Category:Discharge conditions cases
(Redirected from Category:Discharge conditions)
The old category structure used on this page is comprehensive as it contains every relevant case. The new database structure was introduced in 2019. It is more potentially useful than the old categorisation system: it includes all cases since January 2017, but only a minority of older cases: see Special:Drilldown/Cases. The pages below are initially ordered according to the dates on which they were added to the site (most recent first). The order can be changed by clicking on the symbol beside a column heading: click on the symbol beside "Page and summary" for alphabetical order; click beside "Categories" for the order in which the cases were reported. Click on the arrow symbol again to reverse the order. Click on a page name to view the relevant page. Asterisks mark those cases which have been added to the new database structure.
| Case and summary | Date added | Categories |
|---|---|---|
| * Deprivation of liberty during conditional discharge Birmingham City Council v SR [2019] EWCOP 28 — (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. | 2020‑10‑17 09:00:36 | 2019 cases, Cases, Deprivation of liberty, Discharge conditions cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii, 2019 cases
|
| * Conditional discharge and DOL MC v Cygnet Behavioural Health Ltd [2020] UKUT 230 (AAC) — (1) Although, following MM, the First-tier Tribunal has no power to impose conditions which would amount to a deprivation of liberty, it does have the power to coordinate its decision with the provision of an authorisation under the MCA, either by "the different hats approach" (the same judge sitting in the COP and the FTT) or "the ducks in a row approach" (adjournment or deferred conditional discharge). (2) This involves no Article 14 discrimination in favour of incapacitous restricted patients as, under SSJ guidance, the equivalent outcome can be reached for capacitous patients by using s17 leave. (3) The FTT had misunderstood the MM decision and had been wrong to refuse to defer conditional discharge for a standard authorisation to be put in place. (4) The UT discharged the patient subject to conditions of residence, supervision and compliance with "all aspects of the care package" (surprisingly, as the care package would amount to a deprivation of liberty), to take effect on a specified future date (which s73 does not permit), and with permission to apply to the FTT for variation on a material change in circumstances (presumably only before conditional discharge). | 2020‑07‑24 21:31:01 | 2020 cases, Cases, Deprivation of liberty, Discharge conditions cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Judgment available on MHLO, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Transcript, Upper Tribunal decisions, Judgment available on Bailii, 2020 cases
|
| * Conditions of discharge RP v Dudley and Walsall Mental Health Partnership NHS Trust [2016] UKUT 204 (AAC) — Unsuccessful Article 8 challenge to conditions of discharge. | 2016‑05‑09 22:44:39 | 2016 cases, Cases, Discharge conditions cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Upper Tribunal decisions, Judgment available on Bailii, 2016 cases
|
| Re T (A child: murdered parent) [2011] EWHC B4 (Fam) — B killed his girlfriend, then spent four years as a restricted hospital order patient and a year as a conditionally-discharged patient (with exclusion-zone and no-contact conditions); he now applied for a contact order in respect of their daughter T. (1) There is no presumption that a parent who has murdered the other parent should have no contact with their child; however, having regard to the welfare checklist and other factors, there should be no contact of any kind between B and T. (2) An order under s91(14) Children Act 1989 (preventing further applications by B without leave) was made until T reaches 16 years of age. (3) The family court has no power to vary the conditions of a conditional discharge; however, the court is not constrained by the conditions when making orders; if the order would put the patient in breach of conditions then it should invite the Secretary of State to indicate to what extent he is prepared to vary them. (4) Since the only sanction for breach of conditions is recall to hospital (which is discretionary and dependent upon further medical evidence) the protection provided by the two conditions was illusory; orders of the court were required to enable the matter to be brought before the court in the event of breach: (a) the no-contact condition was made the subject of a non-molestation aorder pursuant to s42 Family Law Act 1996; (b) the exclusion-zone condition could amount to an occupation order (for which MS did not qualify); however, applying a broad meaning of 'molestation' it could also be a non-molestation order; if that were wrong then there is power to make the order under the High Court's inherent jurisdiction for the protection of children and/or under s37 Senior Courts Act 1981. (5) The LSC had discharged B's public funding certificate mid-proceedings following pressure from the special guardian; in the circumstances of this case it should not have done so. | 2011‑03‑21 22:12:20 | 2011 cases, Brief summary, Discharge conditions cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Transcript
