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 |
| A v A Health Authority (2002) EWHC 18 (Fam) — The nature of the case determined the court in which a case concerning the welfare of children or incompetent adults should be litigated: the review of a decision of a public authority by way of JR in the Admin Court; best interests cases in the Family Division. In best interests proceedings the court cannot compel a public authority to exercise its public law functions in a certain way.
| 2008-12-30 | 2002 cases, Best interests, Detailed summary, No transcript |
| Re A (Medical Treatment: Male Sterilisation) (2000) 1 FLR 549, (2000) 1 FCR 193 — It would not be in the best interests of A, who lacked capacity to make the decision, to be sterilised, while the current level of supervision continued; best interests are not limited to best medical interests but encompass medical, emotional and all other welfare issues.
| 2008-12-30 | 2000 cases, Best interests, Detailed summary, Transcript |
| Re A (Children) (Conjoined Twins: Surgical Separation) (2000) EWCA Civ 254 — (1) The operation to separate Siamese twins, both of whom would otherwise shortly die, would clearly be in Jodie's best interests, but would kill Mary; the court must perform a balancing exercise in determining what was in the twins' best interests, regardless of the parents' religious objections; the scales come down heavily in Jodie's favour. (2) The operation would be lawful in criminal law, under the doctrine of necessity, and as the primary purpose was not to kill Mary
| 2008-12-30 | 2000 cases, Best interests, Detailed summary, Transcript |
| R (MN) v MHRT (2008) CO/5741/2007 — Tribunal application made under s70 when patient subject to s47/49 (restricted transfer direction) lapses when s49 (restriction direction) lapses; to avoid delay, the application can be treated as if it were an application under s69(2)(a).
| 2008-12-22 | 2008 cases, Change of status after application made, Detailed summary, No transcript |
| Re C (Mental Patient: Habeas Corpus) (2002) EWHC 243 (Admin) — The application for the issue of a writ of habeas corpus was premature and without any prospect of success; the proper course was to judicially review the Tribunal decision
| 2008-12-21 | 2002 cases, Detailed summary, Transcript, Unimportant cases |
| S v Floyd (2008) EWCA Civ 201 — Floyd's decision to withhold payment of rent had nothing to do with his disablity, so the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 could not be used to resist a possession order under the Housing Act 1988.
| 2008-12-14 | 2008 cases, Detailed summary, Disability discrimination, Transcript |
| R (DB) v Nottingham Healthcare NHS Trust (2008) EWCA Civ 1354 — A hospital order under s37 ceases to have effect if the offender is not admitted to the named hospital within 28 days; unless the offender is to be immediately conveyed from court to hospital, the "place of safety" power in s37(4) must be expressly exercised.
| 2008-12-03 | 2008 cases, Criminal law, Detailed summary, Transcript |
| X City Council v MB, re MAB (2006) EWHC 168 (Fam) — MAB's parents had wanted to arrange a marriage for him in Pakistan. It was declared that MAB did not have capacity to marry; therefore any marriage, even if valid in Pakistan, would not be recognised as valid in English law. His parent's undertakings not to take him to a wedding or out of Britain were accepted and his passport was returned. Any assessment of capacity to marry must take into account the question of capacity to consent to sexual relations. This involved a low level of understanding, which must be same in its essentials as required by the criminal law under the Sexual Offences Act 2003.
| 2008-11-29 | 2006 cases, Capacity, Detailed summary, Transcript |
| R (F) v SSJ (2008) EWHC 2912 (Admin) — The medical opinions were based on old assessments and were at best ambigious as to the treatability test; so the decision to transfer under s47 MHA 1983 was Wednesbury unreasonable, and the subsequent detention was unlawful under domestic law and Article 5; (obiter) the decision would not have been ultra vires; based on subsequent reports, the decision would not be quashed, as if the defendant had sough to clarify the medical opinions the decision would have been lawful.
| 2008-11-28 | 2008 cases, Deprivation of liberty, Detailed summary, Transcript |
| R (IT) v SSJ (2008) EWHC 1707 — Recall of patient unlawful where no new relevant information available to MoJ after discharge by MHRT; the element of the discharge plan requiring leave to be escorted was a temporary measure and so did not amount to continuing deprivation of liberty.
| 2008-11-03 | 2008 cases, Deprivation of liberty, Detailed summary, Discharge conditions, Ministry of Justice, Transcript |
| St Helens Borough Council v Manchester PCT, re PE (2008) EWCA Civ 931 — It was for the primary care trust acting on behalf of the Secretary of State for Health and not for the local authority to decide whether the care needs of a woman with dissociative identity disorder were primarily for health care or for care which a social services authority should provide. The trust was required to define in its decision the services which the social services authority was required to provide to the woman, whose mental and psychological conditions required constant and expensive care. It was not satisfactory for the two parties to resolve the issue by costly litigation, since the money for the care and the litigation all came from the public purse.
| 2008-10-10 | 2008 cases, Community care, Detailed summary, Permission hearings, Transcript |
| LLBC v TG (2007) EWHC 2640 (Fam) — Best interests case.
| 2008-10-06 | 2007 cases, Capacity, Detailed summary, Transcript |
| Bailey v Warren (2006) EWCA Civ 51 — PRACTICE — Parties — Mental capacity — Action for damages for personal injuries compromised by claimant before proceedings commenced — Subsequent lack of mental capacity leading to appointment of litigation friend — Whether valid approval of compromise — CPR Pt 21. The established principles relating to mental incapacity and the conduct of litigation were to be applied to the compromise of an action by a claimant before he became a “patient” within the meaning of CPR r 21.1 and which was made before any proceedings were commenced.
| 2008-09-25 | 2006 cases, Capacity, Detailed summary, Transcript |
| R v B (2008) EWCA Crim 1997 — CRIME— Plea — Fitness to plead — Two among several defendants found unfit to plead — Jury yet to be empanelled — Judge finding single jury incapable in principle of hearing case against fit and unfit defendants together — Whether such conclusion correct. Where one of several defendants in the same criminal proceedings became unfit to stand trial before a jury had been empanelled there was nothing in principle to prevent a single empanelled jury subsequently proceeding to hear the trial of all the defendants, although in the case of the unfit defendant the jury would now be looking to the question whether he had committed the actus reus of the relevant offence.
| 2008-09-23 | 2008 cases, Criminal law, Detailed summary, Transcript |
| R (A) v Harrow Crown Court (2003) EWHC 2020 (Admin) — The court order detaining the claimant under s37/41 MHA 1983 following a finding of unfitness to plead was irregular (as ultra vires s5 CPIA 1964 as then enacted) and was quashed; however, the detention was in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law and was not arbitrary, so there was no breach of Article 5.
| 2008-09-22 | 2003 cases, Criminal law, Detailed summary, Transcript |
| R (Brooke) v Parole Board (2008) EWCA Civ 29 — PRISONS — Prisoners’ rights — Release on licence — Parole Board deciding whether convicted prisoners to be released on licence — Whether board sufficiently independent from executive — Human Rights Act 1998, Sch 1, Pt I, art 5(4). The Parole Board did not have the independence from the executive that was required for its judicial role in determining whether convicted prisoners should be released on licence.
| 2008-09-21 | 2008 cases, Detailed summary, Prison law, Transcript |
| KC v City of Westminster Social and Community Services Department (2008) EWCA Civ 198 — Muslim marriage where groom lacked capacity was not recognised in English law.
| 2008-09-13 | 2008 cases, Capacity, Detailed summary, Transcript |
| R (Rayner) v Secretary of State for Justice (2008) EWCA Civ 176 — The statutory scheme dealing with the referral of the case of a recalled mental patient to a mental health review tribunal was not incompatible with the patient’s rights under the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, whether because of the timescale envisaged or for lack of a right of direct access to a court.
| 2008-09-13 | 2008 cases, Detailed summary, Ministry of Justice, Transcript |
| Adorian v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis (2008) EWHC 1081 (QB) — Failure to apply for permission under s329(2) Criminal Justice Act 2003 before bringing proceedings did not render the proceedings a nullity, but rather amounted to a procedural irregularity that could be cured by subsequent application at the discretion of the court; Seal v. Chief Constable of South Wales Police (2007) UKHL 31 distinguished because of differences from s139 MHA 1983; permission now granted.'
