2002 cases

The new database structure introduced in 2019 is more useful than this Category page: see Special:Drilldown/Cases.

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. Asterisks mark those cases which have been added to the new database structure.

Case and summary Date added Categories
— "The Claimant, whom I shall call Ms B, seeks declarations from the High Court in its exercise of the inherent jurisdiction. She claims that the invasive treatment which is currently being given by the respondent by way of artificial ventilation is an unlawful trespass. The respondent is the NHS Hospital Trust (the Trust) responsible for the hospital which is currently caring for Ms B, (the Hospital). At the request of the court the Official Solicitor instructed Mr Peter Jackson QC to act as Advocate to the Court. The main issue is whether Ms B has the capacity to make her own decision about her treatment in hospital. Underlying this important issue is the tragic story of an able and talented woman of 43 who has suffered a devastating illness which has caused her to become tetraplegic and whose expressed wish is not to be kept artificially alive by the use of a ventilator." [Paras 1 and 2 of judgment.] 2012‑01‑05 20:31:06 2002 cases, , , ,

— Dispute between a local authority and S‘s father, DS, as to where S should live: prior to the events which precipitated the proceedings, S had always lived at home with DS. [Summary required.] 2011‑12‑10 13:00:54 2002 cases, , , ,

Panel of three hospital managers must be unanimous in order to discharge patient. 2011‑04‑10 10:23:50 2002 cases, , , ,

— Lawfulness of transfer from prison to hospital (treatability). [Summary required.] 2009‑11‑01 21:25:11 2002 cases, , ,

— Extended period of licence reduced from 5 to 2 years on appeal. [Summary required.] 2009‑11‑01 21:18:06 2002 cases, , ,

— Restriction order quashed on appeal. [Summary required.] 2009‑11‑01 21:15:04 2002 cases, , ,

— Inadequate reasons. [Summary required.] 2009‑11‑01 21:14:08 2002 cases, , ,

— Licence recall while on s3. [Summary required.] 2009‑10‑31 18:46:40 2002 cases, , ,

— Seclusion. [Summary required.] 2009‑10‑31 18:42:29 2002 cases, , ,

— Unsuccessful challenge to compulsory treatment. [Summary required.] 2009‑10‑31 18:40:09 2002 cases, , ,

— Departure from Code of Practice. [Summary required.] 2009‑10‑31 18:37:54 2002 cases, , ,

— Unsuccessful challenge to s47/49 patient's return to prison. [Summary required.] 2009‑10‑31 18:33:25 2002 cases, , ,

— Permission to appeal against Tribunal decision refused. [Summary required.] 2009‑10‑31 18:27:56 2002 cases, , ,

— AWOL claimant's delay case struck out as an abuse of process. [Summary required.] 2009‑10‑31 18:22:41 2002 cases, , ,

— Care home closure. [Summary required.] 2009‑10‑31 18:18:00 2002 cases, , ,

(1) There is no need for reasons for not making a recommendation where, as here, there is no contention (or any evidence in support of a contention) justifying a recommendation or the consideration of it. (2) In any event, an extra-statutory recommendation, outside the scope of s72(3), has no legal effect and is not susceptible to judicial review. (3) That s72 does not allow consideration of a hospital's suitability in terms of security or family proximity does not disclose a Convention incompatibility: a lacuna in an Act or a failure to provide an effective remedy for a Convention violation does not mean that the Act is incompatible. 2009‑10‑31 18:14:55 2002 cases, , ,

— Parole Board and Mental Health Tribunal. [Summary required.] 2009‑10‑31 18:05:52 2002 cases, , , ,

— Renewal of section while on long-term s17 leave. [Summary required.] 2009‑10‑31 18:04:06 2002 cases, , ,

— Closure of residential accommodation. [Summary required.] 2009‑10‑31 17:56:30 2002 cases, , ,

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 23:16:02 2002 cases, , ,

— Unsuccessful appeal against decision that M was fully capable of managing and administering his property and affairs. [Summary required.] 2009‑10‑30 23:11:10 2002 cases, , ,

— M was fully capable of managing and administering his property and affairs. [Summary required.] 2009‑10‑30 23:08:45 2002 cases, , ,

— "This Claimant’s application is that a warrant, issued by the Secretary of State for the Home Department under section 3 of the Repatriation of Prisoners Act 1984 should be amended to substitute for the discretionary life sentence, with a tariff period of seven years, an order under section 37 of the Mental Health Act with a restriction order under section 41. Alternatively, to amend the warrant to remove the tariff period." [Summary required.] 2009‑10‑30 23:03:35 2002 cases, , ,

