Open justice | Let us know if you have a tribunal decision you would like to publish (see Re A)
Email updates | CPD scheme – now fully up to date!

Online forum | Latest topic on forum: Section 37/41 patient received without paperwork | News

August 2016 update

Website

  • Mental Health Law Online CPD scheme: 12 points for £60. Obtain 12 CPD points online by answering monthly questionnaires. The scheme is an ideal way to obtain your necessary hours, or to evidence your continued competence. It also helps to support the continued development of this website, and your subscriptions (and re-subscriptions) are appreciated. For full details and to subscribe, see CPD scheme.

Case law

  • Pregnancy case (Feb 2016). Re CS (Termination of Pregnancy) [2016] EWCOP 10, [2016] MHLO 34 — "This is an application by a Hospital Trust for orders in respect of a young woman, who I will refer to as CS, who is said to lack capacity and in respect of whom the Trust seeks an order that it would be in her best interests to undergo surgery terminating her current pregnancy. This hearing is being conducted in the Court of Protection in open court in accordance with the Rules but subject to a reporting restriction order which I made earlier this afternoon."§
  • Capacity case (Feb 2016). Re Clarke [2016] EWCOP 11, [2016] MHLO 33 — "In 2012, I gave three judgments in this matter. ... A written application has now been made by Mr Michael Clarke on 3 September 2015 to vary the order of 9 October 2012 so as to allow the sale of Mrs Clarke’s Blackpool property. There has also been a request by Ms Angela Wilde and Mr Kevin Clarke for access to the property in order to inspect and maintain it, but no application has been issued, despite time being allowed. The application and request are both opposed."§
  • Caesarean case (Mar 2016). The NHS Acute Trust v C [2016] EWCOP 17, [2016] MHLO 32 — "The applicant Trusts provide obstetric and psychiatric care and services to the respondent, C. They have made applications for an order (i) in the Court of Protection to permit the applicants to undertake various steps and measures in respect of C's forthcoming labour; and (ii) a reporting restrictions order."§
  • Deputyship case (Jan 2016). Re RP [2016] EWCOP 1 — "This is a dispute about the appointment of a deputy for property and affairs ..."
  • Deputyship case (Jan 2016). Re A: C v D [2016] EWCOP 3 — "This is a contested application for the appointment of a new deputy for property and affairs and a new trustee."
  • CICA case (Jan 2016). PJV v Assistant Director Adult Social Care Newcastle City Council [2016] EWCOP 7, [2016] MHLO 28 — "I am pleased record that the parties addressed these points [(i) the imposition of a term in a trust directed to the risk that a perpetrator would benefit from the award, (ii) the terms of the appointment of a deputy, (iii) the declaratory relief granted and the discharge of the Deputy, and (iv) the Peters undertaking and a restriction on the powers of the trustees]. I attach in Parts 1 and 2 of the Schedule hereto (i) the wording for the appointment of a deputy that was agreed, and (ii) the terms of the trust that were agreed (anonymised save for the identity of the original trustee). I also record that, as the appointment of the deputy was discharged, it was agreed that there was no need for a Peters undertaking. It seems to me that the agreed wording for the appointment of a deputy should be a useful precedent or starting point in other cases." (CICA case.)§
  • Capacity case (Jan 2016). WBC v Z [2016] EWCOP 4, [2016] MHLO 27 — "The central issue which arises in this case is whether risks taken by a 20-year old young woman with autism represent 'unwise' decision-making, or evidence her lack of capacity."§
  • DOL case (Jan 2016). North Yorkshire County Council v MAG [2016] EWCOP 5, [2016] MHLO 26 — "I have had little difficulty in reaching the conclusion that the applications for permission should be granted and the appeals allowed. ... This appears to be a case in which DJ Glentworth uncharacteristically appears to have allowed her understandable concern about MAG's living circumstances, and her palpable frustration at what she saw as NYCC's tardiness in resolving his accommodation issues, to distract her from following a clear path to outcome. The result is one which I consider is unsupportable, and wrong. Picking six key themes from the arguments, I divide my discussion of the judgment into the following sub-headings: (i) Did the judge ask herself the correct question(s)? (ii) The effect of Re MN on these facts; (iii) Has there has been a breach of Article 5? (iv) Taking a decision which MAG could not take for himself; (v) No alternative option; impermissible pressure; (vi) The factual findings."§
  • Inherent jurisdiction case. Al-Jeffery v Al-Jeffery (Vulnerable adult, British citizen) [2016] EWHC 2151 (Fam), [2016] MHLO 25 — "There are two applications before the court. One asks the court to make a statutory forced marriage protection order. The other asks the court to make orders, including mandatory orders, in the exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court to make orders protective of vulnerable adults. ... She now claims that she is being seriously ill-treated by her father and being kept under constraint by him in his flat; and that she is being prevented by him from leaving Saudi Arabia and travelling to Wales or England, which she wishes to do, and is, in the eyes of the law of Wales and England, fully entitled freely to do. ... The father, against whom I [am] asked to make an order, is not a British citizen and owes no allegiance to our Sovereign or this state. Neither of them are present here. Neither of them have lived here for several years. Both of them are citizens of Saudi Arabia and both of them currently live there. There have, indeed, already been recent legal proceedings between them there. Should I, nevertheless, attempt to help her by making the essential order which she seeks for her return here; or should I appreciate that that would be exorbitant and, in my judicial discretion, decline to do so? That is the essential issue and dilemma in this case."§
  • Will case. Poole v Everall [2016] EWHC 2126 (Ch) — "The claimants are David's brothers ... who had benefited under previous wills prepared with the assistance of the Deputy, including one made on 29 February 2012 of which they seek proof in solemn form, but receive nothing in the December will. They allege that that will was not duly executed, that David lacked testamentary capacity and/or did not know and approve of its contents, and/or that its execution was procured by undue influence on Mr. Everall's part."