| 2008-09-13 | 2008 cases, Detailed summary, Miscellaneous, Transcript |
| R (G) v Nottinghamshire Healthcare NHS Trust (2008) EWHC 1096 (Admin) — HUMAN RIGHTS — Right to respect for private and family life — Smoking ban — Claimants detainees at high security psychiatric hospital — Regulation providing mental health units temporary exemption from smoking ban — Whether regulation to be read as providing mental health units with permanent exemption — Whether interference with claimants’ Convention rights — Human Rights Act 1998, s 3(1), Sch 1, Pt 1, arts 8, 14 — Smoke-free (Exemption & Vehicles) Regulations 2007 (SI 2007/765), reg 10(3). A provision which had the effect of prohibiting smoking in a high security psychiatric hospital was not incompatible with the human rights of detained mental patients and was not unlawful.
| 2008-09-13 | 2008 cases, Detailed summary, Miscellaneous, Transcript |
| London Borough of Lewisham v Malcolm (2008) UKHL 43 — The claim for possession under the Housing Act 1988 was not discriminatory under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 since the landlord did not know of the disability and the tenant's schizophrenia was not causally responsible for his sub-letting of the premises in breach of tenancy.
| 2008-09-13 | 2008 cases, Detailed summary, Disability discrimination, Transcript |
| R v Aisling Murray (2008) EWCA Crim 1792 — A sentence of life imprisonment and conviction for murder was quashed, and substituted with a conviction for manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility and a restricted hospital order; this was even though the appellant had pleaded guilty to murder, as her decision to plead guilty was affected by her medical condition, which also substantially reduced her responsibility for the killing.
| 2008-09-13 | 2008 cases, Criminal law, Detailed summary, Transcript |
| R (Thompson) v SSHD (2003) EWHC 538 (Admin) — Home Office policy of always making restriction direction except in specified circumstances was lawful and applied lawfully in the claimant's case; no legitimate expectation arose from a civil servant's erroneous statement of the law.
| 2008-09-12 | 2003 cases, Criminal law, Detailed summary, Transcript |
| Sheffield City Council v E (2004) EWHC 2808 (Fam) — HUSBAND AND WIFE — Marriage — Capacity to marry — Alleged patient wanting to marry — Local authority wishing to prevent marriage — Whether jurisdiction to apply best interests test. Since to establish capacity to marry required only the ability to understand the nature of the marriage contract and the duties and responsibilities that normally attached to marriage, there was no jurisdiction to consider whether any particular marriage was in an alleged patient's best interests.
| 2008-09-12 | 2004 cases, Capacity, Detailed summary, Transcript |
| LGO decision: Medway Council 06/B/12248 and Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council 06/B/12247 (29/4/08) — After funding under s117.
| 2008-08-21 | 2008 cases, After-care, Detailed summary, Transcript |
| LGO decision: North Yorkshire County Council 05/C/13158 (24/7/07) — After funding under s117 (top-ups).
| 2008-08-21 | 2007 cases, After-care, Detailed summary, Transcript |
| LGO decision: Poole Borough Council 06/B/7542 (5/9/07) — Duties under s117.
| 2008-08-21 | 2007 cases, After-care, Detailed summary, Transcript |
| LGO decision: Bath and North East Somerset Council 06/B/16774 (12/12/07) — Duties under s117.
| 2008-07-31 | 2007 cases, After-care, Detailed summary, Transcript |
| R (Care Principles Ltd) v MHRT; R (AL) v Care Principles Ltd (2006) EWHC 3194 (Admin) — The MHRT's decision to discharge from s2 was not flawed; the subsequent decision to re-detain under s3 was unjustified and unlawful.
| 2008-02-22 | 2006 cases, Detailed summary, Re-sectioning after hearing, Transcript |
| London Borough of Lewisham v Malcolm (2007) EWCA Civ 763 — A possession order cannot be made if it would amount to unlawful discrimination under the DDA 1995, even where the court would otherwise have no discretion to refuse the order.
| 2008-02-22 | 2007 cases, Detailed summary, Disability discrimination, Transcript |
| R (SSHD) v MHRT, re JC (2007) EWHC 2224 (Admin) — Deferred conditional discharge decision was unlawful: (1) the decision on the statutory criteria was irrational; (2) the conditions were unlawful - by requiring satisfactory trial leave and consent from third parties they were pre-conditions to discharge rather than conditions of discharge.