— Negligence case. [Summary required.] 2009‑10‑30 23:01:34 2002 cases, , ,

— MGN ordered to disclose identity of intermediary, as a means of identifying the source of the leaked information. 2009‑04‑12 23:40:52 2002 cases, , ,

Condition of discharge not to leave without escort not unlawful on the facts. 2009‑04‑12 13:01:39 2002 cases, , , ,

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 20:50:28 2002 cases, , , ,

— Conviction quashed and substituted with an with restrictions as, had the issue been raised, on the evidence the jury would have found that the defendant was unfit to plead but had done the act. 2009‑04‑11 14:48:25 2002 cases, , ,

— Appeal against restriction order allowed. 2009‑04‑11 14:45:14 2002 cases, , ,

— Appeal against restriction order allowed. 2009‑04‑11 14:41:16 2002 cases, , ,

— Conviction quashed as during trial the defendant had become unfit to plead. 2009‑04‑11 14:39:43 2002 cases, , ,

— Three-year prison sentence quashed and substituted with hospital order. 2009‑04‑11 14:35:09 2002 cases, , ,

— Appeal against restriction order refused. 2009‑04‑11 14:32:46 2002 cases, , ,

The detention for 83 days of the applicant under (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 ; compensation of €10,000 was awarded 2009‑04‑10 15:22:01 2002 cases, , , ,

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 (judicial review is sufficient) and his Article 8 complaint also failed. 2009‑04‑10 14:36:29 2002 cases, , , ,

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 13:24:35 2002 cases, , , ,

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 22:08:33 2002 cases, , , ,

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 15:38:30 2002 cases, , ,

Christopher Edwards was killed by a prison cellmate, Richard Linford; both suffered from schizophrenia. (1) The duty under 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 life or of obtaining compensation, so (effective remedy) was breached. 2008‑11‑27 23:17:24 2002 cases, , ,

— Confidentiality. 2008‑10‑15 01:16:44 2002 cases, , ,

— Disclosure of documents. 2008‑10‑15 01:02:53 2002 cases, , ,

In relation to the Secretary of State's power to remit a transferred prisoner back to prison under , the patient has no right to make representations, although the circumstances may require the Secretary of State to make further enquiries. 2008‑10‑15 01:01:57 2002 cases, , ,

— Permission to appeal refused (unexplained delay) 2008‑09‑13 06:35:01 2002 cases, , ,

— Power to grant/refuse permission for leave after deferred conditional discharge. 2008‑09‑12 16:47:17 2002 cases, , ,

— Medical member's role. 2008‑09‑12 16:36:24 2002 cases, , ,

— Challenge to compulsory treatment. 2008‑02‑22 15:29:10 2002 cases, , ,

Gay partner can qualify as nearest relative under six-month residence provision in s26(6). 2007‑02‑18 15:36:55 2002 cases, , ,

A deferred conditional discharge is a provisional decision; the MHRT can reconvene to reconsider the case. 2007‑02‑07 21:00:19 2002 cases, , ,

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 20:49:01 2002 cases, , , ,

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 20:47:56 2002 cases, , , ,

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 20:46:54 2002 cases, , ,

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 20:44:16 2002 cases, , ,

— HM was admitted to a nursing home because of neglect. She argued that neglect was not a ground for deprivation of liberty, and that she did not fall into the vagrancy category under Article 5(1). The ECHR held that there had been no deprivation of liberty and so no breach of Article 5(1). HM had capacity to object but was undecided; the clinic were entitled to infer consent from the lack of objection. [Summary required; detailed external summary available.] 2007‑02‑07 20:35:52 2002 cases, , , ,

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 18:38:35 2002 cases, , ,

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 18:25:26 2002 cases, , ,

Appeal on MHRT decision dismissed; appeal on re-sectioning allowed. In a case where the availability of suitable after-care services is a pre-requisite for the discharge criteria to be met, but the Tribunal is in any doubt as to its availability, the Tribunal should adjourn rather than defer discharge to a future date. 2007‑02‑06 18:23:22 2002 cases, , ,

Discretion to give MHRT decision/reasons to victim should have been considered. 2007‑02‑06 18:19:21 2002 cases, , ,

Technical lifer status violated Article 5(4).

See "" page for background.

2006‑08‑15 22:14:11 2002 cases, , , ,

— Lack of speedy Tribunal hearing breached Article 5(4). 2006‑04‑16 20:50:36 2002 cases, , ,

Lack of speedy Tribunal hearings breached Article 5(4). 2006‑04‑16 11:46:11 2002 cases, , ,

should give reasons. 2006‑04‑16 11:41:35 2002 cases, , ,

Article titles

The following 61 pages are in this category.