly rough passage on the Report stage in another place, but not a word was said on Report in opposition to this clause, and I hope that your Lordships will accept it.