| 2007-10-30 | 2007 cases, Detailed summary, Reasons, Transcript |
| R (B) v MHRT (2003) EWHC 815 (Admin) — It is lawful to defer discharge in dangerous criterion cases where the deferral is relevant to considerations of dangerousness
| 2007-09-16 | 2003 cases, Detailed summary, Powers, Transcript |
| R (Brooke) v Parole Board (2007) EWHC 2036 (Admin) — The Parole Board lacks independence for the purposes of Article 5(4) ECHR because of the sponsorship relationship with the Ministry of Justice which is a party to its proceedings.
| 2007-09-16 | 2007 cases, Detailed summary, Prison law, Transcript |
| R (Miah) v SSHD (2004) EWHC 2569 (Admin) — Criminal sentence continues after s47 (notional s37) transfer, and after discharge from section; as does any licence period and power to recall for breach.
| 2007-09-13 | 2004 cases, Detailed summary, Prison law, Transcript |
| R (MH) v Secretary of State for the Department of Health (2005) UKHL 60 — Mental disorder — Mental health review tribunal — Discharge of patient — Detained patient incompetent to apply for own discharge — Extension of detention pending determination of approved social worker's application to displace nearest relative — Whether statutory scheme incompatible with patient's Convention right to liberty — Mental Health Act 1983, ss 2, 29(4) — Human Rights Act 1998, Sch 1, Pt I, art 5(4). The scheme for the review of a patient's detention under the 1983 Act was capable of being operated so as to give practical effect to the patient's right, guaranteed by art 5(4) of the European Convention on Human Rights, to take proceedings to have the lawfulness of her detention speedily decided by a court and for review thereafter at reasonable intervals.
| 2007-07-17 | 2005 cases, Detailed summary, Displacement, Transcript |
| Seal v. Chief Constable of South Wales Police (2007) UKHL 31 — MENTAL DISORDER — Leave to bring proceedings — Civil proceedings — Police officers removing claimant to place of safety — Claimant bringing action against officers without obtaining leave of High Court — Whether failure to obtain leave rendering proceedings nullity — Mental Health Act 1983, s 139(2). It was a mandatory requirement to obtain the leave of the High Court, pursuant to s 139(2) of the Mental Health Act 1983, before bringing civil proceedings in respect of any act purporting to be done in pursuance of that Act, and proceedings issued without obtaining such leave first were rendered a nullity.
| 2007-07-17 | 2007 cases, Detailed summary, Miscellaneous, Transcript |
| Seal v Chief Constable of South Wales Police (2005) EWCA Civ 586 — Mental disorder — Practice — Leave to bring proceedings — Claim by patient for damages against police officers — Failure to obtain leave to bring proceedings — Whether proceedings rendered nullity — Whether subsequent grant of leave permissible — Mental Health Act 1983, s139(2). It was a mandatory requirement to seek leave from the High Court under s 139(2) of the Mental Health Act 1983 to bring civil proceedings for actions purported to be done under that Act. Failure to seek leave rendered the proceedings a nullity.
| 2007-07-17 | 2005 cases, Detailed summary, Miscellaneous, Transcript |
| R (Rayner and Marsh) v SSHD (2007) EWHC 1028 (Admin) — (1) Section 75 provides an independent legal device by which the detainee may appear before a judge which is not dependent on the good will of the detaining authority and thus is Article 5 compliant; in any event, the section cannot be incompatible as means exist to operate it compatibly. (2) In order for s75 to be compatible the Secretary of State ought to refer the case of a recalled patient at once (in practice, within 72 hours) to the MHRT unless the circumstances of the applicant or his case positively require otherwise. (3) On the facts the delay in making the reference breached Article 5(4).
| 2007-05-20 | 2007 cases, Detailed summary, Ministry of Justice, Transcript |
| R (RD) v MHRT (2007) EWHC 781 (Admin) — (1) The communication by the medical member of a "very preliminary" view was lawful, even though it went to detainability and not merely to mental condition; (2) the reasons given for not discharging were adequate.
| 2007-04-18 | 2007 cases, Bias, Detailed summary, Transcript |
| Ward v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis (2005) UKHL 32 — Mental disorder — Place of safety order — Validity of detention — Warrant naming health professionals to accompany constable — Named persons absent when warrant executed — Whether warrant and execution valid — Whether power in magistrate to specify names — Mental Health Act 1983 (as amended by Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, s 119(1)(2), Sch 7, Pt I), s 135(1). A condition imposed by a magistrate issuing a warrant under s135 of the Mental Health Act 1983 specifying named persons to accompany the constable executing the warrant had been invalid.
