MHA 1983 s3

From WikiMentalHealth

See Admission for treatment for details.

Changes made by Mental Health Act 2007

• Mental disorder no longer split into separate classifications 3/11/08
• Appropriate treatment test replaces treatability test and applies to all patients under long-term detention 3/11/08

Related cases

Any cases with a hyperlink to this legislation will automatically be added here. There may be other relevant cases without a hyperlink, so please check the mental health case law page.

• 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

• 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.

• 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.

• 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.

• 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.

• 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.

• 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.

• 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.

• R (SR) v MHRT (2005) EWHC 2923 (Admin) — MHRT application appealing against s3 falls when patient subsequently made subject to s25A; fresh application required.

• 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.]

• 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.

• 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.

See also

• Reference Guide to the Mental Health Act 1983, 2. Compulsory admission to hospital under Part 2 of the Act — paragraphs 2.6 to 2.14
• Mental Health Act 1983 Code Of Practice for England, 4. Applications for detention in hospital

Law