For the European Court of Human Rights: Timothy Behrsin vs the British Government

This is a case to be heard by the European Court of Human Rights. Not one statement in this document is untrue. Everything written has happened. A lot more has happened which were also violations of the European Convention on Human Rights. There are not enough pages to write about all of these violations.

As outlined in this case, there are several violations of the European Convention on Human Rights spanning a period of 7 years by the National Health Service in the member state of the United Kingdom against the victim, Mr Timothy Behrsin.

The individual case notes outline more violations in British law and its Mental Health Act 1983 and 2007 and its unenforceable under European Human Rights legislation, Mental Health Units (Use of force) Act 2018. The laws themselves are in violation of the European Convention on Human Rights and further cases need to be heard to bring justice to those who are suffering in British hospitals under British mental health legislation dating back decades. This case hears only the violation of the Claimant’s rights under European Law.

The British Government have and still do violate Articles 3, 5, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14, 17, 18, Protocol No. 1 (§ 1, 3), Protocol No. 4 (§ 1, 2), Protocol No. 7 (§ 2, 3, 4), Protocol No. 12 (§ 1, 2, 6, 7) of the European Convention of Human Rights. Each of these Articles has been violated in this case against the British Government.

Violation of Article 10 – Freedom of expression

This Article of the European Convention on Human Rights gives nationals of Europe the freedom to express themselves in the way they choose, save for violations of other people’s freedoms.

The mental health legislation of member states particularly, as evidenced in this case those of the United Kingdom, violate this right when people are judged on the basis of what they write and say for the purposes of mental capacity assessments and further forced treatment.

People of Europe must be free to express their understanding and beliefs of the world around them, regardless of whether a mental health practitioner believes in the credibility of their statements or not.

This case does not seek to prove the true validity of the statements made by the Claimant, but instead falls upon common sense human rights as given to us by the European Convention on Human Rights. Particular significance are those of the Claimant’s statements given that they relate to supernatural occurrence and are taken to be in a particular branch of Christianity – Roman Catholicism – the Claimant’s faith.

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.

A public authority is not necessitated to be the police force or state government but would include those with powers to confine people and restrict those freedoms granted under the European Convention on Human Rights, such as powers given to mental health systems across Europe, specifically in this case those of the NHS in the UK.

2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

It is very much the fact that there was no issue regarding the protection of personal or public health in the case of the Claimant’s detentions under the mental health laws of the United Kingdom. It was in each instance the decision of the mental health workers and the police to limit the freedoms of the individual concerned due to what was being spoken and written by the Claimant. They did not believe the Claimant was telling them the truth. They did not need to believe him. Instead they need to uphold his rights and freedoms before their own archaic legal framework.

They did not believe what he believed and assumed that his beliefs were too improbable and thus must warrant detention and treatment. They labelled this recurrent and chronic psychosis. They labelled this schizophrenia. They labelled this bipolar affective disorder. None of these are present in the Claimant.

No label is needed to detain someone against their right to freedom of expression. In this case it would be called oppression. It is modern day persecution based on the firmly held beliefs of the individual. These are modern day asylums with no escape. There is no escape for the Claimant unless the Court executes its duty to uphold his rights.

Those statements the Claimant made were his beliefs to have by his own volition. His right to have his beliefs, however impossible they might seem to a mental health worker who does not share his experiences, are his right to have under the European Convention on Human Rights.

His rights under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights have been violated.

Violation of Article 5 – Right to liberty and security

The liberty of the individual represented in this case has been violated. This person was detained without due process and the reasons for his detention under the mental health legislation of the British Government was nothing short of incarceration based on persecution of his beliefs.

There was no medical fact which forms the basis of his detention. There are only opinions of those who do not share his beliefs, with particular reference to those in the mental health system of the United Kingdom who do not even share his Roman Catholic upbringing.

1. Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law:

His rights were infringed in many ways during this incarceration. These are detailed as follows:

1. (a) the lawful detention of a person after conviction by a competent court;

There was no fair trial and it was admitted during the Claimant’s first case brought before the HM Courts and Tribunals Service, and by the medical practitioners working to defend their position, that this was the case. It took no less than 2 months of detention and forced treatment to bring this trial before a mental health judge. There was not sufficient testimony allowed by the Claimant. The Claimant was not allowed correct legal representation. The Claimant’s right to a fair trial under a competent court with a jury of his peers was refused.

There is a reason this was not allowed: the United Kingdom mental health legal framework requires a trained solicitor in mental health to represent their client. The Claimant needed instead a human rights solicitor to represent him. He was not allowed under their ruling to seek a higher court in order to protect his rights.

The Claimant, when he found he needed to represent his own case due to a lack of understanding from those mental health solicitors he was allowed to choose from by the mental health laws of the United Kingdom, was not allowed to access the resources such as his laptop or the medical files the judges used to make their decision, and was not given sufficient access even to a printer to print out the case which he was able to build against his incarceration, with the limited tools he had.