| 2007-02-07 | 2005 cases, Detailed summary, Miscellaneous, Transcript |
| R (P) v SSHD (2003) EWHC 2953 (Admin) — The ECHR does not require joint MHRT/Parole Board hearings; the need for consecutive hearings does not breach Article 5(4).
| 2007-01-28 | 2003 cases, Detailed summary, Prison law, Transcript |
| JE v DE and Surrey County Council (2006) EWHC 3459 (Fam) — In determining whether a person is deprived of his liberty, the crucial question is whether he is is “free to leave” the institution, not only for approved outings but also permanently to go or live where or with whom he chooses; there can be deprivation of liberty in the absence of a lock or physical barrier, and it can equally be caused by the misuse or misrepresentation of even non-existent authority
| 2007-01-20 | 2006 cases, Capacity, Deprivation of liberty, Detailed summary, Transcript |
| R (IH) v SSHD (2001) EWHC Admin 1037 — Section 73 is compatible with Article 5 ECHR: deferred conditional discharge is a provisional decision; the Tribunal can monitor progress, and reconsider and amend the decision if appropriate.
| 2007-01-07 | 2001 cases, Deferred conditional discharge, Detailed summary, Transcript |
| R (M) v MHRT (2005) EWHC 2791 (Admin) — There was no appearance of bias where the sentencing judge, who had imposed the hospital order with restrictions, heard the subsequent MHRT appeal; the patient knew the relevant facts and unequivocally decided not to object at the time, so had waived his right to object
| 2006-12-27 | 2005 cases, Bias, Detailed summary, Transcript |
| R (East London and the City MH NHS Trust) v MHRT, re IH (2005) EWHC 2329 (Admin) — The Tribunal failed properly to deal with s72(2)(a) when directing discretionary discharge; should have adjourned for information to satisfy itself that appropriate aftercare would be in place; and failed to consider their s72(2) power to recommend transfer.
| 2006-12-23 | 2005 cases, Detailed summary, Reasons, Transcript |
| R (O) v MHRT (2006) EWHC 2659 (Admin) — Patient can withdraw application between unfulfilled s72(3) recommendation and reconvened hearing.
| 2006-10-25 | 2006 cases, Detailed summary, Powers, Transcript |
| R (OS) v SSHD (2006) EWHC 1903 (Admin) — Home Office decision not to approve unescorted community leave following MHRT deferred conditional discharge was not unlawful; HO entitled to rely upon separate factors than those considered by MHRT, including absconsion risk flowing from immigration status.
| 2006-07-30 | 2006 cases, Detailed summary, Ministry of Justice, Transcript |
| JT v UK 26494/95 (2000) ECHR 133 — 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 where reasonably objected; and to allow exclusion of certain persons from acting as NR.
| 2006-05-03 | 2000 cases, Detailed summary, Displacement, ECHR, Transcript |
| R (SSHD) v MHRT, re BR (2005) EWCA Civ 1616 — MHRT granted absolute discharge without considering conditional discharge criteria; High Court quashed decision, so patient became detained restricted patient again; Home Office refused to grant s17 leave until next MHRT; Court of Appeal partially quashed MHRT decision but declared patient entitled to be conditionally discharged pending MHRT determination of appropriate discharge type.
| 2006-05-03 | 2005 cases, Absolute or conditional discharge, Detailed summary, Transcript |
| R (M) v South Thames MHRT (1997) EWHC Admin 797 — Tribunal application made while under s2 does not fall if the patient is subsequently placed under s3; patient maintains his separate right to apply under while s3.
| 2006-04-20 | 1997 cases, Change of status after application made, Detailed summary, Transcript |
| R (SR) v MHRT (2005) EWHC 2923 (Admin) — MHRT application appealing against s3 falls when patient subsequently made subject to s25A; fresh application required.
| 2006-04-19 | 2005 cases, Change of status after application made, Detailed summary, Transcript |
| R (Tagoe-Thompson) v The Hospital Managers of the Park Royal Centre (2003) EWCA Civ 330 — Panel of three hospital managers must be unanimous in order to discharge patient.
| 2006-04-16 | Detailed summary, Hospital managers hearings, Transcript |
| Reid v Secretary of State for Scotland (1998) UKHL 43 — (1) Treatability test is part of admission criteria for psychopathic disorder, so entitled to discharge when it is not met; definition of treatment is wide and can include treatment only for symptoms rather than underlying disorder, e.g. anger management. (2) Decision not to discharge not irrational.
