Holly.gif
Open justice | Let us know if you have a tribunal decision you would like to publish (see Re A)
Email updates | CPD scheme

Online forum | Latest topic on forum: SOAD assessments by telephone | News

Category

Category:First-tier Tribunal decisions


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
* Absolute discharge of imprisoned conditionally discharged patient Re G (absolute discharge) [2023] MHLO 4 (FTT) — In this decision the First-tier Tribunal sets out its reasons for absolutely discharging a conditionally discharged patient who at the time was an imprisoned lifer many years pre-tariff. Permission to publish this decision was subsequently granted by the FTT. 2024‑06‑03 11:09:27


* Open justice in the First-tier Tribunal Re A (publication of MHT decision) [2023] MHLO 3 (FTT) — Permission to publish the First-tier Tribunal decision (which was an interlocutory decision setting aside the initial refusal of the patient's request for an all-female panel) was granted. The Deputy Chamber President took into account that "departing from the open justice principle can only be justified in exceptional circumstances when [it is] strictly necessary to secure the proper administration of justice" and that "in circumstances where the patient wants the decision to be published on the website and thereby waives her privacy, the balance falls in favour of publication". She noted that there were no exceptional circumstances for departing from the open justice principle, that she had taken into account the contents and nature of the decision and the level of redaction and anonymity, and that all cases will be considered on their own merits. The patient's argument that permission to publish was not necessary was rejected. 2024‑06‑02 13:42:36


* Order of evidence Re F [2021] MHLO 6 (FTT) — The tribunal, without first consulting the patient's representative, directed that the patient give evidence first in a video hearing, and rejected a submission that the responsible authority should be heard first. The representative stated that the judge had referred to a policy which required this order of evidence in CVP hearings (the panel judge accepted it was possible she used the term 'policy'). On review, the STJ decided that there was a clear error of law: if the justification for the direction on the order of evidence included reference to a policy, whether that was intended to convey a tribunal wide policy or a policy specific to this judge it would constitute an unlawful fetter of the tribunal's discretionary powers. There is no policy that patients must give evidence first in CVP hearings. 2022‑10‑17 21:30:10 2021 cases, Cases, First-tier Tribunal decisions, Judgment available on MHLO, Neutral citation unknown or not applicable, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Transcript, 2021 cases


* Case removed Re E [2020] MHLO 52 (FTT) — 2020‑10‑20 22:08:33 Cases, First-tier Tribunal decisions, Judgment available on MHLO, Neutral citation unknown or not applicable, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Transcript


* Video tribunal hearing set aside Re D [2020] MHLO 51 (FTT) — (1) The decision in this case was set aside because it was not clear whether or not the patient had a reasonable opportunity to hear all the evidence that was given at the hearing: it was not possible to be sure that the patient had a fair hearing. (2) The patient's microphone had been muted for much of the time after giving her evidence at the outset because she "would not stop talking", but this did not amount to exclusion under Tribunal rule 38. [First-tier tribunal decisions are useful but not binding.] 2020‑10‑20 21:42:23 Transcript, Judgment available on MHLO, 2020 cases


* Remote pre-hearing examinations are practicable Re C [2020] MHLO 48 (FTT) — (1) A salaried tribunal judge initially refused to allow a pre-hearing examination (PHE) because the coronavirus Pilot Practice Direction states: "During the Covid-19 pandemic it will not be 'practicable' under rule 34 of the 2008 Rules for any PHE examinations to take place, due to the health risk such examinations present." (2) Having treated the rule 46 application for permission to appeal as a rule 6 challenge, a different salaried tribunal judge decided that: (a) the practice direction is subordinate to the rules and overriding objective; (b) in video-enabled hearings with a full panel a PHE is practicable by that means; (c) hearings and PHEs should be conducted remotely as, even if the hospital would allow access, the tribunal will not put its members at risk of contracting or spreading coronavirus; (d) in this case, the PHE would take place by video link on the morning of the hearing. [First-tier Tribunal decisions are not binding.] 2020‑09‑03 23:37:18 2020 cases


* Case removed Re B [2020] MHLO 18 (FTT) — 2020‑04‑30 10:45:25 Cases, First-tier Tribunal decisions, Neutral citation unknown or not applicable, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function


* Direction for all-female panel Re A (same-sex panel) [2020] MHLO 14 (FTT) — In this (non-binding) interlocutory decision, a decision to refuse the patient's request for an all-female panel was set aside. The main factor was the overriding objective, in particular ensuring, so far as practicable, that the parties are able to participate fully: the patient's mental state meant that she could only attend the hearing or pre-hearing medical examination if the panel were all female. The judge referred to obiter guidance on single-sex panels in a social entitlement case, which referred to "appeals involving sensitive and uniquely female medical conditions" (the other category was "cases raising cultural issues about the giving of evidence"), and noted that the arguments in this case were even more clear cut. 2020‑04‑14 20:19:50


