Category:Non-disclosure
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 |
|---|---|---|
| * Non-disclosure of victim's statement except to patient's lawyers AM v Greater Manchester Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust [2024] UKUT 438 (AAC) — (1) An interim non-disclosure order was made under rule 5 allowing disclosure of the victim's statement only to AM's lawyers. That order was continued under rule 14(2), but the tribunal failed properly to consider either limb of that rule (involving likelihood of serious harm and the interests of justice respectively). This procedural irregularity was capable of making a material difference to the outcome or the fairness of the proceedings (by restricting the ability of AM’s representatives to cross-examine and obtain evidence about an proposed exclusion zone variation) so was an error of law. (2) In relation to materiality, the UT judge stated that there are three "possibilities" in relation to procedural and other irregularities: "(a) the irregularity made a difference; (b) it did not make a difference; and (c) it could have made a difference." His full position can be stated more clearly as follows: the irregularity is material if (and only if) it could have made a difference, whether not or not it did. (3) The UT judge gave guidance on rule 14(2)(a). "This largely involves issues of fact: who might be harmed, what harm might befall them and whether it was serious. It also involved an estimate of the likelihood of that happening. ... Both seriousness and likelihood require not only consideration but separate consideration for each person and each kind of potential harm. ... Different disclosure may be appropriate to different people. Some parts of the information may be irrelevant and so can be discarded on that count. Some parts may be disclosed to some but not to others. Disclosure to any individual may be full or partial. It may be verbatim or may consist of the gist of what the victim has said." (4) As the procedural irregularity justified a rehearing, the substantive challenge to the decision not to amend the exclusion zone was not considered, but the UT noted that the tribunal was entitled to take into account as a relevant consideration the effect of the zone on AM's ability to take up an offer of work. | 2025‑01‑15 20:57:59 |
|
| * Covert medication and MHT M v Abertawe Bro Morgannwg University Health Board [2018] UKUT 120 (AAC) — The tribunal had failed to turn its mind to the extent to which (despite his lack of capacity to conduct proceedings) the patient was capable of participating in proceedings before addressing the test for non-disclosure. The appeal was allowed and the matter remitted to the tribunal to re-make its decision. | 2018‑04‑20 20:33:54 | Non-disclosure
|
| * Non-disclosure of covert medication RM v St Andrew's Healthcare [2010] UKUT 119 (AAC) — (1) When considering the "interests of justice" limb of rule 14(2), the key test to be applied is whether or not non-disclosure of the document or information would allow the patient to make an effective challenge to his detention. (2) On the facts, without knowing that he was being covertly medicated the patient would be unable effectively to challenge his detention; the non-disclosure decision was set aside and re-made. (3) Non-disclosure orders should not only be drafted in terms of documents, but also should deal, in a precise, clear and exhaustive way, with the information which should not be disclosed. | 2010‑05‑06 18:39:53 | Non-disclosure
|
| * Non-disclosure of third-party information in medical records Dorset Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust v MH [2009] UKUT 4 (AAC) — The responsible authority appealed against the Tribunal's interlocutory decision to direct disclosure of medical records, including third-party information, to the patient's solicitor; having agreed it had jurisdiction, the Upper Tribunal made no order on the appeal, as the patient had by that time been placed on a CTO; however, detailed guidance was given as to the proper approach where either the responsible authority resists disclosure of confidential third-party information or the solicitor wishes to disclose such information to his client. Guidance was also given on the status of a decision by a three-judge panel of the Administrative Appeals Chamber. | 2009‑01‑15 00:45:28 |
|
Article titles
The following 4 pages are in this category.
The following category (in the blue box) can be clicked to view a list of other pages in the same category: