The pages below are initially ordered according to the dates on which they were added to the site (most recent first). The order can be changed by clicking on the symbol beside a column heading: click on the symbol beside "Page and summary" for alphabetical order; click beside "Categories" for the order in which the cases were reported. Click on the arrow symbol again to reverse the order. Click on a page name to view the relevant page.
| Page and summary | Date added to site | Categories |
| Key v Key (2010) EWHC 408 (Ch) — Successful challenge to will on the grounds of want of testamentary capacity and want of knowledge and approval.
| 2010-03-06 | 2010 cases, Brief summary, Other capacity cases, Transcript |
| R (Gill) v SSJ (2010) EWHC 364 (Admin) — The Defendant's failure to offer the Claimant, who was a short-tariff lifer with learning disability, sufficient suitable offending behaviour work to give him the opportunity to demonstrate safety for release, unlawfully breached the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 and breached his public law duties.
| 2010-03-02 | 2010 cases, Brief summary, Disability discrimination, Prison law, Transcript |
| R (Hagan) v Anglia and Oxfordshire MHRT (1999) MHLR 204 — In relation to the powers as to classification and reclassification of categories of mental disorder that existed under the MHA 1983 before its amendment by the MHA 2007, the question to be asked as to the use of the power was whether the patient had a mental disorder in a particular category (even if it was in remission) not whether that mental disorder was such as to justify detention. Accordingly, a Tribunal was not required to reclassify a patient who had been detained on the basis of 2 forms of disorder as being detained only under 1 form when the other was in remission and would not justify detention. [MHLR.]
| 2010-02-26 | 1999 cases, Brief summary, No transcript, Other classification cases |
| R (Moyle) v London South and South West Region MHRT (1999) MHLR 195 — A Tribunal is not acting in an appellate or review jurisdiction, but exercising an original jurisdiction in which it forms an evaluative judgment as to whether the criteria for discharge are made out; as such, it may disagree with the evidence in front of it. When the illness is one that will relapse in the absence of medication, the appropriateness of liability to detention depends on an assessment of the probability of relapse in the near future. (At the time, the test for discharge placed the burden of proof on the patient and so the patient had to show that there was no probability of relapse to demonstrate that the nature of the illness did not justify detention; it was also held that the admission criteria had to be considered, but in the context of the burden of proof being reversed. Its conclusion that the admission criteria were not relevant meant that there was an error of law that led to the decision being quashed.) [MHLR.]
| 2010-02-26 | 1999 cases, Brief summary, No transcript, Powers |
| Bath and North East Somerset Council v AJC (1999) MHLR 184 — As a Tribunal order for discharge had not been challenged, it had to be given effect, despite the local authority’s view that it was invalid: the purported renewal was therefore of no effect. [MHLR.]
| 2010-02-26 | 1999 cases, Brief summary, Miscellaneous, No transcript |
| Re D (mental patient: nearest relative) (1999) MHLR 181 — The approach to whether a relative “cares for” a patient so as to become their nearest relative by reason of s26(4) Mental Health Act 1983 involves the provision of more than minimal care services; the social worker’s decision as to who “appears to be” the nearest relative for the purposes of consultation under s11(4) of the Act has to involve an acceptable approach to the question of who is the nearest relative but did not require the making of enquiries (unless it would be irrational not to make enquiries). [MHLR.]
| 2010-02-26 | 1999 cases, Brief summary, Consulting NR, No transcript |
| JF v LB Hackney, Re TF (A Child: Guardianship) (1999) MHLR 175 — A desire to return to an inadequate home is not “seriously irresponsible” and so cannot found a conclusion that there is mental impairment. [MHLR.]
| 2010-02-26 | 1999 cases, Brief summary, Miscellaneous, No transcript |
| Barber v LB Croydon (2010) EWCA Civ 51 — (1) The council's decision to seek an immediate order for possession, following an assault which was almost certainly linked with the claimant's learning difficulties and a personality disorder, without applying the Council's policy on vulnerable people, was Wednesbury unreasonable. (2) The DDA aspect of the appeal was unsuccessful: the question was not whether he was treated less favourably than a person without his disabilities but whether he should have been treated differently precisely because he has such disabilities and because they were a significant contributory factor to his behaviour that day.
| 2010-02-18 | 2010 cases, Brief summary, Disability discrimination, Transcript |
| RH v South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust (2010) UKUT 32 (AAC) — (1) The Tribunal's reasons for refusing to grant the absolute discharge of a conditionally-discharged patient, against the unanimous evidence of the treating team and an independent psychiatrist, were adequate. (2) The Tribunal disagreed not with the witness's assessments but with their conclusions as to whether the restriction order should cease to have effect: that was the kind of judgment for which it is difficult to give reasons beyond those required to show that the tribunal has directed itself correctly as to the law and to show to what matters the tribunal has had regard. (3) The extensive references to the SC case were enough to show that the Tribunal had the correct legal test in mind. (4) The restrictions can continue in the absence of any mental disorder, and risk from possible future disorder is relevant, so the criteria here are very different from those for discharge of a CTO: in the latter a focus on the short-term position might be appropriate, whereas the Tribunal ..→ | 2010-02-18 | 2010 cases, Brief summary, Reasons, Transcript |
| CV v South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust (2010) CO/943/2010 — (1) In cases involving consultation under s11(4), the AMHP is to be judged according to the circumstances as they appear to her at the time. (2) Given that the AMHP believed (albeit wrongly) that 7 hours remained of the s5(2) detention, the decision not to consult the nearest relative on the ground that it was "would involve unreasonable delay" was unlawful. (3) It was inappropriate for the AMHP to assume, based on a previous consultation, that the NR would not object. (4) Subsequent rectification under s15(1) could not be relied upon in the circumstances of this case
| 2010-02-09 | 2010 cases, Brief summary, Consulting NR, No transcript |
| R (Munday) v SSJ (2009) EWHC 3638 (Admin) — The MoJ's decision to recall the claimant, although contrary to the RMO's advice, was not Wednesbury unreasonable or otherwise flawed on conventional public law grounds: the disagreement was not on medical grounds but on whether, given the history of arson and recent disengagement, a mere allegation of and arrest for arson was sufficient justification for recall.
| 2010-02-07 | 2009 cases, Brief summary, Ministry of Justice, No transcript |
| R (D and M) v SSWP (2010) EWCA Civ 18 — (1) That prisoners detained under s47, s47/49 or s45A, in contrast with civil patients or hospital order patients, receive no welfare benefits until their release date is not unlawful discrimination under Article 14 taken with A1P1. (2) On a proper construction of the statutory language, lifers detained under the MHA are entitled to Income Support or State Pension Credit when they reach their tariff expiry date.
| 2010-01-27 | 2010 cases, Brief summary, Miscellaneous, Transcript |
| R (DK) v SSJ (2010) EWHC 82 (Admin) — DK's s47 transfer was based on the report of a doctor and a psychologist which dealt with the treatability of his psychopathic disorder, and three proforma reports from doctors which did not deal with treatability. As treatability was not addressed, with reasons, by two medical practitioners, the transfer decision was quashed. [Caution: decided before 2007 Act amendments.]
| 2010-01-20 | 2010 cases, Brief summary, Deprivation of liberty, Transcript |
| Re Bax (2009) COP 22/10/09 — The donor appointed A and B to act jointly, and then provided that "In the event A is unable or unwilling to act as my attorney then I appoint C." On the attorneys' application the court severed the appointment of C. Although a donor may appoint a substitute attorney, the appointment must not be incompatible with a joint appointment of the original attorneys. [OPG summary - EPA cases.]
| 2010-01-20 | 2009 cases, Brief summary, EPA cases, No transcript |
| SSNI, Re Judicial Review (Oswald Brown) (2006) NIQB 94 — It was lawful for the hunger-striking prisoner, who lacked capacity, to be given nutrition.
| 2010-01-12 | 2006 cases, Best interests, Brief summary, Northern Irish cases, Transcript |
| Re Bullock (2009) COP 15/12/09 — The certificate providers did not tick the box to confirm that they had discussed the LPA with the donor and that the attorney was not present. The donor was in hospital and the certificate providers had discussed the LPA with the donor at his bedside, the attorney being present throughout. The Public Guardian refused registration on the ground that the instrument was not in prescribed form. The court, in the exercise of its discretion, declared under paragraph 3(2) of Schedule 1 of the MCA 2005 that the instrument, which was not in the prescribed form, should be treated as if it were. Registration was directed accordingly. [OPG summary.]
| 2010-01-12 | 2009 cases, Brief summary, LPA cases, No transcript |
| Re Helmsley (2009) COP 30/11/09 — The donor executed two instruments intended to be LPAs. In Part A of both instruments she omitted to tick the box to confirm that she gave her attorneys authority to act on her behalf in circumstances when she lacked capacity. The Public Guardian refused registration on the ground that the instruments were not in prescribed form. On the attorneys' application, the court exercised its discretion under paragraph 3(2) of Schedule 1 of the MCA 2005 and declared that the instruments, although not in prescribed form, were to be treated as if they were. Registration was directed accordingly. [OPG summary.]
| 2010-01-12 | 2009 cases, Brief summary, LPA cases, No transcript |
| Re Smith (2009) COP 7/12/09 — In Part C of the EPA the attorney had deleted the words "I also understand my limited power to use the donor's property to benefit persons other than the donor". On the attorney's application, the court was satisfied that the deletion was made in error, and directed that the instrument should be read as if the wording had not been deleted. [OPG summary.]
| 2010-01-12 | 2009 cases, Brief summary, EPA cases, No transcript |
| R (Southall) v Dudley PCT (2009) EWHC 1780 (Admin) — The defendant elected to go to a more expensive home for a continuing care package than the one that the PCT offered. The PCT entered into a contract with the care home operator at the lower rate, which would have been appropriate for the other care home on the same overall site, and the patient funded the difference. The patient then challenged the legality of this top up. The Court found that the PCT's refusal to pay in full for the claimant's continuing care package at the more expensive home was reasonable, and that the arrangement was lawful. There was no breach of article 8 in the patient having to choose between making a payment of top-up fees or having to move to the less expensive care home. The claim for Judicial Review was therefore dismissed.
| 2009-12-23 | 2009 cases, Brief summary, Community care, Transcript |
| R (Johnson) v SSJ (2009) EWHC 3336 (Admin) — The Secretary of State's decision that the next Parole Board review would occur 14-15 months after the last review was unsupported by any reason and, on the facts, inconsistent with Article 5(4).
| 2009-12-23 | 2009 cases, Brief summary, Prison law, Transcript |
| R (P) v HM Coroner for the District of Avon (2009) EWCA Civ 1367 — In this inquest to which Article 2 applied (suicide in prison) the Deputy Coroner misdirected the jury because she did not properly explain to them that, if they returned a verdict of suicide or accident, they could also append a narrative about the circumstances of the accident. However, in the circumstances, the verdict was not quashed.
| 2009-12-23 | 2009 cases, Brief summary, Inquests, Transcript |
| R (Manchester City Council) v St Helens Borough Council (2009) EWCA Civ 1348 — PE had voluntarily moved from St Helens to Manchester and, following the Secretary of State's decision that she was now ordinarily resident there, St Helens decided to stop funding her community care services. (1) Under s29 National Assistance Act 1948 a local authority is under a duty to provide services to those ordinarily resident in its area. (2) St Helens had a power to pay but the exercise of this power did not give rise to a duty or negate Manchester's duty, or give rise to any legitimate expectation.
| 2009-12-23 | 2009 cases, Brief summary, Community care, Transcript |
| R (Lewis) v HM Coroner for the Mid and North Division of the County of Shropshire (2009) EWCA Civ 1403 — A coroner is not obliged to leave to the jury a fact or circumstance which could have caused or contributed to the death but cannot be shown probably to have done so.
| 2009-12-23 | 2009 cases, Brief summary, Inquests, Transcript |
| R (Stojak) v Sheffield City Council (2009) EWHC 3412 (Admin) — Extension of time refused for JR application relating to charging for residential after-care services.
| 2009-12-23 | 2009 cases, After-care, Brief summary, Transcript |
| Salford City Council v BJ (2009) EWHC 3310 (Fam) — Following a final hearing concerning deprivation of liberty the previous year, the judge now had to determine: (a) the nature and timing of future reviews by the court, (b) the nature and timing of future internal reviews by the local authority, and (c) whether the proceedings should now be transferred to the Court of Protection.
| 2009-12-17 | 2009 cases, Brief summary, Other capacity cases, Transcript |
| Re Clarke (2009) COP 18/11/09 — The donor appointed three attorneys, A (his wife), B, and C, to be his attorneys. They were appointed to act jointly in some matters and jointly and severally in others. He then stated that the attorneys were to act together for transactions not exceeding £5,000 "but together in respect of all other decisions subject to my wife A's opinion prevailing in the event that my attorneys are not unanimous in any decision involving property or expenditure exceeding £5,000". On the application of the Public Guardian, the words "subject to my wife A's opinion" onwards were severed on the ground that they purported to facilitate one of the three attorneys being able to act independently in relation to matters that had been specified as subject to the joint decision of the attorneys. [OPG summary.]
| 2009-12-16 | 2009 cases, Brief summary, LPA cases, Transcript |
| Re Kittle (2009) COP 1/12/09 — Regulation 8(3) of the LPA, EPA and PG Regulations 2007 sets out categories of persons who cannot act as certificate provider. Included in the list is "a family member" of the donor or of the attorney (or of the owner, director, manager or employee of any care home in which the donor is living when the instrument is executed). In this case the certificate provider was the donor's first cousin. The Public Guardian declined to register the instrument on the ground that a first cousin was a family member of the donor. The court ruled that a first cousin is not a family member, and so the LPA was valid. [OPG summary.]
| 2009-12-16 | 2009 cases, Brief summary, LPA cases, Transcript |
| R (Domb) v London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham (2009) EWCA Civ 941 — The council's decision to make charges for non-residential home care services provided pursuant to the Health and Social Services and Social Security Adjudications Act 1983 was challenged (unsuccessfully) on the basis that the council did not have "due regard" to its general equality duties.
| 2009-12-14 | 2009 cases, Brief summary, Disability discrimination, Transcript |
| Chief Constable of Lincolnshire Police v Caston (2009) EWCA Civ 1298 — The employment judge had permitted an out-of-time DDA claim to proceed; he was entitled to exercise his discretion (on whether, in all the circumstances of the case, he considered that it was just and equitable to do so) as he did.
| 2009-12-14 | 2009 cases, Brief summary, Disability discrimination, Transcript |
| Re Allen (2009) COP 21/7/09 — Under MCA 2005 s4(7) any best interests decision-maker "must take into account, if it is practicable and appropriate to consult them, the views of" various categories of individuals. Where any attempt at consultation will inevitably be unduly onerous, futile, or serve no useful purpose, it cannot be in P’s best interests, and it would be neither practicable nor appropriate to embark on that process in the first place.
| 2009-12-14 | 2009 cases, Best interests, Brief summary, No transcript |
| AB v Nugent Care Society (2009) EWCA Civ 827 — In these appeals, arising from allegations of historic sexual abuse at children's homes, guidance was given on the correct approach to the application of s33 Limitation Act 1980 in the light of A v Hoare [2008] UKHL 6.
| 2009-12-07 | 2009 cases, Brief summary, Miscellaneous, Transcript |
| R (Cart) v Upper Tribunal (2009) EWHC 3052 (Admin) — (1) Decisions of inferior courts are subject to judicial review for exceeding their jurisdiction. Excess of jurisdiction can mean either the court (a) embarks on a case beyond its statutory remit, or (b) makes a legal mistake. (2) Judicial review of the Upper Tribunal is not ousted by s3 TCEA 2007. (3) The UT is, for the relevant purposes, an alter ego of the High Court, and it would never be right to exercise the JR jurisdiction on the ground that it had made a legal mistake. (4) Decisions of the UT are only amenable to JR for excess of jurisdiction or where there is a wholly exceptional collapse of fair procedure (something as gross as actual bias). (5) Consideration was also given to the status of SIAC decisions.
| 2009-12-07 | 2009 cases, Brief summary, Other Tribunal cases, Transcript |
| Seal v UK 50330/07 (2009) ECHR 806 — Statement of facts and question lodged with court. Case concerns the procedure under s139 MHA 1983.
| 2009-12-04 | 2009 cases, Brief summary, ECHR, Miscellaneous, Transcript |
| Anam v SSHD (2009) EWHC 2496 (Admin) — It is the Secretary of State's policy not to detain mentally ill persons pending deportation, save in "very exceptional circumstances". The claimant was entitled to a declaration that the SoS had unlawfully failed to consider the implications of his policy; however, the detention was not in breach of the policy, and continued detention was lawful.
| 2009-12-04 | 2009 cases, Brief summary, Deportation, Transcript |
| MS v UK 24527/08 (2009) ECHR 1762 — Statement of facts and question lodged with the court. The case relates to detention under s136 beyond the permitted 72-hour period and a subsequent civil claim against the Trust for negligence, for breaches of Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention, and for misfeasance in public office.
| 2009-12-04 | 2009 cases, Brief summary, Miscellaneous, Transcript |
| Hurst v UK 42577/07 (2009) ECHR 1988 — Statement of facts and questions lodged with the court (case relates to Article 2-compliant inquests).
| 2009-12-04 | 2009 cases, Brief summary, ECHR, Inquests, Transcript |
| R (Hurst) v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis (2007) UKHL 13 — No need to hold Article 2-compliant inquest when death occurred before implementation of Human Rights Act 1998.
| 2009-12-04 | 2007 cases, Brief summary, Inquests, Transcript |
| West v General Social Care Council (2009) UKFTT 330 (HESC) — The applicant mental health social worker successfully appealed against a decision made by the respondent's Preliminary Proceedings Committee to impose an six-month Interim Suspension Order.
| 2009-12-04 | 2009 cases, Brief summary, Miscellaneous, Transcript |
| Halilovic v Bosnia and Herzegovina 23968/05 (2009) ECHR 1933 — (1) The appellant's detention for 4 years 5 months was pursuant to an administrative decision, as opposed to a decision of the competent civil court as required by the amended domestic legislation, and so breached Article 5(1); compensation of €22,500 was awarded. (2) The Article 3 claim relating to conditions of detention failed.
| 2009-12-04 | 2009 cases, Brief summary, Deprivation of liberty, ECHR, Transcript |
| C v Sevenoaks Youth Court (2009) EWHC 3088 (Admin) — (1) When trying a young child, and most particularly a child such as C who is only 12 with learning and behavioural difficulties, notwithstanding the absence of any express statutory power, the Youth Court has a duty under its inherent powers and under the Criminal Procedure Rules to take such steps as are necessary to ensure that he has a fair trial, not just during the proceedings, but beforehand as he and his lawyers prepare for trial; in this case, C required an intermediary. (2) As the MoJ had voluntarily accepted responsibility for the payment of intermediaries, the LSC decision not to provide funding was lawful. (3) The CPS decision to continue with the trial was lawful.
| 2009-11-30 | 2009 cases, Brief summary, Criminal law, Transcript |
| Re Cloutt (2008) COP 7/11/08 — The donor made an EPA in October 2000 appointing NatWest Bank as attorney. This was registered in March 2008. In April 2008 the donor executed an instrument intended to be a Lasting Power of Attorney, appointing a different attorney, and executed a deed revoking the EPA. In the LPA the Part B certificate was provided by a medical practitioner, who had confirmed that he was satisfied that the donor was able to make an LPA. In June 2008 the LPA attorney applied to court for an order confirming the revocation of the EPA (as required by paragraph 15 of Schedule 4 of the MCA). The Senior Judge made a directions order in August 2008 requiring the submission of further evidence on the ground that the revocation of an EPA is a different transaction from the creation of an LPA, and capacity to create an LPA is not necessarily the same as capacity to revoke an EPA. Thus a doctor’s certification of an LPA is not of itself sufficient proof of capacity to revoke an EPA. On considering the ..→ | 2009-11-29 | 2008 cases, Brief summary, EPA cases, No transcript |
| Re Portues (2009) COP 6/1/09 — In Part B of the instrument the donor appointed attorneys to act jointly and severally and struck out the words “with general authority to act”, leaving in place the words “with authority to do the following”. She did not include any instructions under those words to indicate the scope of the attorneys’ powers. On the application of the attorney for rectification of the instrument, the court was satisfied that it was the donor’s intention to confer general authority on the attorneys and that the deletion of those words was a clerical error. The court declared that the EPA was to be read and construed as if the donor granted general authority to the attorneys and directed the Public Guardian to reconsider the registration of the EPA in the light of the declaration. (OPG summary.)
| 2009-11-29 | 2009 cases, Brief summary, EPA cases, No transcript |
| Re Sawyer (2009) COP 31/3/09 — In Part B of the EPA the donor appointed four attorneys, but omitted to strike out either option "jointly" or "jointly and severally" in relation to how they should act. On the application of the attorneys, the court was satisfied that the donor had intended to appoint them to act jointly and severally, and directed that the EPA should be construed as if they had been appointed jointly and severally and the alternative option "jointly" had been deleted. The Public Guardian was directed to attach a note to that effect to the registered EPA. (OPG summary.)