1. (b) the lawful arrest or detention of a person for non-compliance with the lawful order of a court or in order to secure the fulfilment of any obligation prescribed by law;

The Claimant was not given access to a qualified solicitor in each occurrence of his detainment by the United Kingdom. He was incarcerated for months before he even had a trial. This is now common practice in the United Kingdom for anyone who finds themselves incarcerated by these draconian laws.

The police who witnessed this in all cases of his detainment acted negligently and followed only prescribed policies of the British legal framework on mental health. They were acting on falsified and incomplete information and failed to listen to the Claimant’s evidence which was presented to them both before, during and after his detainment.

He was treated unfairly. It is a categoric failure of justice which spans 7 years. The Claimant has suffered unfair treatment with his rights being violated for this entire period, including the extradition that was made by the British Embassy in San Francisco in 2012.

1. (c) the lawful arrest or detention of a person effected for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence or when it is reasonably considered necessary to prevent his committing an offence or fleeing after having done so;

The Claimant has been treated in the same way as a criminal would be. He was detained without a just trial for months on end. He has suffered abuse and humiliation during his detainment. His body has been pumped with chemicals that were not wanted nor needed by the Claimant. His sentence has never been lifted. His rights are still being violated as he lives out this sentence in exile in the safe haven of Italy. This will not stop until the Court executes their duty to uphold his rights.

1. (d) the detention of a minor by lawful order for the purpose of educational supervision or his lawful detention for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority;

1. (e) the lawful detention of persons for the prevention of the spreading of infectious diseases, of persons of unsound mind, alcoholics or drug addicts or vagrants;

The judgement on someone with an unsound mind which they claim has incompatible beliefs to their own, of any faith, in supernatural occurrences has no credibility when that same judge does not believe themselves, is not versed themselves, and does not want themselves, the beliefs of that person. Beliefs are for a person to have themselves. They share those beliefs with whom they want to. It is not right to judge someone for believing something which the judge believes is not true.

It is not that the Claimant has an unsound mind for believing something most people do not believe. He was always with sound mind and judgement. He was high-functioning with many high paid jobs both before and after his detention. He found this work readily, by himself, with no help from anyone but who he says is helping him.

It is not right that someone who wishes to express their firmly held beliefs is said to have an unsound mind simply because many people do not share those same beliefs.

1. (f) the lawful arrest or detention of a person to prevent his effecting an unauthorised entry into the country or of a person against whom action is being taken with a view to deportation or extradition.

As shown in the attached evidence dossier, the mental health workers in the UK tried to extradite and bring home the Claimant even when he claimed asylum from the Italian government. Italy has very different rules regarding detainment of individuals, and they refused to admit the Claimant based on his religious beliefs and right to express those publicly and without hindrance.

The Claimant is permitted under the European Convention on Human Rights to free movement, and it is the case that the British Government are in violation of this treaty by ordering his incarceration in an Italian prison for 14 hours when he fled the oppression he was suffering in the United Kingdom.

The Claimant was also prevented by the British Police and the mental health workers in April 2017 from leaving Europe based on falsified information they received from the grief stricken parents of the Claimant regarding his mental capacity.

It is his right to flee oppression. His rights were being violated by the British Government.

2. Everyone who is arrested shall be informed promptly, in a language which he understands, of the reasons for his arrest and of any charge against him.

3. Everyone arrested or detained in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1 (c) of this Article shall be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power and shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial. Release may be conditioned by guarantees to appear for trial.

This was provided to the Claimant in part, however as discussed previously the detention was not allowed to have legal action by the Claimant for over 2 months in each instance. During this time he was forced with drugs and not allowed the tools to build his case against his detainment. The legal course he was allowed to take was both limited and not appropriate for the claims which were brought against him. There was no fair trial in any instance.

Solicitors versed in human rights legislation and access to the appropriate court were not provided to the Claimant. No question was left unsaid by the Claimant to those who were incarcerating him, and true records of what the Claimant gave as evidence were not recorded by anyone during this 7 year period.

Much of this last 18 months has been documented in the Claimant’s personal diary. This is publicly accessible, and he was asked to write it because of who he claims to be for his Church.

4. Everyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings by which the lawfulness of his detention shall be decided speedily by a court and his release ordered if the detention is not lawful.

5. Everyone who has been the victim of arrest or detention in contravention of the provisions of this Article shall have an enforceable right to compensation.

The European Convention on Human Rights is being violated by the British Government as is evidenced by the Claimant’s case. Both of these clauses must be upheld by the Court and compensation for suffering endured and life deprived during this 7 year period given to the Claimant by the British Government who must protect the rights of their citizens.

Violation of Article 9 – Freedom of thought, conscience and religion

Regardless of one’s beliefs, Article 9 protects the individual’s freedom to believe what they want to believe save for protection of public order, public health and safe-keeping of moral society.

