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: Assessment under the MHA whilst under arrest | News

January 2025 chronology

This page is automatically generated: it will only be complete at the end of the month. All monthly updates are available here: Archive of monthly updates.

See January 2025 update for a thematic summary of these changes.

  • 30/01/25
    (1007)
    : Case (Planned caesarean). Re CP [2024] EWCOP 7 — Those issues before the court were: (1) Should CP's parents be made parties to these proceedings? (2) Does CP have the capacity to make decisions about her obstetric care and treatment, including a pre-arranged caesarean section? (3) If not, what orders should the Court make in respect of her treatment? (4) If the court decided that a pre-arranged Caesarean section is in CP's best interests, is it in her best interest to have a spinal block or a general anaesthetic?
  • 30/01/25
    (0944)
    : Case (Fact-finding hearing). An ICB v G [2024] EWCOP 13 — Detailed fact-finding judgment, including that family members had tampered with G's ventilation equipment with the intention of discrediting care home staff.
  • 30/01/25
    (0936)
    : Case (Clozapine management - MHA assessments). Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council (23 010 463) [2024] MHLO 5 (LGSCO) — Ombudsman's summary: "We uphold Mr X’s complaint about his brother, Mr Y’s, care and treatment. There was a short break in Mr Y’s medication management. We also found Mr X was not informed [as NR] about one of Mr Y’s Mental Health Act assessments. However, we have not found a significant injustice arising from these actions. There was fault with the Trust and the Council’s complaint handling, but sufficient steps have already been taken to address this."
  • 30/01/25
    (0928)
    : Case (Section 117 charging). Leeds City Council (24 001 390) [2024] MHLO 4 (LGSCO) — Ombudsman's summary: "Mr X complained the Council had started to charge him for transport services although he believed he was eligible for s117 aftercare and should not pay charges. The Council has provided evidence he was not eligible for free aftercare. Following an investigation into Mr X’s complaint about the unreliability of the transport service, and his decision to arrange alternative provision, the Council has now waived all charges. The complaint will not be investigated further as there is no outstanding injustice."
  • 27/01/25
    (2040)
    : Legislation. Tribunal Procedure (Amendment No. 2) Rules 2024 — Tribunal rule 35 was amended from 27 December 2024 to allow mandatory references made under s68, s71(2) and s75(1) in relation to a patient who is not a community (CTO) patient to be decided without a hearing if: (a) he is legally represented; (b) the representative has stated in writing that the patient does not wish to attend or be represented at a hearing of the reference; (c) the patient’s representative has discussed with the patient the contents of any reports and any other documents provided by the responsible clinician and any social supervisor in respect of the patient and is satisfied that the patient has the capacity to decide "whether or not to make that decision"; and (d) the tribunal is satisfied that the patient has the capacity to make that decision. The new procedure will not apply if either the patient's case has not previously been considered by the tribunal or the patient's case was last considered by the tribunal without a hearing.
  • 24/01/25
    (1133)
    : Event. Event:PELT: Introduction to MCA and DOL (online, 30 April 2025) —Intensive introduction to all those who need a basic understanding of the MCA and DOLS. Identifying the ‘decision maker’ as the person responsible for the outcome of that particular decision is the key to lawful decision making on behalf of those who lack capacity. Speaker: Peter Edwards. Cost: £125 plus VAT. See PELT website for further details and booking information.
  • 24/01/25
    (1126)
    : Event. Event:PELT: Introduction to COP, including s21A appeals (online, 7 May 2025) —The Court of Protection has a very wide ambit potential touching the lives of many vulnerable people. DOLS and procedures are authorised or challenged and where arguments about capacity or adult protection and best interests are resolved. It is essential for those working with vulnerable people/safeguarding. Speaker: Peter Edwards. Cost: £125 plus VAT. See PELT website for further details and booking information.
  • 24/01/25
    (1124)
    : Event. Event:PELT: MHA Masterclass (online, 21 May 2025) —This course will allow practitioners to reflect and update their practice by ensuring they have an up-to-date understanding of the law. The contents of the course will be up to date and reflect any changes or significant developments which affect lawful practice. To include relationship between MHA and DOLS. Speaker: Peter Edwards. Cost: £125 plus VAT. See PELT website for further details and booking information.
  • 24/01/25
    (1122)
    : Event. Event:PELT: Court of Protection and MCA Masterclass (online, 4 June 2025) —Reviews recent developments in Court of Protection cases. It will include the latest COP cases on deprivation of liberty, capacity, health and welfare, legal aid and treatment and what practitioners can learn from these cases that will promote effective and lawful MCA practice. Speaker: Peter Edwards. Cost: £125 plus VAT. See PELT website for further details and booking information.
  • 23/01/25
    (1150)
    : Case (Apparent bias). R (Cygnet Health Care Ltd) v CQC [2025] EWHC 1 (Admin) — A patient who had been a patient at Cygnet hospitals, and had made serious complaints about his treatment there, was subsequently appointed as a CQC inspector. His inspection of Cygnet Hospital Ealing led to a criminal prosecution in relation to a patient's death, and Cygnet's application to have those proceedings stayed as an abuse of process was refused. Cygnet then challenged seven inspection reports and four enforcement decisions in relation to other hospitals, which the High Court declared had been affected by apparent bias. However, with one exception (where the CQC's decision not to withdraw the report was quashed) the court refused to grant further relief as it was highly likely that the outcome would have not been substantially different. The costs schedule exceeded £550,000 and the CQC was ordered to pay 90% of Cygnet's reasonable costs with £125,000 paid on account.
  • 21/01/25
    (2329)
    : Case (Mistake of fact - availability of treatment). JB v Elysium Healthcare [2025] UKUT 9 (AAC) — Audio recordings made by the patient immediately after the tribunal showed that the RC had lied about intending to resume psychological therapy. On the basis of those recordings, the UT set aside its original refusal to grant permission to appeal, and now decided that the tribunal had been labouring under a mistake of fact amounting to an error of law. It was not clear what the decision would otherwise have been (the tribunal referred to other treatment but attached particular importance to psychology) so the error was not immaterial. The case was remitted for re-hearing by a new tribunal. The UT noted, from previous authority, that: (1) appropriate medical treatment cannot be said to be "available" to a patient if the detaining authority is unwilling to provide it; (2) to establish a mistake of fact amounting to an error of law: (a) the mistake must be on an existing fact (including mistake as to the availability of evidence on a particular matter); (b) the fact must be uncontentious; (c) the party asserting the error of law must not be responsible for the mistake; and (d) the mistake must have played a material part in the tribunal’s reasoning.
  • 15/01/25
    (2237)
    : Case (Appeal against committal order - Court of Appeal's powers). MacPherson v Sunderland City Council [2024] EWCA Civ 1579 — There was reason to believe (under MCA 2005 s48) that the appellant lacked capacity in relation to this appeal against a committal order. The Court of Appeal has all the powers of a lower court (whether that be the Court of Protection or otherwise) in relation to an appeal so it can make an interim declaration and refer any issue for determination by that lower court. The questions of the appellant's current capacity, and her capacity when sentenced, were referred to a Tier 3 COP judge for determination, after which the Court of Appeal will hear the case again. The stay of the sentence of imprisonment was continued, the bench warrant was discharged, and the appeal was adjourned, but the injunctions remained in force.
  • 15/01/25
    (2038)
    : Case (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.
Retrieved from "https://www.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/index.php?title=January_2025_chronology&oldid=65228"