|
|
Mental health case law
From WikiMentalHealth
The mental health cases on this site are structured into categories and (where appropriate) sub-categories:
- To browse through categories and cases, click on the [+] and [-] symbols as appropriate.
- To view summaries of all cases within a category, click on the category name.
- To view a particular case, click on the case name (which will be listed under the relevant category).
Wikimentalhealth currently contains 712 categorised cases. In addition, some Cases to be added have been identified (no transcript or summary available for these).
Case law by category
Your contributions
If you have been involved in a case not listed here, or have a transcript that is not yet on Bailii, then please get in touch. See Help page for contact details. Also on that page is an explanation of how to create new pages, edit existing ones, and categorise pages.
If you are registered as a contributor, use the following box to add a case. Enter the case name and neutral citation, using round brackets only (for software reasons).
Recently-added cases
The following are the most recently-added 2010 cases:
| 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 (Pounder) v HM Coroner for North and South Districts of Durham and Darlington (2010) EWHC 328 (Admin) — Inquiry into Adam Rickwood's death in custody. Bias. [Summary required.]
| 2010-03-02 | 2010 cases, Inquests, No summary, Transcript |
| Juncal v UK 32357/09 (2010) ECHR 249 — Lawfulness of detention. Statement of facts and questions to the parties lodged at court.
| 2010-03-02 | 2010 cases, Criminal law, Deprivation of liberty, No summary, 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 |
| 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 (Degainis) v SSJ (2010) EWHC 137 (Admin) — In relation to a 7-month delay in holding a Parole Board hearing, the SSJ admitted breach of Article 5(4) and apologised, but the claimant sought damages under Article 5(5). (1) Article 5(5) (which gives an "enforceable right to compensation") and s8 HRA 1998 (which limits the power to award damages) are not inconsistent because compensation in Article 5(5) is not limited to money. (2) The first of two grounds for the claim was that the delay increased the length of detention: because of the number of imponderables in the case it was impossible to conclude this. (3) The second ground was based on an inference that frustration and anxiety had been caused: the judge was not prepared to infer, in the absence of specific evidence, a level of frustration of distress sufficient to warrant an award of damages. (4) In general, as to whether or not to award damages, the length of the delay, the effect of the delay, and the impact on the claimant are relevant factors; the seriousness ..→ | 2010-02-05 | 2010 cases, Deprivation of liberty, Detailed summary, Transcript, Tribunal delay |
| 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 |
The following are the 10 most recently-added 2009 cases:
| Page and summary | Date added to site | Categories |
| 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 |
| 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 |
| 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 |
The following are the 15 most recently-added cases with a Detailed summary or Brief summary:
| 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 (Degainis) v SSJ (2010) EWHC 137 (Admin) — In relation to a 7-month delay in holding a Parole Board hearing, the SSJ admitted breach of Article 5(4) and apologised, but the claimant sought damages under Article 5(5). (1) Article 5(5) (which gives an "enforceable right to compensation") and s8 HRA 1998 (which limits the power to award damages) are not inconsistent because compensation in Article 5(5) is not limited to money. (2) The first of two grounds for the claim was that the delay increased the length of detention: because of the number of imponderables in the case it was impossible to conclude this. (3) The second ground was based on an inference that frustration and anxiety had been caused: the judge was not prepared to infer, in the absence of specific evidence, a level of frustration of distress sufficient to warrant an award of damages. (4) In general, as to whether or not to award damages, the length of the delay, the effect of the delay, and the impact on the claimant are relevant factors; the seriousness ..→ | 2010-02-05 | 2010 cases, Deprivation of liberty, Detailed summary, Transcript, Tribunal delay |
| 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 |
The following are the 5 most recently-added cases with No summary:
| Page and summary | Date added to site | Categories |
| R (Pounder) v HM Coroner for North and South Districts of Durham and Darlington (2010) EWHC 328 (Admin) — Inquiry into Adam Rickwood's death in custody. Bias. [Summary required.]
| 2010-03-02 | 2010 cases, Inquests, No summary, Transcript |
| Juncal v UK 32357/09 (2010) ECHR 249 — Lawfulness of detention. Statement of facts and questions to the parties lodged at court.
| 2010-03-02 | 2010 cases, Criminal law, Deprivation of liberty, No summary, Transcript |
| R v Aspinall (Paul James) (1999) MHLR 12 — The failure to follow the requirements to have an appropriate adult in the interview of a mentally disordered suspect meant that, despite his apparent lucidity in interview, it was unfair to admit it in evidence. [MHLR.]
| 2010-02-26 | 1999 cases, Criminal law, No summary, No transcript |
| FW v Dept of Psychiatry James Connolly Memorial Hospital (2008) IEHC 283 — Challenge to lawfulness of detention under Southern Irish law. [Summary required.]
| 2009-12-09 | 2008 cases, Miscellaneous, No summary, Southern Irish cases, Transcript |
| Z v Khattak (2008) IEHC 262 — Challenge to lawfulness of detention under Southern Irish law. [Summary required.]
| 2009-12-09 | 2008 cases, Miscellaneous, No summary, Southern Irish cases, Transcript |
External links
The following are the main sources of case transcripts:
|