"The fundamental proposition, which the majority of the Court of Appeal, agreeing with the Divisional Court, expressed (para 51) and which is both highly persuasive and ought ultimately to be endorsed, is that a comprehensive smoking ban does not, in such an institution, have a sufficiently adverse effect on a person’s physical or psychological integrity or his right to personal development as to merit protection. Although addictive, smoking is essentially no different from the consumption of other products designed to sustain life or provide enjoyment or both. Many persons have cravings for different consumables from tea or coffee, alcohol in a variety of different forms, through to chocolate and other foodstuffs. However, in the context of an institution such as the State Hospital, it is a question for management to decide what is to be made available to the patients. A decision to prohibit a particular product, or brand of product, does not engage Article 8 such that every decision to do so requires to be justified in terms of Article 8(2) if a particular patient chooses to complain. No doubt, under the general duty of care owed to patients under domestic law, there requires to be an overall standard of provision which ensures that the health of the patients is not endangered but, in Convention terms, a decision to select or to prohibit, for example, a particular type or brand of consumable, different from the patient’s favourite, does not engage Article 8 and the same principles apply to tobacco, or indeed alcoholic, products."