| 2009-11-29 | 2009 cases, Brief summary, EPA cases, No transcript |
| Re Corbett (2008) COP 4/12/08 — A restriction in an EPA which had been registered in 2006 contained the following restriction: “No transaction with a value greater than £500 to be actioned without the written permission of my son SC.” The attorney applied for an order removing the restriction on the grounds that SC’s whereabouts were unknown and had not been heard from for 12 months. The attorney wished to sell the donor’s house to pay for care home fees. The court determined that, having regard to all the circumstances, the restriction was an unreasonable fetter on the scope of the attorney’s authority, and was having an adverse impact on the management and administration of the donor’s property and affairs. The restriction was accordingly severed and the Public Guardian was directed to register a note to that effect. (OPG summary.)
| 2009-11-29 | 2008 cases, Brief summary, EPA cases, No transcript |
| Re Shepherd (2009) COP 13/3/09 — The donor appointed three attorneys to act jointly, adding the words "Any two out of the three attorneys shall have power to sign jointly on my behalf". The court severed these words as being incompatible with a joint appointment. (OPG summary.)
| 2009-11-29 | 2009 cases, Brief summary, EPA cases, No transcript |
| Re Bainbridge (2009) COP 10/3/09 — The donor appointed her three children to act jointly, adding the restriction "PROVIDED THAT in the event that any one or more of my said children shall die or shall for any other reason be unable to act as my Attorneys then I appoint my remaining children to be my Attorneys for the purpose of the Enduring Powers of Attorney Act 1985 and in the event that only one of my said children shall be able to act as my Attorney then I appoint him/her as my sole Attorney for the purposes of the Enduring Powers of Attorney Act 1985." On the application of the attorneys under paragraph 4(5) of Schedule 4 of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 to determine whether the power was valid, the court severed the restriction as being incompatible with a joint appointment. (OPG summary.)
| 2009-11-29 | 2009 cases, Brief summary, EPA cases, No transcript |
| Re Rayner (2009) COP 9/6/09 — The donor appointed A and B as attorneys to act jointly and severally with general authority to act in relation to all her property and affairs. She then imposed a restriction, stating that A and B should not act in relation to properties jointly owned with the donor, and that C was appointed as attorney in relation to these properties. On the application of the attorney the restriction was severed, with the result that A and B could act in relation to all the donor's property and affairs and C could not act. (OPG summary.)
| 2009-11-29 | 2009 cases, Brief summary, EPA cases, No transcript |
| Re Meaker (2009) COP 16/6/09 — The donor appointed two attorneys to act jointly and severally. She added the following restriction: "My attorneys shall act jointly at all times unless the death, incapacity or bankruptcy of either one of them shall preclude her from acting, in which case the other Attorney shall continue to act alone". On the application of the attorney the restriction was severed as being ineffective as part of an EPA. (OPG summary.)
| 2009-11-29 | 2009 cases, Brief summary, EPA cases, No transcript |
| Re Dunningham (2009) COP 15/9/09 — The donor appointed two attorneys, A and B, to act jointly and severally. She then imposed the following restriction: "and the said B shall have no authority to act on my behalf unless the said A has died or is incapable of acting as my Attorney". On the application of the attorneys for severance, the court severed the restriction as being inconsistent with a joint and several appointment. (OPG summary.)
| 2009-11-29 | 2009 cases, Brief summary, EPA cases, No transcript |
| Re Bridge (2009) COP 25/9/09 — The donor appointed three attorneys to act jointly and severally. He imposed the following restriction: "2 of the 3 can deal with any household or every day expenses, but for any other issues I would like all 3 attorneys to be signatories. In particular I would not like my house to be sold or money to be invested without agreement and signatory from all 3. My money and assets are to be used to cover my care and living expenses in old age and ill health." On the application of an attorney the court directed severance of the restriction as being ineffective as part of an EPA. (OPG summary.)
| 2009-11-29 | 2009 cases, Brief summary, EPA cases, No transcript |
| Re Wills (2008) COP 20/11/08 — The donor appointed three attorneys to act jointly and severally. She then imposed the following restriction: “Although I have appointed my Attorneys to act jointly and severally, I require that at least two of them shall sign any cheque on my behalf for a sum in excess of £500 or act in any transaction worth over £500.” On the application of the attorneys to determine whether the power was valid, the court severed the restriction. (OPG summary.)
| 2009-11-29 | 2008 cases, Brief summary, EPA cases, No transcript |
| Re Blair (2008) COP 1/10/08 — The donor appointed two attorneys to act jointly and severally, and contained the following restriction: “For single transactions of a value in excess of £500 (five hundred pounds) then I declare my attorneys shall act jointly as against jointly and severally.” On the application of the attorneys under paragraph 4(5) of Schedule 4 of the MCA to determine whether the power was valid, the court severed the restriction. (OPG summary.)
| 2009-11-29 | 2008 cases, Brief summary, EPA cases, No transcript |
| Re Robinson (2009) COP 18/9/09 — An EPA provided that "My Attorneys shall have power to deal with my affairs from time to time as may be necessary to reduce the incidence of Inheritance Tax at the date of my death provided that lump sum payments shall only be made to or on behalf of such persons who would otherwise receive the benefit of my estate as residuary beneficiaries (either original or substituted) of my Will." On the application of the attorneys the court severed this restriction on the ground that it would be ineffective as part of an EPA (because it exceeded the statutory power to make gifts under Sched 4 paragraph 3 of the MCA). (OPG summary.)
| 2009-11-29 | 2009 cases, Brief summary, EPA cases, No transcript |
| Re Hollins (2009) COP 10/6/09 — In Part B of the instrument, under the heading "subject to the following restrictions and conditions", the donor wrote "See attached supplement". The attached supplement listed extended powers, including: (1) Extended powers to deal with my affairs, (2) Power to consent to medical treatment, and (3) Extended power to make gifts. The Public Guardian refused registration on the ground that the first two of the above provisions did not relate to the donor's property and affairs, and that the third was inconsistent with Schedule 4, para 3(3) of the Mental Capacity Act. On the attorney's application, the court directed severance of the attached supplement and the reference to it in Part B of the instrument. (Full details of supplement available on case page.)
| 2009-11-29 | 2009 cases, Brief summary, EPA cases, No transcript |
| Re Viveash (2009) COP 21/9/09 — An EPA provided that "I grant to my attorneys the power to deal with all matters concerning my welfare health and matters of a personal nature to me and all other matters affecting me or my possessions." On the application of the attorneys the court severed the restriction on the ground that it would be ineffective as part of an EPA. (OPG summary.)
| 2009-11-29 | 2009 cases, Brief summary, EPA cases, No transcript |
| Re King (2009) COP 14/7/09 — An EPA provided that "In case that I am unable to take part in decisions about my medical care then I appoint my Attorney to represent my views about them if I am unable to do so". On the application of the attorney the court severed this provision on the ground that it would be ineffective as part of an EPA. (OPG summary.)
| 2009-11-29 | 2009 cases, Brief summary, EPA cases, No transcript |
| Re Ditcham (2009) COP 12/5/09 — An EPA provided that "my attorney(s) may take decisions on where I shall live provided that these decisions are made in my best interests and may negotiate with Social Services and any other relevant authorities to secure the best treatment and accommodation on my behalf that can be provided". On the application of the attorneys the court severed this provision on the ground that it would be ineffective as part of an EPA. (OPG summary.)
| 2009-11-29 | 2009 cases, Brief summary, EPA cases, No transcript |
| Re Heartfield (2008) COP 17/6/08 — The donor stated in the EPA: “I delegate all my trustee functions and powers whether conferred by statute, general law or a trust instrument to my attorneys”. On the application of the attorney the court determined that the provision was ineffective as part of an EPA and severed it. (OPG summary.)
| 2009-11-29 | 2008 cases, Brief summary, EPA cases, No transcript |
| Re Vallet (2009) COP 27/1/09 — The original EPA could not be produced, nor was there a certified copy in existence. Regulation 24(2) of the Lasting Powers of Attorney, Enduring Powers of Attorney and Public Guardian Regulations 2007 provides that, in such a case, the Public Guardian must not register without an order of the court. On the application of the attorney the court declared that it was satisfied that the copy was a copy of the original EPA, which had been lost but not revoked, and directed registration. (OPG summary.)
| 2009-11-29 | 2009 cases, Brief summary, EPA cases, No transcript |
| Re Parker (2008) COP 22/12/08 — This application concerned an EPA which had already been registered in 2007. The attorneys had signed the EPA on 25 December 1993 and the donor had signed later, on 13 January 1994. The court held that the EPA was valid, applying the unreported decision of Knox J in Re R dated 23 February 1988. (OPG summary.)
| 2009-11-29 | 2008 cases, Brief summary, EPA cases, No transcript |
| Re Wealleans (2008) COP 8/5/08 — The witness had not stated her address in the instrument, as required by Regulation 3(1) of the Enduring Powers of Attorney (Prescribed Form) Regulations 1990. On the application of the attorney the court declared pursuant to MCA Schedule 4 paragraph 2(4) that the EPA was “procedurally valid”. [Paragraph 2(4) provides that, if an instrument differs in an immaterial respect in form or mode of expression from the prescribed form it is to be treated as sufficient in point of form and expression]. (OPG summary.)
| 2009-11-29 | 2008 cases, Brief summary, EPA cases, No transcript |
| Re Gibbs (2008) COP 9/9/08 — The certificate provider ticked the box to confirm that he had discussed the LPA with the donor and that the attorneys were not present, and also ticked the box to say that the LPA had been discussed with the donor in the presence of other persons, identified as the attorneys. The court directed that the LPA was valid (the certificate provider having confirmed by letter that he had interviewed the donor on her own as well as with the attorneys present). (OPG summary.)
| 2009-11-29 | 2008 cases, Brief summary, LPA cases, No transcript |
| Re Baldwin (2009) COP 14/5/09 — The donor appointed X as original attorney, Y as the replacement for X, and Z as the replacement for Y if Y was unable or unwilling to act. On the application of the Public Guardian the court directed the severance of the appointment of Z on the ground that the MCA does not permit a donor to appoint a person to take over as a second replacement attorney if the first replacement attorney starts to act and then becomes unable to act. (OPG summary.)
| 2009-11-29 | 2009 cases, Brief summary, LPA cases, No transcript |
| Re Howarth (2008) COP 28/7/08 — The donor had named the replacement attorney as the only person to be notified of an application to register. MCA Schedule 1 paragraph 2(3) provides that a person who is “appointed as donee under the instrument” may not be a named person. If there was no effective named person, the instrument could only be valid if it contained two Part B certificates, but it contained only one. On the application of the Public Guardian the court directed the severance of the appointment of the replacement attorney on the ground that a replacement attorney was a person “appointed as donee under the instrument” who could not, therefore, be a named person. As the appointment of the replacement attorney was severed, the named person was not an attorney and so the instrument could be registered. (OPG summary.)
| 2009-11-29 | 2008 cases, Brief summary, LPA cases, No transcript |
| Re Sporne (2009) COP 13/10/09 — The instrument had two defects: (i) the certificate provider had failed to tick the first two mandatory boxes in Part B, and (ii) the attorney had executed Part C before the certificate provider had signed Part B, contrary to Regulation 9 of the LPA, EPA and PG Regulations 2007. The Public Guardian's normal practice in such a case is to request fresh Parts B and C, but the donor had lost capacity. The attorney applied to court for the determination of the validity of the instrument. The court order recorded that, while the court could have exercised its discretion under paragraph 3(2) of Schedule 1 of the MCA in respect of the defect in Part B of the instrument, it could not exercise any discretion to validate a significant procedural error in respect of the requirements for the completion and execution of Parts A, B and C. It further recorded that the errors could not now be rectified as the donor had lost capacity. The court, therefore, refused to direct registration of the ..→ | 2009-11-29 | 2009 cases, Brief summary, LPA cases, No transcript |
| Re Ker (2009) COP 21/9/09 — The donor in Part A of the LPA form omitted to tick the box to confirm that he had chosen his certificate provider himself. The Public Guardian refused registration on the ground that the instrument was not in prescribed form. On the attorney's application, the court exercised its discretion under paragraph 3(2) of Schedule 1 to the MCA 2005 and declared that the instrument, although not in the prescribed form, was to be treated as if it were a lasting power of attorney. Registration was directed accordingly. (OPG summary.)
| 2009-11-29 | 2009 cases, Brief summary, LPA cases, No transcript |
| Re Nazran (2008) 27/6/08 — The certificate provider had not completed the first two boxes in Part B of the instrument to confirm that he was acting independently of the donor, was not ineligible to provide a certificate, and was aged 18 or over. The attorneys applied to court for a declaration that the instrument was a valid LPA or, alternatively, that the instrument was to be treated as valid under MCA Schedule 1 paragraph 3(2). [Paragraph 3(2) provides that the court may declare that an instrument which is not in the prescribed form may be treated as if it were, if it is satisfied that the persons executing the instrument intended it to create a lasting power of attorney]. The court, in the exercise of its discretion under Schedule 1 paragraph 3(2), declared that the instrument was to be treated as if it were an LPA and registered accordingly. The Public Guardian does not have this discretion. (OPG summary.)
| 2009-11-29 | 2008 cases, Brief summary, LPA cases, No transcript |
| Re Sykes (2009) 9/7/09 — The donor of a property and affairs LPA imposed a restriction stating that no gifts of any of her assets should be made other than "annual or monthly gifts already being made by me at the date of my signing this LPA by regular bank standing orders or direct debits". On the application of the Public Guardian the court severed this restriction on the ground that the gifts envisaged by the donor exceeded the attorney's authority to make gifts as set out in section 12 of the MCA 2005. (OPG summary.)
| 2009-11-29 | 2009 cases, Brief summary, LPA cases, No transcript |
| Re Reading (2009) 25/6/09 — The donor appointed her husband and two of her children as original attorneys and a third child as replacement attorney. She added a restriction to the effect that, if her husband should predecease her, any decisions "must be agreed by all four of my children". The fourth child had not been appointed as attorney or replacement attorney. On the application of the Public Guardian the restriction was severed as being ineffective as part of an LPA, because it was not open to the donor to require that a person who was not an attorney should join in the making of decisions by the attorneys. (OPG summary.)
| 2009-11-29 | 2009 cases, 200 cases, Brief summary, LPA cases, No transcript, Ranscript, Summary |
| Re Bratt (2009) COP 14/4/09 — The donor appointed two attorneys, A and B, to act jointly and severally, and directed that "B is only to act as attorney in the event of A being physically or mentally incapable of acting in this capacity". On the application of the Public Guardian this provision was severed as being inconsistent with a joint and several appointment. The Senior Judge added that, to have achieved the desired objective, the donor should instead have appointed B to be a replacement attorney. (OPG summary.)
| 2009-11-29 | 2009 cases, Brief summary, LPA cases, No transcript |
| Re P (2009) COP 9/6/09 — The donor appointed three attorneys to act jointly and severally, and imposed the following restriction: "I require that two attorneys must act at any one time so that no attorney may act alone." On the application of the Public Guardian the court severed the restriction on the ground that it was ineffective as part of an LPA. (OPG summary.)
| 2009-11-29 | 2009 cases, Brief summary, LPA cases, No transcript |
| Re Azancot (2009) 27/5/09 — The donor of a personal welfare LPA inserted a restriction that her replacement attorneys "may only act under this power in the event that the donor is physically or mentally incapacitated and there is written medical evidence to that effect". The words "physically or" were severed on the application of the Public Guardian, as the effect of section 11(7) of the MCA is that a personal welfare attorney may not make a decision unless the donor lacks mental capacity to make it. (OPG summary.)
| 2009-11-29 | 2009 cases, Brief summary, LPA cases, No transcript |
| Re Bates (2008) COP 3/12/09 — The donor appointed two original attorneys and a replacement attorney, who would assume office in the following circumstances: “She may act at any time at the election of either attorney”. These words were severed on the application of the Public Guardian on the ground that a replacement attorney may only act on the occurrence of an event mentioned in section 13(6)(a) to (d) of the MCA, for example where an original attorney disclaims, dies or loses mental capacity. (OPG summary.)
| 2009-11-29 | 2008 cases, Brief summary, LPA cases, No transcript |
| Re Patel (2008) COP 1/12/08 — The donor appointed a replacement attorney to act if the original attorney should be “mentally or physically incapable” or if the original attorney “is not in England at any time that my personal or financial affairs require attention”. The words in bold were severed on the application of the Public Guardian on the ground that a replacement attorney may only act on the occurrence of an event mentioned in section 13(6)(a) to (d) of the MCA, for example where an original attorney disclaims, dies or loses mental capacity. (OPG summary.)
| 2009-11-29 | 2008 cases, Brief summary, LPA cases, No transcript |
| Re Jenkins (2008) COP 2/9/08 — The donor had appointed the attorneys of a property and affairs LPA to act “together and independently”. She then directed that they must act together in relation to any bills, payments or costs exceeding £2,000 in any one calendar month and in relation to any single payment greater than £1,000 in any calendar month. The donor had also appointed a replacement attorney, and directed that she should act if the original attorneys were “not available through travel or living abroad or any other circumstances that may prevent or restrict their capacity to act on my behalf as attorneys”. The court ordered the severance of both clauses, on the application of the Public Guardian. The directions in the first clause were incompatible with an appointment to act “together and independently”. The directions in the second clause were invalid because a replacement attorney may only act on the occurrence of an event mentioned in section 13(6)(a) to (d) of the MCA, for example where an ..→ | 2009-11-29 | 2008 cases, Brief summary, LPA cases, No transcript |
| Re Begum (2008) COP 24/4/08 — On the application of the Public Guardian, the court directed the severance from a Property and Affairs LPA instrument of the following clauses, on the ground that they were ineffective as part of an LPA: (1) All decisions about the use or disposal of my property and financial resources must be driven by what my Personal Welfare Lasting Power of Attorney(s) believe will support my long term interests. (2) Any decisions affecting assets (individually or together) worth more than £5,000 at any one time must be discussed and agreed with Dr X. (3) In the event of there being any disagreement between my Personal Welfare Lasting Power of Attorney(s) and/or Dr X this should be resolved by these parties appointing an independent advocate to adjudicate. (OPG summary.)
| 2009-11-29 | 2008 cases, Brief summary, LPA cases, No transcript |
| R (Turner) v Southampton City Council (2009) EWCA Civ 1290 — Unsuccessful challenge to the closure of care homes on Article 2 grounds: the test of a "real and immediate risk" is one that is not readily satisfied, in other words the threshold is high; the evidence in this case fell far short of the threshold. Interesting post-script to judgment, critical of solicitor and her repeated similar claims.
| 2009-11-27 | 2009 cases, Brief summary, Community care, Transcript |
| Re Furlow (2009) COP 1/10/09 — The donor appointed X and Y to act jointly and severally. He included the following provision: "X shall act with general authority on my behalf in relation to all my property and affairs. Y shall act with authority to do the following on my behalf: To deal with my bank accounts and savings and investments in relation to my bank accounts, savings accounts and investments." He then added: "Y may deal with my bank investments subject to my prior approval." On the attorney's application, both provisions were severed. The first was incompatible with a joint and several appointment (as one attorney had more limited powers than the other), and the second was unworkable after the donor's loss of capacity. (OPG summary.)
| 2009-11-26 | 2009 cases, Brief summary, LPA cases, No transcript |
| Re Ellis (2009) COP 17/11/09 — The donor appointed his wife as the original attorney and then appointed his two children as substitute attorneys to act in the event that the original attorney should be unable to act. However, the donor failed to specify whether the substitute attorneys should act jointly or jointly and severally. On the application of the attorneys, the appointment of the substitute attorneys was severed. Although the decision in Re J confirmed that substitute attorneys may be appointed in an EPA, the appointment of two or more substitutes is invalid if the donor has not specified that they are to act either jointly or jointly and severally. (OPG summary)
| 2009-11-25 | 2009 cases, Brief summary, EPA cases, No transcript |
| R v Hurst (2007) EWCA Crim 3436 — The restriction order was set aside as: (1) there was insufficient evidence that it was necessary for the protection of the public from serious harm; (2) the judge did not explain why he had rejected the medical evidence, which was against the imposition of a restriction order.
| 2009-11-24 | 2007 cases, Brief summary, Criminal law, Transcript |
| R v Charisma (2009) EWCA Crim 2345 — The appellant argued that his mental condition had made it undesirable for him to have given evidence, so no direction under s35 Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 (adverse inference from failure to give evidence) should have been given; he was unsuccessful.
| 2009-11-20 | 2009 cases, Brief summary, Criminal law, Transcript |
| Johnston v Chief Constable of Merseyside Police (2009) EWHC 2969 (QB) — (1) A court faced with an application for permission under s139(2) must (a) balance the applicant's interest to be allowed to seek the adjudication of the courts upon any claim which is not frivolous, vexatious or an abuse of process, and the equally legitimate interest of the respondent not to be subjected to the risk of being harassed by baseless claims, and (b) consider whether the proposed claim has a real prospect of success. (2) On the facts, permission was granted. (3) Under the relevant test under the Limitation Act 1980 (which was explained) the 3-year limitation period on the assault claim was dis-applied.
