Updates

If you have anything which is not yet on the internet (e.g. court results or transcripts) then please send it in (see Help page). As well as reading the website, you can keep up to date by subscribing to the CPD scheme, email updates, email discussion list, and the various other options listed at the top of each page.

Recent updates on website

For details of any news item, click on the relevant link below.

  • 19/02/19
    (2116)
    : List of amendments. CQC, 'Monitoring the Mental Health Act in 2016/17 - amendment list' (31/12/18) — This document contains the amendments which have been incorporated into CQC, 'Monitoring the Mental Health Act in 2016/17' (amended version, 9/1/19). "An explanation for the amendments: (1) Up until 2015/16, we used ‘Yes/No’ categories to document specific types of data gathered by Mental Health Act Reviewers on their visits. In 2015/16, we added an option for Reviewers to use a category of ‘Requires improvement’. This gave Reviewers the option of documenting that the provider had shown some evidence of meeting requirements, but that it still required improvement. (2) When working on the 2016/17 report, our analysts found that Reviewers had been inconsistent in how they had documented this information. Some had recorded results with just ‘Yes’ or ‘No’, while others had recorded ‘Yes’, ‘No’, or ‘Requires improvement’. (3) In preparing the report, we sought to present the information in the ‘Yes/No’ style to show a trend from past results. However, in doing so we combined the responses of ‘Requires improvement’ with the ‘No’ responses, which was inaccurate. As a result, we have amended the report."
  • 12/02/19
    (0923)
    : Case (Medical treatment, including CPR). University Hospitals Birmingham NHSFT v HB [2018] EWCOP 39 — "When considering what is in HB's best interests, I take account of the fact that the balance of medical evidence would support the view that the treatment set out in the second part of the treatment plan would bring about no significant improvement in HB's underlying condition and, to that end, they might be seen as futile. ... Against that, I have to balance the very clear wishes, expressed by HB to her daughter, that she would want all steps taken to preserve her life ... Where it is not clear whether HB will make an improvement in her neurological condition, it is, in my judgment, contrary to her best interests and premature to rule out the treatments set out in Part 2 of the updated treatment plan, numbers (2) to (6). ... Mr McKendrick submits that it would not be in HB's best interests that the potentially last moments of her life were lived with her undergoing the violent and invasive procedures necessary in providing CPR, that it would be a traumatic scene for her children to witness in her final moments. I entirely accept those submissions and the force in them, but key to the decision must be the wishes and feelings of HB and it is plain that administering CPR in the event of a further collapse and giving her, albeit a very, very small chance of life, is what she would wish. In my judgment, at the moment, it remains in her best interests for that treatment to be provided to her. I entirely accept that there will undoubtedly come a time when such treatments would no longer be in her best interests but I am entirely satisfied that that stage has not been reached yet."
  • 06/02/19
    (1428)
    : Event. MHLA: Panel course - Leeds, 6/3/19 and 7/3/19 —The MHLA is an approved provider of the two-day course which must be attended by prospective members of the Law Society’s mental health accreditation scheme. Price: £300 (MHLA members); £390 (non-members); £270 (group discount). CPD: 12 hours. See MHLA website for further details and to book online.
  • 06/02/19
    (1427)
    : Event. MHLA: Panel course - London, 27/2/19 and 28/2/19 —The MHLA is an approved provider of the two-day course which must be attended by prospective members of the Law Society’s mental health accreditation scheme. Price: £300 (MHLA members); £390 (non-members); £270 (group discount). CPD: 12 hours. See MHLA website for further details and to book online.
  • 05/02/19
    (1420)
    : Legislation. Mental Health (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) Order 2018This Order amends Article 77 (power to discharge patients other than restricted patients) of the Mental Health (Northern Ireland) Order 1986. The pre-existing situation "could have [had] the effect that a patient who is detainable for assessment, in accordance with Article 4, is discharged before the assessment period is completed even if they meet the criteria for detention assessment (but not the criteria the Tribunal must use)" (para 6.7 of explanatory memorandum).
  • 05/02/19
    (1407)
    : Parliamentary briefing on Mental Capacity (Amendment) Bill. Law Society, 'Parliamentary briefing: Mental Capacity (Amendment) Bill: House of Commons second reading' (18/12/18) — Extract from Law Society website: "The Law Society is concerned by provisions in the Mental Capacity (Amendment) Bill. While attempting to simplify the current arrangements under the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), the Bill removes vital existing safeguards for cared-for people. The Bill should be amended to avoid the unlawful treatment of the vulnerable individuals who receive care and treatment under conditions of detention. Many changes have been made but there is still some way to go. There is a real risk that many of the flaws in the existing system will be duplicated and that the new system will replace one deficient system with another than removes existing safeguards for people. This briefing sets out our key positions on the Bill."
