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

May 2021 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 May 2021 update for a thematic summary of these changes.

  • 30/05/21
    (0819)
    : Case (Fitness to plead in confiscation proceedings). Ihenacho v London Borough of Croydon [2021] EWCA Crim 798 — The appellant had dishonestly made welfare benefits claims, was deemed to have benefitted in the sum of £590,316.08, and a confiscation order equalling her realisable assets of £283,214.90 was made. She argued that fresh psychiatric evidence showed she had been unfit to plead at the time of the confiscation hearing so the matter should be reconsidered, and without the s10 Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 assumptions (assumptions to be made in case of criminal lifestyle). The Court of Appeal admitted the fresh evidence but held that it had not been shown on the balance of probabilities that she was not fit to plead at the relevant time.
  • 30/05/21
    (0804)
    : Case (Non-treatment of anorexia). A Midlands NHS Trust v RD [2021] EWCOP 35 — The Trust had decided not to treat RD's anorexia compulsorily under the MHA (even though that might, in the short term, prevent her death) and applied to the Court of Protection for legal protection. The court decided she lacked the relevant capacity and that further compulsory treatment was not in her best interests ("I am removing any threat of compulsion or compulsory admission to hospital under the Mental Health Act from RD"). The declarations were made under the inherent jurisdiction (as well as the MCA) since questions involving the MHA involve public law matters, in particular that doctors have to take into account the safety of the public.
  • 23/05/21
    (1405)
    : Case (Coronavirus vaccination). SS v London Borough of Richmond upon Thames [2021] EWCOP 31 — (1) SS lacked capacity, owing to dementia, to decide whether to take a coronavirus vaccination, but consistently and volubly opposed it. (2) If she had capacity she should most likely would have refused: previously she had always attended to her medical welfare but resisted vaccinations. (3) It would not be in her best interests to persuade her by lying that her dead father had requested she take the vaccination. (4) It would not be in her best interests to administer it by force (sedation and restraint), as best interests requires evaluating welfare in a sense broader than merely epidemiological: SS would look to the carers to help, and they would not be able to intervene, which likely would dismantle the tentative trust that had been established over the months.
  • 21/05/21
    (1944)
    : Case (Agoraphobia and pregnancy). A NHS Foundation Trust v An Expectant Mother [2021] EWCOP 33 — The expectant mother's severe agoraphobia meant she might not be able to travel to hospital even if that became medically necessary. The court decided that: (1) she lacked capacity to make decisions about the location of the delivery of her baby; (2) it was in her best interests to be taken to hospital for a planned delivery, using force and involving deprivation of liberty if necessary; (3) she had capacity to choose between induced labour and Caesarean section, and between local and general anaesthetic.
  • 21/05/21
    (1921)
    : Case (Immigration, capacity and marriage). Navaraththinam v Entry Clearance Officer Colombo [2021] UKAITUR HU135462019 — The appellant challenged the judge's rejection of his appeal against entry clearance refusal. The Upper Tribunal held that: (1) the judge's comments on the sponsor's capacity were consistent with the presumption of capacity (despite misgivings); (2) in any event, the judge came to her conclusions on the genuineness and subsistence of the appellant's marriage (which began with a foreign ceremony in which the sponsor had given her communication via emojis and continued without any romantic relationship) without factoring into that what she had concluded or failed to conclude about capacity.
  • 21/05/21
    (1045)
    : Case (Anorexia). A Mental Health Trust v ER [2021] EWCOP 32 — (1) The parties agreed that ER lacked capacity to make decisions about her anorexia or the litigation, and the judge, having explored her doubts in detail, ultimately came to the same view. (2) It was not in ER's best interests to be forced to accept treatment or inpatient admission, given her renal failure and extreme dislike of eating disorder units and psychiatric hospitals. (3) More support in the community, in particular moving to a supported living placement where she could have dialysis and more support and company, would be in her best interests, and the local authority and CCG were joined as parties and directed to give evidence of proposals for extra support.
  • 17/05/21
    (2226)
    : Case (Removing all conditions of discharge). DA v Central and North West London NHS Foundation Trust [2021] UKUT 101 (AAC) — Judicial summary: "On an application under s.75 by a conditionally discharged restricted patient who has to date been subject to conditions there is nothing intrinsically irrational in removing the conditions while maintaining the liability to recall: R (SH) v MHRT [2007] EWHC 884 (Admin)M and R (SC) v MHRT [2005] EWHC 17 (Admin)M applied. Nor was there anything irrational in the particular circumstances of this case where the First-tier Tribunal retained liability to recall as a safety net and (though the point was not fully argued) dispensed with the conditions with a view to the patient strengthening his case before a subsequent tribunal. However, the First-tier Tribunal’s reasons failed to meet the legal standard of adequacy, lacking findings as to the likelihood of the appellant becoming unwell and failing to explain why a less restrictive option supported by evidence in some detail from the treating professionals was rejected."