* Public tribunal hearing Re Jared Britton [2013] MHLO 146 (FTT) — Extract from decision: "In a decision given on 26 September 2011, the application by Mr Jared Britton that his application dated 4th September 2009 should be held in public was granted. The fact of this decision should be published. The reasons for the decision must not to be made public. An open hearing is now listed at Liverpool Crown Court on Wednesday 3rd April 2013 for an all day hearing starting at 10.30am." 2014‑07‑17 22:11:11 2013 cases, Cases, First-tier Tribunal decisions, Judgment available on MHLO, MHT public hearing cases, Neutral citation unknown or not applicable, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, 2013 cases


Re Ian Brady [2013] MHLO 89 (FTT) — After a public hearing the tribunal issued a notice on 28/6/13 that: 'Mr Ian Stewart Brady continues to suffer from a mental disorder which is of a nature and degree which makes it appropriate for him to continue to receive medical treatment and that it is necessary for his health and safety and for the protection of other persons that he should receive such treatment in hospital and that appropriate medical treatment is available for him.' The full reasons, dated 11/12/13, were published on 24/1/14: (1) When deciding to hold a public hearing the tribunal had concluded that it was not satisfied that Ian Brady suffered from schizophrenia but, in reaching the opposite conclusion when considering the detention criteria, it did not consider itself bound by its previous finding of fact. (2) The tribunal set out at length the reasons for concluding that the detention criteria were met in this case. 2013‑09‑14 20:43:40 2013 cases, Brief summary, First-tier Tribunal decisions, Judgment available on MHLO, MHT public hearing cases, Neutral citation unknown or not applicable, No transcript


Re Ian Brady [2012] MHLO 145 (FTT) — The tribunal's decision is as follows: "The hearing in public of the application by Mr Ian Brady has been re-listed for Monday 17/6/13. The arrangements for the hearing will be the same as those made for the hearing which had to be adjourned last July namely that the Tribunal will hear the case at Ashworth Hospital and it will be relayed to the Civil Justice Centre Manchester for members of the public and press to watch the proceedings. The precise details of those arrangements will be published as soon as possible." 2012‑12‑20 02:04:25 2012 cases, Detailed summary, First-tier Tribunal decisions, Judgment available on MHLO, MHT public hearing cases, Neutral citation unknown or not applicable, Transcript


Re Ian Brady [2012] MHLO 76 (FTT) — The tribunal hearing was adjourned from 9/7/12, to a date to be fixed, because of the patient's (physical) medical condition. 2012‑08‑17 14:13:00 2012 cases, Brief summary, First-tier Tribunal decisions, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment does not exist, MHT public hearing cases, Transcript


Re Ian Brady [2012] MHLO 75 (FTT) — The media's request for one or more representatives to be present in the tribunal room at Ashworth was refused. 2012‑08‑17 14:05:31 2012 cases, Brief summary, First-tier Tribunal decisions, Judgment available on MHLO, MHT public hearing cases, Neutral citation unknown or not applicable, Transcript


Re Ian Brady [2012] MHLO 19 (FTT) — (1) Ian Brady's Mental Health Tribunal hearing will be held on 9/7/12 with a time estimate of 8 days; (2) the hearing at Ashworth will be broadcast at the Civil Justice Centre Manchester where the public and media can observe; (3) in relation to the hearing itself, the public will not be allowed to attend, and the position of the media will be the subject of further directions. 2012‑03‑12 23:08:05 2012 cases, Brief summary, First-tier Tribunal decisions, Judgment available on MHLO, MHT public hearing cases, Neutral citation unknown or not applicable, Transcript


* Reasons for publishing reasons after public hearing Re Albert Haines [2011] MHLO 170 (FTT) — These are the First-tier Tribunal's reasons for directing that the reasons for its decision not to discharge Albert Haines should be published. 2011‑12‑10 11:04:33 2011 cases, Cases, First-tier Tribunal decisions, Judgment available on MHLO, MHT public hearing cases, Neutral citation unknown or not applicable, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Transcript, 2011 cases


* Decision after public hearing Re Albert Haines [2011] MHLO 169 (FTT) — These are the First-tier Tribunal's reasons for not discharging Albert Haines from liability to be detained. 2011‑12‑10 11:01:50 2011 cases, Cases, First-tier Tribunal decisions, Judgment available on MHLO, MHT public hearing cases, Neutral citation unknown or not applicable, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Transcript, 2011 cases


Re Ian Brady (2011) First-tier Tribunal 7/12/11 — In a decision given on 17th October 2011, the application by Mr Ian Brady for a hearing in public that his application dated 4th August 2010 should be held in public was granted. The date of the hearing and appropriate arrangements are presently being determined and will be published as soon as possible. The fact of this decision should be published. The Tribunal also ordered that the reasons for the decision must not be made public. [Judge's summary.] 2011‑12‑10 10:47:51 2011 cases, Brief summary, First-tier Tribunal decisions, Judgment available on MHLO, MHT public hearing cases, Neutral citation unknown or not applicable, Transcript


Retrieved from "https://www.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/index.php?title=Category:First-tier_Tribunal_decisions&oldid=36179"