  • 05/02/19
    (1351)
    : LPS equality analysis. DHSC, 'Equality Analysis: Liberty Protection Safeguards – Mental Capacity (Amendment) Bill' (17/12/18) — Details from Gov.uk website: "This document looks at the positive, neutral and negative effects that this legislation could have on people with protected characteristics and other groups, such as carers. This is in line with the Secretary of State’s Public Sector Equality Duty, and duties under the National Health Service Act 2006. The Mental Capacity (Amendment) Bill sets out the measures the government will take to replace the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) scheme in the Mental Capacity Act 2005. This is a process that authorises deprivations of liberty for the care and treatment of those who lack capacity. The new system is called liberty protection safeguards. As changes are made to the bill, the government will consider the equality issues and this document will be updated when appropriate."
  • 05/02/19
    (1317)
    : Case (Settlement of property on trust). LCN v KF [2019] EWCOP 1 — "This is an application under section 18(1)(h) of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 for the settlement of CJF's property on trust. ... By the time of the hearing it was expected that CJF would die in a matter of days. As noted earlier in this judgement, CJF died the following week. ... LCN [CJF's deputy] made an application on 20th November 2018 for the settlement of CJF's assets including his property at 1AY on revocable trust for himself during his lifetime and thereafter for 1AY to pass to EH [CFJ's daughter] and AH [EH's husband] and the residue of CJF's estate to pass to KF [CFJ's mother]. ... By the rules of intestacy, CJF's estate would be divided equally between KF and CJF's biological father, stated by KF to be BJF. This is subject to section 18 of the Family Law Reform Act 1987 which raises a rebuttable presumption that BJF pre-deceased CJF as his name did not appear on CJF's birth certificate. KF was able to contact BJF, but only through social media. That contact was sufficient, in my view, to rebut the presumption. If the court did not approve the settlement of CJF's property, it would be divided equally between KF and BJF with nothing passing to EH and AH. It would be open to EH and AH to make an application under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975, but the outcome of such an application was uncertain. ... In this case, I consider that there were exceptional circumstance justifying proceeding without BJF being notified. These circumstances were his complete lack of involvement in CJF's life and care and his denial of paternity. There was a genuine urgency and balancing the prejudice of proceeding in the absence of BJF with the prejudice to EH and AH of not proceeding, I considered that the hearing had to take place despite the lack of service on BJF. It was agreed between the parties, and I ordered, that attempts should be made after the hearing to locate BJF and serve him with a copy of the final order so that it would be open to him to apply to set aside or vary it. ... The parties agree, and I find, that the authorities on the making of a statutory will apply to the settlement of CJF's estate in this case. I was advised by Miss Hughes that between 1925 and 1959 the Court had no power to make a statutory will and so would have approved settlement trusts as an alternative. ... All agreed that 1AY should pass to EH and AH and that the residue of the estate should pass to KF. I take that agreement into account and see no reason to depart from it. ... The question remains whether AH and EH should be effectively liable for some of the Inheritance Tax liability or whether the liability should all be borne by the estate, and in effect KF. ... I do not consider that it would be in CJF's best interests for there to be any risk to the security and stability of EH's and AH's home and therefore I consider that they should inherit 1AY effectively free of Inheritance Tax."
  • 04/02/19
    (2317)
    : Case (Aggravated damages following MCA breaches). Esegbona v King’s College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust [2019] EWHC 77 (QB) — "The claimant, Dr Gloria Esegbona, brings this claim as administrator of the estate of the deceased, her mother, Christiana Esegbona. The action is brought in negligence and false imprisonment. The amended claim form states that the claimant's claim is a claim in clinical negligence and/or pursuant to the Fatal Accidents Act 1976 and/or the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1934. The claimant claims damages for pain, suffering and loss of amenity as well as damages, including aggravated damages, for false imprisonment. It is the claimant's case not only that the medical, nursing and other staff at the defendant’s hospital owed her mother a duty to treat her with reasonable care and skill but also that the defendant had duties under the Mental Capacity Act 2005: to take reasonable steps to establish whether Mrs Esegbona lacked capacity before doing any act in connection with her care or treatment; and further that if the defendant reasonably believed that Mrs Esegbona lacked capacity whether it would be in her best interests for any act in connection with her care or treatment to be done; and to take steps to obtain a court order or the relevant authorisation under schedule A1 to the Act before depriving Mrs Esegbona of her liberty. The claimant says the defendant acted in breach of these duties."
  • 04/02/19
    (1446)
    : Case (Australian case on capacity and ECT). PBU v Mental Health Tribunal (2018) VSC 564 — Headnotes from judgment: (1) "ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – appeal – decisions of Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (‘VCAT’) that two persons with mental illness be compulsorily subjected to electroconvulsive treatment (‘ECT’) – determination that they lacked the capacity to give informed consent to or refuse treatment – whether VCAT properly interpreted and applied requirement that person be able to ‘use or weigh’ information relevant to decision – further requirement that there be no less restrictive way for the person to be treated – whether this requirement only met where treatment immediately needed to prevent serious deterioration in person’s health or serious self-harm or harm to another – ‘capacity to give informed consent’ – Mental Health Act 2014 (Vic) ss 68, 69, 70, 72, 93 and 96." (2) "HUMAN RIGHTS – two persons having mental disability found by VCAT to lack capacity to give informed consent to or refuse ECT – whether incompatible with human rights to self-determination, to be free of non-consensual medical treatment and to personal inviolability – assessing capacity compatibly with those rights and the right to health – applicable principles – dignity of risk – Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (Vic) ss 8(3), 10(c), 13(a), International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights art 12(1), Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities arts 12(4), 24."
  • 04/02/19
    (1422)
    : CQC to review restraint, seclusion and segregation. CQC, 'CQC to review the use of restraint, prolonged seclusion and segregation for people with mental health problems, a learning disability and/or autism' (3/12/18) — Extract from CQC website: "We will review and make recommendations about the use of restrictive interventions in settings that provide inpatient and residential care for people with mental health problems, a learning disability and/or autism. ... We will take forward this work and will report on its interim findings in May 2019, with a full report by March 2020. We have encountered the use of physical restraint, prolonged seclusion and segregation in wards for people of all ages with a learning disability and/or autism and in secure and rehabilitation mental health wards. The review will consider whether and how seclusion and segregation are used in registered social care services for people with a learning disability and/or autism. This will include residential services for young people with very complex needs - such as a severe learning disability and physical health needs - and secure children’s homes. This aspect of the review will be undertaken in partnership with Ofsted."
  • 04/02/19
    (1404)
    : Parole Board consultation outcome. Ministry of Justice, 'Reconsideration of Parole Board decisions: creating a new and open system: Government response to the public consultation' (Cm 30, 4/2/19) — Details of outcome from Gov.uk website: "This consultation sought the public’s view on a mechanism that would allow the Parole Board to reconsider its decisions in certain circumstances. The Government has concluded that there should be a mechanism to allow reconsideration of parole decisions. The process will provide an easier way to challenge decisions which appear to be seriously flawed. The Secretary of State will able to apply for reconsideration to the Parole Board, taking account of any representations from victims. It will no longer be necessary to resort to costly and time-consuming judicial review proceeding. Decisions on whether a case should be reconsidered will be taken by judicial members of the Parole Board. Reasons for their decisions will be provided to victims. We will make provision in the Parole Board Rules to implement these changes later this year. Between now and then, we will put into place the necessary guidance, training and resources need to operate this mechanism."
  • 04/02/19
    (1357)
    : Consultation. Ministry of Justice, 'Reconsideration of Parole Board decisions: Creating a new and open system' (consultation from 28/4/18 to 28/7/18) — "This paper considers and seeks views on the proposed parameters for and operation of the proposed reconsideration process, with respect to: (1) which types of decisions should be reconsidered; (2) who should be able to apply for reconsideration of a decision; (3) on what basis a decision should be reconsidered; (4) how we can make the process transparent whilst also ensuring there are sufficient safeguards to protect panel members, victims and others.", "This paper considers and seeks views on the proposed parameters for and operation of the proposed reconsideration process, with respect to: (1) which types of decisions should be reconsidered; (2) who should be able to apply for reconsideration of a decision; (3) on what basis a decision should be reconsidered; (4) how we can make the process transparent whilst also ensuring there are sufficient safeguards to protect panel members, victims and others."