| 2009-11-20 | 2009 cases, Brief summary, Miscellaneous, Transcript |
| R v Evans (2009) EWCA Crim 2243 — Unsuccessful appeal, which had been on the basis that (1) his guilty plea was based on wrong advice, and (2) memories recovered since his plea would have provided a defence based on (a) provocation or (b) diminished responsibility.
| 2009-11-16 | 2009 cases, Brief summary, Criminal law, Transcript |
| Re RB (A Child) (2009) EWHC 3269 (Fam) — Transcript of judge's sentencing remarks, endorsing the parties' agreement that administration of a large dose of sedative, the removal of the ventilation tube and consequent death (rather than discharge from hospital on home ventilation after a tracheostomy) were in the baby's best interests.
| 2009-11-16 | 2009 cases, Best interests, Brief summary, Transcript |
| Independent News and Media Ltd v A (2009) EWHC 2858 (Fam) — The media sought, not that the CoP hearing be public, but that they be authorised to attend the hearing and be subject to reporting restrictions. CoP proceedings are excluded from the general 'open justice principle' so the media's Article 10 rights are not automatically engaged, and the court must rather adopt a two-stage approach: (1) Whether a 'good reason' (a gatekeeping test from the Rules, the standard for which is not high) for making the order can be established; (2) If there is a 'good reason', a balancing test must be applied to P's Article 8 rights and the media's Article 10 rights. On the facts: (1) There was a 'good reason' as (a) the issues were already in the public domain, (b) the court's powers can preserve privacy, and (c) it is the public interest to understand how the court operates; (2) The media would be allowed to attend, as the concerns for privacy and publicity could both be met by permitting some reporting but requiring the media to demonstrate what ..→ | 2009-11-12 | 2009 cases, Brief summary, Other capacity cases, Transcript |
| DCC v KH (2009) COP 11729380 — (1) A DOLS standard authorisation was sufficient to return P on the long journey from contact sessions to the residential accommodation: the Code of Practice paragraphs saying that conveyance may require a court order only apply where no SA is in place. (2) It was inappropriate to seek an anticipatory declaration for the use of force, as MCA 2005 s5 and s6 permitted restraint. (3) The interim residence order should be enough to persuade the police to facilitate P's return.
| 2009-11-12 | 2009 cases, Best interests, Brief summary, Transcript |
| Baker v H (2009) EWHC B31 (Fam) — (1) The judgment sets out a structured general approach to considering the setting of security and its interplay with the terms of appointment of a deputy; (2) On the facts, the level of security was reduced from £750k to £175k.
| 2009-11-09 | 2009 cases, Brief summary, Other capacity cases, Transcript |
| Re Murdoch (2009) COP 30/10/09 — The donor executed an instrument intended to be a personal welfare LPA. It contained the following defects: (i) the certificate provider had failed to tick the first two mandatory boxes in Part B, (ii) the attorney had failed to tick any of the boxes in Part C, although he had dated and executed it, and (iii) the replacement attorney had ticked the appropriate boxes in his Part C but had not dated or executed it. The Public Guardian refused to register the instrument, and the donor subsequently lost capacity. On the attorney's application, the court directed the Public Guardian not to register the instrument, because "the errors in its execution are too fundamental".
| 2009-11-09 | 2009 cases, Brief summary, LPA cases, No transcript |
| R v Singleton (2008) EWCA Crim 468 — Sentence of 5 years' imprisonment replaced by 3-year community order with residence, supervision and mental health treatment requirements.
| 2009-11-03 | 2008 cases, Brief summary, Criminal law, Transcript |
| R (Nottingham Healthcare NHS Trust) v MHRT (Northern Region), Re GK (2008) EWHC 2445 (Admin) — The Tribunal's decision that GK did not suffer from any mental illness and should be discharged from Rampton, which was contrary to all the medical evidence including the independent psychiatrist's, was inadequately reasoned.
| 2009-11-03 | 2008 cases, Brief summary, Reasons, Transcript |
| Ruddle v Secretary of State for Scotland (1999) ScotSC 24 — Whilst a structured hospital environment could amount to treatment, it did not on the facts, but was mere containment; and as an anti-social personality disorder was not on the facts alleviated or prevented from deterioration as a result of any treatment interventions, it was untreatable; and as there was no need for recall, an absolute discharge followed. [MHLR.]
| 2009-11-01 | 1999 cases, Brief summary, Other Tribunal cases, Scottish cases, Transcript |
| Ferguson v State Hospital Management Committee (1999) ScotSC 10 — In considering discharge, it was not necessary to consider the hypothetical question of whether the sentencing court would impose a hospital order on the basis of present knowledge of the patient’s condition; the requirement of treatability in relation to a personality disorder was satisfied by the structured setting that made F more settled and stable and cognitive behavioural therapy and counselling. [MHLR.]
| 2009-11-01 | 1999 cases, Brief summary, Other Tribunal cases, Scottish cases, Transcript |
| R (B) v Ashworth Hospital Authority (2002) EWHC 1442 (Admin) — A patient could be treated for any form of mental disorder, not just a disorder within the classification under which he was detained.
| 2009-10-30 | 2002 cases, Brief summary, Other classification cases, Transcript |
| R (RH) v Ashworth Hospital Authority (2001) EWHC 872 (Admin) — Unsuccessful challenge to Ashworth policy not to issue condoms.
| 2009-10-30 | 2001 cases, Brief summary, Miscellaneous, Transcript |
| R (Pickering) v Ashworth Hospital Authority (2001) EWCA Civ 883 — Challenge to ward move and restriction of communication arguable so permission granted.
| 2009-10-30 | 2001 cases, Brief summary, Permission hearings, Transcript |
| R (P) v Surrey Oakland NHS Trust (2001) EWHC Admin 461 — Judicial review was an inappropriate means of challenging the closure of the psychiatric hospital.
| 2009-10-30 | 2001 cases, Brief summary, Miscellaneous, Transcript |
| NHS Hospital Trust v A (a child) (2007) EWHC 1696 (Fam) — Bone marrow transplant on baby lawful despite parents' refusal to consent.
| 2009-10-29 | 2007 cases, Best interests, Brief summary, Transcript |
| R (C) v SSJ (2009) EWHC x (Admin) — The decision to make C subject to polygraph testing as a condition of his licence did not breach the his Article 8 rights given the seriousness of his offences and his attitude to them; that the scheme was a pilot in his geographical area did not amount to discrimination under Article 14.
| 2009-10-24 | 2009 cases, Brief summary, Miscellaneous, No transcript |
| R v Grant (2008) EWCA Crim 1870 — Based on recently-obtained medical evidence that the appellant's significant learning disability and unfitness to plead was masked by his external demeanour and physical appearance, his conviction (and 3-year community order) was quashed and substituted with a verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity (and a 2-year supervision order).
| 2009-10-24 | 2008 cases, Brief summary, Criminal law, Transcript |
| AA v Cheshire and Wirral Partnership NHS Foundation Trust (2009) UKUT 195 (AAC) — An application made while a patient is detained under section 2 or 3 does not lapse when the patient is made subject to a CTO, as s72(1) (powers of tribunals) should be given a literal construction. Preliminary points: (1) Discussion on Law Society guidance and cases where client lacks full capacity. The Upper Tribunal has no power to appoint a litigation friend or equivalent, and the OS's powers and duties apply to court proceedings not tribunals; in any event, justice did not require a litigation friend as the potential "best interests" argument was argued by other parties. (2) It was not unlawful for a First-tier Tribunal judge to consider an application for permission to appeal from, or a review of, his own decision.
| 2009-10-13 | 2009 cases, Brief summary, Change of status after application made, Transcript |
| R (X) v SSJ (2009) EWHC 2465 (Admin) — The Secretary of State had rejected an application for escorted community leave because of the nature of the index offence and the perspective of the victim's family. (1) The decision was quashed because neither the question of risk to others nor the positive benefits to the patient had been considered (irrationality, failure to take into account relevant considerations and considering irrelevant ones). (2) The reasons presented in the summary grounds of defence were patently not the reasons for the decision.
| 2009-10-12 | 2009 cases, Brief summary, Ministry of Justice, Transcript |
| R (PP) v SSJ (2009) 2464 (Admin) — The Secretary of State's decision to reject an application for a restricted patient to be granted trial leave to a medium secure unit was lawful; he was not bound to seek alternative evidence even where the evidence before him was unanimously in favour or leave being granted.
| 2009-10-12 | 2009 cases, Brief summary, Ministry of Justice, Transcript |
| R (AB) v SSJ (2009) EWHC 2220 (Admin) — Continued detention of pre-operative male-to-female transsexual in male prison breached Article 8 and was Wednesbury unreasonable.
| 2009-10-09 | 2009 cases, Brief summary, Prison law, Transcript |
| R (McKinnon) v SSHA (2009) EWHC 2449 (Admin) — Asperger's Syndrome hacker extradition case: no permission to apply for JR on Article 8 grounds; no certificate on points of law of general public importance on the Article 3 grounds; no permission to appeal.
| 2009-10-09 | 2009 cases, Brief summary, Deportation, Transcript |
| Stockton On Tees Borough Council v Aylott (2009) UKEAT 0401/08/1103 — The decision in Malcolm on the correct comparator in disability-related discrimination cases also applies to employment cases.
| 2009-10-08 | 2009 cases, Brief summary, Disability discrimination, Transcript |
| SCA Packaging Ltd v Boyle (2009) UKHL 37 — Under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 an impairment which is treated or corrected is counted (in law) as causing disability if it (in fact) would be likely to cause disability if untreated or uncorrected: "likely" here does not mean "probable" but means "could well happen". The employee was therefore disabled and the employer was under a duty to make reasonable adjustments.
| 2009-10-08 | 2009 cases, Brief summary, Disability discrimination, Transcript |
| R v Pedley, Martin and Hamadi (2009) EWCA Crim 840 — (1) Guidance on the proper construction of the 'significant risk' test created by section 225 Criminal Justice Act 2003 for passing sentences of imprisonment for public protection (IPP) or other indeterminate sentences. (2) Such sentences are Convention compliant.
| 2009-10-08 | 2009 cases, Brief summary, Criminal law, Transcript |
| Jansons v Latvia (2009) EWHC 1845 (Admin) — It would be oppressive under s25 Extradition Act 2003, and contrary to his Article 8 rights, for the Latvian criminal to be extradited, because there was a substantial risk that he would commit suicide.
| 2009-10-08 | 2009 cases, Brief summary, Deportation, Transcript |
| Dzikowski v GMC (2009) EWHC 1090 (Admin) — The GMC's decision that it was necessary for the protection of patients and in the public interest for the appellant consultant psychiatrist's name to be erased from the Medical Register was lawful.
| 2009-10-08 | 2009 cases, Brief summary, Miscellaneous, Transcript |
| Cheltenham Borough Council v Laird (2009) EWHC 1253 (QB) — The council unsuccessfully sued its former employee for damages for making, by failing to disclose her full psychiatric history, fraudulent or negligent misrepresentations in a job application.
| 2009-10-08 | 2009 cases, Brief summary, Disability discrimination, Transcript |
| Re Harries (2009) COP 11613871 — The witnesses to an EPA had handwritten their names but not separately signed the form, so the OPG had refused to register the EPA. The court held that the difference between a handwritten name (as opposed to a typed one) and a signature is immaterial, and ordered that the EPA be registered.
| 2009-09-27 | 2009 cases, Brief summary, EPA cases, Transcript |
| R (Pennington) v Parole Board (2009) EWHC 2296 (Admin) — Delays by the Parole Board, both in issuing ICM directions (which caused a 2-month delay in listing the hearing) and in communicating the decision a month late, breached Article 5(4). Claims for "pure delay" - that is where a Parole Board hearing has been delayed because of a lack of resources available to or errors or omissions on the part of the Parole Board - survive the House of Lords decsion in James. Damages to be assessed at a later date.
| 2009-09-27 | 2009 cases, Brief summary, Prison law, Transcript |
| BB (2009) UKUT 157 (ACC) — (1) The Tribunal panel failed to state with clarity how and why it disagreed with the reasoning of the independent psychiatrist who had recommended conditional discharge; therefore, the making of the decision involved the making of an error on a point of law. (2) The decision was not set aside: to do so would provide no practical benefit as the patient had recently re-applied to the Tribunal.
| 2009-09-04 | 2009 cases, Brief summary, Reasons, Transcript |
| KM v MHTS (2009) case B186/09 — (1) In granting a Community Treatment Order, the Mental Health Tribunal for Scotland misdirected itself in law, so its decision was set aside: in considering Regulation 5 (permitted conflicts of interest between the two recommending doctors) the Tribunal applied a subjective test of what was in the RMO's mind, rather than objectively considering whether "failure to carry out the [independent second] medical examination would result in delay which would involve serious risk to the health, safety or welfare of the patient or to the safety of other persons" (Reg 5(1)(b)). (2) No facts were found by the Tribunal which could have justified a CTO so, rather than remitting the case to the Tribunal, the application for a CTO was refused.
| 2009-08-31 | 2009 cases, Brief summary, Reasons, Scottish cases, Transcript |
| Re F (2009) EWHC B30 (Fam) — The "gateway" test for the engagement of the court’s powers under s48 (Interim orders and directions) is lower than that of evidence sufficient, in itself, to rebut the presumption of capacity. The proper test in the first instance is whether there is evidence giving good cause for concern that P may lack capacity in some relevant regard. Once that is raised as a serious possibility, the court then moves on to the second stage to decide what action, if any, it is in P's best interests to take before a final determination of his capacity can be made.
| 2009-08-16 | 2009 cases, Brief summary, Other capacity cases, Transcript |
| Re GC (2008) EWHC 3402 (Fam) — (1) The principle governing State intervention under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 is the same as under the Children Act 1989, namely that the State does not interfere in the private family life of an individual unless the continuance of that private family life is clearly inconsistent with the welfare of the person whose best interests the court is required to determine. (2) The closer the person is to having capacity the more weight his views are to be given. (3) Contrary to the professional evidence, it was in GC's best interests to return home as an interim measure: this decision was reached having regard to (a) the concept of least intervention, (b) GC's consistently-expressed wishes and feelings, (c) a finding that a trial at home was necessary and now was the best time, and (d) the importance of the emotional, as opposed to physical, component of best interests to very elderly (or young) people.
| 2009-08-15 | 2008 cases, Best interests, Brief summary, Transcript |
| R (McKinnon) v SSHA (2009) EWHC 2021 (Admin) — Because of the claimant's Asperger's Syndrome, extradition to the US would cause his mental health to suffer and would create risks including suicide; however, his case did not approach Article 3 severity: the SSHA's decision to order extradition, and the DPP's decision not to prosecute in the UK (although he had admitted certain offences), were lawful.
| 2009-08-10 | 2009 cases, Brief summary, Deportation, Transcript |
| R (Krishnapillai) v SSHD (2008) EWHC 2737 (Admin) — Mental health problems can engage Article 8 and render it disproportionate to separate a failed asylum seeker from the support of his family (in this case the mental health element involved PTSD, depression and the threat of suicide); however, deportation in this case was lawful.
| 2009-08-09 | 2009 cases, Brief summary, Deportation, Transcript |
| R (Chahboub) v SSHD (2009) EWHC 1989 (Admin) — Failed asylum seeker's challenge to detention in prison rather than immigration centre. (1) The first of the two periods of detention was outside the 3-month JR time limit so permission was refused in respect of that period. (2) The policy with respect to whether mentally ill people should be detained did not apply to the claimant, who had a personality disorder rather than mental illness. (3) The detention was justified under common law (intention to deport, detention for reasonable period, deportation possible in reasonable period, reasonable diligence to deport). (4) His transfer from the immigration centre to prison, because he had proved unmanageable, was in accordance with policy. (5) The manner of his detention in prison (required to share cell with convicted prisoner, dietary requirements ignored, 23-hour lock-up, limited access to telephone and visitors) was contrary to policy and breached his Article 5 rights.
| 2009-08-09 | 2009 cases, Brief summary, Deportation, Transcript |
| R (Axon) v SSH (2006) EWHC 37 (Admin) — The 2004 guidance "Best Practice Guidance for Doctors and other Health Professionals on the provision of Advice and Treatment to Young People under 16 on Contraception, Sexual and Reproductive Health" was not unlawful. A medical professional can provide such advice and treatment if: (1) the young person understands all aspects of the advice; (2) the young person cannot be persuaded to have his parents informed; (3) (re contraception/STIs) the young person is very likely to have sexual intercourse; (4) without advice/treatment his physical/mental health is likely to suffer; (5) it is in the young person's best interests.
| 2009-08-01 | 2006 cases, Brief summary, Miscellaneous, Transcript |
| Rabone v Pennine Care NHS Trust (2009) EWHC 1827 (QB) — The Article 2 "Osman" operational obligation to protect life applied to detained patients, but not to the claimant who was an informal patient on leave from the hospital at the time she committed suicide.
| 2009-08-01 | 2009 cases, Brief summary, Inquests, Transcript |
| R v C (2009) UKHL 42 — For the purposes of s30 Sexual Offences Act 2003: (1) lack of capacity to choose can be person or situation specific; (2) an irrational fear arising from mental disorder that prevents the exercise of choice could amount to a lack of capacity to choose; (3) inability to communicate could be as a result of a mental or physical disorder.
| 2009-08-01 | 2009 cases, Brief summary, Criminal law, Other capacity cases, Transcript |
| Perrins v Holland (2009) EWHC 1945 (Ch) — The testator had testamentary capacity at the time that he gave instructions for the will, but not when he executed it; however, when he executed the will he believed that it gave effect to his previous instructions, it did in fact do so, and the instructions remained his testamentary wishes. Therefore the court pronounced in favour of the will.
| 2009-08-01 | 2009 cases, Brief summary, Other capacity cases, Transcript |
| R (TF and Thompson) v SSHD (2009) EWCA Civ 792 — (1) The indefinite nature of the notification requirements of Part 2 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (the Sex Offenders Register) is a disproportionate breach of Article 8: there is no opportunity for review of the necessity of the requirements, and the case is stronger in the case of young offenders. (2) The scheme where it related to foreign travel did not breach article 4 ("right of exit") of EC Council Directive 2004/38.
| 2009-07-29 | 2009 cases, Brief summary, Criminal law, Transcript |
| R v Khan (2009) EWCA Crim 1569 — (1) The judge had been right to refuse to withdraw the charge of murder from the jury at the close of the evidence: to do otherwise he would have to be satisfied that the evidence, both medical and factual, was such that no reasonable jury, properly directed, could conclude that the defendant had failed to prove, on a balance of probabilities, the diminished responsibility defence. (2) Although the medical evidence in favour of diminished responsibility was unchallenged, there was ample factual evidence on which the jury could conclude that it was not satisfied, on a balance of probabilities, that the defence was made out.
| 2009-07-29 | 2009 cases, Brief summary, Criminal law, Transcript |
| Scottish Ministers v MHTS, re MM (2009) CSIH 66 — (1) Tribunal decision set aside for want of adequate reasons. (2) Discussion on interpretation of s193 Mental Health (Care and Treatment) (Scotland) Act 2003, the convoluted Tribunal discharge procedure and criteria which differ from the admission criteria.
| 2009-07-29 | 2009 cases, Brief summary, Scottish cases, Transcript |
| R v G; R v J (2009) UKHL 13 — Detailed explanation of elements of, and defences to, s57 and s58 Terrorism Act 2000. It was not a "reasonable excuse" for G to possess terrorist material to wind up prison guards; he was responsible for his actions (applying M'Naghten's Case) and his schizophrenia could not make reasonable what was unreasonable.
| 2009-07-29 | 2009 cases, Brief summary, Criminal law, Transcript |
| R (N) v SSH; R (E) v Nottinghamshire Healthcare NHS Trust (2009) EWCA Civ 795 — The right or freedom to smoke does not engage Article 8(1); Article 14 could not therefore be relied upon either. In any event, the SSH's smoke-free regulations and the Trust's smoke-free policy would be justified under Article 8(2), and the different treatment under the regulations for mental health units compared with prisons, care homes and hospices would be justified under Article 14.
| 2009-07-26 | 2009 cases, Brief summary, Miscellaneous, Smoking, Transcript |
| MJ (Angola) v SSHD (2009) EWCA Civ 741 — The SSJ should be served with the appeal proceedings as the court would be assisted by information from him as to the policy and objects as he sees them of s42 MHA (discharge power) in the context of a deportation case.
