Re Whitbread (No 2) (Habeas Corpus: Continued Detention) [1999] EWHC Admin 2
(1) The duty to discharge under s72 following a Tribunal decision to discharge on a future date is subject to s29(4) which provides a further basis for detention during displacement proceedings; (2) The managers' reasons for upholding the RMO's barring certificate were adequate.
Related cases
MHLR
The summary below has been supplied by Kris Gledhill, Editor of the Mental Health Law Reports. The full report can be purchased from Southside Online Publishing (if there is a "file not found" error, it means this particular report is not yet available online). More similar case summaries from the year 1999 are available here: MHLR 1999.
Whether a Tribunal discharge of a s2 MHA order prevented its extension by virtue of s29(4); the proper approach to a s25 barring order by the hospital managers – Re W (habeas corpus: extension of s2 detention) – [1999] MHLR 1
Points Arising: A s2 MHA detention that has been discharged by a Tribunal on a future date is extended if an application to displace the nearest relative is made following an objection to a s3 detention; the making of a barring order under s25 looks to the future and so the absence of past dangerous behaviour does not prevent it being made.
Facts and Outcome: When a patient was discharged from detention under s2 Mental Health Act 1983 and this was delayed to allow a s3 order to be put in place, and in the meantime the nearest relative objected to a s3 order so that it could not proceed, and an application to displace was made under s29, the statutory extension of the s2 order pending displacement applied notwithstanding the Tribunal order to discharge the s2 order. Further, a barring order made in respect of a nearest relative discharge under s23 was properly upheld by the hospital managers on the basis of their view as to the future risk posed of psychological harm, even though there was no past dangerous behaviour.
Other
Tuesday, 5th January 1999
Mr David Pannick QC
MR K GLEDHILL (instructed by Anthony Stokoe, Kingston upon Thames, Surrey KT2 6PW) appeared on behalf of the Applicant.
MR R McCARTHY QC (instructed by Bevan Ashford, Bristol BS1 4TT) appeared on behalf of the Respondent.
MR A FRASER-URQUHART (instructed by the Legal Department of the London Borough of Richmond, Twickenham TW1 3B2) appeared on behalf an interested party.
Citations
[1999] COD. 370
On Bailii as both [1999] EWHC Admin 2Not on Bailii! and [2000] EWHC 833 (Admin)Not on Bailii!
[1999] MHLR 1
External links
This case was on Bailii as [1999] EWHC Admin 2Not on Bailii! (with paragraph numbering) and [1999] EWHC Admin 833Not on Bailii! (without paragraph numbering)
Possible Bailii link (not there when checked last night, but might have appeared since)
Possible Bailii link (not there when checked last night, but might have appeared since)