W v Egdell
A psychiatrist was entitled to disclose his confidential report on a dangerous patient to the hospital and the Home Office, because the public interest in protecting the public from violence outweighed the duty of confidence.
Facts
W was detained in a secure hospital after killing five people. He applied to a mental health review tribunal for a transfer to a regional secure unit, which might lead to his release. His solicitors commissioned a report from Dr Egdell, a consultant psychiatrist, who concluded that W had a long standing interest in firearms and explosives and remained dangerous. W withdrew his application, but Dr Egdell, concerned that the report would not be seen by those responsible for W's care, sent a copy to the hospital and to the Home Office. W sued for breach of confidence.
Legal principle
The Court of Appeal held that the disclosure was justified. Bingham LJ said that a doctor owes a duty of confidence to his patient, but that the duty is not absolute, and may be outweighed by the public interest in disclosure. Where a doctor reasonably believes that a patient poses a real risk of danger to the public, and that the authorities responsible for making decisions about him need to know of the risk, the public interest in protecting the public from violence may justify disclosure to those authorities, provided that the disclosure is limited to what is necessary. Dr Egdell's disclosure was justified.
Related cases on confidentiality and medical information
- ABC v St George's Healthcare NHS Trust [2020] EWHC 455 (QB)
- Campbell v MGN Ltd [2004] UKHL 22, [2004] 2 AC 457
- Hunter v Mann [1974] QB 767
- R (Axon) v Secretary of State for Health [2006] EWHC 37 (Admin), [2006] QB 539
- X v Y [1988] 2 All ER 648
- Z v Finland (1998) 25 EHRR 371
Studying medical law and ethics? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