| 2009-07-23 | 2009 cases, Brief summary, Deportation, Transcript |
| R (Faulkner) v SSJ (2009) EWHC 1507 (Admin) — 13 months after referral, the claimant was released by the Parole Board and subsequently absconded. (1) The question of whether to dismiss the claim purely on the grounds that the claimant was a fugitive was left open. (2) The Article 5(4) claim was inconsistent with R (James) v SSJ (2009) UKHL 22: there was no Article 5(4) breach as the system had not broken down entirely (by the PB being denied the information that it needed for such a long period as to make continued detention arbitrary). (3) If that analysis is wrong, there still was no breach as, looking at the totality of the matter, there had been a review within a reasonable period. (4) Even if there had been a breach, it could not be shown that the claimant would have been released earlier. (5) Damages, if appropriate, would have been in the region of £1,000-£2,000, or perhaps £4,000; but, seeing as he had absconded, no damages would have been awarded.
| 2009-07-20 | 2009 cases, Brief summary, Prison law, Transcript |
| R v Erskine; R v Williams (2009) EWCA Crim 1425 — The appellants argued that, although they had not advanced the defence at trial, their convictions for murder should be quashed and substituted with diminished responsibility manslaughter. (1) The question in each case was whether, in examining the mental state at the time of the killing in accordance with s2 Homicide Act 1957, evidence which was not adduced at trial should be received under s23 Criminal Appeal Act 1968. (2) The question was a simple one and citation of numerous, merely illustrative, authorities was unhelpful. (3) In Erskine there was overwhelming contemporaneous evidence for diminished responsibility, and that his decision not to advance the defence was irremediably flawed because of his illness: appeal allowed and restricted hospital order imposed. (4) In Williams, the decision not to advance the defence was tactical, and the subsequent medical evidence unconvincing: appeal dismissed.
| 2009-07-20 | 2009 cases, Brief summary, Criminal law, Transcript |
| R (GC) v Managers of the Kingswood Centre of Central and North West London NHS Foundation Trust (2008) EWHC x (Admin) (CO/7784/2008) — The patient's compulsion to pick up litter, even if that litter was in the road, amounted to seriously irresponsible conduct in the context of the definition of mental impairment; the patient was likely to act in a dangerous manner so the hospital managers were right not to discharge.
| 2009-07-20 | 2008 cases, Brief summary, Hospital managers hearings, No transcript |
| R (P) v Barking Youth Court (2002) EWHC 734 (Admin) — The Youth Court, in considering fitness to plead, had wrongly adopted the procedure laid down for the Crown Court; s11(1) Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 and s37(3) Mental Health Act 1983 provide a complete statutory framework for the determination by the Magistrates' Court, itself a creature of statute, of all the issues that arise in cases of defendants who are or may be mentally ill or suffering from severe mental impairment in the context of offences which are triable summarily only; the procedure is first to determine whether P did the acts alleged against him, and if so, then to consider, in the light of such reports as they may think necessary, whether the case is one for an order under s37(3)); for these purposes a youth court is a magistrates' court.
| 2009-07-10 | 2009 cases, Brief summary, Criminal law, Transcript |
| R (P) v SSJ (2009) EWCA Civ 701 — The refusal of the SSJ to hold an inquiry into P's detention in YOI Feltham was lawful: (1) Article 2 is only engaged where there is a "real and immediate" risk to life; the risk from P's self harming, while real, was not immediate. (2) There was no arguable breach of Article 3 in the delay in transfer to hospital. Had there been an arguable Article 3 breach: in general, an inquiry would not have been mandatory; in this particular case, it would not have been necessary as the relevant facts were known.
| 2009-07-09 | 2009 cases, Brief summary, Inquests, Transcript |
| R v Holderness (2009) EWCA Crim 1326 — The appellant argued that, due to a mental illness which she had previously concealed, she ought to have been convicted of diminished responsibility manslaughter rather than murder. This argument was rejected as (1) her appeal depended on her credibility, which had been damaged by her series of lies; (2) her excuse for concealment even up to trial - that she hoped to be let go by appearing well - was not credible; (3) she had ample opportunity to observe other patients' illnesses; (4) it was not probable that she could have concealed the delusions from the psychiatrist who saw her on the day of arrest. No jury might reasonably have found, on the balance of probabilities, that the s2 Homicide Act 1957 criteria were met. Appeal dismissed.
| 2009-07-09 | 2009 cases, Brief summary, Criminal law, Transcript |
| R (Farah) v HM Coroner for the Southampton and New Forest District of Hampshire (2009) EWHC 1605 (Admin) — (a) A coroner sitting without a jury is entitled to give a verdict and a judgment dealing with the stipulated issues which are (i) who the deceased was; (ii) how, when, by what means and in what circumstances and where the deceased came by is death; and (iii) the particulars for the time being required by the Registration Act to be registered concerning the death; (b) A coroner is entitled to give a judgment on matters which arise during the inquest and which are relevant to the determination of the stipulated issues; (c) The Court has jurisdiction which should be sparingly exercised to declare comments made by a coroner as being unlawful. Such a declaration may be made if the comments (i) do not relate to any of the stipulated issues in any way; (ii) are matters of opinion; and (iii) are sufficiently unfairly critical and offensive of any party; (d) Declarations should be made that comments made by the defendant coroner in his judgment in respect of ..→ | 2009-07-05 | 2009 cases, Brief summary, Inquests, Transcript |
| R (Compton) v GMC (2008) EWHC 2868 (Admin) — The GMC fitness to practise panel in suspending Dr Compton for a year had exercised a fair procedure (in light of the doctor's decision not to attend) and were justified in their conclusion (that he had been dishonest in not disclosing previous unsuccessful applications for s12 approval).
| 2009-06-15 | 2008 cases, Brief summary, Miscellaneous, Transcript |
| RA (Sri Lanka) v SSHD (2008) EWCA Civ 1210 — Unsuccessful human rights appeal against deportation made by suspected terrorist: the article 3 claim being based on (1) a fear of being ill-treated in Sri Lanka on account of actual or suspected involvement with the Tamil Tigers; (2) mental health and in particular the risk of suicide if returned; the article 8 claim being based on the risk of suicide and interference with the private life established in the UK.
| 2009-06-15 | 2008 cases, Brief summary, Deportation, Miscellaneous, Transcript |
| Roach v Home Office (2009) EWHC 312 (QB) — The costs of attending an inquest can in principle be recovered by way of costs in subsequent civil proceedings; the fact that the inquest work was covered by a public funding certificate had no bearing on the recoverability of the costs.
| 2009-06-15 | 2009 cases, Brief summary, Inquests, Transcript |
| Scottish Ministers v MHTS, re NG and PF (2009) CSIH 33 — The Mental Health Tribunal for Scotland has no power to vary the conditions of a patient who had been conditionally discharged, as the power to set conditions only arises at the time of discharge.
| 2009-06-14 | 2009 cases, Brief summary, Powers, Scottish cases, Transcript |
| R (Mehmet) v SSJ (2009) EWHC 1202 (Admin) — The failure, without good cause, to provide to the Parole Board for nearly a year a report on how the Claimant’s performance on the ABLB course impacts on the assessment of risk in his case (SARN report) was a breach of the Secretary of State’s public law obligations and accordingly unlawful.
| 2009-06-03 | 2009 cases, Brief summary, Prison law, Transcript |
| Re OT (2009) EWHC 633 (Fam) — OT, a nine-month-old baby, required continuous ventilation to live, and sometimes required further intensive medical treatment; the trust wanted to discontinue ventilation and treatment on the basis of the distressing and futile nature of the treatment; the parents wanted all steps to be taken to sustain life. (1) Although the application itself was made in an emergency as a result of a sudden deterioration in the child's condition, the parents had a fair opportunity to prepare their case both before and during the hearing; there was therefore no flaw in the process breaching Convention rights. (2) The provision or withdrawal of treatment for a child without parental consent, save in exceptional cases, is unlawful without a court declaration.* (3) Declarations were made permitting the clinicians to treat OT according to their clinical discretion (including not escalating treatment) and to cease ventilation immediately.
| 2009-05-21 | 2009 cases, Best interests, Brief summary, Transcript |
| R (Smith) v Secretary of State for Defence (2009) EWCA Civ 441 — (1) A British soldier who is on military service in Iraq is subject to the jurisdiction of the UK within the meaning of Article 1 of the Convention, so as to benefit from the rights guaranteed by the HRA while operating in Iraq, and not only when he is on a British military base or in a British hospital. (2) The inquest into the claimant's death must confirm with Article 2 standards in the scope of the investigation and nature of the verdict.
| 2009-05-18 | 2009 cases, Brief summary, Inquests, Transcript |
| R v Hughes (2009) EWCA Crim 841 — The court's power to entertain an appeal against sentence is not, as a matter purely of jurisdiction, removed by the fact that there has been an earlier reference of the sentence by the Attorney-General; however, in all but the wholly exceptional case, the applications for extension of time and for leave to appeal would be refused.
| 2009-05-15 | 2009 cases, Brief summary, Criminal law, Transcript |
| R (P) v Mersey Care NHS Trust (2003) EWHC 994 (Admin) — A Tribunal recommendation for transfer from high to medium security is an important input but is not determinative; the decision whether to use the s17 (leave) and s19 (transfer) powers is for the RC and hospital managers, subject to the consent of the Secretary of State; on the facts, the Article 8 interference was justified and a decision not to transfer was properly open to them.
| 2009-05-11 | 2003 cases, Brief summary, Ministry of Justice, Transcript |
| R (IR) v Dr Shetty (2003) EWHC 3022 (Admin) — Unsuccessful challenge, on Article 3 and 5 grounds, to RC's decision to recommend s47/49 patient's transfer back to prison and MoJ's decision to order it.
| 2009-05-11 | 2003 cases, Brief summary, Transcript |
| R (James) v SSJ (2009) UKHL 22 — (1) Following the introduction of IPP sentences, the Secretary of State was in breach of his public law duty to make reasonable provision to enable IPP prisoners (if necessary by completing treatment courses) to demonstrate to the Parole Board their safety for release. The appropriate remedy was declaratory relief condemning the Secretary of State's failures and indicating that he is obliged to do more. The systemic failure has ended (following amendments including making the IPP sentence generally available only when the notional minimum term is at least 2 years) so no further relief is appropriate. (2) In relation to post-tariff detention, the systemic failure did not: (a) make the detention unlawful (detention remains lawful under statute until Parole Board release); (b) breach Article 5(1) (causal link with objective of detention remained until Parole Board decision); or (c) breach Article 5(4) (which is concerned with procedure not substance) although cases with prior ..→ | 2009-05-06 | 2009 cases, Brief summary, Prison law, Transcript |
| Y (Sri Lanka) v SSHD (2009) EWCA Civ 362 — The appellants, who had been tortured as suspected terrorists or terrorist sympathisers before travelling from Sri Lanka to the UK, successfully resisted deportation on Article 3 grounds by claiming that they would commit suicide if returned (even though there was no objective foundation for any fear of ill-treatment).
| 2009-05-04 | 2009 cases, Brief summary, Deportation, Miscellaneous, Transcript |
| Eastern and Coastal Kent PCT v Grey (2009) UKEAT 0454/08 — The Employment Tribunal erred as it ought to have considered (but did not consider properly) the requirements of section 4A(3)(b) of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 which means that an employer is exempt from the duty to make adjustments if each of four matters can be satisfied and they are that the employer: (a) does not know that the disabled person has a disability; (b) does not know that the disabled person is likely to be at a substantial disadvantage compared with persons who are not disabled; (c) could not reasonably be expected to know that the disabled person had a disability; and (d) could not reasonably be expected to know that the disabled person is likely to be placed at a substantial disadvantage in comparison with persons who are not disabled.
| 2009-05-02 | 2009 cases, Brief summary, Disability discrimination, Transcript |
| M v Murray (Mental Health Officer) (2009) ScotSC 8 — The appellant patient argued that the mental health officer's application to the Mental Health Tribunal for Scotland was misconceived because the second medical report which accompanied the application did not meet the requirements of the Mental Health (Care and Treatment) (Scotland) Act 2003; taken as a whole and in the circumstances (that the application is made in the interests of the patient and the Tribunal also hear oral evidence) the report did meet the requirements.
| 2009-04-26 | 2009 cases, Brief summary, Scottish cases, Transcript |
| R (N) v Ashworth Special Hospital Authority (2001) EWHC Admin 339 — Unsuccessful challenge to Safety and Security in Ashworth, Broadmoor and Rampton Hospitals Directions 2000 which introduced a discretionary power on special hospitals to record and subsequently to listen to a random ten per cent of the outgoing and incoming telephone calls of patients at the hospitals.
| 2009-04-19 | 2001 cases, Brief summary, Miscellaneous, Transcript |
| R (Epsom and St Helier NHS Trust) v MHRT (2001) EWHC Admin 101 — While the matter has to be looked at in the round, including the prospect of future in-patient treatment, but there will come a time when, even though it is certain that treatment will be required at some stage in the future, the timing of that treatment is so uncertain that it is no longer "appropriate" for the patient to continue to be liable to detention. Therefore, The application for judicial review against the MHRT's decision to discharge from s3 failed.
| 2009-04-19 | 2001 cases, Brief summary, Powers, Transcript |
| R (F) v Oxfordshire Mental Healthcare NHS Trust (2001) EWHC 535 Admin — Refusal to make extra contractual referral for transfer from Broadmoor to medium secure unit was lawful.
| 2009-04-19 | 2001 cases, Brief summary, Miscellaneous, Transcript |
| R (E) v Ashworth Hospital Authority (2001) EWHC 1089 — The restrictions placed on the male claimant's freedom to dress as, and to assume the appearance of, a woman were lawful.
| 2009-04-19 | 2001 cases, Brief summary, Miscellaneous, Transcript |
| R (C) v South London and Maudsley NHS Trust (2001) EWHC Admin 1025 — Identification of nearest relative in s11(4) is a subjective test - "who appears to him to be the nearest relative" - and the court will not interfere unless the social worker failed to apply the test in section 26 or acted with bad faith, or in some way reached a conclusion that was plainly wrong. Permission to apply for judicial review refused.
| 2009-04-19 | 2001 cases, Brief summary, Consulting NR, Permission hearings, Transcript |
| Cornelius v De Taranto (2001) EWCA Civ 1511 — Unsuccessful appeal on liability (Original decision: Unauthorised transmission of medico-legal report; unsuccessful defamation claim; damages awarded for injury to feelings caused by breach of confidence).
| 2009-04-19 | 2001 cases, Brief summary, Miscellaneous, Transcript |
| Cathleen Williams v Anthony Williams (2001) EWCA Civ 197 — The twelve-week requirement under s35 Mental Health Act does not apply to s48(1) Family Law Act 1996 (both sections relate to remand for medical examination and report).
| 2009-04-19 | 2001 cases, Brief summary, Miscellaneous, Transcript |
| R (DB) v SSHD (2006) EWHC 659 (Admin) — Detention of "pre-operative male-to-female transsexual" on male ward did not violate Article 3 or 8
| 2009-04-12 | 2006 cases, Brief summary, Miscellaneous, Transcript |
| Lebrooy v LB of Hammersmith and Fulham (2006) EWHC 1976 (QB) — Claims struck out for having no prospect of success; in any event, no permission had been obtained under s139 so the proceedings were a nullity.
| 2009-04-12 | 2006 cases, Brief summary, Miscellaneous, Transcript |
| R (Abu-Rideh) v MHRT (2004) EWHC 1999 (Admin) — The claimant was a foreign national detained under the Immigration Act 1971 as a suspected terrorist, then transferred to hospital under s48/49 MHA 1983; the MHRT proceeded on the basis that the only realistic alternative was return to prison, where he would relapse; he argued that the MHRT ought to have considered the question of discharge by reference to discharge into the community, even though this was an impossibility; the Tribunal had been correct in their approach.
| 2009-04-12 | 2004 cases, Brief summary, Powers, Transcript |
| NHS Trust v T (2004) EWHC 1279 (Fam) — The patient lacked capacity, based on medical opinion and the content of her advance directive refusing treatment; interim declaration made that blood transfusion in emergency would be in patient's best interests.
| 2009-04-12 | 2004 cases, Best interests, Brief summary, Transcript |
| G v Official Solicitor (2006) EWCA Civ 816 — When considering a statutory will, the function of the court is to do for the patient what the patient would fairly do for herself, if she could and acting with the benefit of advice from a competent solicitor; on the facts, including the family disputes, she would have appointed the independent receiver as executor of her estate. [Caution.]
| 2009-04-12 | 2006 cases, Best interests, Brief summary, Transcript |
| R (Scott) v London Borough of Hackney (2009) EWCA Civ 217 — The fact that a judicial review claimant is legally aided and his solicitor would therefore benefit from an inter partes costs order is not relevant to the decision as to whether to make a costs order.
| 2009-04-12 | 2009 cases, Brief summary, Miscellaneous, Transcript |
| Re BS (2009) NIFam 5 — A medical examination of BS in the context of an application for a Controller to be appointed in respect of her affairs would not breach Article 8 and should take place.
| 2009-04-12 | 2009 cases, Brief summary, Northern Irish cases, Other capacity cases, Transcript |
| Wainwright v UK 12350/04 (2006) ECHR 807 — Strip searches of the applicants breached Article 8 due to their manner, but did not reach the minimum level of severity prohibited by Article 3.
| 2009-04-12 | 2006 cases, Brief summary, ECHR, Transcript |
| Khudobin v Russia 59696/00 (2006) ECHR 898 — Lack of medical treatment while detained violated Article 3; lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for pre-trial detention violated Article 5(3); undue delays in considering two separate applications for release violated Article 5(4); appeal court's failure to consider refusal of release breached Article 5(4); court's failure to consider entrapment defence violated Article 6(1); damages of €12,000 awarded
| 2009-04-12 | 2006 cases, Brief summary, ECHR, Transcript |
| R (Cooper) v Parole Board (2007) EWHC 1292 (Admin) — Target time of 55 days from referral to hearing in recall cases breached Article 5(4); as did the refusal to expedite case on on basis of prisoner's mental state.
| 2009-04-12 | 2007 cases, Brief summary, Prison law, Transcript |
| R (SSHD) v MHRT, re PH (2002) EWHC 1128 (Admin) — Condition of discharge not to leave without escort not unlawful on the facts.
| 2009-04-12 | 2002 cases, Brief summary, Deprivation of liberty, Discharge conditions, Transcript |
| R (SSHD) v MHRT, re MW (2000) EWHC 638 (Admin) — S78 allows Tribunal rules to be made to give the Tribunal such powers as are necessary for the purposes of the exercise of their statutory functions; the old MHRT rules were made under this section; the MHA does not give the Tribunal any power to make recommendations in the case of a restricted patient; therefore, the Tribunal could not lawfully adjourn for information relating solely to the making of an extra-statutory recommendation.
| 2009-04-11 | 2000 cases, Brief summary, Powers, Transcript |
| R (ML) v Secretary Of State For Health (2000) EWHC Admin 397 — The Visits by Children to Ashworth, Broadmoor and Rampton Hospitals Directions 1999 were lawful and did not violate Article 8.
| 2009-04-11 | 2000 cases, Brief summary, Miscellaneous, Transcript |
| R (Munjaz) v Ashworth Special Hospital Trust (2000) EWHC 644 (Admin) — The Ashworth seclusion policy, which departed from the Code of Practice, was unlawful. [Caution]
| 2009-04-11 | 2000 cases, Brief summary, Miscellaneous, Transcript |
| R (K) v Camden and Islington Health Authority (2001) EWCA Civ 240 — Following a deferred conditional discharge, the duty under s117 was not absolute but rather to exercise reasonable endeavours (in this case, to find a supervising psychiatrist); continued detention despite these reasonable endeavours would not breach Article 5.
| 2009-04-11 | 2001 cases, Brief summary, Deferred conditional discharge, Transcript |
| R (K) v Camden and Islington Health Authority (2000) EWHC Admin 353 — The deferred conditional discharge could not be implemented because psychiatrist willing to supervise could be found; the duty on the health authority was not absolute but rather to take all reasonable steps (which they had); the psychiatrists had been entitled to exercise their professional judgment as they had.
| 2009-04-11 | 2000 cases, Brief summary, Deferred conditional discharge, Transcript |
| R (H) v MHRT (2000) EWHC 646 (Admin) — The MHRT should not have informed the nearest relative of restricted patient [or, more correctly, the person who would have been the nearest relative had the patient not been restricted] of the forthcoming hearing, because the definition of "nearest relative" in the Tribunal rules excluded restricted patients; the injunction preventing the Tribunal from disclosing its final decision would continue.
| 2009-04-11 | 2000 cases, Brief summary, Other NR cases, Other Tribunal cases, Transcript |
| R (C) v MHRT London South and South West Region (2000) EWHC 637 (Admin) — The listing of s3 hearings no later than 8 weeks after application did not breach Article 5(4).
| 2009-04-11 | 2000 cases, Brief summary, Transcript, Tribunal delay |
| R (Brown) v North East Thames MHRT (2000) EWHC 640 (Admin) — It was not in the public interest interest to pursue the judicial review of a Tribunal decision to discharge conditionally rather than absolutely: there had subsequently been a recall and a further well-reasoned conditional discharge; even if the applicant won he would be granted no relief.
