Birmingham City Council v SR [2019] EWCOP 28
Deprivation of liberty during conditional discharge (1) Both patients supported but lacked capacity in relation to the proposed care plans, which involved deprivation of liberty concurrently with a conditional discharge, and those plans were in their best interests. (2) Obiter, the division in the MOJ's post-MM guidance (MCA DOL for incapacitous patients whose risk is to themselves, but MHA s17 leave for incapacitous patients whose risk is to others and for capacitous patients) did not withstand scrutiny as it is in patients' best interests to be kept "out of mischief" and therefore out of psychiatric hospital.
Note
The two cases in this judgment were (1) Birmingham City Council v SR and (2) Lancashire County Council v JTA, so sometimes this judgment gets called SR/JTA.
See also
Essex
This case has been summarised on page 27 of 39 Essex Chambers, 'Mental Capacity Report' (issue 96, July 2019).Essex search
This case's neutral citation number appears in the following newsletters:Full judgment: BAILII
Subject(s):
Date: 17/7/19🔍
Court: Court of Protection🔍
Cites:
Judge(s):
- Lieven🔍
Parties:
Citation number(s):
- [2019] EWCOP 28B
- (2019) 22 CCL Rep 326, [2020] 3 All ER 438, (2020) 172 BMLR 173, [2019] Med LR 510, [2020] COPLR 62
- SSJ v MM [2018] UKSC 60
- HM Prison and Probation Service, 'Guidance: Discharge conditions that amount to deprivation of liberty' (January 2019)
- 39 Essex Chambers, 'Mental Capacity Report' (issue 96, July 2019)
- Interface between MHA and MCA
- Jonathan Wilson, 'Mental health: update' (Legal Action, March 2020)
- Jonathan Wilson, 'Mental health: update' (Legal Action, March 2021)
- DSA:MHA - CTOs - Case law
Published: 17/10/20 09:00
Cached: 2024-12-19 09:17:24
The following categories (in blue boxes) can be clicked to view a list of other pages in the same category: