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: Dave Sheppard's website now available | News

January 2017 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

  • Strike-out/capacity case. R (OK) v FTT [2017] UKUT 22 (AAC) — The First-tier Tribunal's decision to strike out a case for want of jurisdiction (on the basis that the patient had lacked capacity to make the application) was upheld in these judicial review proceedings. Detailed summary available on case page.
  • Deprivation of liberty/inquests case. R (Ferreira) v HM Senior Coroner for Inner South London [2017] EWCA Civ 31 — "On 7 December 2013, Maria Ferreira, whom I shall call Maria and who had a severe mental impairment, died in an intensive care unit of King's College Hospital, London. The Senior Coroner for London Inner South, Mr Andrew Harris, is satisfied that there has to be an inquest into her death. By a written decision dated 23 January 2015, which is the subject of these judicial review proceedings, the coroner also decided that he did not need not to hold the inquest with a jury. ... A coroner is obliged to hold an inquest with a jury if a person dies in 'state detention' for the purposes of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009. The appellant is Maria's sister, Luisa Ferreira, whom I will call Luisa. She contends that, as a result of her hospital treatment, Maria had at the date of her death been deprived of her liberty for the purposes of Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights and that accordingly Maria was in 'state detention' when she died. ... In my judgment, the coroner's decision was correct in law. Applying Strasbourg case law, Maria was not deprived of her liberty at the date of her death because she was being treated for a physical illness and her treatment was that which it appeared to all intents would have been administered to a person who did not have her mental impairment. She was physically restricted in her movements by her physical infirmities and by the treatment she received (which for example included sedation) but the root cause of any loss of liberty was her physical condition, not any restrictions imposed by the hospital. The relevant Strasbourg case law applying in this case is limited to that explaining the exception in Article 5(1)(e), on which the Supreme Court relied in Cheshire West and Chester Council v P [2014] UKSC 19, and accordingly this Court is not bound by that decision to apply the meaning of deprivation of liberty for which that decision is authority. If I am wrong on this point, I conclude that the second part of the 'acid test', namely that Maria was not free to leave, would not have been satisfied. Even if I am wrong on all these points, I would hold that as this is not a case in which Parliament requires the courts to apply the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights when interpreting the words 'state detention' in the CJA 2009, and that a death in intensive care is not, in the absence of some special circumstance, a death in 'state detention' for the purposes of the CJA 2009. There is no Convention right to have an inquest held with a jury. There is no jurisprudence of the Strasbourg Court which concludes that medical treatment can constitute the deprivation of a person's liberty for Article 5 purposes. The view that it is a deprivation of liberty would appear to be unrealistic. We have moreover not been given any adequate policy reason why Parliament would have provided that the death of a person in intensive care of itself should result in an inquest with a jury. That result would be costly in terms of human and financial resources."

Jobs

This is an archive of the month's updates so by the time you read this the information may be out of date.

Events

This is an archive of the month's updates so by the time you read this the information may be out of date.

  • MHLA: Panel course - Leeds, 2/3/17 and 3/3/17 — No results
  • MHLA: Panel course - London, 27/2/17 and 28/2/18 — No results
  • MHLA: Foundation course - Manchester, 20/2/17 — No results
  • Edge Training: DoLS Assessors Conference - London, 10/3/17 — No results
  • Edge Training: MHA administration and management skills - London, 6/3/17 and 7/3/17 — No results
  • PELT: Introduction to COP, including s21A appeals - Hoylake, 14/2/17 — No results
  • PELT: Introduction to the Mental Health Act - Hoylake, 14/3/17 — No results
  • PELT: Introduction to MCA and DOLS - Hoylake, 28/3/17 — No results
  • PELT: Depriving Children and Young People of their liberty lawfully - Hoylake, 25/4/17 — No results
  • PELT: Court of Protection Masterclass - Hoylake, 16/5/17 — No results
  • PELT: Mental Health Act masterclass and legal update - Hoylake, 18/5/17 — No results
  • PELT: Introduction to Care Act for those working with MHA or MCA - Hoylake, 15/6/17 — No results
  • PELT: Introduction to Forensic Patients - Hoylake, 11/7/17 — No results
  • PELT: DOL made simple, including MHA or MCA - Hoylake, 20/7/17 — No results

Book

Twitter


Retrieved from "https://www.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/index.php?title=January_2017_update&oldid=54219"