The individual did not express any intent to harm or discriminate any individual. They had no intention to harm any individual or commit any crime. The individual believes they have received Divine instruction and this is their belief to have.

The member state of the United Kingdom infringed the Claimant’s rights under the European Convention on Human Rights by incarcerating and forcing treatment over a period of 7 years, just short of a decade.

He has narrowly been able to free himself from this through the instructions he claims are from God.

His calling and vocation, according to the Claimant is to live a life of service to God. It has always been the case since he was a child that the Claimant has been treated with oppression when he discussed his vocation. He was led into a life he did not want to lead through not being brought to the Church which he believes in to discern his vocation. His Roman Catholic faith in God has remained steadfast throughout his life.

He has done wrong many times, as we all have, but he has not given up his pursuit of finding God in his life.

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.

2. Freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

Seven years ago to this month he was slandered by his parents to the Police of the United States when they told them he was committing suicide. The words his father gave them were not true.

This same practice has been continued for 7 years by his family. Evidence has built up about a fictional mental illness and several incarcerations have resulted. The evidence in the first instance were fictitious claims by the Claimant’s father. This built up line by line with lies and distortion about this original claim by his family and by the mental health teams who forced the Claimant into their treatment. There was no basis even then for a diagnosis of a mental health disorder, it was true that he was being spoken to by God. It is not true that everything the Claimant wrote in the first 5 years of this forced treatment was true. There are many occurrences in those days of fictitious claims by the Claimant too, however they were his firmly held beliefs at the time. He was then spoken to in March 2017 and all truth about what happened began to be revealed to him. It was in this month that his parents began to make further claims which were untrue, including in one case a claim by his father that the Claimant threw him out of his own house. This was not true, there is no evidence to substantiate this claim. No evidence could ever be presented to infer this as it was not true. Instead there is evidence to the contrary, which was documented by the Claimant and shown to the mental health workers. These people documented in his medical files that this documentary evidence was further proof to them of a mental illness.

The investigation by the mental health authorities at this time was negligent, they acted on the instructions of what the British law calls a Nearest Relative, the Claimant’s father. He had been known to be doing these things since 2012, it was never investigated by the mental health teams who incarcerated the Claimant about the false claims his father had made. This alone was a defeat of justice.

Most recently an extradition attempt was made by the British Government when the Claimant fled to the Roman Catholic country and safe-haven of Italy. The Italian Police petitioned for his release within 14 hours giving evidence that they did not believe he was mentally impaired, nor a threat to the public. What the British Government did for 7 years and up to the present day is nothing short of religious persecution of a Roman Catholic, a crime under British law, a violation of his rights under the European Court.

It is a violation of basic human rights.

When he was detained unjustly in British hospitals for something that was not true, without due legal process, he was repeatedly bullied by Muslim and non-Christian health workers and fellow patients for his devout Roman Catholic beliefs.

They likened his faith to what they thought would be true of any person, instead of accepting his right to freedom of any truth which he knew. It was his right to fair treatment by everyone in British society. He received this only from a few he could call friends, people who witnessed too what he knew to be true, people who the Lord Jesus Christ is speaking to as well.

The Claimant did no more than speak what was clearly true of any Roman Catholic called by God in this way. Their lack of knowledge of the Roman Catholic tradition was understood by the Claimant and he attempted to receive help from the Church during this time. Due to the diagnosis the mental health teams readily gave him without consultation, even his own Parish Priest did not help him in the way he would normally do. He pleaded to his doctors, nurses and social workers throughout his 2 years of incarceration by the British mental health system to seek guidance from the Church.

They did no more than treat him as even more ill as a result.

One Roman Catholic Priest who witnessed Timothy in a hospital in London said what was true in a statement to the most recent HM Courts and Tribunals Service however it was discarded as non-factual by the Court because they believed the Claimant was mentally ill. They heard no more than what the mental health teams wanted to put forward as truth.

He was stigmatised by untruths said about him. He was defamed very publicly to many people.

He was told when speaking about the European Convention on Human Rights to one of the nurses in charge in one of the hospitals he was forced to stay at that he had no rights as he was mentally ill. They said his rights had been taken away from him while he was under section. This was further evidenced in the violation of the Articles, they denied him every other right that they could, treating him as an animal locked in a cage to do what they wanted to night and day.

Water was withheld. Food was withheld. Drugs were pushed into his body by force.

He was never forced into confinement, because God told him how to avoid this, however the nurses did speak of others who receive far worse treatment in a way which was meant to threaten the Claimant. They told Timothy he was lucky not to have the more stringent regime in the ward next to him, and he needed to take everything they did to him without any further resistance. The treatment Timothy received is exemplary of what happens every day in these hospitals to most patients who have been detained in their hospitals involuntarily.

His entire life was destroyed systematically over 7 years by an unjust treatment by those who treat human rights legislation with disregard.

Incarceration is what it was, without any legal justice to defend a single patient.

This is a case that needs to be heard by this Court.

The mental health laws of the British People are wrong.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.