  • 03/02/19
    (2228)
    : Case (LPA attorney as substituted personal representative). Whittaker v Hancock & Ors [2018] EWHC 3478 (Ch) — "The claimant has brought a claim under section 50 of the Administration of Justice Act 1985 to be appointed as substitute personal representative of the estate of John Parker in place of the second defendant, her mother, and for a caveat entered by the third defendant on 20 July 2016 to be removed. ... The third defendant is the deceased's daughter and opposes the claim. ... In a statement accompanying the Will, signed by the deceased and witnessed by a legal secretary the deceased explains that he has made no provision for the third defendant ... On 20 July 2016 the third defendant caused a caveat to be entered. She subsequently entered an appearance to the claimant's warning asserting that the 2003 Will may be invalid due to the deceased lacking testamentary capacity, being subject to undue influence and want of knowledge and approval. ... Mr Devereux-Cooke submits that I should make an order appointing the claimant as substitute personal representative for the second defendant. The claimant is the attorney for the second defendant, the LPA having been registered on 16 January 2014. The second defendant cannot consent to the claim as she lacks capacity. The first defendant does not oppose the claim. ... It is a general LPA in respect of property and financial affairs that is in wide terms enabling the claimant, as attorney, to make decisions about the second defendant's property and financial affairs. There are no conditions or restrictions specified in the instrument. ... It is also relevant that the second defendant is the sole beneficiary under the 2003 will. She is in a different position to a case where there are a number of beneficiaries. ... I accept Mr Devereux-Cooke's analysis that the claimant has standing to bring this claim under section 50. If I am wrong in my analysis I consider that the position could be remedied by adding the second defendant as a claimant and appointing the current claimant as her litigation friend. I also accept Mr Devereux-Cooke's analysis of rules 31 and 35 of the Non-Contentious Probate Rules 1987 and would have been prepared to treat the claim as including this as an alternative legal route, had it been necessary. ... I consider that in order for the deceased's estate to be administered it is necessary to substitute the claimant as personal representative in place of the second defendant."
  • 03/02/19
    (1525)
    : Case (Damages for Parole Board delay). R (Bate) v Parole Board [2018] EWHC 2820 (Admin) — "Four grounds of claim were pleaded in detail. They can be summarised as challenging: (i) a failure, in violation of Art 5(4), to provide a parole hearing within a reasonably speedy interval; (ii) a systemic failure to maintain and operate a system for speedy and prompt parole reviews; (iii) an unlawful policy for prioritisation of listing which ignores support for release and prospects of release which are identified as realistic, and/or ignores a legitimate expectation given as to the timetable for a deferred hearing; (iv) an unlawful failure, by the decision letter of 2nd December 2016, to direct expedition in the listing of Mr Bate's deferred hearing. ... For the reason I have given, I would find in Mr Bate's favour on ground 1 and ground 4, and would award him damages on the basis indicated in paragraphs 77, 88 and 89 above. I would refuse relief in respect of grounds 3 and 4."
  • 02/02/19
    (2258)
    : MCA-related damages. 1 Crown Office Row, 'Alasdair Henderson secures award of damages for false imprisonment in a hospital setting' (30/1/19) — This web page reports on a claim against Kings College Hospital in which the High Court held that there had been a failure to follow the DOLS requirements to undertake a full capacity assessment and, if appropriate, a best interests assessment, and that the hospital had intentionally kept the family in the dark about Christiana Esegbona's discharge to a nursing home until the last minute in order to prevent objection. The claim for false imprisonment and for negligent failures to provide adequate information to the nursing home (at which the patient died after pulling out her tracheostomy tube) was successful, and the court awarded aggravated damages because of the deliberate exclusion of the family from the discharge planning process.
  • 01/02/19
    (0859)
    : Case (Dishonest solicitor). Maitland-Hudson v SRA [2019] EWHC 67 (Admin) — "The Appellant appeals against findings of misconduct and dishonesty made against him by ... the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal ... Pursuant to those findings, on 2 May 2018 the Appellant was struck off the Roll of Solicitors and ordered to pay the SRA's costs, including £300,000 by way of interim payment. The Tribunal found the Appellant to have been guilty of misconduct "at the highest level", characterised as "deliberate, calculated and repeated… over a number of years". It was aggravated by the Appellant's dishonesty and attempts to defend his conduct. The appeal is based on grounds of alleged procedural unfairness, specifically that the Appellant, a litigant in person, was substantially impaired in his ability to defend himself, to the extent that he admitted himself to hospital. Despite the fact that consultant psychiatrist experts on both sides found that the Appellant was unable to represent himself, the Tribunal refused to dismiss the proceedings on the basis of "incurable unfairness" or even to stay or adjourn their remainder."
  • 29/01/19
    (1438)
    : Case (False imprisonment and damages). R (Jollah) v SSHD [2018] EWCA Civ 1260 — "The context is one of immigration detention. The claimant, who is the respondent to this appeal (and who for present purposes I will call "IJ"), was made subject to a curfew restriction between the hours of 23.00 and 07.00 for a period between 3 February 2014 and 14 July 2016, pending potential deportation. Such curfew was imposed by those acting on behalf of the appellant Secretary of State purportedly pursuant to the provisions of paragraph 2 (5) of Schedule 3 to the Immigration Act 1971 (as it then stood). It has, however, been accepted in these proceedings that, in the light of subsequent Court of Appeal authority, there was no power to impose a curfew under those provisions. Consequently, the curfew was unlawfully imposed. The question arising is whether IJ is entitled to damages for false imprisonment in respect of the time during which he was subject to the unlawful curfew. The trial judge, Lewis J, decided that he was. Having so decided, the judge at a subsequent hearing assessed the damages at £4,000: [2017] EWHC 330 (Admin); [2017] EWHC 2821 (Admin). The Secretary of State now appeals, with leave granted by the judge, against the decision that IJ was entitled to damages for false imprisonment. IJ cross-appeals, with leave granted by Singh LJ, against the amount of the award of damages. It is said on behalf of IJ that a much greater award should have been made."
