AH vs West London Mental Health Trust was a landmark case in England, which established a legal precedent in 2011 when Albert Laszlo Haines (AH), a patient in Broadmoor Hospital, a high security psychiatric hospital, was able to exercise a right to a fully open public mental health review tribunal to hear his appeal for release.
The justification for the refusal included claims that: Haines's primary intention was to air 'subjective grievances'; his evidence would not be 'objectively sensible'; he would be more difficult to control; the public would not be accurately informed; and the cost and the risk to the patient's health and conduct were disproportionate to any possible benefits.
In effect it had failed to uphold the fundamental principle that open justice is a right and it is the exceptions that must be justified, rather than vice versa.
A short hearing was held for that purpose in February 2011, taking testimony from Broadmoor staff and Haines by video link.
The panel concluded there was a sufficient rationale in Haines's case to grant an open appeal hearing, and that this was not offset by possible risks or extra costs.
Broadmoor Hospital, run by West London Mental Health NHS Trust since 2001, had fought the decision.
Evidence was also heard from an independent social worker and from Albert Haines's brother Leigh, who was offering to house and support him should he be released.
[9] The legal process made extensive reference to Haines's life as a child and adult, and he was the focus of some national press coverage which included personal interviews.
Rather than being sentenced to prison, he was sent to Broadmoor high-security psychiatric hospital for treatment under the Mental Health Act.
According to the tribunal, Albert Haines was long diagnosed with a personality disorder – meaning an enduring and pervasive difficulty that developed by at least adolescence/early adulthood and which especially affects social interaction.