THE BLOCKING OF LUNACY ACTIONS.
[To the Editor of the SPECTATOR.] SIR,—Will you permit me to correct an error in my letter under above heading on February 24th? It has been pointed out to me by one well versed in law that since the rulings of the House of Lords are law and binding on the courts below, it is unnecessary to ask that a Bill be introduced to define the limits. of application of the Public Authorities Protection Act. These limits have been already determined by many rulings in the Supreme Court, which make it clear beyond a doubt that the protection afforded by this statute covers only those who can show that they can justly claim to be bona fide Public Authorities.
In a case brought before the King's Bench and Appeal Courts this statute has, in contravention of the Lords' rulings, been made use of to deprive a plaintiff of all right of action, without even a hearing, on the sole ground that Op protection of this statute had been pleaded in the defence and that the time limit of six months had expired—the issue as to whether or no the defendants had any claim to be public authorities being ignored. The manager of a private asylum, in his capacity as a private person acting on behalf of a private company, cannot prove that he possesses (especially in view of the clearly-expressed prohibition of the Lunacy Act) any right whatever—let alone "public duty "—to summon doctors and magistrates for the incarceration of a voluntary boarder. There is every facility in this case, moreover, for purposeful concealment for much longer than Nix months of any offence which may happen to have been
Previous page