| 2009-04-11 | 2000 cases, Absolute or conditional discharge, Brief summary, Transcript |
| R (Brady) v Dr Collins (2000) EWHC 639 (Admin) — (1) The hunger strike was a manifestation or symptom of the patient's personality disorder, and the commencement of force-feeding was justified under s63 as medical treatment for mental disorder; even if s63 did not apply, the patient lacked capacity and the doctors had acted in what they lawfully believed was his best interests; (2) The appropriate test when considering challenges to compulsory treatment under s63 was the "super-Wednesbury" test [caution: the law has since changed]
| 2009-04-11 | 2000 cases, Brief summary, Challenges to compulsory treatment, Transcript |
| Doreen Trew v Chase Farm Hospital (2000) EWHC 645 (Admin) — A deferred conditional discharge had proved impossible to implement, no psychiatrist being willing to supervise the patient; on a subsequent Tribunal application the medical evidence was that an absolute discharge would be appropriate, but the panel adjourned the hearing; in the circumstances habeas corpus was not the appropriate remedy as the failure of the Tribunal to make the decision (as it should have) did not make the detention unlawful.
| 2009-04-11 | 2000 cases, Brief summary, Miscellaneous, Transcript |
| Cornelius v de Taranto (2000) EWHC 561 (QB) — Unauthorised transmission of medico-legal report; unsuccessful defamation claim; damages awarded for injury to feelings caused by breach of confidence.
| 2009-04-11 | 2000 cases, Brief summary, Miscellaneous, Transcript |
| R (Watson) v LB Richmond (1999) EWHC Admin 749 — Claimants' accommodation must be provided under section 117(2) and not under s21 National Assistance Act 1948; s117 not a gateway section; it follows that the Respondents are not entitled to charge the Applicants for their accommodation.
| 2009-04-11 | 1999 cases, After-care, Brief summary, Transcript |
| R (Stennett) v Manchester City Council (2002) UKHL 34 — S117 is not a gateway section; it contains no charging provision; therefore, no charge should be made for after-care under that section, including for caring residential accommodation.
| 2009-04-11 | 2002 cases, After-care, Brief summary, Transcript |
| R (London Borough of Harrow) v Maidstone Crown Court (1999) EWHC Admin 385 — A Crown Court judge’s purported finding that a defendant was not guilty by reason of insanity was outside his jurisdiction and so not pursuant to the indictment, and so could be challenged by judicial review. [MHLR.]
| 2009-04-11 | 1999 cases, Brief summary, Criminal law, Transcript |
| R (Gilkes) v SSHD (1999) EWHC Admin 47 — One of the two medical reports was too out-of-date to be reasonably relied upon for a s47 transfer to hospital; a transfer at the end of a prison sentence was not inherently unlawful; based on subsequent material from the same doctor, no relief would be granted as if the Secretary of State had insisted on an up-to-date report he would have made a transfer direction anyway.
| 2009-04-11 | 1999 cases, Brief summary, Ministry of Justice, Transcript |
| R (AX London) v Central London County Court (1999) EWCA Civ 988 — The county court can, on an ex parte application, make an interim displacement order under s29; it is lawful to detain a patient under s3 on the basis of it, although unless there are cogent reasons it is preferable to wait until the final order; even if the order had been declared invalid, the decision to admit the patient would still be valid.
| 2009-04-11 | 1999 cases, Brief summary, Displacement, Transcript |
| Palmer v Tees Health Authority (1999) EWCA Civ 1533 — The proximity required for a duty of care as between a hospital and the victim of a patient only arises if the victim is a member of an identifiable at risk group. [MHLR.]
| 2009-04-11 | 1999 cases, Brief summary, Miscellaneous, Transcript |
| Merrill v Herefordshire District Council (1999) EWCA Civ 1976 — It had been within the judge’s discretion not to adjourn displacement proceedings involving a nearest relative alleged to be mentally incapable of acting as nearest relative who sought an adjournment in order to obtain legal representation; and the displacement order was open to the judge on the evidence. It was suggested that the displaced nearest relative had no right to apply to the Mental Health Review Tribunal. [MHLR.]
| 2009-04-11 | 1999 cases, Brief summary, Displacement, Transcript |
| Manchester City Council v Ingram (1999) EWCA Civ 1689 — The test for the displacement of a nearest relative is objective; the Court of Appeal will not interfere with factual findings that were open to the trial judge. [MHLR.]
| 2009-04-11 | 1999 cases, Brief summary, Displacement, Transcript |
| Kinsey v North Mersey Community NHS Trust, Re GK (Patient: Habeas Corpus) (1999) EWHC Admin 577 — The statutory provisions meant that a hand delivered notice of intention to discharge by a nearest relative had to come into the hands of the Mental Health Act Administrator to start the 72 hour period for a barring order (s25 Mental Health Act 1983); if the notice was sent by post to the Managers, it was their responsibility to ensure that an authorised officer was available to open it and deal with it. [MHLR.]
| 2009-04-11 | 1999 cases, Brief summary, Other NR cases, Transcript |
| Broadmoor Hospital Authority v R (1999) EWCA Civ 3039 — A High Secure hospital has a duty to treat patients, maintain security and provide a therapeutic environment; and implicit rights and powers to secure these objectives, including seeking to control events outside the hospital that might impact upon its duties. [MHLR.] (No injunction to prevent patient publishing book about index offence.)
| 2009-04-11 | 1999 cases, Brief summary, Miscellaneous, Transcript |
| Kay v UK 17821/91 (1994) ECHR 51 — (1) The recall to hospital without up-to-date objective medical expertise showing that the applicant suffered from a true mental disorder, or that his previous psychopathic disorder persisted - in the absence of any emergency - violated Article 5(1); (2) The subsequent MHRT proceedings were inherently too slow, which breached Article 5(4): the first hearing date offered was five months after referral, and final determination took just over two years.
| 2009-04-11 | 1994 cases, Brief summary, ECHR, Ministry of Justice, Transcript |
| Kay v UK 17821/91 (1993) ECHR 61 — The applicant's complaints under Article 5(1) (recall to hospital without medical evidence) and Article 5(4) (delay in Tribunal proceedings) were admissible.
| 2009-04-11 | 1993 cases, Brief summary, ECHR, Transcript |
| R v House (2007) EWCA Crim 2559 — (1) The judge was plainly right to pass the sentence of two concurrent life sentences with a s45A order; (2) a minimum term should be specified unless the punitive and retributive element required detention for life and, on the facts, a 9-year minimum term would be set.
| 2009-04-11 | 2007 cases, Brief summary, Criminal law, Transcript |
| R v Khelifi (2006) EWCA Crim 770 — (1) Although medical evidence supported a hospital order, the judge had correctly exercised his discretion instead to impose a prison sentence; there is no presumption that a hospital order will be made in these circumstances; (2) five-year sentence reduced to three and a half years.
| 2009-04-11 | 2006 cases, Brief summary, Criminal law, Transcript |
| R v Bainton (2005) EWCA Crim 3572 — Two-year sentence quashed and substituted with same sentence suspended for two years: there were exception circumstances as the combination of physical, emotional and sexual abuse had reduced the appellant to a condition where it was difficult to resist the coercion of her husband.
| 2009-04-11 | 2005 cases, Brief summary, Criminal law, Transcript |
| R v Nafei (2004) EWCA Crim 3238 — Appeal against 12-year prison sentence for importation of drugs, in circumstances where the medical evidence supported a hospital order, was refused: the judge had properly exercised his discretion, particularly since there was no causal connection between the mental illness and the offending; the 12-year term was not excessive.
| 2009-04-11 | 2004 cases, Brief summary, Criminal law, Transcript |
| R v Borkan (2004) EWCA Crim 1642 — The judge was right not to adjourn for a psychiatric report on fitness to plead and stand trial, as he had two reports already stating that the defendant was not unfit; a jury could not determine fitness to plead or stand trial without supporting medical evidence, and on the facts there was none; appeal dismissed.
| 2009-04-11 | 2004 cases, Brief summary, Criminal law, Transcript |
| R v Rosso (Rosario) (2003) EWCA Crim 3242 — (1) The police had been entitled to force entry into a hotel room in order to detain the defendant pursuant to an application under s2; no warrant under s135 was required as they had the owners' permission and the defendant had no right to deny them entry; therefore the appeal against conviction was refused; (2) the appeal against the restriction order was also refused.
| 2009-04-11 | 2003 cases, Brief summary, Criminal law, Transcript |
| R v Preston (2003) EWCA Crim 2086 — The hospital order should not have been made as the court had no up-to-date medical evidence; the appeal was adjourned for medical reports to be obtained.
| 2009-04-11 | 2003 cases, Brief summary, Criminal law, Transcript |
| R v Fairley (Terry James) (2003) EWCA Crim 1625 — Having found the defendant unfit to plead, the court had no power to impose a hospital order or restriction order; the proper course would have been to consider an admission order with restrictions; the orders were quashed and the case remitted to the Crown Court. [NB the law has since changed.]
| 2009-04-11 | 2003 cases, Brief summary, Criminal law, Transcript |
| R v Grant (2001) EWCA Crim 2611 — Having been charged with murder and found unfit to be tried, a defendant cannot rely on lack of intent and/or provocation during the exercise under s4A Criminal Procedure (Insanity) Act 1964 (finding that the defendant did the act or made the omission) as only the actus reus needs to be proved; appeal against admission order and restriction order under s5 refused.
| 2009-04-11 | 2001 cases, Brief summary, Criminal law, Transcript |
| R v Belford (Moses Edward) (2000) EWCA Crim 3536 — Sentence of 12 months' imprisonment quashed and substituted with 6-month sentence suspended for 18 months (schizophrenia being an exceptional circumstance).
| 2009-04-11 | 2000 cases, Brief summary, Criminal law, Transcript |
| R v Crookes (1999) EWCA Crim 1065 — On an appeal against a restriction order, the progress made after sentence can be relevant to show that a restriction order, although properly imposed, should be lifted by the Court of Appeal. [MHLR.]
| 2009-04-11 | 1999 cases, Brief summary, Criminal law, Transcript |
| R v Cox (Lee Michael) (1999) EWCA Crim 848 — The judge was able to impose a restriction order against the views of the doctors giving evidence; there was assistance as to the meaning of “serious harm” in the s31 Criminal Justice Act 1991, and so it covered serious physical or psychological injury; the risk of such harm had to be real, not fanciful or remote. [MHLR.]
| 2009-04-11 | 1999 cases, Brief summary, Criminal law, Transcript |
| X v UK 7215/75 (1981) ECHR 6 — (1) Under Article 5(1), the recall to hospital without the usual Winterwerp guarantees was lawful as it was an emergency; the further detention followed examination by the RMO so was also lawful; (2) Habeas corpus proceedings were inadequate for Article 5(4) purposes; the other legal machinery did not remedy this breach, in particular because the MHRT could not order discharge of restricted patients.
| 2009-04-10 | 1981 cases, Brief summary, ECHR, Powers, Transcript |
| X v UK 7215/75 (1982) ECHR 8 — (1) No compensation awarded under Article 40; (2) Note taken of agreement relating to costs; (3) Note taken of proposed law reform (MHRT to be able to discharge restricted patients, and legal aid to cover representation).
| 2009-04-10 | 1982 cases, Brief summary, ECHR, Transcript |
| R v Tandy (1987) EWCA Crim 5 — Point of law: whether, for a craving for drink or drugs in itself to produce an abnormality of mind within the meaning of s2(1) of the Homicide Act 1957, the craving must be such as to render the accused's use of drink or drugs involuntary or whether it is sufficient for the defence to prove that the craving was such as to make it more difficult, than for an ordinary individual, for the accused to resist the impulse to consume alcohol or use drugs?
| 2009-04-10 | 1987 cases, Brief summary, Criminal law, Transcript |
| Wilkinson v UK 14659/02 (2006) ECHR 1171 — The applicant's complaints were all declared inadmissible. He had complained that: (1) medical treatment against his will was a breach of the negative obligations under Articles 3 and 8; (2) the authorities failed in their positive obligation under Articles 3 and 8 to provide suitable safeguards against the imposition of treatment that would violate his rights, in particular that the authorities should have sought approval from a court before imposing treatment and that he should have been able to bring a challenge against the treatment, before it took place, in a court which would have been able to provide a suitable level of review; (3) the inability to have a determination of his ‘civil right’ to autonomy in a court that would have provided a review on the merits was a violation of Article 6; (4) the lack of effective remedy was a breach of Article 13; (5) discrimination on the basis of his status as a detained patient was a breach of ..→ | 2009-04-10 | 2006 cases, Brief summary, Challenges to compulsory treatment, ECHR, Transcript |
| Warren v UK 36982/97 (1999) ECHR 186 — Detention under the MHA following an order made by a criminal court should be considered under Art 5(1)(e) ECHR. [MHLR.]
| 2009-04-10 | 1999 cases, Brief summary, ECHR, Transcript, Unimportant cases |
| Tam v Slovakia 50213/99 (2004) ECHR 282 — (1) Violation of Article 5(1): Detention not in accordance with procedure prescribed by domestic law. (2) Violation of Article 5(4): The review procedure failed to provide adequate guarantees to the applicant; in particular, the court failed to appoint a guardian as required by domestic law, and did not hear the applicant or the doctor treating him with a view to establishing whether the applicant’s deprivation of liberty had been justified.
| 2009-04-10 | 2004 cases, Brief summary, Deprivation of liberty, ECHR, Transcript |
| Shulepova v Russia 34449/03 (2008) ECHR 1666 — (1) Violation of Article 5(4): Applicant not detained in accordance with a procedure prescribed by domestic law. (2) Violation of Article 6(1): By appointing the hospital's employees as psychiatric experts, the domestic courts placed the applicant at a substantial disadvantage, in breach of the principle of equality of arms.
| 2009-04-10 | 2008 cases, Bias, Brief summary, ECHR, Transcript |
| Shenkel v The Netherlands 62015/00 (2005) ECHR 935 — (1) Violation of Article 5(1): Failure, in breach of domestic law, to draw up an official record of Court of Appeal hearing which rejected the appeal against continued detention. (2) Violation of Article 5(4): Delay of 17 months before determination of Court of Appeal case.
| 2009-04-10 | 2005 cases, Brief summary, ECHR, Transcript, Tribunal delay |
| Romanov v Russia 63993/00 (2005) ECHR 933 — (1) Violation of Article 3: The applicant's conditions of detention, in particular the severe overcrowding and its detrimental effect on the applicant's well being, combined with the length of the period during which the applicant was detained in such conditions, amounted to degrading treatment. (2) Violation of Article 5(3): the length of the proceedings (and detention on remand) was attributable neither to the complexity of the case nor to the conduct of the applicant but to the lack of diligence and expedition on the part of court. (3) Violation of Article 6(1) and (3)(c): In view of what was at stake for the applicant the District Court could not, if the trial was to be fair, determine his case without a direct assessment of the applicant's evidence, and the presence of the applicant's lawyer could not compensate for his absence.
| 2009-04-10 | 2005 cases, Brief summary, ECHR, Transcript |
| Phillips v UK 64509/01 (2000) ECHR 702 — The Tribunal's conditional discharge decision was delayed, initially to find accommodation, then because no psychiatric supervisor could be found. The applicant argued that his detention from 25 February 1999 (being six months after the Tribunal decision) and 4 August 2000 (when he was released) was in violation of Article 5(1)(e) because he was no longer suffering from mental illness warranting detention for treatment. The government settled the case by paying £5,500 plus costs.
| 2009-04-10 | 2000 cases, Brief summary, Deferred conditional discharge, Transcript |
| Panteleyenko v Ukraine 11901/02 (2006) ECHR 667 — A search of the applicant's office, and the disclosure of confidential psychiatric information, was not in accordance with domestic law and therefore violated Article 8; the domestic authorities' refusal to pay compensation on the ground that criminal proceedings had been discontinued on "non-exonerating grounds" contravened the presumption of innocence and violated Article 6(2).
| 2009-04-10 | 2006 cases, Brief summary, ECHR, Transcript |
| Nowika v Poland 30218/96 (2002) ECHR 795 — The detention for 83 days of the applicant under Article 5(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) violated Article 5(1) as it was for longer than necessary for the fulfilment of the obligation to submit to a psychiatric examination; the restriction on visits by her family to one visit per month violated Article 8; compensation of €10,000 was awarded
| 2009-04-10 | 2002 cases, Brief summary, Deprivation of liberty, ECHR, Transcript |
| Nakach v The Netherlands 5379/02 (2005) ECHR 445 — The practice of the Arnhem Court of Appeal, which had upheld the applicant's continued detention, not to keep official records of hearings (on the basis that no appeal could be made from that court) breached domestic law and therefore breached Article 5(1)
| 2009-04-10 | 2005 cases, Brief summary, ECHR, Transcript |
| Musial v Poland 24557/94 (1999) ECHR 15 — Requesting a second opinion did not amount to a waiver of the right to a speedy hearing; the court’s agreement to request a second opinion did not absolve it of the duty to ensure speediness (including using powers such as the fining of witnesses); complexity of a medical file was relevant to the issue of speediness; reliance on an out-of-date medical report could breach Art 5. [MHLR.]
| 2009-04-10 | 1999 cases, Brief summary, Transcript, Tribunal delay |
| Morley v UK 16084/03 (2002) ECHR 853 — The applicant had been transferred from hospital back to prison. He argued that his Article 5(4) right to review of his detention had been breached as the transfer had been ordered by the executive rather than a court, and asserted that he was still of unsound mind within Article 5(1)(e). This complaint was rejected (he ought to have raised it in the domestic judicial review proceedings) and his Article 8 complaint also failed.
| 2009-04-10 | 2002 cases, Brief summary, ECHR, Ministry of Justice, Transcript |
| Matter v Slovakia 31534/96 (1999) ECHR 38 — Proceedings relating to capacity are covered by Art 6 ECHR; in assessing whether the proceedings are completed within a reasonable time, account has to be taken of any complexity arising from the need for expert evidence and any conduct by the patient, but special diligence is required from the court in light of the importance of the question. A forced medical examination, which is an interference for the purposes of Art 8(1), could be a proportionate method of protecting a patient’s rights as part of the resolution of capacity proceedings and so justified for the purposes of Art 8(2) ECHR. [MHLR.]
| 2009-04-10 | 1999 cases, Brief summary, ECHR, Transcript |
| Kepenerov v Bulgaria 39269/98 (2003) ECHR 425 — The claimant was detained for a month by a prosecutor who had no legal power to do so, had not sought a prior medical assessment, and had not specified the length of detention (furthermore, there was no legal means to challenge the detention); there therefore had been a violation of Article 5(1)(e) and compensation of €2000 was awarded.
| 2009-04-10 | 2003 cases, Brief summary, Deprivation of liberty, ECHR, Transcript |
| Kaprykowski v Poland 23052/05 (2009) ECHR 198 — Detention without adequate medical treatment and assistance constituted inhuman and degrading treatment, amounting to a violation of Article 3; compensation of €3000 awarded.
| 2009-04-10 | 2009 cases, Brief summary, ECHR, Transcript |
| IH v UK 17111/04 (2005) ECHR 934 — The claimant was granted a deferred conditional discharge but subsequently not released as no supervising psychiatrist could be found; the House of Lords found that Article 5(4) had been breached as the Tribunal could not revisit their decision (as the law was then understood). The claimant's Article 5(1)(e) complaint was rejected (on the facts, the alternative to conditional discharge was continued detention rather than absolute discharge), as were his complaints under Article 5(4) (no longer a victim as domestic courts had acknowledged breach and afforded appropriate redress) and Article 5(5) (no longer a victim, no absolute right to compensation).
| 2009-04-10 | 2005 cases, Brief summary, Deferred conditional discharge, Transcript |
| Grey v UK 34377/02 (2002) ECHR 854 — A Tribunal granted an absolute discharge because the claimant suffered from no mental disorder, but on judicial review this was quashed because they had not first considered conditional discharge; a subsequent Tribunal reclassified him and upheld continued detention; his complaint under Article 5(1)(e) was rejected (no duty immediately and unconditionally to release into the community), as were complaints under Article 5(4) (no undue delay) and Article 6 (no right to appeal).
| 2009-04-10 | 2002 cases, Absolute or conditional discharge, Brief summary, ECHR, Transcript |
| Gorshkov v Ukraine 67531/01 (2004) ECHR 726 — The claimants complaints, relating to his detention in hospital, under Article 2, 3 and 5(1) were manifestly unfounded, but his complaint under Article 5(4) was admissible
| 2009-04-10 | 2004 cases, Brief summary, ECHR, Transcript |
| Gorshkov v Ukraine 67531/01 (2005) ECHR 936 — Although a detained patient's case was regularly reviewed on an automatic basis, the patient had no right to initiate proceedings and was not a party to them; there therefore had been a breach of Article 5(4)
| 2009-04-10 | 2005 cases, Brief summary, Deprivation of liberty, ECHR, Transcript |
| Gajcsi v Hungary 34503/03 (2006) ECHR 822 — The continuation of the claimant's detention for three months was not in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law, in that dangerous conduct had not been considered by the reviewing court; there had therefore been a breach of Article 5(1) and compensation of €7350 was awarded
| 2009-04-10 | 2006 cases, Brief summary, Deprivation of liberty, ECHR, Transcript |
| Francis v UK 3346/02 (2003) ECHR 707 — The claimant's mentally-ill son had discharged himself from hospital and committed suicide; her Article 2 and 6 complaints were dismissed.