  • 15/05/21
    (1827)
    : Case (Removal of family member from home). A Local Authority v TA [2021] EWCOP 22 — GA was an 87-year-old woman who lacked capacity to make decisions about her residence, health, or care needs owing to severe and deteriorating dementia. Living with her was her son TA (a controlling presence), daughter XA (visiting to assist TA), and son HA (believed to have schizophrenia). The court ordered TA and XA to leave the home, so that GA could receive social and medical care at home and have contact with other members of the family, and authorised GA's deprivation of liberty there. The court also prevented TA from returning within 100 yds, ordered him not to use GA's Motability car and not to publish information on the internet, limited his correspondence with the local authority and Official Solicitor, and made a civil restraint order for a period of two years. Committal proceedings brought by the local authority were to be considered at a future hearing.
  • 13/05/21
    (2148)
    : Case (Residence/care capacity). Y CCG v KG [2021] EWCOP 30 — In these s21A proceedings, the Court of Protection decided that KG, who had been clinically fit for discharge from hospital for two years but was extremely resistant to leaving hospital, lacked capacity in relation to future residence and care.
  • 11/05/21
    (0823)
    : Publishing and reporting UT decisions. Upper Tribunal, 'Consultation paper on access to decisions and reporting in UTAAC' (consultation from 10/5/21 to 1/8/21) —This consultation sets out the difference between Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber) decisions which are unpublished, published (which have a UKUT neutral citation number) and reported (which in addition have an AACR citation); and the rules and customs for precedent within the UT (AAC). There are two questionnaires (one for social security, and one for everybody else) asking about how you access UT (AAC) decisions and your views on the Administrative Appeal Chamber Reports.
  • 10/05/21
    (2019)
    : Event. Event:MHLA: Refresher and Re-accreditation course (online, 23/7/21) —This course will be suitable for those seeking re-accreditation, by: (a) reviewing the legal and procedural developments of the last three years; (b) providing a forum for discussing these along with the re-accreditation process; (c) fulfilling the requirement to obtain six mental health CPD points for re-accreditation. Cost: £120 (members); £160 (non-members). See MHLA website for further details and booking information.
  • 10/05/21
    (2018)
    : Event. Event:MHLA: Refresher and reaccreditation (online, 16/7/21) —This course will be suitable for those seeking re-accreditation, by: (a) reviewing the legal and procedural developments of the last three years; (b) providing a forum for discussing these along with the re-accreditation process; (c) fulfilling the requirement to obtain six mental health CPD points for re-accreditation. Cost: £120 (members); £160 (non-members). See MHLA website for further details and booking information.
  • 10/05/21
    (2017)
    : Event. Event:MHLA: Panel course (online, 28-30 June 2021) —The MHLA is an approved provider of the two-day course which must be attended by prospective members of the Law Society’s mental health accreditation scheme. The course will take place via Zoom on three consecutive afternoons, from 1300 until 1700 each day. Price: £300 (MHLA members); £390 (non-members); £270 (group discount). Booking closes at 1700 on 30/9/20. See MHLA website for further details and to book online.
  • 10/05/21
    (2015)
    : Event. Event:MHLA: Foundation course (online, 18/6/21) —"This course is aimed at new practitioners and those intending to attend the Panel course in the near future. Attendance at the Foundation course is strongly recommended in order to achieve a sound understanding of the basic principles of mental health law, practice and procedure and in order to achieve the most from the two-day Panel course, which is a pre-requisite for application to The Law Society’s mental health panel." Cost: £120 (members); £160 (non-members). See MHLA website for further details and booking information.
  • 10/05/21
    (2013)
    : Event. Event:MHLA: Refresher and Re-accreditation course (online, 4/6/21) —This course will be suitable for those seeking re-accreditation, by: (a) reviewing the legal and procedural developments of the last three years; (b) providing a forum for discussing these along with the re-accreditation process; (c) fulfilling the requirement to obtain six mental health CPD points for re-accreditation. Cost: £120 (members); £160 (non-members). See MHLA website for further details and booking information.
  • 10/05/21
    (2010)
    : Event. Event:MHLA: Peer Review (online, 21/5/21) —This course will broaden practitioners' knowledge of the peer review process and the peer review 'Improving your Quality' guidance. Cost: £120 (members); £160 (non-members). See MHLA website for further details and booking information.
  • 10/05/21
    (2009)
    : Event. Event:MHLA: Restricted cases (online, 11/6/21) —Learning Objectives: (1) Restricted sections and provenance; (2) Duration of restricted sections; (3) Powers of MHT; (4) Managing a restricted case - key things to consider for the MH lawyer; (5) MAPPA. Cost: £120 (members); £160 (non-members). See MHLA website for further details and booking information.
