Category

Challenges to compulsory treatment

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 (N) v Dr M [2002] EWHC 1911 (Admin) — Unsuccessful challenge to compulsory treatment. [Summary required.] 2009‑10‑31 18:40:09 2002 cases, Challenges to compulsory treatment, No summary, Transcript


R (K) v Dr Hughes [2003] EWHC 357 (Admin) — Challenge to administration of ECT. [Summary required.] 2009‑06‑14 20:16:22 2003 cases, Challenges to compulsory treatment, No summary, Transcript


R (Brady) v Dr Collins [2000] EWHC 639 (Admin)(1) The hunger strike was a manifestation or symptom of the patient's personality disorder, and the commencement of force-feeding was justified under s63 as medical treatment for mental disorder; even if s63 did not apply, the patient lacked capacity and the doctors had acted in what they lawfully believed was his best interests; (2) The appropriate test when considering challenges to compulsory treatment under s63 was the "super-Wednesbury" test [caution: the law has since changed] 2009‑04‑11 22:04:34 2000 cases, Brief summary, Challenges to compulsory treatment, Transcript


Wilkinson v UK 14659/02 [2006] ECHR 1171The applicant's complaints were all declared inadmissible. He had complained that: (1) medical treatment against his will was a breach of the negative obligations under Articles 3 and 8; (2) the authorities failed in their positive obligation under Articles 3 and 8 to provide suitable safeguards against the imposition of treatment that would violate his rights, in particular that the authorities should have sought approval from a court before imposing treatment and that he should have been able to bring a challenge against the treatment, before it took place, in a court which would have been able to provide a suitable level of review; (3) the inability to have a determination of his ‘civil right’ to autonomy in a court that would have provided a review on the merits was a violation of Article 6; (4) the lack of effective remedy was a breach of Article 13; (5) discrimination on the basis of his status as a detained patient was a breach of Article 14. 2009‑04‑10 22:17:59 2006 cases, Brief summary, Challenges to compulsory treatment, ECHR, Transcript


Naumenko v Ukraine 42023/98 [2004] ECHR 68Enforced medical treatment of prisoner did not violate Article 3. 2009‑04‑10 15:12:37 2004 cases, Challenges to compulsory treatment, Detailed summary, ECHR, Judgment available on Bailii, Transcript


R (S) v Collins [1998] EWCA Civ 1349 — Challenge to compulsory treatment. 2008‑09‑13 06:21:31 1998 cases, Challenges to compulsory treatment, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript


R (JB) v Dr Haddock [2006] EWCA Civ 961 — Challenge to compulsory treatment. 2008‑02‑22 15:32:07 2006 cases, Challenges to compulsory treatment, No summary, Transcript


R (Taylor) v Dr Haydn-Smith [2005] EWHC 1668 (Admin) — Challenge to compulsory treatment. 2008‑02‑22 15:30:03 2005 cases, Challenges to compulsory treatment, No summary, Transcript


R (N) v Dr M [2002] EWCA Civ 1789 — Challenge to compulsory treatment. 2008‑02‑22 15:29:10 2002 cases, Challenges to compulsory treatment, Detailed summary, Transcript


R (PS) v Dr G [2003] EWHC 2335 (Admin) — Challenge to compulsory treatment. 2006‑04‑16 11:06:30 2003 cases, Challenges to compulsory treatment, No summary, Transcript


R (B) v Dr SS [2005] EWHC 86 (Admin) — This was the first of two JRs involving the same parties. Challenge to compulsory treatment. 2006‑04‑13 21:55:38 2005 cases, Challenges to compulsory treatment, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript


R (B) v Dr Haddock [2005] EWHC 921 (Admin) — Challenge to compulsory administration of medication. Claim dismissed. 2006‑04‑13 21:39:18 2005 cases, Challenges to compulsory treatment, No summary, Transcript


R (B) v Dr SS [2006] EWCA Civ 28MENTAL 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 21:17:38 2006 cases, Challenges to compulsory treatment, Detailed summary, Transcript


R (B) v Dr SS [2005] EWHC 1936 (Admin) — This was the second of two JRs involving the same parties. Challenge to compulsory treatment. 2006‑04‑12 21:16:00 2005 cases, Challenges to compulsory treatment, Detailed summary, Transcript