| 2009-04-10 | 2003 cases, Brief summary, ECHR, Transcript |
| R (Donaldson) v SSHD (2006) EWHC 1107 (Admin) — The Home Office decision to cease considering patients for technical lifer status (unless in exceptional circumstances) was lawful: (1) It was too early to say whether the Home Office's acceptance that there could be "exceptional cases" was meaningless and that the policy was therefore an unlawful fetter on the discretion as to route to discharge; (2) There was no substantive legitimate expectation that the policy would not be changed, that it would be kept open for them, or a legitimate expectation that more would be done in relation to the notification about the change in policy
| 2009-04-09 | 2006 cases, Brief summary, Ministry of Justice, Transcript |
| FC v UK (1999) 37344/97 (1999) ECHR 184 — The applicant complained under Article 8 of the Convention that her adoptive father (whom she claims sexually abused her) automatically became her nearest relative under s26, that he consequently had access to personal information about her (including her treatment and whereabouts) and that she was not entitled to apply to have someone else act as her nearest relative; the case was struck out of the list by way of a friendly settlement on the basis that the government would change the law.
| 2009-04-09 | 1999 cases, Brief summary, Displacement, Transcript |
| Drew v UK 35679/03 (2006) ECHR 1172 — The requirement to pass an automatic life sentence for the second serious sexual or violent offence in the absence of exceptional circumstances, even for a mentally-disordered offender, did not breach Article 3 or 5.
| 2009-04-09 | 2006 cases, Brief summary, Criminal law, ECHR, Transcript |
| R v Drew (2003) UKHL 25 — The requirement to pass an automatic life sentence for the second serious sexual or violent offence in the absence of exceptional circumstances, even for a mentally-disordered offender, did not breach Article 3 or 5.
| 2009-04-09 | 2003 cases, Brief summary, Criminal law, Transcript |
| R v Drew (2001) EWCA Crim 2861 — The requirement to pass an automatic life sentence for the second serious sexual or violent offence in the absence of exceptional circumstances, even for a mentally-disordered offender, did not breach Article 3 or 5.
| 2009-04-09 | 2001 cases, Brief summary, Criminal law, Transcript |
| Croke v Ireland 33267/96 (2000) ECHR 680 — The applicant's case under Article 5 (about the absence of an independent and automatic review prior to or immediately after his initial detention in a psychiatric institution and about the absence of a periodic, independent and automatic review of his detention thereafter) was struck out of the list on the basis of a friendly settlement based on the Southern Irish government's intention to enact the Mental Health Bill 1999 to replace the Mental Treatment Act 1945.
| 2009-04-09 | 2000 cases, Brief summary, ECHR, Transcript |
| Cotterham v UK (1999) ECHR 185 — The 10-month delay between the MHRT application and the hearing at first sight appeared to be a breach of Article 5(4); however, in the circumstances, there was no lack of diligence on the part of the judicial authorities: the delays were due to postponements for an independent report which arrived late and was served later still, and for the solicitor to be available.
| 2009-04-09 | 1999 cases, Brief summary, Transcript, Tribunal delay |
| Antoine v UK 62960/00 (2003) ECHR 709 — The claimant was detained under a hospital order, it having been found that he was unfit to plead but had done the act. His complaint was based on Article 6 (unable to participate effectively, no trial within reasonable time, breach of presumption of innocence), Article 3 (living under threat of further prosecution), and Article 5 (arbitrary detention). Application declared inadmissible.
| 2009-04-09 | 2003 cases, Brief summary, Criminal law, ECHR, Transcript |
| R v Tabbakh (2009) EWCA Crim 464 — The judge was entitled to rule that it was open to the jury to draw adverse inferences from the fact that the appellant had not given evidence, and that the exception in s35(1)(b) Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 (that it appears to the court that the physical or mental condition of the accused makes it undesirable for him to give evidence) did not apply to him even though he suffered from a mental health condition.
| 2009-03-26 | 2009 cases, Brief summary, Criminal law, Transcript |
| R v Stewart (2009) EWCA Crim 593 — Guidance on directions to the jury where the defence case was diminished responsibility based on alcohol dependency syndrome.
| 2009-03-26 | 2009 cases, Brief summary, Criminal law, Transcript |
| Re Whitbread (No 2) (Habeas Corpus: Continued Detention) (1999) EWHC Admin 2 — (1) The duty to discharge under s72 following a Tribunal decision to discharge on a future date is subject to s29(4) which provides a further basis for detention during displacement proceedings; (2) The managers' reasons for upholding the RMO's barring certificate were adequate.
| 2009-03-15 | 1999 cases, Brief summary, Displacement, Transcript |
| Re Whitbread (No 1) (Habeas Corpus: Compulsory Admission) (1997) EWHC Admin 102 — The ASW's [now AMHP's] consultation with the nearest relative under s11(4) can take place before a full assessment of the patient for the purposes of s3 has taken place, including before the two necessary medical recommendations have been obtained; the Act allowed for a flexible approach.
| 2009-03-15 | 1997 cases, Brief summary, Consulting NR, Transcript |
| Re Whitbread (No 1) (Habeas Corpus: Compulsory Admission) (1997) EWCA Civ 1944 — The ASW's [now AMHP's] consultation with the nearest relative under s11(4) can take place before his interview with the patient; the Act allowed for a flexible approach. Provided that the social worker explains to the NR that he is considering making an application and why, the NR will be afforded the necessary opportunity for objecting to the application.
| 2009-03-15 | 1997 cases, Brief summary, Consulting NR, Transcript |
| R (EM) v SSWP (2009) EWHC 454 (Admin) — The Regulations which deprive of welfare benefits transferred prisoners (s47/49 and s45A patients until they would be entitled to release if in prison) are lawful; this is because there is enough of a relevant difference between them and civil/s37 patients to justify different treatment (i.e. they have been sentenced to a term of imprisonment to which they remain subject); in general, this applies all determinate and indeterminate sentence prisoners, including post-tariff lifers, technical lifers being the only exception because they had not been considered when the Regulations were drawn up and there is not enough of a relevant difference present.
| 2009-03-13 | 2009 cases, Brief summary, Miscellaneous, Transcript |
| Re J (Enduring Power of Attorney) (2009) EWHC 436 (Ch) — An Enduring Power of Attorney appointing successive or alternative attorneys is valid if it is stated for each set of attorneys, in the event that they exercise the power, whether they must exercise it jointly or jointly and severally.
| 2009-03-12 | 2009 cases, Brief summary, EPA cases, Transcript |
| R (Wright) v SSH (2009) UKHL 3 — Section 82(4)(b) of the Care Standards Act 2000, which provides for the provisional inclusion in the POVA list of a care worker (thus depriving him of employment) immediately after concerns are raised but before any judicial hearing, is incompatible with Articles 6 and 8.
| 2009-02-22 | 2009 cases, Brief summary, Miscellaneous, Transcript |
| Scottish Ministers v MHTS, re JK (2009) CSIH 9 — The Mental Health Tribunal for Scotland, in terminating a restiction order of a detained patient, had erred in law: (1) The threshold requirements in section 193(2) (that the patient has a mental disorder and that it is necessary for the patient to be detained in order to protect any other person from serious harm) must be considered and found wanting before considering the rest of the section including, under s193(5), whether to terminate the restriction order; (2) the criteria in s193(5)(b) (that the serious harm test is satisfied and that the restriction order is a continuing necessity) are disjunctive and must be separately considered. Obiter, there was a failure to deal with large parts of the evidence, in particular the RMO's evidence that the serious risk test was met.
| 2009-02-20 | 2009 cases, Brief summary, Reasons, Scottish cases, Transcript |
| M v East London NHS Foundation Trust CO/1065/2009 — The nearest relative's statement to the AMHP that he disagreed with detention under s3 was sufficient to amount to the notification of an objection under s11; it was unaffected, in the absence of any clear evidence of a change of mind, by the failure to state an objection in a subsequent conversation immediately prior to the making of the application.
| 2009-02-15 | 2009 cases, Brief summary, Consulting NR, Transcript |
| R v Rogerson (2004) EWCA Crim 2099 — Although it was lawful to pass sentences of imprisonment and a hospital order under s37 at the same time, it was a matter of obvious impracticability for them both to be simultaneously carried out; the sentences of imprisonment were inappropriate and therefore quashed.
| 2009-01-17 | 2004 cases, Brief summary, Criminal law, Transcript |
| R (Webb-Johnson) v DPP (2005) EWHC 3123 (Admin) — The District Judge had been wrong to proceed to hear the case in the absence of the claimant (who had mental health problems); the conviction was quashed and a retrial ordered
| 2009-01-17 | 2005 cases, Brief summary, Criminal law, Transcript |
| R (TP) v West London Youth Court (2005) EWHC 2583 (Admin) — The Youth Court judge was not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the claimant would be unable effectively to participate in the proceedings because of his low intellectual ability, so decided not to stay the proceedings for abuse of process; the claimant's judicial review application (on standard of proof, reasons and Article 6 grounds) failed.
| 2009-01-17 | 2005 cases, Brief summary, Criminal law, Transcript |
| Jones v Isleworth Crown Court (2005) EWHC 662 (Admin) — Although the offender had not caused serious harm in the past, and the medical evidence did not recommend a restriction order, the judge was right to impose restrictions on the admission order under Schedule 1 Criminal Procedure (Insanity and Unfitness to Plead) Act 1991 on the basis that there was a risk of serious harm to the public, because of the history of paranoid schizophrenia with violent command auditory hallucinations and an escalation of violent offending.
| 2009-01-17 | 2005 cases, Brief summary, Criminal law, Transcript |
| Hasani v Blackfriars Crown Court (2005) EWHC 3016 (Admin) — If an accused person is found to be unfit to plead under s4 Criminal Procedure (Insanity) Act 1964 but becomes fit to plead before he is dealt with under 5, the court is not required to follow the procedures in sections 4A and 5 (which would probably lead to an absolute discharge); instead, a second s4 hearing should take place and if appropriate the necessary order for arraignment made.
| 2009-01-17 | 2005 cases, Brief summary, Criminal law, Transcript |
| St Helens Borough Council v PE (2006) EWHC 3460 (Fam) — In cases involving the doctrine of necessity a declaration in the form of "it is lawful, being in [PE's] best interests..." is appropriate, as it is the best interests of the vulnerable adult which determine lawfulness; however, in other circumstances under the inherent jurisdiction a bare declaration in the form of "it is in [PE's] best interests..." is appropriate.
| 2009-01-17 | 2006 cases, Best interests, Brief summary, Transcript |
| R v Hendy (2006) EWCA Crim 819 — The conviction for murder was quashed and replaced with diminished responsibility manslaughter because the judge's direction on the effect of alcohol (which reflected the law as then erroneously understood) was wrong in light of a later House of Lords case; obiter, fresh medical evidence relating to the diagnosis of personality disorder might reasonably have affected the decision of the jury. A retrial was not appropriate as tariff had been served; a restricted hospital order would be substituted for the life sentence.
| 2009-01-17 | 2006 cases, Brief summary, Criminal law, Transcript |
| Lindsay v Wood (2006) EWHC 2895 (QB) — The claimant was unable to deal with the advice he was likely to receive (in relation to offers to settle his PI claim) or to give reliably rational instructions based on that advice, and therefore was a patient within the meaning of CPR Part 21.
| 2009-01-17 | 2006 cases, Brief summary, Other capacity cases, Transcript |
| Folks v Faizey (2006) EWCA Civ 381 — The challenge to the appointment of a litigation friend for the claimant in a PI claim failed: the appointment, which followed a bona fide application based on adequate evidence and agreement of the patient and litigation friend, would not prejudice the other party and had minimal importance to the outcome of the litigation.
| 2009-01-17 | 2006 cases, Brief summary, Other capacity cases, Transcript |
| Buck v Nottinghamshire Healthcare NHS Trust (2006) EWCA Civ 1576 — The claimant nurses had been assaulted by a patient and sued the Trust in negligence. The standard of reasonable care is that which is reasonably to be demanded in the circumstances: one of the circumstances was the duty of care owed by the defendant to the patient; another was the failure, contrary to the Safety and Security in Ashworth, Broadmoor and Rampton Hospitals Directions 2000, to have a policy for assessing high risk patients for being locked up at night, a policy which would have led to the patient being locked up and prevented the assault. Appeal dismissed.
| 2009-01-17 | 2006 cases, Brief summary, Miscellaneous, Transcript |
| RP v UK 38245/08 (2008) ECHR 1124 — Statement of facts and questions to the parties. (1) Did the appointment of the Official Solicitor give rise to a breach of RP’s procedural rights guaranteed by Article 8 of the Convention? (2) Did the same circumstances give rise to a breach of Article 6 as regards the fairness of the court proceedings?
| 2009-01-15 | 2008 cases, Brief summary, Other capacity cases, Transcript |
| Dorset Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust v MHRT (2009) UKUT 4 (AAC) — The responsible authority appealed against the Tribunal's interlocutory decision to direct disclosure of medical records, including third-party information, to the patient's solicitor; having agreed it had jurisdiction, the Upper Tribunal made no order on the appeal, as the patient had by that time been placed on a CTO; however, detailed guidance was given as to the proper approach where either the responsible authority resists disclosure of confidential third-party information or the solicitor wishes to disclose such information to his client. Guidance was also given on the status of a decision by a three-judge panel of the Administrative Appeals Chamber.
| 2009-01-15 | 2009 cases, Brief summary, Powers, Transcript |
| R (Razgar) v SSHD (2003) EWCA Civ 840 — The Secretary of State cannot lawfully certify that an immigration claim is manifestly unfounded unless the claim is bound to fail before an adjudicator; it it not enough that it is very likely to fail. All three claimants had already claimed asylum in safe European countries before claiming asylum again in the UK; the challenges to the Secretary of State's decisions were based on Article 3 and/or 8 and mental health consequences of removal.
| 2009-01-14 | 2003 cases, Brief summary, Deportation, ECHR, Transcript |
| R (Razgar) v SSHD (2004) UKHL 27 — The claimant was an Iraqi asylum seeker who had already sought asylum in Germany, but claimed that his return to Germany would adversely affect his mental health. (1) In principle, Article 8 rights can be engaged by the foreseeable consequences for health of removal from the UK pursuant to an immigration decision, even where such removal does not violate Article 3, if the facts relied on by the applicant are sufficiently strong. (2) On the facts, the Home Secretary's decision to certify the claim as manifestly unfounded was unlawful, as an adjudicator could have properly ruled in the claimant's favour.
| 2009-01-14 | 2004 cases, Brief summary, Deportation, ECHR, Transcript |
| Pankiewicz v Poland 34151/04 (2008) ECHR 148 — It would be too rigid to expect immediate transfer from prison to psychiatric hospital but, although the delay of 2 months 25 days did not at first glance seem particularly excessive, on balance it was not acceptable and violated Article 5(1); the claimant had been compensated by the domestic court so was not a victim for Article 5(3) purposes; the Article 6 complaint was rejected for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies
| 2009-01-12 | 2008 cases, Brief summary, Deprivation of liberty, ECHR, Transcript |
| X, Re Judicial Review (2009) NIQB 2 — Based on the general legislative purpose underlying Article 77(2) Mental Health (NI) Order 1986 and the constitutional principle in favour of liberty, the MHRT in Northern Ireland does not have the power to direct the discharge of an unrestricted patient at a future date where there is a mandatory duty to discharge the patient; a deferred discharge is only lawful for a discretionary discharge
| 2009-01-11 | 2009 cases, Brief summary, Northern Irish cases, Powers, Transcript |
| A v UK 25599/94 (1998) ECHR 85 — A had been beaten by his step-father more than once with a garden cane, treatment which, on the facts, reached the level of severity prohibited by Article 3; in English law reasonable chastisement is a defence to assault, and a jury acquitted the step-father on this basis; the UK had failed in its positive obligation to provide protection from breaches of Article 3.
| 2008-12-30 | 1998 cases, Brief summary, ECHR, Transcript |
| R (Johnson) v London Borough of Havering; R (YL) v Birmingham City Council (2007) EWCA Civ 26 — A care home, when providing accommodation and care to a resident, pursuant to arrangements made with a local authority under ss21 and 26 of the National Assistance Act 1948, is not performing "functions of a public nature" for the purposes of s6(3)(b) of the Human Rights Act 1998 and is thus in that respect not a "public authority" obliged to act compatibly with Convention rights under section 6(1) of that Act. This is so even though the accommodation and care was arranged, and is being paid for, by the local authority.
| 2008-12-28 | 2007 cases, Brief summary, Community care, Transcript |
| R (Johnson) v London Borough of Havering (2006) EWHC 1714 (Admin) — A care home, when providing accommodation and care to a resident, pursuant to arrangements made with a local authority under ss21 and 26 of the National Assistance Act 1948, is not performing "functions of a public nature" for the purposes of s6(3)(b) of the Human Rights Act 1998 and is thus in that respect not a "public authority" obliged to act compatibly with Convention rights under section 6(1) of that Act. This is so even though the accommodation and care was arranged, and is being paid for, by the local authority.
| 2008-12-28 | 2006 cases, Brief summary, Community care, Transcript |
| Gray v Thames Trains Ltd (2008) EWCA Civ 713 — The principle of ex turpa causa did not prevent the claimant from recovering damages after the commission of manslaughter. [Overturned on appeal.]
| 2008-12-28 | 2008 cases, Brief summary, Miscellaneous, Transcript |
| Gray v Thames Trains Ltd (2007) EWHC 1558 (QB) — The principle of ex turpi causa prevented the claimant from recovering damages after the commission of manslaughter.
| 2008-12-28 | 2007 cases, Brief summary, Miscellaneous, Transcript |
| R (Kay) v Health Service Commissioner (2008) EWHC 2063 (Admin) — Unsuccessful challenge to decision of the Health Service Commission (i) to refuse to provide Mr Kay with copies of documents provided by the NHS Trust, which are not deemed to be relevant to a determination of a complaint before the ombudsman by virtue of section 15(1)(a) of the Health Service Commissions Act 1993, and (ii) for requiring an undertaking from Mr Kay to use such documents as may be released only for the purpose of the complaints.
| 2008-12-28 | 2008 cases, Brief summary, Miscellaneous, Transcript |
| Salford City Council v GJ, re GJ NJ and BJ (Incapacitated Adults) (2008) EWHC 1097 (Fam) — The appropriate safeguards to be put in place when the court authorises the placement of an incapacitated adult in circumstances engaging Article 5 of the Convention.
| 2008-12-28 | 2008 cases, Brief summary, Deprivation of liberty, Other capacity cases, Transcript |
| R (F and Thompson) v SSHD (2008) EWHC 3170 (QB) — The indefinite nature of the notification requirements of Part 2 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (the Sex Offenders Register) is a disproportionate breach of Article 8: there is no opportunity for review in the case of young offenders; there is no entitlement to have determined the question of whether the notification requirement continues to serve a legitimate purpose.
| 2008-12-22 | 2008 cases, Brief summary, Criminal law, Transcript |
| R v Moyle (2008) EWCA Crim 3059 — Conviction for murder quashed and substituted with a conviction for manslaughter on the ground of diminished responsibility and restricted hospital order
| 2008-12-21 | 2008 cases, Brief summary, Criminal law, Transcript |
| R (TF) v SSJ (2008) EWCA Civ 1457 — (1) Having found that the transfer direction under s47 was unlawful the judge erred by exercising her discretion to refuse relief. (2) A decision to transfer a prisoner to hospital at the end of his sentence deprives him of his liberty and engages Article 5, thus heightening the scrutiny as to the evidence the MoJ and court must apply, and putting the onus on the MoJ to show that the decision maker focused on each of the criteria; applying this scrutiny it would have been very difficult for the MoJ decision maker to be satisfied that the two reporting doctors had applied their minds to treatability, and it appeared that the decision maker herself had not applied her mind to that question; the decision was therefore unlawful. [Caution.]
| 2008-12-18 | 2008 cases, Brief summary, Deprivation of liberty, Transcript |
| R v C (2008) EWCA Crim 1155 — If the complainant consented to sexual activity against her inclination because she was frightened of the defendant, even if her fear was irrational and caused by her mental disorder, it did not follow that she lacked the capacity to choose whether to agree to sexual activity. [Overturned on appeal.]
| 2008-12-14 | 2008 cases, Brief summary, Criminal law, No transcript, Other capacity cases |
| KC v City of Westminster Social and Community Services Department (2007) EWHC 3096 (Fam) — Muslim marriage where groom lacked capacity was not recognised in English law.
| 2008-12-14 | 2007 cases, Brief summary, Other capacity cases, Transcript |
| R (Cooke) v DPP (2008) EWHC 2703 (Admin) — It would be wrong to make an ASBO against a person who by reason of mental ill health would not have the capacity to understand or comply with the order; however, the fact that a person would be likely to breach an order because he suffers from a personality disorder is not, of itself, a good reason for not making the order.
| 2008-12-10 | 2008 cases, Brief summary, Criminal law, Transcript |
| Savage v South Essex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust (2008) UKHL 74 — Article 2 imposes, in addition to general obligations, a further "operational" obligation on health authorities and their hospital staff: if members of staff know or ought to know that a particular patient presents a real and immediate risk of suicide, they must do all that can reasonably be expected to prevent the patient from committing suicide.
| 2008-12-10 | 2008 cases, Brief summary, Miscellaneous, Transcript |
| St Helens Borough Council v Manchester PCT, re PE (2007) EWHC 2391 (Admin) — The decision of the funding panel that PE was not eligible for fully funded NHS care was not arguably flawed on public law grounds.
| 2008-12-08 | 2007 cases, Brief summary, Community care, Permission hearings, Transcript |
| R v Warwick (2008) NICC 42 — As the Mental Health (Northern Ireland) Order 1986 does not allow detention for personality disorder, the risks in this case could only be addressed by the imposition of a discretionary life sentence (which would be followed by a transfer to Carstairs) rather than a hospital order.
| 2008-12-06 | 2008 cases, Brief summary, Criminal law, Northern Irish cases, Transcript |
| AG's reference (no 127 of 2006) sub nom R v H (2007) EWCA Crim 53 — The 14-year-old offender, who had an Adjustment Disorder, committed a savage murder to avoid his intended homosexual abuse of the 11-year-old victim being exposed. The judge concluded that the aggravating and mitigating features of the case cancelled each other out, and that the minimum term would remain at the starting point (for under-18 offenders) of 12 years. A minimum term of 15 years was substituted, having been reduced from 18 years due to the guilty plea.
| 2008-11-29 | 2007 cases, Brief summary, Criminal law, Transcript |
| R (TB) v The Combined Court at Stafford (2006) EWHC 1645 (Admin) — TB was the main prosecution witness in the trial of the man who had sexually abused her. In order to undermine her credibility, the defence applied for a witness summons to obtain her psychiatric medical records. There was no procedural requirement for TB to be given notice of the application. The Crown Court issued a summons to that effect. Article 8 had been breached in that TB should have been given notice of the application and given the opportunity to make representations; it was not sufficient for the court to delegate her representation to the NHS Trust alone.
| 2008-11-29 | 2006 cases, Brief summary, Criminal law, Transcript |
| IH v UK 17111/04 (2005) — The delay following the deferred conditional discharge decision did not breach Article 5(1), since if no psychiatric supervision could be found then continued detention was the only option, Johnson v UK 22520/93 (1997) ECHR 88 distinguished; the House of Lords had been right in concluding that the Tribunal's inability to reconsider the case in light of the inability to achieve the conditions disclosed a breach of Article 5(4); however, since the domestic court had acknowledged the breach, IH was no longer a "victim" of a violation of Article 5(4); therefore no issues arose under Article 5(5) and, in any event, there is no absolute right to compensation, and the Lords' decision not to award damages was not arbitrary or unreasonable. The application was inadmissible.
| 2008-11-29 | 2005 cases, Brief summary, Deprivation of liberty, ECHR, Transcript |
| Morsink v The Netherlands 48865/99 (2004) ECHR 197 — Transfer from prison to a clinic was delayed for over 15 months; immediate transfer was not expected but, on the facts, the delay breached Article 5(1) and damages were awarded.
| 2008-11-28 | 2004 cases, Brief summary, Deprivation of liberty, ECHR, Transcript |
| Brand v The Netherlands 49902/99 (2004) ECHR 196 — Transfer from prison to a clinic was delayed for 14 months; immediate transfer was not expected but, on the facts, the delay breached Article 5(1) and damages were awarded.
| 2008-11-28 | 2004 cases, Brief summary, Deprivation of liberty, ECHR, Transcript |
| Edwards v UK 46477/99 (2002) ECHR 303 — Christopher Edwards was killed by a prison cellmate, Richard Linford; both suffered from schizophrenia. (1) The duty under Article 2 to protect life could extend to taking preventive operational measures to protect an individual against criminal acts of another, where the authorities knew (or ought to have known) of a real and immediate risk to the life of an identified individual. Information was available identifying Linford as posing such a risk. The failure to pass on this information, and the inadequate screening of Linford, amounted to a breach of Article 2. (2) No inquest was held, and the trial did not involve witness evidence. The private inquiry which was held (a) had no power to compel witnesses, and (b) was held in private, with the parents unable to participate to the extent necessary to safeguard their interests: Article 2 was breached in this respect. (3) There was no appropriate domestic means of determining whether the authorities failed to protect the right to ..→ | 2008-11-27 | 2002 cases, Brief summary, Inquests, Transcript |
| Rutten v The Netherlands 32605/96 (2001) ECHR 482 — The decision to renew the patient's confinement order was taken after the order had expired, but under domestic law there was nothing requiring release in these circumstances; under Convention law the detention was not arbitrary, being based on a court order and expert evidence, so there was no violation of Article 5(1); however, the lawfulness of detention was not decided speedily, so there was a violation of Article 4(4); this finding constituted just satisfaction.
| 2008-11-27 | 2001 cases, Brief summary, Deprivation of liberty, ECHR, Transcript |
| McGrady, Re Application for Judicial Review (2003) NIQB 15 — (1) The ability to disclose material to the representative on condition that it was not revealed to the patient was compatible with the Convention (obiter, since no decision had been taken on this yet). (2) The medical member's role is to form a provisional view on the patient's mental condition, rather than on the statutory criteria, and he discloses his conclusion during the hearing; if this approach is taken then there is no violation of Article 5(4), DN v Switzerland 27154/95 (2001) ECHR 235 distinguished.
| 2008-11-27 | 2003 cases, Bias, Brief summary, Miscellaneous, Northern Irish cases, Transcript |
| DN v Switzerland 27154/95 (2001) ECHR 235 — The psychiatrist who sat as judge rapporteur on the Administrative Appeals Commission had, before the hearing, concluded that the patient should not be released; the patient had legitimate fears that the doctor had a preconceived opinion and was not acting impartially; this was reinforced because he was sole the psychiatric expert and the only person who had interviewed her; Article 5(4) having been breached, damages and costs were awarded
| 2008-11-27 | 2001 cases, Bias, Brief summary, ECHR, Transcript |
| R (RD) v SSWP (2008) EWHC 2635 (Admin) — Post-tariff lifers who have been transferred to hospital are not entitled to receive Income Support. [Caution: overturned on appeal.]
| 2008-11-24 | 2008 cases, Brief summary, Miscellaneous, Transcript |
| R (RJM) v SSWP (2008) UKHL 63 — Social welfare payments come within the scope of Article 1 Protocol 1; homelessness is an "other status" under Article 14; depriving the homeless of disability premiums was justified; the Court of Appeal is free (but not obliged) to follow an ECtHR decision rather than a previous inconsistent CA decision, but must follow any previous House of Lords decision.
| 2008-11-23 | 2008 cases, Brief summary, Miscellaneous, Transcript |
| Renolde v France 5608/05 (2008) ECHR 1085 — The authorities failed to comply with their positive obligation to protect the detainee's right to life, in violation of Article 2, partly because they did not monitor his compliance with anti-psychotic medication. A penalty of 45 days' detention in a punishment cell breached Article 3 (inhuman and degrading treatment and punishment).
| 2008-11-06 | 2008 cases, Brief summary, ECHR, Transcript |
| R (M) v Homerton University Hospital NHS Trust (2008) EWCA Civ 197 — The patient, whose s2 had been extended during s29 displacement proceedings, was detained under s3 following an interim displacement order but before any final determination. Detention under s2 and s3 could run concurrently in these circumstances and it was not arguable that the s3 detention was unlawful. No permission to apply for judicial review.
| 2008-10-31 | 2008 cases, Brief summary, Displacement, Permission hearings, Transcript |
| MH v UK 11577/06 (2008) ECHR 181 — Statement of facts and question to the parties. The question to the parties is: "Do the facts of the case disclose a breach of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention: (a) in relation to the failure to provide an automatic referral to a court when a patient is detained under section 2 of the Mental Health Act 1983 and when that patient lacks the capacity to take proceedings; and (b) when that detention is prolonged under section 29(4) of the same Act?"
| 2008-10-31 | 2008 cases, Brief summary, Displacement, ECHR, Transcript |
| D'Souza v DPP (1992) UKHL 10 — Under s17(1)(d) PACE 1984 a constable may enter and search any premises for the purpose of recapturing a person who is unlawfully at large and whom he is pursuing: (1) a detained patient who absconds is "unlawfully at large"; (2) the pursuit must be almost contemporaneous with the entry into he premises.
| 2008-10-22 | 1992 cases, Brief summary, Miscellaneous, Transcript |
| Re SK (2007) EWHC 3289 (Fam) — Applications by mother in the course of proceedings concerning the best interests of a vulnerable adult, SK. Applications refused.
| 2008-10-06 | 2007 cases, Brief summary, Other capacity cases, Transcript |
| A Local Authority v E (2007) EWHC 2396 (Fam) — Application by a local authority under the inherent jurisdiction of the court for directions as to the future of a vulnerable person who has been in care and has now reached 18.
| 2008-10-06 | 2007 cases, Brief summary, Other capacity cases, Transcript |
| R v Paul Martin (1998) EWCA Crim 3166 — The power to make a restriction order applies in cases where the patient poses a risk of serious harm from which the public needs protection. This is not the seriousness of the risk that the public may suffer some harm, but that the risk that the potential harm represented by the individual defendant would be serious. There should normally be some proportionate relationship between the instant offence and the history of offending, together with an assessment of risk on the basis of medical examinations before a section 41 restriction order is made. Restriction order quashed.
| 2008-09-22 | 1998 cases, Brief summary, Criminal law, Transcript |
| R v Antoine (2000) UKHL 20 — "The issue which arises on this appeal is whether an accused person charged with murder is entitled to rely on the defence of diminished responsibility under section 2 of the Homicide Act 1957, when he has been found by a jury to be unfit to plead by reason of mental disability, and a jury proceeds under section 4A(2) of the Criminal Procedure (Insanity) Act 1964 (as substituted by section 2 of the Criminal Procedure (Insanity and Unfitness to Plead) Act 1991) to determine whether he did the act charged against him as the offence."
| 2008-09-22 | 2000 cases, Brief summary, Criminal law, Transcript |
| London Borough of Ealing v KS (2008) EWHC 636 (Fam) — Applications by local authority seeking declarations that a vulnerable adult lacked capacity, among other things, to marry; consent to medical treatment; have sexual relations or decide her place of residence.
| 2008-09-21 | 2008 cases, Brief summary, Other capacity cases, Transcript |
| R (Chavda) v London Borough of Harrow (2007) EWHC 3064 (Admin) — The decision of the Defendant to restrict adult care services to people with critical needs only was unlawful, since the decision-making process did not comply with the Defendant's Disability Equality Duty under s49A Disability Discrimination Act 1995.
| 2008-09-21 | 2007 cases, Brief summary, Community care, Transcript |
| GD v Hospital Managers of Edgware Community Hospital (2008) EWHC 3572 (Admin) — Habeas corpus - inadequate consultation of nearest relative prior to detention under section 3.
| 2008-09-16 | 2008 cases, Brief summary, Consulting NR, Transcript |
| M v Hospital Managers of Queen Mary's Hospital (2008) EWHC 1959 (Admin) — Habeas corpus - challenge to lawfulness of medical recommendation and ASW application.
| 2008-09-15 | 2008 cases, Brief summary, Miscellaneous, Transcript |
| BB v Cygnet Health Care (2008) EWHC 1259 (Admin) — Inadequate consultation with nearest relative.
| 2008-09-13 | 2008 cases, Brief summary, Consulting NR, Transcript |
| RP v Nottingham City Council (2008) EWCA Civ 462 — Role of Official Solicitor considered.
| 2008-09-13 | 2008 cases, Brief summary, Other capacity cases, Transcript |
| A Primary Care Trust v AH (2008) EWHC 1403 (Fam) — Reasons given for making an interim order under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 relating to a 22 year old adult male suffering from severe epilepsy.
| 2008-09-13 | 2008 cases, Brief summary, Other capacity cases, Transcript |
| Graham v East London and City MH NHS Trust (2004) EWCA Civ 690 — No evidence of unlawful intent to deprive applicant of her liberty; application refused.
| 2008-09-13 | 2004 cases, Brief summary, Transcript, Unimportant cases |
| R (Kalibala) v MHRT (1996) EWHC Admin 201 — Application for leave to move for judicial review adjourned (applicant appeared in person; grounds appeared "scurrilous and vexatious")
| 2008-09-13 | 1996 cases, Brief summary, Transcript, Unimportant cases |
| R v Lomey (2004) EWCA Crim 3014 — CCRC appeal against life sentence; unable now to substitute with s37/41 as no bed and MI no longer of nature or degree; substitution with absolute discharge not justified.
| 2008-09-12 | 2004 cases, Brief summary, Criminal law, Transcript |
| R (T) v Nottinghamshire Healthcare NHS Trust (2006) EWHC 800 (Admin) — Unsuccessful challenge to s19 transfer from Rampton to Broadmoor.
| 2008-09-12 | 2006 cases, Brief summary, Miscellaneous, Transcript |
| R (X) v SSHD (2000) EWCA Civ 311 — Home Office can repatriate using either Immigration Act 1971 or Mental Health Act 1983.
| 2008-09-12 | 2000 cases, Brief summary, Deportation, Ministry of Justice, Transcript |
| R (SSHD) v MHRT, re Ogden (2004) EWHC 650 (Admin) — HO not notified of hearing so decision to discharge quashed.
| 2008-09-12 | 2004 cases, Brief summary, Other Tribunal cases, Transcript |
| R (Manns) v London North and East MHRT (1999) EWHC 497 (Admin) — A Tribunal had been entitled to find that there was an enduring mental illness based on symptoms before transfer to hospital and that it was asymptomatic because of a response to medication; this entitled it to reject an opinion in favour of discharge which was based on the view that there was no enduring illness. [MHLR.]
| 2008-09-12 | 1999 cases, Brief summary, Reasons, Transcript |
| R (Hall) v MHRT (1999) EWHC Admin 351 — The provisions of s117 Mental Health Act 1983 are designed to ensure that there is always an aftercare authority, being the place where the patient resided before detention or, if there was no such residence, the place where the patient was to be sent on release; the duty as to aftercare included the provision of information to a Tribunal and so arose before discharge. [MHLR.]
| 2008-09-12 | 1999 cases, After-care, Brief summary, Discharge conditions, Transcript |
| R (Hall) v MHRT (1999) EWCA Civ 2052 — The fact that there will be delay in the implementation of conditions in a conditional discharge does not mean that they are unlawful; it would have been open to the Tribunal to be proactive in adjourning for reports as to the progress of an aftercare package. [MHLR.]
| 2008-09-12 | 1999 cases, After-care, Brief summary, Discharge conditions, Transcript |
| McGee, Re Judicial Review (2007) NICA 38 — The detention of the claimant under Article 7 of the Mental Health (NI) Order 1986 (similar to s5(2) MHA 1983) following a MHRT decision to discharge was lawful: (1) the authorities had formed the bona fide opinion that his mental state had since deteriorated; (2) Article 7 applied since the claimant had not divested himself of his in-patient status.
| 2008-02-23 | 2007 cases, Brief summary, Northern Irish cases, Re-sectioning after hearing, Transcript |
| R v Francis (2008) NICA 6 — Both hospital orders to which the claimant was subject were quashed, on the basis that when sentenced he had not been suffering from severe mental impairment as defined in the Mental Health (Northern Ireland) Order 1986.
| 2008-02-23 | 2008 cases, Brief summary, Criminal law, Northern Irish cases, Transcript |
| Re PS (An Adult) (2007) EWHC 623 (Fam) — Under inherent jurisdiction the court made orders that (1) PS could lawfully be prevented from leaving residential care unit (2) a receiver would be appointed without the need for a separate application to the Court of Protection.
| 2008-02-23 | 2007 cases, Brief summary, Other capacity cases, Transcript |
| R v Ukpabio (2007) EWCA Crim 2108 — The Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 provide the complete statutory scheme for providing evidence via video link, and the court had no jurisdiction to direct that a defendant's evidence be given by video link (NB the 1999 Act has since been amended); however, in exceptional circumstances, it might be appropriate for a defendant to participate by video link, but this did not apply in this case and the refusal of video link facilities did not cause any prejudice; the restriction order was appropriate.
| 2008-02-22 | 2007 cases, Brief summary, Criminal law, Transcript |
| Decision of the Social Security Commissioner (2007) UKSSCSC CSS 239 2007 — Appeal against the removal of entitlement to Severe Disablement Allowance by Social Security (Hospital In-Patients) Regulations 2005 was unsuccessful
| 2008-02-22 | 2007 cases, Brief summary, Miscellaneous, Transcript |
| Decision of the Social Security Commissioner (2007) UKSSCSC CIS 3760 2006 — Refund of charges wrongfully made by social services authority for s117 residential after-care was not "arrears of income support", so was to be taken into acount as capital in determining the claimant's entitlement to benefit after the date of the payment; the claimant therefore lost her entitlement to income support.
| 2008-02-22 | 2007 cases, After-care, Brief summary, Transcript |
| R (Cawley) v Parole Board (2007) EWHC 2649 (Admin) — The portion of the delay in arranging a hearing which was attributable to the shortage of Parole Board members, a shortage not peculiar to this case, was unjustified under Article 5(4), but no order for damages would be made; the majority of the delay was the claimant's own fault.
| 2008-02-22 | 2007 cases, Brief summary, Prison law, Transcript |
| R v Simpson (2007) EWCA Crim 2666 — Discretionary life sentence with 6 year tariff quashed and substituted with s37/41 order.
| 2008-02-22 | 2007 cases, Brief summary, Criminal law, Transcript |
| Trust A v H (An Adult Patient) (2006) EWHC 1230 (Fam) — H lacked capacity to decide about medical treatment for her gynaecological condition; it was in her best interests to receive that treatment; appropriate sedation and restraint for pre- and post-operative treatment was lawful.
| 2008-02-22 | 2006 cases, Brief summary, Other capacity cases, Transcript |
| R (B) v London Borough of Lambeth (2006) EWHC 2362 (Admin) — The council's decision to postpone an offer of re-housing until shortly before possession proceedings which it had instituted was putting off the inevitable and amounted to a breach of s117.
| 2008-02-22 | 2006 cases, After-care, Brief summary, Transcript |
| CPS v P (2007) EWHC 946 (Admin) — (1) The fact that a court of 'higher authority' has previously held that a person is unfit to plead does not make it an abuse of process to try that person for subsequent criminal acts. The issue of the child's ability to participate effectively must be decided afresh. (2) Where the court decides to proceed to decide whether the person did the acts alleged, the proceedings are not a criminal trial (3) The court may consider whether to proceed to decide the facts at any stage. It may decide to do so before hearing any evidence or it may stop the criminal procedure and switch to the fact-finding procedure at any stage (4) The DJ should not have stayed the proceedings at the outset as he did without considering the alternative of allowing the trial to proceed while keeping P's situation under constant review. (5) If the court proceeds with fact-finding only, the fact that the defendant does not or cannot take any part in the proceedings does not render them unfair or in any way ..→ | 2008-02-22 | 2007 cases, Brief summary, Criminal law, Transcript |
| Re MM (An Adult) (2007) EWHC 2003 (Fam) — Inherent jurisdiction case re vulnerable adult
| 2008-02-22 | 2007 cases, Brief summary, Other capacity cases, Transcript |
| Michael Stone v South East Coast Strategic Health Authority (2006) EWHC 1668 (Admin) — The public interest required publication in full of the Michael Stone inquest report; the decision to publish was justified and proportionate, and did not constitute an unwarranted interference with Article 8; no breach of the DPA was involved.
| 2008-02-22 | 2006 cases, Brief summary, Inquests, Transcript |
| R (Buckowicki) v Northamptonshire County Council (2007) EWHC 310 (Admin) — The judge's decision to impose a guardianship order is subordinate to the willingness of the local authority to accept the guardianship; the local authority has a wide discretion and were entitled to take the claimant's propensity to be violent and disruptive into account
| 2008-02-22 | 2007 cases, Brief summary, Criminal law, Transcript |
| R (Holloway) v Oxfordshire County Council (2007) EWHC 776 (Admin) — The without-notice interim displacement order under s29, and the subsequent detention under s3, were lawful: (1) neither the culpable failure of the council to inform the NR, nor the failure of the judge to enquire into this, deprived the court of jurisdiction; (2) the safeguards in the Act meant that the interim relief did not cause irreversible prejudice, thus Article 6 was not engaged; (3) (obiter) s6(3) would have provided the Trust with a defence to false imprisonment.