|
| R (IT) v SSJ [2008] EWHC 1707 (Admin) — Recall of patient unlawful where no new relevant information available to MoJ after discharge by MHRT; the element of the discharge plan requiring leave to be escorted was a temporary measure and so did not amount to continuing deprivation of liberty. | 2008‑11‑03 16:41:04 | 2008 cases, Detailed summary, Discharge conditions cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Ministry of Justice cases, Transcript, Unlawful detention cases
|
| * Residence for s117 purposes R v MHRT, ex p Hall [1999] EWHC Admin 351 — The provisions of s117 Mental Health Act 1983 are designed to ensure that there is always an aftercare authority, being the place where the patient resided before detention or, if there was no such residence, the place where the patient was to be sent on release; the duty as to aftercare included the provision of information to a Tribunal and so arose before discharge. [MHLR.] | 2008‑09‑12 16:09:40 | 1999 cases, After-care, Cases, Discharge conditions cases, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, MHLR summary, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, 1999 cases
|
| R (Hall) v MHRT [1999] EWCA Civ 2052 — The fact that there will be delay in the implementation of conditions in a conditional discharge does not mean that they are unlawful; it would have been open to the Tribunal to be proactive in adjourning for reports as to the progress of an aftercare package. [MHLR.] | 2008‑09‑12 16:07:52 | 1999 cases, After-care, Brief summary, Discharge conditions cases, Judgment available offline, Judgment missing from Bailii, MHLR summary, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Transcript
|
| R (SH) v MHRT [2007] EWHC 884 (Admin) — Condition "that the patient shall comply with medication" was lawful. | 2007‑05‑17 21:39:39 | 2007 cases, Detailed summary, Discharge conditions cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Transcript
|
| * Conditions of discharge and DOL R (SSHD) v MHRT, re PH [2002] EWCA Civ 1868 — Conditions of discharge are lawful so long as they do not amount to a deprivation of liberty: in this case, a condition that the patient could not leave a hostel unescorted was lawful; so too could be a condition of residence at a hospital. | 2007‑02‑06 18:15:31 | Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, 2002 cases
|
| R (G) v Mental Health Review Tribunal [2004] EWHC 2193 (Admin) — The Tribunal were right to conclude that the conditions which the claimant patient contended for (continued residence at Thornford Park) would be a deprivation, rather than a restriction, of his liberty. The patient's consent to this continuing deprivation of liberty would not confer jurisdiction on the Tribunal.' | 2006‑04‑10 20:46:03 | 2004 cases, Brief summary, Deprivation of liberty, Discharge conditions cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Transcript
|
| R (SSHD) v MHRT, re MP [2004] EWHC 2194 (Admin) — Conditions attached to conditional discharge of restricted patients must not be so severe as to deprive the patient of his liberty (as opposed to merely restricting it). In this case the condition that the patient may not leave a hostel without escorts deprived him of his liberty. Re PH distinguished: the purpose of the restrictions (and the hope in PH that the need for them might diminish) was different. | 2006‑04‑10 20:33:12 | 2004 cases, Brief summary, Deprivation of liberty, Discharge conditions cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Transcript
|
Article titles
The following 14 pages are in this category.
R
- R (G) v Mental Health Review Tribunal (2004) EWHC 2193 (Admin)
- R (Hall) v MHRT (1999) EWCA Civ 2052
- R (IT) v SSJ (2008) EWHC 1707 (Admin)
- R (RB) v First-tier Tribunal (Review) (2010) UKUT 160 (AAC)
- R (SH) v MHRT (2007) EWHC 884 (Admin)
- R (SSHD) v MHRT, re MP (2004) EWHC 2194 (Admin)
- R (SSHD) v MHRT, re PH (2002) EWCA Civ 1868
- R v MHRT, ex p Hall (1999) EWHC Admin 351
- Re T (A child: murdered parent) (2011) EWHC B4 (Fam)
- RP v Dudley and Walsall Mental Health Partnership NHS Trust (2016) UKUT 204 (AAC)
The following category (in the blue box) can be clicked to view a list of other pages in the same category: