View source for RM v St Andrew's Healthcare (2010) UKUT 119 (AAC)

{{Case
|Date=2010/04/23
|NCN=[2010] UKUT 119 (AAC)
|Other citations=(2010) 116 BMLR 72
|Court=Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber)
|Judges=Jacobs
|Parties=RM, St Andrew's Healthcare
|Sentence=Non-disclosure of covert medication
|Summary=(1) When considering the "interests of justice" limb of rule 14(2), the key test to be applied is whether or not non-disclosure of the document or information would allow the patient to make an effective challenge to his detention. (2) On the facts, without knowing that he was being covertly medicated the patient would be unable effectively to challenge his detention; the non-disclosure decision was set aside and re-made. (3) Non-disclosure orders should not only be drafted in terms of documents, but also should deal, in a precise, clear and exhaustive way, with the information which should not be disclosed.
|External links=*[http://www.osscsc.gov.uk/Aspx/view.aspx?id=2888 Transcript on Tribunals website]
|Subject=Reasons, Upper Tribunal decisions
|News=No
|RSS pubdate=2019/4/19 09:38:25 PM
}}