European Court of Human Rights.

The Court ordered the British Government to legislate changes to the previous 1968 Act after it was deemed inadequate in fulfilling the necessary role for that Country's mentally disabled.

At the request of the Bermuda Government, Mr. Phil Fennell has been on the Island since the beginning of June, meeting with the necessary persons so he can recommend changes to the Bermuda Act.

"I've been asked to produce an analysis of the existing law and put forward some possibilities as to the way in which Bermudian legislation might be changed,'' he said. "The Department of Health asked me to look at the current law and how it's working here,'' he said. "To assess how it needs to be changed to bring it into line with the European Court which applies to Bermuda. Since 1983 some problems have come to light with the 1983 legislation and I will be trying to avoid those.'' Mr. Fennell said one of the problems which occurred under the previous Act was caused because the body which had the power to review patient's detentions did not have the power to direct their rulings and did not meet frequently enough.

"One of the main reasons that the European Court of Human Rights made various rulings against the United Kingdom Government is that they said when somebody is detained in a psychiatric hospital, they have to have the opportunity to question that detention in a court.

"They must be allowed to do so soon after they are admitted and at reasonable intervals every year.'' Mr. Fennell, a lawyer, teaches medical law at Cardiff University in Wales and works at its Centre for the Study of Law and Medicine.

A specialist in mental disorders, he has written various books and articles on the Mental health Tribunal procedure and is a leading guide on the tribunal in the UK.

"Changes need to be made to certain parts of the Act which are out of date,'' he said. "For example, patients are referred to as subnormal in the 1968 Act.

Nowadays, nobody talks of people in those terms. We say somebody has a learning disability.

"People in the psychiatric service want to reform modern thinking on psychiatric care. People don't know much about it. They think of people as being locked away in an asylum.

"In 1968, most institutions dealt with in-patients, today there are many out-patients whose progress needs to be monitored. With mental illness, particularly schizophrenia, people can live quite well at home as long as they take their medicine.'' Another shortfall of the Act, Mr. Fennell said, is that professionals are only authorised to insist that out-patients continue taking medication six months after they are released from in-patient treatment.

"One of the problems is to try and help live an independent life without having them back in hospital every time,'' he said. "That's what seems to be happening in Bermuda.

"One of the things I have to do is to look at other laws around the Mental Health Act,'' he said, "because certain parts of the Criminal Code have to deal with it. It's also important to get some flavour of how Bermudian society works. There's no point prescribing from afar if I've never met the people who receive or give the service.'' Mr. Fennell said he has performed similar exercises for the Jersey and Guernsey in the Channel Islands.

"Smaller jurisdictions tend to have different needs from larger ones,'' he said. "For example if I got a tribunal to review a detention I would need to have some psychiatric expertise in that tribunal. I'd need to have one who works outside that service.'' Mr. Fennell said he was also looking at a means of protecting "vulnerable'' persons who are mentally disabled and on an out-patient system, from being harmed by others ... and from harming others.'' Mr. Fennell, who left the Island yesterday, said a written report should be reayd in four to six weeks.

Mr. Phil Fennell.