  • 10/05/21
    (2007)
    : Event. Event:MHLA: Restricted cases (online, 14/5/21) —Learning Objectives: (1) Restricted sections and provenance; (2) Duration of restricted sections; (3) Powers of MHT; (4) Managing a restricted case - key things to consider for the MH lawyer; (5) MAPPA. Cost: £120 (members); £160 (non-members). See MHLA website for further details and booking information.
  • 09/05/21
    (0941)
    : Event. Event:PELT: Introduction to COP, including s21A appeals (online, 10/11/21) —"The Court of Protection addresses issues not only of finances but also where deprivation of liberty safeguards and procedures are authorised or challenged, disputed capacity issues are resolved, and where arguments about adult protection and best interests are determined. It is essential that all those working with vulnerable people / safeguarding have an understanding of how to access and use the Court. In certain circumstances there is a legal obligation on authorities to apply to the Court. The course will include updates relating to appeals against Liberty Protection Safeguards if implementation is imminent." Speaker: Peter Edwards. Cost: £125 plus VAT. See PELT website for further details and booking information.
  • 09/05/21
    (0939)
    : Event. Event:PELT: Sex, marriage and relationships (online, 16/6/21) —"Most of us have the right to make unwise decisions. However, in the murky and untidy world of incapacity, life is not like that. The MCA is clear, if you lack capacity to engage in sexual relations, that is it, you cannot do it. Even if you have been married to that person for 60 years. The Court of Protection has been grappling with this thorny subject for many years. There are also many related aspects." Speaker: Peter Edwards. Cost: £125 plus VAT. See PELT website for further details and booking information.
  • 08/05/21
    (2053)
    : Case (Litigation capacity and litigation friend). Greetham v Greetham [2021] EWHC 998 (QB) — The court considered whether the defendant lacked capacity to conduct litigation, and was therefore a protected party; and if so whether his brother's application to be appointed as litigation friend satisfied the conditions of Civil Procedure Rules, rule 21.4(3) as applied by rule 21.6(5).
  • 06/05/21
    (2109)
    : Case (Testamentary capacity and delusions). Clitheroe v Bond [2021] EWHC 1102 (Ch) — (1) It was not in the interests of justice to allow the question whether testamentary capacity should be determined using the MCA test rather than the Banks v Goodfellow test to be raised on appeal (though the judge would have concluded that the Banks test continues to apply). (2) In relation to delusions (part of the Banks test): "In order to establish whether a delusion exists, the relevant false belief must be irrational and fixed in nature. It not an essential part of the test that it is demonstrated that it would have been impossible to reason the relevant individual out of the belief if the requisite fixed nature can be demonstrated in another way, for example by showing that the belief was formed and maintained in the face of clear evidence to the contrary of which the individual was aware and would not have forgotten."
  • 03/05/21
    (2034)
    : MHA reform consultation response. Law Society, 'White paper on reforming the Mental Health Act - Law Society response' (22/4/21) —The website's summary page mentions resources, treatment to facilitate early discharge, arbitrary distinctions between classes of patients (based on capacity and involvement in the criminal justice system), earlier automatic tribunal references for people with impaired mental capacity, and community-based alternatives for those with learning disability/autism rather than continued detention outside the MHA.
  • 03/05/21
    (1944)
    : Case (Protected party and Part 36). Wormald v Ahmed [2021] EWHC 973 (QB) — After suffering a cardiac episode in September 2020, the claimant in this road traffic PI claim (through his litigation friend) accepted a Part 36 offer made in 2014, and died later the same day. The defendants sought to withdraw the offer when informed of the death. The court considered the following questions: (a) where a protected party accepts a Part 36 offer is the other party subsequently able to withdraw that offer before approval of the settlement? and (b) when the court is asked to approve a settlement, on what grounds (if any) can a Part 36 offer be withdrawn and approval of a settlement be refused? On the facts (including the disparity in the parties' knowledge about the changed prognosis) it seemed unjust for the defendant to be bound by the Part 36 offer, but a final determination would be made after the claimant had had the opportunity to provide further information.
  • 01/05/21
    (2052)
    : Case (Subject-matter and litigation capacity). An NHS Trust v P [2021] EWCOP 27 — P's psychiatrist initially stated that P lacked subject matter capacity (whether to take HIV medication) yet had litigation capacity. (1) The judge: (a) disagreed with the proposition that if a person lacks capacity to conduct proceedings as a litigant in person she might, nevertheless, have capacity to instruct lawyers to represent her and that the latter capacity might constitute capacity to conduct the litigation in question; (b) thought it virtually impossible to conceive of circumstances where someone lacks capacity to make a decision about medical treatment, but yet has capacity to make decisions about the manifold steps or stances needed to be addressed in litigation about that very same subject matter (it would be as rare as a white leopard). (2) On the facts, P lacked both subject matter capacity and litigation capacity.
Retrieved from "https://www.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/index.php?title=May_2021_chronology&oldid=51228"