Chapter 5 • Human Rights and Arrest, Pre-Trial and Administrative Detention The Court “has the jurisdiction to verify the fulfilment of these conditions in a given case”, although, “since the national authorities are better placed to evaluate the evidence adduced before them, they are to be recognised as having a certain discretion in the matter and the Court’s task is limited to reviewing under the Convention the decisions they have taken”.69 More on detention for reasons of mental health In “emergency cases” the Court has, however, accepted that a “wide discretion must in the nature of things be enjoyed by the national authority empowered to order such emergency confinements”, since “it would be impracticable to require a thorough medical examination prior to any arrest or detention”.70 In such cases, the Court examines, inter alia: whether the domestic legislation grants the national authorities arbitrary power; whether it is otherwise incompatible with the expression “the lawful detention of persons of unsound mind”; and whether the legislation concerned was applied to the applicant in such a way that there might be a breach of article 5(1)(e) of the Convention.71 This implies, in particular, that the Court has to assess whether the interests of the protection of the public prevail over the individual’s right to liberty to the extent of justifying an emergency confinement in the absence of the usual guarantees implied in article 5(1)(e); however, the emergency measure must only be for a short duration.72 Where the applicant had a history of psychiatric troubles and, according to his wife, remained “deluded and threatening”, the Home Secretary, who acted on medical advice, ordered the applicant’s recall, a measure that was, according to the Court, justified “as an emergency measure and for a short duration”. Examining the applicant’s further detention the Court concluded that it had “no reason to doubt the objectivity and reliability” of the medical judgement submitted to justify this detention.73 With regard to the extension of psychiatric detention, the European Court has stressed that “the lawfulness of the extension of the applicant’s placement under domestic law is not in itself decisive”, but that “it must also be established that his detention during the period under consideration was in conformity with the purpose of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention which is to prevent persons from being deprived of their liberty in an arbitrary fashion”.74 This means, inter alia, that there must be no major delay in the renewal of the detention orders. Whilst the Court has considered that a delay of two weeks could “in no way be regarded as unreasonable or excessive” and thus did not amount to an arbitrary deprivation of liberty,75 a period of over two 69 Ibid., para. 43 at p. 20. 70 Ibid., para. 41 at p. 19. 71 Ibid., loc. cit. 72 Ibid., pp. 20-21, paras. 44-46. 73 Ibid., p. 21, para. 46 in conjunction with p. 20, para. 44. 74 Eur. Court HR, Case of Erkalo v. the Netherlands, judgment of 2 September 1998, Reports 1998-VI, p. 2478, para. 56. 75 Eur. Court HR, Case of Winterwerp v. the Netherlands, judgment of 24 October 1979, Series A, No. 33, p. 21, para. 49. 178 Human Rights in the Administration of Justice: A Manual on Human Rights for Judges, Prosecutors and Lawyers