| 2006-04-15 | 1998 cases, Absolute or conditional discharge, Detailed summary, Scotland, Transcript, Treatability test and psychopathic disorder |
| R (Huzzey) v Riverside MH Trust (1998) EWHC Admin 465 — Managers must consider dangerousness criterion when reviewing detention after RMO's barring order, and in almost all circumstances discharge if not satisfied of that criterion.
| 2006-04-15 | Detailed summary, Hospital managers hearings, Other NR cases, Transcript |
| R (AL) v SSHD (2005) EWCA Civ 2 — Mental Disorder — Accused acquitted of murder on grounds of insanity — Detention in hospital — Subsequent conditional discharge — Recall to hospital on grounds of emergency — Continuation of recall following further medical advice — Whether requirement for continued detention to be founded on same form of mental disorder as underlay original detention — Criminal Procedure (Insanity) Act 1964, s 5(1)(a) — Mental Health Act 1983, ss 37, 42(3). The Secretary of State's powers to continue the recall of a patient who had originally been detained following an acquittal of murder on grounds of insanity and pursuant to s 5(1)(a) of the 1964 Act, but was recalled pursuant to s 42(3) of the 1983 Act, differed from such powers as were granted under s 37 of the 1983 Act.
| 2006-04-13 | 2005 cases, Detailed summary, Other classification cases, Transcript |
| R (O) v West London MH NHS Trust (2005) EWHC 604 (Admin) — Hospital managers are under a common law duty to provide both oral and written reasons at the time of the decison; the decision is legally defective if the reasons are inadequate; this defect cannot be cured by later evidence giving a proper explanation of the reasons; the supplementary evidence was more than mere elucidation so was not accepted.
| 2006-04-13 | Detailed summary, Hospital managers hearings, Transcript |
| R (B) v Dr SS (2006) EWCA Civ 28 — MENTAL HEALTH — Compulsory detention — Consent to treatment — Convicted rapist detained in secure mental hospital — Refusal to consent to treatment — Whether compulsory treatment in breach of human rights — Mental Health Act 1983 (c 20), s 58 — Human Rights Act 1998, Sch 1, Pt I, arts 3, 8, 14. The compulsory treatment of a mental patient under s58(3)(b) of the Mental Health Act 1983 did not infringe the patient’s human rights under arts 3, 8 and 14 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Provided such treatment was medically necessary, it was not necessary also to show that it was required to prevent the patient causing harm to himself or others.
| 2006-04-12 | 2006 cases, Challenges to compulsory treatment, Detailed summary, Transcript |
| R (K) v West London MH NHS Trust (2006) EWCA Civ 118 — MENTAL DISORDER — Secretary of State’s powers — Leave of absence — Patient granted leave of absence by registered medical officer — Patient wishing to make trial transfer to private sector medium security hospital — Secretary of State refusing to fund transfer — Whether Secretary of State (or his delegate) obliged to fund placement — Whether opinion of registered medical officer binding on Secretary of State — National Health Service Act 1977, s 3 — Mental Health Act 1983, s17. A mental health trust was not obliged to fund a placement for trial leave which a patient’s registered medical officer had decided under s 17 of the Mental Health Act 1983 was clinically appropriate. The opinion of a registered medical officer on a matter of clinical judgment was not binding on the Secretary of State for Health (or his delegate) performing functions under s 3 of the National Health Service Act 1977.
| 2006-04-12 | 2006 cases, Detailed summary, Ministry of Justice, Transcript |
| R (B) v Ashworth Hospital Authority (2005) UKHL 20 — Mental disorder — Admission for treatment — Compulsory treatment — Hospital order classifying patient as suffering from mental illness — Patient also diagnosed as suffering from psychotic disorder — Decision to detain patient on ward for treatment of personality disorder — Whether lawful — Mental Health Act 1983, ss 37, 41, 63 — Human Rights Act 1998, Sch 1, Pt I, arts 3, 5(1)(e), 8. A patient detained for treatment under the Mental Health Act 1983 could be treated compulsorily under s 63 of that Act for any disorder from which he suffered, and not only for the particular form of disorder from which he was classified as suffering under the application or order which authorised his detention.
| 2006-04-12 | 2005 cases, Detailed summary, Other classification cases, Transcript |