  • 29/01/19
    (1157)
    : Consultation. Ministry of Justice, 'Revising the Mental Capacity Act 2005 Code of Practice: Call for evidence' (consultation from 24/1/19 to 7/3/19) — Extract: "Since the MCA came into force in 2007, the COP has been used extensively by a wide range of stakeholders. In light of changes in case law, and lessons learned through practical use of the COP over the past 11 years, revision of the COP is required in order to better reflect current needs. The Act itself is currently not under review, however the survey below provides an opportunity to comment on the practical guidance outlined in the COP. Comments received will inform decisions to revise, update and where relevant to provide further guidance in the COP."
  • 23/01/19
    (2205)
    : FOIA response. Ministry of Justice, 'FOIA response 181221028: DOL conditions' (23/1/19) — In response to a FOIA request the MOJ have stated that (paraphrased): (1) There are 2712 conditionally-discharged patients. (2) A database search for the keywords "escorted" and "accompanied" identified 39 cases where the patient has a condition not to go into the community unless escorted or accompanied by staff. (3) A database search for the keyword "permission" did not identify any cases where the patient has a condition not to leave without permission. (4) It cannot be known for certain that these conditions amount to confinement for Article 5 purposes until each case is examined in discussion with the RC. (5) No information can be provided about capacity to abide by the conditions as this information is not held (information about capacity held within RCs' reports is not considered to be sufficiently recent). (6) There may be more than these 39 cases because: (a) the wording of conditions varies considerably; and (b) it is likely that in some cases the care plan, rather than a condition, includes arrangements that amount to a deprivation of liberty (RCs and others have been asked to contact the MOJ for advice in such cases).
  • 22/01/19
    (2350)
    : Case (Inherent jurisdiction to authorise DOL of vulnerable adult). A Local Authority v BF [2018] EWCA Civ 2962An interim order made on 10/12/18 required BF to reside at a care home, over Christmas, and not at his own or his son's home, despite BF's having capacity to make decisions about his residence and wanting to return home. The order was expressed to last until a further hearing to take place no later than 31/1/19 (later fixed for 16/1/19) when the judge could hear full argument on what relief could be granted pursuant to the inherent jurisdiction. The local authority appealed on the basis that the order infringed Article 5. The appeal was dismissed: (1) BF is a vulnerable adult (old, blind, infirm, in a squalid and dangerous home, with undue influence present in relationship with son) who needs protection despite not lacking capacity. (2) The test of "unsound mind" is different from the test of capacity, and there is prima facie evidence that he may be of unsound mind. (3) In an emergency situation, someone may be deprived of their liberty in the absence of evidence of mental disorder without infringing Article 5 (Winterwerp); even if BF is found not to be of unsound mind, his vulnerability is such that he could not be returned home without careful planning, which is a crucial component of the protection afforded by the inherent jurisdiction. [This is a surprising decision on both the "unsoundness of mind" and "emergency situation" fronts. This permission judgment of 21/12/18 was published on 21/1/19; presumably the full judgment from the 10/12/18 and 16/1/19 hearings will be published soon.]
  • 21/01/19
    (1451)
    : Case (Infanticide wrongly withdrawn from jury). R v Tunstill [2018] EWCA Crim 1696 — "This was a case where the child was killed soon after birth so that this case can be distinguished from the situation where mental ill health, usually post-partum psychosis, develops over a period of time. Nonetheless, there was evidence from Dr Bashir and Dr Khisty which showed that notwithstanding the existence of the appellant's pre-birth mental disorder, the effects of giving birth had led to a further condition, characterised by Dr Bashir as an acute stress reaction which was a causative factor in disturbing the balance of the appellant's mind. The issue of causation is a matter of fact for a jury after appropriate direction from a judge as to what can constitute a legally effective cause. For the reasons given, we consider that the effects of birth are not required by s.1(1) to be the sole cause of a disturbance of balance of the mind. In the circumstances, we are persuaded that the judge should not have withdrawn infanticide from the jury. There was evidence fit for the jury's consideration. It is not for this court to assess the likelihood of its success. Dr Barlow's evidence was to the contrary, but the issue for us is whether a jury should have had this alternative option to consider. We think it should have had that opportunity. In the circumstances, therefore, the conviction for murder is unsafe and the verdict is quashed. In our judgment, the interests of justice require a re-trial and we so order."