| 2008-02-22 | 2007 cases, Brief summary, Displacement, Transcript |
| R (Surat Singh) v Stratford Magistrates Court (2007) EWHC 1582 (Admin) — (1) The common law defence of insanity is available in the magistrates' court and prevents conviction (though does not necessarily lead to acquittal); (2) section 37(3) allows the magistrate, if satisfied that the accused did the act or made the omission charged, to abstain from convicting or acquitting or considering the issue of insanity, and instead to make a hospital or guardianship order.
| 2008-02-22 | 2007 cases, Brief summary, Criminal law, Transcript |
| R v Johnson (Dean) (2007) EWCA Crim 1978 — The defendant knew his actions were legally wrong but did not believe them to be morally wrong: because he knew they were legally wrong he was not entitled under the M'Naghten Rules to ask the jury to enter a verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity.
| 2008-02-22 | 2007 cases, Brief summary, Criminal law, Transcript |
| R (Juncal) v SSHD (2007) EWHC 3024 (Admin) — (1) The common law principle of legality meant that subordinate legislation could not impose arbitrary detention without the authorisation of the enabling act. However, the Order in Council conferring a mandatory hospital order on those unfit to stand trial (without any investigation of the facts of the alleged offence) did not impose arbitrary detention: on the facts, medical evidence had been considered, and, in general, the court could postpone consideration of fitness to stand trial until after the prosecution case if it was likely that there was no case to answer. (2) The detention occurred before the coming into force of the HRA 1998 so any ECHR claim would necessarily fail.
| 2008-02-22 | 2007 cases, Brief summary, Criminal law, Transcript |
| R v Chal (2007) EWCA Crim 2647 — Hearsay evidence admissible in s4A Criminal Procedure (Insanity) Act 1964 proceedings
| 2007-12-27 | 2007 cases, Brief summary, Criminal law, Transcript |
| Savage v South Essex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust (2006) EWHC 3562 (QB) — For allegations of clinical negligence, the legal test applicable to a breach of Art 2, in respect of a patient detained under s3, is that of at least gross negligence of a kind sufficient to sustain a charge of manslaughter
| 2007-12-27 | 2006 cases, Brief summary, Miscellaneous, Transcript |
| Johnson v UK 22520/93 (1997) ECHR 88 — Finding that patient not longer suffering from mental illness did not require his immediate and unconditional discharge.
| 2007-09-16 | 1997 cases, Brief summary, Deferred conditional discharge, ECHR, Transcript |
| YL v Birmingham City Council (2007) UKHL 27 — A care home, when providing accommodation and care to a resident, pursuant to arrangements made with a local authority under ss21 and 26 of the National Assistance Act 1948, is not performing "functions of a public nature" for the purposes of s6(3)(b) of the Human Rights Act 1998 and is thus in that respect not a "public authority" obliged to act compatibly with Convention rights under section 6(1) of that Act. This is so even though the accommodation and care was arranged, and is being paid for, by the local authority.
| 2007-07-17 | 2007 cases, Brief summary, Community care, Transcript |
| R (N) v MHRT (2007) EWHC 1524 (Admin) — The Tribunal must ask (1) is the patient suffering from psychopathic disorder (see s1(2))? If yes, (2) is that finding based solely on the fact of sexual deviancy (see s1(3))? Behaviour exhibited when exhibiting sexual deviancy may in part be basis for diagnosis. In this case, there were also separate symptoms. The decision not to adjourn was lawful
| 2007-07-17 | 2007 cases, Brief summary, Transcript, Treatability test and psychopathic disorder |
| M v UK 30357/03 (2007) ECHR 206 — Case struck out of list, as friendly settlement reached to ensure MHA compliant with Article 8: MHA to be amended to allow patient to apply for displacement of NR on specified grounds.
| 2007-07-17 | 2007 cases, Brief summary, Displacement, ECHR, Transcript |
| R (MM) v SSHD (2007) EWCA Civ 687 — Home Secretary has to believe on reasonable grounds that something has happened, or information has emerged, of sufficient significance to justify recalling the patient, and must have up-to-date medical evidence, but there is no general test laid down by the court. (Appeal dismissed.)
| 2007-07-12 | 2007 cases, Brief summary, Ministry of Justice, Transcript |
| Winterwerp v Netherlands 6301/73 (1979) ECHR 4 — In the court’s opinion, except in emergency cases, the individual concerned should not be deprived of his liberty unless he has been reliably shown to be of ‘unsound mind’. The very nature of what has to be established before the competent national authority – this is, a true mental disorder – calls for objective medical expertise. Further, the mental disorder must be of a kind or degree warranting compulsory confinement. What is more, the validity of continued confinement depends upon the persistence of such a disorder.
| 2007-06-07 | 1979 cases, Brief summary, ECHR, Transcript |
| R (SSG) v Liverpool City Council (2002) EWHC 2803 (Admin) — Gay partner can qualify as nearest relative under six-month residence provision in s26(6).
| 2007-02-18 | 2002 cases, Brief summary, Other NR cases, Transcript |
| Ward v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis (2003) EWCA Civ 1152 — Implied power for magistrate to impose 'any condition which can sensibly relate to the execution of a warrant in a way which protects the interests of the person liable to be removed whilst furthering the object of the grant of the warrant'. The conditions were not followed so the removal and detention was unlawful.
Overturned by House of Lords: Ward v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis (2005) UKHL 32
| 2007-02-07 | 2003 cases, Brief summary, Miscellaneous, Transcript |
| R (IH) v SSHD (2002) EWCA Civ 646 — A deferred conditional discharge is a provisional decision; the MHRT can reconvene to reconsider the case.
| 2007-02-07 | 2002 cases, Brief summary, Deferred conditional discharge, Transcript |
| R (A) v Partnerships in Care Ltd (2002) EWHC 529 (Admin) — The decision of the private psychiatric hospital to change the focus of a ward was a decision "in relation to the exercise of a public function" and so susceptible to JR; the managers were a public authority for HRA purposes. Permission granted.
| 2007-02-07 | 2002 cases, Brief summary, Miscellaneous, Permission hearings, Transcript |
| R (P) v MHRT East Midlands and North East Region (2002) EWCA Civ 260 — Permission to appeal granted on the basis that onus of proof had arguably been placed on the patient; permission to argue that the definition of psychopathic disorder requires the current commission by the patient of either abnormally aggressive conduct or seriously irresponsible conduct.
| 2007-02-07 | 2002 cases, Brief summary, Miscellaneous, Permission hearings, Transcript |
| R (P) v MHRT East Midlands and North East Region (2002) EWCA Civ 697 — Psychopathic disorder can persist for years without causing any abnormally aggressive or seriously irresponsible conduct; it is enough that the disorder of mind has done so in the past and that there is a real risk that, if treatment in hospital is discontinued, it will do so in the future.
| 2007-02-07 | 2002 cases, Brief summary, Transcript, Treatability test and psychopathic disorder |
| R (PG) v London Borough of Ealing (2002) EWHC 250 (Admin) — The Admin court, following the supercession of RSC Order 53 by CPR Part 54, still retains the power to receive oral evidence and order the cross-examination of witnesses on their witness statements and affidavits.
| 2007-02-07 | 2002 cases, Brief summary, Other NR cases, Transcript |
| Re Julie John (habeas corpus) (1998) EWHC Admin 472 — Challenge to the use of s2 in an apparent attempt to get round the requirement for consultation before s3. Application dismissed as judicial review was the appropriate form of proceedings.
| 2007-02-07 | 1998 cases, Brief summary, Consulting NR, Transcript |
| Re Briscoe (habeas corpus) (1998) EWHC Admin 771 — "The essence of consultation is the communication of a genuine invitation to give advice and genuine consideration of that advice." Merely informing the NR of s3 admission would not suffice for the purposes of s11(4).
| 2007-02-07 | 1998 cases, Brief summary, Consulting NR, Transcript |
| Guzzardi v Italy 7367/76 (1980) ECHR 5 — Article 5(1) is not concerned with mere restrictions on liberty of movement; the starting point must be the concrete situation and account must be taken of a whole range of criteria such as the type, duration, effects and manner of implementation of the measure; the difference between deprivation of and restriction upon liberty is merely one of degree or intensity, and not one of nature or substance.
| 2007-02-07 | 1980 cases, Brief summary, Deprivation of liberty, ECHR, Transcript |
| Ashingdane v UK 8225/78 (1985) ECHR 8 — Article 5 is concerned with deprivation of liberty rather than mere restriction on liberty (in this case the failure to transfer the patient from high to medium security).
| 2007-02-07 | 1985 cases, Brief summary, Deprivation of liberty, ECHR, Transcript |
| Hutchinson Reid v UK 50272/99 (2003) ECHR 94 — Treatability test not necessary for Article 5(1) compliance (re Scottish removal of this test); breaches of Article 5(4) due to onus being on patient and the delay for the case to come to the House of Lords.
| 2007-02-07 | 1998 cases, Brief summary, ECHR, Transcript, Treatability test and psychopathic disorder |
| R (Harry) v SSHD (1998) EWHC Admin 420 — Home Secretary not obliged to follow MHRT recommendations as to transfer of restricted patient to lower security; can look further afield for information and advice; but had to act in a procedurally fair manner, which he had not done
| 2007-02-06 | 1998 cases, Brief summary, Ministry of Justice, Transcript |
| R (C) v SSHD (2002) EWCA Civ 647 — HO could not exercise discretion to refer case under s71 after MHRT without good reason; evidence lacking at MHRT hearing was not good reason on the facts; following IH (CA) MHRT remains fully seised of case after a D/C/D; decision to refer quashed. (rough summary)
| 2007-02-06 | 2002 cases, Brief summary, Ministry of Justice, Transcript |
| R (Stewart) v Managers of the NW London MH NHS Trust (1997) EWCA Civ 2201 — Part II (civil) and Part III (criminal) powers can co-exist and operate independently of each other. "If he were discharged by the tribunal it would be a discharge in relation to his liability to detention under Section 3 which would in no way affect the Secretary of State’s powers to recall him as a restricted patient"
| 2007-02-06 | 1997 cases, Brief summary, Ministry of Justice, Transcript |
| R (MM) v SSHD (2006) EWHC 3056 (Admin) — "If, on the basis of medical evidence and other information which the Secretary of State has, he reasonably reaches the opinion that deterioration in the mental condition of the patient is likely to occur in the near future unless he is recalled to hospital, and that such deterioration would put the health and safety of the patient or others at risk, he is entitled to order recall."
| 2007-02-06 | 2006 cases, Brief summary, Ministry of Justice, Transcript |
| R (Wey) v Pathfinder NHS Trust (1999) EWHC Admin 672 — When the Tribunal has decided on classification, the RMO cannot subsequently reclassify unless there is some change in circumstance of a significant kind which would enable a tribunal to take a different view if the matter were referred to them again. The remedy to the doctor and to the Trust would instead be to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Tribunal
| 2007-02-06 | 1999 cases, Brief summary, Other classification cases, Re-sectioning after hearing, Transcript |
| R (Hagan) v Anglia and Oxfordshire MHRT (1998) EWHC Admin 1113 — Tribunal found that patient suffered from detainable PD but non-detainable MI; however, they refused to reclassify. Decision not to reclassify quashed, and the matter remitted to Tribunal with a direction that they reach the proper decision. [Caution.]
| 2007-02-06 | 1998 cases, Brief summary, Other classification cases, Transcript |
| R (AL) v SSHD (2004) EWHC 1025 (Admin) — Can be recalled for a mental disorder of any classification
| 2007-02-06 | 2004 cases, Brief summary, Other classification cases, Transcript |
| R (B) v Ashworth Hospital Authority (2003) EWCA Civ 547 — Cannot treat for non-classified disorders. (Overturned on appeal.)
| 2007-02-06 | 2003 cases, Brief summary, Other classification cases, Transcript |
| R (Mersey Care NHS Trust) v MHRT, re D (2003) EWHC 1182 (Admin) — Unsuccessful reasons challenge; RMO can represent Trust, as well as appear as witness, if he notifies MHRT at outset. (rough summary)
| 2007-02-06 | 2003 cases, Brief summary, Other Tribunal cases, Reasons, Transcript |
| R (C) v MHRT London South and South West Region (2001) EWCA Civ 1110 — The policy of always listing s3 cases after exactly 8 weeks - and making no effort to see that the individual application is heard as soon as reasonably practicable, having regard to the relevant circumstances of the case - violated Article 5(4).
| 2007-02-06 | 2001 cases, Brief summary, Transcript, Tribunal delay |
| R (Warren) v MHRT London North and East Region (2002) EWHC Admin 811 — In the circumstances, the brief reasons were sufficient, and the error of law (that the patient was under s47/49 rather than notional s37) did not affect the outcome
| 2007-02-06 | 2002 cases, Brief summary, Reasons, Transcript |
| R (SSHD) v MHRT, re DH (2003) EWHC 2864 (Admin) — Tribunal satisfied disorder of a nature although not degree; did not separately consider necessity test. Misdirection re nature/degree so decision to discharge quashed
| 2007-02-06 | 2003 cases, Brief summary, Reasons, Transcript |
| R (Smith) v MHRT South Thames Region (1998) EWHC Admin 832 — Tribunal need only be satisfied of either nature or degree (i.e. not necessarily both) for detention to continue
| 2007-02-06 | 1998 cases, Brief summary, Reasons, Transcript |
| R (Ashworth) v MHRT; R (H) v Ashworth (2002) EWCA Civ 923 — Appeal on MHRT decision dismissed; appeal on re-sectioning allowed
On appeal from: R (Ashworth) v MHRT; R (H) v Ashworth (2001) EWHC Admin 901
| 2007-02-06 | 2002 cases, Brief summary, Re-sectioning after hearing, Transcript |
| R (Ashworth) v MHRT; R (H) v Ashworth (2001) EWHC Admin 901 — JR of MHRT discharge: immediate discharge when no aftercare available; decision irrational; reasons inadequate. JR of subsequent re-sectioning: lawful, considering Brandenburg CA decision; legal advice on lawfulness of MHRT decision relevant; stay ineffective when discharge was immediate.
| 2007-02-06 | 2001 cases, Brief summary, Re-sectioning after hearing, Transcript |
| R (KW) v Avon and Wiltshire MH Partnership NHS Trust (2003) EWHC 919 (Admin) — No reasons given for rejecting RMO's evidence; Tribunal gave no indication during hearing of Tribunal doctor's provisional opinion. Decision quashed.
| 2007-02-06 | 2003 cases, Brief summary, Reasons, Transcript |
| R (SSHD) v MHRT, re CH (2005) EWHC 746 (Admin) — No discernible reasons given for preferring patient's evidence to RMO's; material reason given in subsequent witness statement which had not originally been recorded.
| 2007-02-06 | 2005 cases, Brief summary, Reasons, Transcript |
| R (T) v MHRT (2002) EWHC Admin 247 — Discretion to give MHRT decision/reasons to victim should have been considered.
| 2007-02-06 | 2002 cases, Brief summary, Publicity, Transcript |
| R (SSHD) v MHRT, re Wilson (2004) EWHC 1029 (Admin) — MHRT found that patient did not suffer from psychopathic disorder and directed absolute discharge; their decision was quashed because they had failed to consider conditional discharge criteria (i.e. whether patient should remain liable to be recalled for further treatment). Also: MHRT had no power to defer absolute discharge; had failed to explain why they rejected the RMO's evidence; and had misunderstood the legal definition of treatability.
| 2007-02-06 | 2004 cases, Absolute or conditional discharge, Brief summary, Transcript |
| R (AN) v MHRT (2005) EWCA Civ 1605 — MHRT should apply the standard of proof on the balance of probabilities to all the issues it has to determine.
| 2007-02-06 | 2005 cases, Brief summary, Burden and standard of proof, Transcript |
| R (SSHD) v MHRT, re PH (2002) EWCA Civ 1868 — Conditions of discharge are lawful so long as they do not amount to a deprivation of liberty: in this case, a condition that the patient could not leave a hostel unescorted was lawful; so too could be a condition of residence at a hospital (rough summary)
| 2007-02-06 | 2000 cases, Brief summary, Deprivation of liberty, Discharge conditions, Transcript |
| Benjamin and Wilson v UK 28212/95 (2002) ECHR 636 — Technical lifer status violated Article 5(4).
See "Technical lifer" page for background.
| 2006-08-15 | 2002 cases, Brief summary, ECHR, Ministry of Justice, Transcript |
| R (Hempstock) v MHRT (1997) EWHC Admin 664 — Tribunal have same powers when reconvening after unfulfilled recommendations as at original hearing.
| 2006-04-16 | 1997 cases, Brief summary, Powers, Transcript |
| R (von Brandenburg) v East London and City MH NHS Trust (2003) UKHL 58 — An ASW may not lawfully apply for the admission of a patient whose discharge has been ordered by the decision of a mental health review tribunal of which the ASW is aware unless the ASW has formed the reasonable and bona fide opinion that he has information not known to the tribunal which puts a significantly different complexion on the case as compared with that which was before the tribunal.
| 2006-04-16 | 2003 cases, Brief summary, Re-sectioning after hearing, Transcript |
| W v Egdell (1989) EWCA Civ 13 — Independent psychiatrist owes a duty to the public as well as a duty of confidence to the patient. (Independent doctor disclosed his unfavourable report directly to the RMO. Claim for breach of confidence dismissed.)
| 2006-04-15 | 1990 cases, Brief summary, Miscellaneous, Transcript |
| R (Mersey Care NHS Trust) v MHRT, re Brady (2004) EWHC 1749 (Admin) — Tribunal decision to allow public hearing was flawed.
| 2006-04-15 | 2004 cases, Brief summary, Publicity, Transcript |
| R (PD) v West Midlands and North West MHRT (2004) EWCA Civ 311 — No appearance of bias when Tribunal medical member was employed by same Trust.
| 2006-04-15 | 2004 cases, Bias, Brief summary, Transcript |
| R (CS) v MHRT (2004) EWHC 2958 (Admin) — Unsuccessful challenge to Tribunal's decision not to discharge patient who was on long-term section 17 leave.
| 2006-04-15 | 2004 cases, Brief summary, Other Tribunal cases, Transcript |
| R (SC) v MHRT (2005) EWHC 17 (Admin) — (1) In deciding not to discharge, Tribunal can consider disorders other than the those from which the patient is classified as suffering. (2) Section 75 is compatible with ECHR even though it includes no express criteria for consideration.
| 2006-04-13 | 2005 cases, Brief summary, Other classification cases, Reasons, Transcript |
| R (B) v Camden London Borough Council (2005) EWHC 1366 (Admin) — Claimant sought damages breach of statutory duty under s117 causing delay after deferred conditional discharge. Claim dismissed.
| 2006-04-13 | 2005 cases, After-care, Brief summary, Transcript |
| R (Munjaz) v Ashworth Hospital Authority (2005) UKHL 58 — The Code of Practice is guidance rather than instruction, but must not be departed from in the absence of cogent reasons; the Ashworth seclusion policy, although deviating from the standards in the Code of Practice, was lawful.
| 2006-04-12 | 2005 cases, Brief summary, Miscellaneous, Transcript |
| R (SSHD) v MHRT, re BR (2005) EWHC 2468 (Admin) — For restricted patients, Tribunals should consider appropriateness of liability to recall even if not satisfied that there is any detainable mental disorder.
| 2006-04-12 | 2005 cases, Absolute or conditional discharge, Brief summary, Transcript |
| R (SR) v Huntercombe Maidenhead Hospital (2005) EWHC 2361 (Admin) — Usually the managers should discharge if they disagree with the RMO's barring report, but there can be exceptions; they have an unfettered discretion.
| 2006-04-12 | Brief summary, Hospital managers hearings, Other NR cases, Transcript |
| R (G) v Mental Health Review Tribunal (2004) EWHC 2193 (Admin) — The Tribunal were right to conclude that the conditions which the claimant patient contended for (continued residence at Thornford Park) would be a deprivation, rather than a restriction, of his liberty. The patient's consent to this continuing deprivation of liberty would not confer jurisdiction on the Tribunal.'
| 2006-04-10 | 2004 cases, Brief summary, Deprivation of liberty, Discharge conditions, Transcript |
| R (SSHD) v MHRT, re MP (2004) EWHC 2194 — Conditions attached to conditional discharge of restricted patients must not be so severe as to deprive the patient of his liberty (as opposed to merely restricting it). In this case the condition that the patient may not leave a hostel without escorts deprived him of his liberty. Re PH distinguished: the purpose of the restrictions (and the hope in PH that the need for them might diminish) was different.
| 2006-04-10 | 2004 cases, Brief summary, Deprivation of liberty, Discharge conditions, Transcript |
| R (DJ) v MHRT; R (AN) v MHRT (2005) EWHC 587 (Admin) — The correct standard of proof, where one applies, for the MHRT to apply is the civil standard.
| 2006-04-10 | 2005 cases, Brief summary, Burden and standard of proof, Transcript |