Absolute or conditional discharge
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|
|R (Brown) v North East Thames MHRT  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 22:14:20||2000 cases, Absolute or conditional discharge, Brief summary, Transcript
|Grey v UK 34377/02  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 13:24:35||2002 cases, Absolute or conditional discharge, Brief summary, ECHR, Transcript
|R (SSHD) v MHRT, re Wilson  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 18:17:47||2004 cases, Absolute or conditional discharge, Brief summary, Transcript
|R (SSHD) v MHRT, re BR  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 21:33:30||2005 cases, Absolute or conditional discharge, Detailed summary, Transcript
|Reid v Secretary of State for Scotland  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 19:52:23||1998 cases, Absolute or conditional discharge, Detailed summary, Scottish cases, Transcript, Treatability test and psychopathic disorder
|R (SSHD) v MHRT, re BR  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 20:49:45||2005 cases, Absolute or conditional discharge, Brief summary, Transcript
The following 6 pages are in this category.