  • 13/01/19
    (1220)
    : Conditional discharge/DOL guidance. HM Prison and Probation Service, 'Mental Health Casework Section: Guidance: Discharge conditions that amount to deprivation of liberty' (January 2019) — The aim of this this operational policy is to ensure that, where appropriate, restricted patients can continue their rehabilitation in a community-based setting following the Supreme Court's decision in SSJ v MM [2018] UKSC 60. For patients who lack capacity to consent to deprivation of liberty and the risk is to themselves, the solution is to allow conditional discharge with deprivation of liberty authorised under the Mental Capacity Act 2005. For patients who lack capacity and the risk is to others, and also for patients who have capacity, the solution, if further treatment and rehabilitation could be given in a community setting, is to consider long-term s17 escorted leave (use of the inherent jurisdiction is not considered to be the correct approach). The leave of absence would be for an initial period of up to 12 months. For patients already on conditional discharge, the following options will be considered: (a) variation of conditions; (b) recall, with or without instantaneous grant of escorted leave to the current placement; (c) absolute discharge; (d) referral to tribunal. The policy mentions reassessing patients who present risks to themselves in order to see if they lack capacity after all, which may an MCA authorisation possible.
  • 12/01/19
    (2258)
    : Case (Damages for unlawful immigration detention). R (Adegun) v SSHD [2019] EWHC 22 (Admin) — "There are two bases of challenge to Mr Adegun's detention which, in broad outline, are as follows. ... There is first an issue, which I shall call the "rule 34 issue", as to whether Mr Adegun declined a medical examination pursuant to rule 34 of the Detention Centre Rules when he was taken into detention. ... The second issue I shall call the "paragraph 55.10 issue". It arises because there is evidence, not disputed by the Secretary of State, that Mr Adegun was suffering from a mental health condition which was not recognised by the Home Office until some time after his admission into detention and was not treated with medication until 19 January 2016. ... I therefore propose to award nominal damages in respect of the early period of Mr Adegun's detention and substantial damages in respect of 40 days' detention."
  • 11/01/19
    (1405)
    : Case (Meaning of "nature" in discharge criteria). LW v Cornwall Partnership NHS Trust [2018] UKUT 408 (AAC)(1) Having considered the statutory framework of CTOs and the legislative purposes behind them the UT concluded, primarily on that basis, that in cases where there is a risk of a relapse which might necessitate recall, how soon that such a relapse is likely to occur is a relevant consideration. However, other factors, including the risk to the patient and/or others if a relapse were to occur, may also be relevant, and there is no requirement for likely relapse to be "soon", "in the near future" or within the permitted duration of a CTO. (2) Addressing the claimants' arguments on the analogy between detention and CTO cases, the judge stated that while there are some parallels between the s3 regime and CTOs they are not such that the same principles necessarily apply to both, and (to the extent necessary to reach a view on the detention cases) neither of the previous judgments cited in CM v Derbyshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust [2011] UKUT 129 (AAC) provided an authoritative basis for the view that imminence of relapse is the only factor or need be in the near future.
  • 03/01/19
    (2236)
    : CPS guidance. Crown Prosecution Service, 'Prosecution Guidance: Assaults on Emergency Workers (Offences) Act 2018' (13/11/18) — Extract: "Headlines: (1) Police and prosecutors should cease charging the existing offences of common assault, battery, assaulting a police officer in the execution of their duty and other existing similar offences where the complainant is an emergency worker (in accordance with the definition in the Act). Prosecutors should charge under the provisions of the 2018 Act as at the commencement of the legislation where there is sufficient evidence for a realistic prospect of conviction and a prosecution is required in the public interest. (2) Police should charge the offence at section 1 of the 2018 Act (where a guilty plea is anticipated and the offence is suitable for sentence in a magistrates’ court) in preference to existing summary offences that apply to assaults against emergency workers."
  • 03/01/19
    (2220)
    : MOJ circular. Ministry of Justice, 'Circular 2018/01: Assaults on Emergency Workers (Offences) Act 2018' (13/11/18) — Extract from document: "The purpose of this circular is to provide guidance on the Act’s provisions. The circular is for guidance only and should not be regarded as providing legal advice. Guidance for prosecutors on the new offence of assault on an emergency worker contained in the Act will be made available on the CPS website. The CPS are responsible for advising police for the purposes of criminal proceedings. For other operational advice, police should seek advice from their own legal advisors."