Legal Aid

  • Legal Aid. Since July 2016, all mental health high cost case bills are being processed by the High Cost Case Team in South Tyneside (no longer by the Liverpool team). The address is: Legal Aid Agency, Unit B8, Berkley Way, Viking Business Park, Jarrow, South Tyneside NE31 1SF. DX 742350 JARROW. See Legal Aid
  • Dishonesty case. Lucia Benyu v Solicitors Regulation Authority [2015] EWHC 4085 (Admin), [2015] MHLO 137 — "This is the adjourned hearing of the Appellant's appeal brought pursuant to section 49 of the Solicitors Act 1974 against the order of the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal ('SDT') dated 3/10/14, striking the Appellant off the Roll of Solicitors and ordering her to pay costs in the sum of £48,000. The decision followed a full three day hearing at which the Appellant was represented by experienced counsel, although she has indicated that she has now made a complaint against that counsel. The SDT found the Appellant to have been dishonest to the criminal standard. But it went on to say that the seriousness of her misconduct was such that it would have struck her off even if it had not made such a finding. ... The Appellant acted in person at the substantive appeal hearing. She has not attended for the hand down of this judgment, although she is fully on notice of it. She invites the court to the set aside the SDT's order; or, alternatively, to strike her off with no dishonesty attached."§

Events

Note that some of these events will be over by the time you read this monthly update.

  • MHLA: 17th Annual Conference - London, 18/11/16. — No results
  • MHLA: Advocacy, Risk and Cross-examination - Leicester, 17/10/16. — No results
  • MHLA: Re-accreditation course - Manchester, 20/9/16. — No results
  • MHLA: Panel course - London, 12/9/16 and 13/9/16. — No results
  • MHLA: Panel course - Leeds, 8/9/16 and 9/9/16. — No results
  • MHLA: Foundation course - London, 30/8/16. — No results
  • PELT: Introduction to COP, including s21A appeals - Hoylake, 20/9/16 — No results See Events
  • PELT: Introduction to the Mental Health Act - Hoylake, 28/9/16 — No results See Events
  • PELT: Introduction to MCA and DOLS - Hoylake, 4/10/16 — No results See Events
  • PELT: Depriving Children and Young People of their liberty lawfully - Hoylake, 18/10/16 — No results See Events
  • PELT: Court of Protection masterclass - Hoylake, 2/11/16 — No results See Events
  • PELT: Introduction to Care Act for those working with MHA or MCA - Hoylake, 10/11/16 — No results See Events
  • PELT: Mental Health Act masterclass and legal update - Hoylake, 15/11/16 — No results See Events
  • PELT: DOL made simple, including MHA or MCA - Hoylake, 1/12/16 — No results See Events
  • RadcliffesLeBrasseur: Annual Mental Health Conference - London, 6/10/16. — No results
  • Switalskis Solicitors, York - Eighth Annual Review of the MCA 2005, 13/10/16. — No results

Books

  • New editions to be published soon. The Mental Health Act Manual by Richard Jones will be published in September 2016, and Mental Health Law by Brenda Hale will be published in December 2016. See flyer and Books page.

Jobs

Note that this job advert has now expired.

Twitter


Retrieved from "https://www.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/index.php?title=August_2016_update&oldid=54755"