  • 03/01/19
    (0107)
    : Event. PELT: Advanced course for MHAAs (new course) - Hoylake, 13/2/19 —Being a MHAA is a demanding role where you are often expected to perform many and various tasks. This course assumes basic knowledge and experience and will examine the many demands of job and provide some effective and legal coping mechanisms including keeping the CQC happy. In addition to the MHA, the Code and the Regulations the course will analyse the relevance and implications of case law. It will also look at how the MCA and DoLs dovetail into the MHA. The course will enable a group of experienced MHAAs to get together and share both the demands of the job and some solutions. Speaker: Peter Edwards. Price: £125 plus VAT. See Peter Edwards Law website for further details and booking information.
  • 03/01/19
    (0103)
    : Event. PELT: Introduction to MCA and DOLS - Hoylake, 10/4/19 —This is an intensive introduction to all those who need a basic understanding of the MCA and DOLS. Identifying the ‘decision maker’ as the person responsible for the outcome of that particular decision is the key to lawful decision making on behalf of those who lack capacity. Realising that depriving a person of their liberty removes the legal protection given to decision makers unless the deprivation is 'prescribed by law' catches many people out. Not knowing what you don’t know promotes risky practice. Speaker: Peter Edwards. Price: £125 plus VAT. See Peter Edwards Law website for further details and booking information.
  • 03/01/19
    (0101)
    : Event. PELT: Depriving Children and Young People of their liberty lawfully - Hoylake, 9/5/19 —"DoLs start at 18. MCA 16. MHA no minimum age for detention. How to lawfully deprive a child or young person of their liberty requires great care. What is a DoL and where does parental responsibility fit? The course will look at the complex inter relationship between the MCA, MHA and Children Act. When should a child or young person be sectioned? What alternatives are there? Where does s.25 Children Act (secure accommodation) fit in?" Speaker: Peter Edwards. Price: £125 plus VAT. See Peter Edwards Law website for further details and booking information.
  • 02/01/19
    (1723)
    : Event. PELT: Mental Health Act Masterclass (new material) - Hoylake, 14/5/19 —This course will allow practitioners to reflect on and update their practice by ensuring they have an up-to-date understanding of the law. The contents of the course will be up to date and reflect any changes or significant developments which affect lawful practice. Speaker: Peter Edwards. Price: £125 plus VAT. See Peter Edwards Law website for further details and booking information.
  • 02/01/19
    (1720)
    : Event. PELT: Court of Protection Masterclass (new material) - Hoylake, 16/5/19 —This course reviews recent developments in Court of Protection cases. It will include the latest CoP cases on deprivation of liberty, capacity, health and welfare, Legal Aid and treatment and what practitioners can learn from these cases that will promote effective and lawful practice. It will also cover the developing role of ALRs and how they can be utilised, and what the implications will be for litigation friends and IMCAs. Speaker: Peter Edwards. Price: £125 plus VAT. See Peter Edwards Law website for further details and booking information.
  • 02/01/19
    (1716)
    : Event. PELT: Introduction to using Court of Protection - Hoylake, 5/6/19 —The Court of Protection has a very wide ambit, potentially touching the lives of many vulnerable people. It is now the place where deprivation of liberty safeguards and procedures are authorised or challenged and where arguments about capacity or adult protection and best interests are resolved. It is essential that all those working with vulnerable people/safeguarding have an understanding of how to access and use the Court. In certain circumstances there is a legal obligation on authorities to apply to the Court. Speaker: Peter Edwards. Price: £125 plus VAT. See Peter Edwards Law website for further details and booking information.
  • 02/01/19
    (1624)
    : Event. Edge Training: BIA Report Writing - London, 26/4/19 —This course is targeted specifically at qualified Best Interests Assessors (BIAs) and aims to provide them with the knowledge and skills needed to ensure robust and legally defensible assessments under the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguarding (DoLS). Speaker: Piers McNeil. Price: £140 plus VAT. See Edge Training website for further details and booking information.
  • 02/01/19
    (1557)
    : Event. Edge Training: Understanding the Court of Protection - London, 15/3/19 —This one day course is designed to enable participants to feel equipped to attend the Court of Protection and to ensure they know what to expect: the best way to give evidence; the key court of protection roles; courtroom etiquette and terminology. The course will help delegates prepare to give evidence and deal with challenging questioning. A barrister in the field will give them tips on staying calm and composed under pressure and ensuring the evidence they give is fair, balanced and accurately represents application of the key components of the Mental Capacity Act to the Court of Protection judge. Speaker: Sophy Miles. Price: £140 plus VAT. See Edge Training website for further details and booking information.
  • 02/01/19
    (1507)
    : Event. Edge Training: DOLS Conference - London, 8/3/19 —Speakers: Mr Justice Baker (RPR Selection, Duties and Responsibilities), Sneha Khilay (Unconscious Bias and DoLS Assessments), Alex Ruck Keene (A DoLS Case Law Update), Steven Richards (The Future: Liberty Protection Safeguards - where are we now?), Mr E (The Bournewood judgment and the impact of the Liberty Protection Safeguards?). Chair: Aasya Mughal. Price: £145 plus VAT. See Edge Training website for further details and booking information.
  • 02/01/19
    (1501)
    : Event. Edge Training: Level 3 Safeguarding Adults, London 4/3/19 —This one-day Level 3 Safeguarding Adults training course offers delegates the opportunity to explore the legal framework, which underpins safeguarding adults work, and to explore the key challenges that may arise in practice. It will guide the delegates through the safeguarding adults process and focus on making safeguarding personal. Speaker: Dawn Revell. Price: £140 plus VAT. See Edge Training website for further details and booking information.
  • 02/01/19
    (1458)
    : Event. Edge Training: DOLS Authorised Signatories - London, 25/2/19 —This course aims to provide guidance on the role of signatories and to update designated signatories in relation to the latest case law around their specific role within the DOLS procedures. Please note: this course is not designed for BIAs but specifically the role of local authority managers acting as authorised signatories. Speaker: Steven Richards. Price: £140 plus VAT. See Edge Training website for further details and booking information.
  • 02/01/19
    (1438)
    : Event. Edge Training: Liberty Protection Safeguards - Sheffield, 1/2/19 —This one day course aims to provide a detailed analysis of the Liberty Protection Safeguards contained in the Mental Capacity (Amendment) Bill that is currently before Parliament. The course considers the differences between DoLS and LPS and looks at what the new process will be and who will be affected.Speaker: Steven Richards. Price: £140 plus VAT. See Edge Training website for further details and booking information.
  • 02/01/19
    (1432)
    : Event. Edge Training: BIA Legal Update (Annual Refresher) - London, 1/2/19 —This course aims to provide an essential update on case law in relation to the role of the BIA. Learning outcomes: consider the latest DoLS news, research and guidance; examine the latest case law relevant to DoLS and the BIA role; reflect on how the information covered affects BIA practice. Speaker: Aasya Mughal. Price: £140 plus VAT. See Edge Training website for further details and booking information.
  • 02/01/19
    (1429)
    : Event. Edge Training: Liberty Protection Safeguards - London, 28/1/19 —This one day course aims to provide a detailed analysis of the Liberty Protection Safeguards contained in the Mental Capacity (Amendment) Bill that is currently before Parliament. The course considers the differences between DoLS and LPS and looks at what the new process will be and who will be affected.Speaker: Steven Richards. Price: £140 plus VAT. See Edge Training website for further details and booking information.
  • 02/01/19
    (1422)
    : Event. Edge Training: DOL, children and young people - London, 22/3/19 —This course aims to update staff working with children, young people and those in transition with the latest case law and developments in relation to deprivation of liberty. The course will consider these developments and the impact on practice. It examines the Supreme Court ruling on deprivation of liberty and considers practical issues in its application for children and young people. Price: £140 plus VAT. See Edge Training website for further details and booking information.
  • 02/01/19
    (1417)
    : Event. Edge Training: AMHP Legal Update - London, 18/3/19 —The main aim is to give AMHPs the opportunity to update their legal knowledge and skills regarding their work under the Mental Health Act 1983. This update has a focus on practice dilemmas arising from recent statutory changes as well as case law developments. Speaker: Rob Brown. Price: £140 plus VAT. See Edge Training website for further details and booking information.
  • 01/01/19
    (1754)
    : Legislation. Assaults on Emergency Workers (Offences) Act 2018 — This Act creates: (1) a new either-way offence of assault or battery committed against an emergency worker with a maximum sentence of 12 months, or a fine, or both; (2) a statutory aggravating factor for various offences when committed against an emergency worker. In force 13/11/18.
  • 01/01/19
    (1719)
    : Case (John Blavo personally ordered to repay Legal Aid claims). Lord Chancellor v Blavo and Co Solictors Ltd [2018] EWHC 3556 (QB)The High Court gave judgment for the Lord Chancellor against John Blavo in the sum of £22,136,001.71 following the allegation that Blavo & Co made dishonest claims for payment on the legal aid fund for thousands of cases where it was not entitled to any fee.
  • 01/01/19
    (1701)
    : Case (Intervention costs statutory demands). John Blavo v Law Society [2018] EWCA Civ 2250The Law Society successfully appealed against a decision to set aside two statutory demands (of £151,816.27 and £643,489.20) which had been served on John Blavo in relation to costs incurred in respect of the intervention into his practice.

Update archive