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

November 2008 update

The following materials were added during November 2008.

Books

  • Amazon Bookshop (with selected mental health law books) added, and some links to recommended books added to articles.

Changes made on 3/11/08

  • The following documents have been updated and/or issued (usually separately for England and Wales, in an enormous duplication of effort):

Legislation

Primary legislation added (new and old)

Secondary legislation etc - Tribunal

Secondary legislation - Other

Other documents

Case law

New cases

  • R (IT) v SSJ (2008) EWHC 1707 — Click on link to view page.§
  • RD v SSWP [2008] EWHC 2635 (Admin) — Click on link to view page.§
  • R (RJM) v SSWP [2008] UKHL 63 — Social welfare payments come within the scope of Article 1 Protocol 1; homelessness is an "other status" under Article 14; depriving the homeless of disability premiums was justified; the Court of Appeal is free (but not obliged) to follow an ECtHR decision rather than a previous inconsistent CA decision, but (absent wholly exceptional circumstances) must follow any previous House of Lords decision.§
  • R (N) v Coventry City Council [2008] EWHC 2786 (Admin) — "This case concerns the assessment by Coventry City Council of the claimant's needs under section 47 of the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 and its decision to refuse him support under section 21 of the National Assistance Act 1948. It turns, in particular, on the meaning of "care and attention" in section 21, as interpreted by the House of Lords recently, and the ambit of Article 3 ECHR in the context of community care legislation." (para 1)§
  • Renolde v France 5608/05 [2008] ECHR 1085 — The authorities failed to comply with their positive obligation to protect the detainee's right to life, in violation of Article 2, partly because they did not monitor his compliance with anti-psychotic medication. A penalty of 45 days' detention in a punishment cell breached Article 3 (inhuman and degrading treatment and punishment).§
  • R (F) v SSJ [2008] EWHC 2912 (Admin) — The medical opinions were based on old assessments and were at best ambigious as to the treatability test; so the decision to transfer under s47 MHA 1983 was Wednesbury unreasonable, and the subsequent detention was unlawful under domestic law and Article 5; (obiter) the decision would not have been ultra vires; based on subsequent reports, the decision would not be quashed, as if the defendant had sough to clarify the medical opinions the decision would have been lawful. [Caution.]§

Old cases added

  • AG's reference (no 127 of 2006) sub nom R v H [2007] EWCA Crim 53 — The 14-year-old offender, who had an Adjustment Disorder, committed a savage murder to avoid his intended homosexual abuse of the 11-year-old victim being exposed. The judge concluded that the aggravating and mitigating features of the case cancelled each other out, and that the minimum term would remain at the starting point (for under-18 offenders) of 12 years. A minimum term of 15 years was substituted, having been reduced from 18 years due to the guilty plea.§
  • R (TB) v The Combined Court at Stafford [2006] EWHC 1645 (Admin) — TB was the main prosecution witness in the trial of the man who had sexually abused her. In order to undermine her credibility, the defence applied for a witness summons to obtain her psychiatric medical records. There was no procedural requirement for TB to be given notice of the application. The Crown Court issued a summons to that effect. Article 8 had been breached in that TB should have been given notice of the application and given the opportunity to make representations; it was not sufficient for the court to delegate her representation to the NHS Trust alone.§
  • Re MAB; X City Council v MB [2006] EWHC 168 (Fam) — MAB's parents had wanted to arrange a marriage for him in Pakistan. It was declared that MAB did not have capacity to marry; therefore any marriage, even if valid in Pakistan, would not be recognised as valid in English law. His parent's undertakings not to take him to a wedding or out of Britain were accepted and his passport was returned. Any assessment of capacity to marry must take into account the question of capacity to consent to sexual relations. This involved a low level of understanding, which must be same in its essentials as required by the criminal law under the Sexual Offences Act 2003.§
  • IH v UK 17111/04 (2005) — Click on link to view page.§
  • DN v Switzerland 27154/95 [2001] ECHR 235 — The psychiatrist who sat as judge rapporteur on the Administrative Appeals Commission had, before the hearing, concluded that the patient should not be released; the patient had legitimate fears that the doctor had a preconceived opinion and was not acting impartially; this was reinforced because he was sole the psychiatric expert and the only person who had interviewed her; Article 5(4) having been breached, damages and costs were awarded§
  • McGrady, Re Application for Judicial Review [2003] NIQB 15 — (1) The ability to disclose material to the representative on condition that it was not revealed to the patient was compatible with the Convention (obiter, since no decision had been taken on this yet). (2) The medical member's role is to form a provisional view on the patient's mental condition, rather than on the statutory criteria, and he discloses his conclusion during the hearing; if this approach is taken then there is no violation of Article 5(4), DN v Switzerland 27154/95 [2001] ECHR 235 distinguished.§
  • Bensaid v UK 44599/98 [2001] ECHR 82 — The deportation to Algeria of a patient suffering from schizophrenia did not breach Articles 3, 8 or 13.§
  • R (SSG) v Liverpool City Council [2002] EWHC 2803 (Admin) — Click on link to view page.§
  • Stec v UK 65731/01 [2006] ECHR 393 — Judgment of Grand Chamber. State benefits, Article 1 of Protocol No 1 & Article 14.§
  • Stec v UK 65731/01 [2005] ECHR 924 — Admissibility decision. State benefits, Article 1 of Protocol No 1 & Article 14.§
  • Morley v UK 16084/03 (2004) — Click on link to view page.§
  • Morsink v The Netherlands 48865/99 [2004] ECHR 197 — Transfer from prison to a clinic was delayed for over 15 months; immediate transfer was not expected but, on the facts, the delay breached Article 5(1) and damages were awarded.§
  • Brand v The Netherlands 49902/99 [2004] ECHR 196 — Transfer from prison to a clinic was delayed for 14 months; immediate transfer was not expected but, on the facts, the delay breached Article 5(1) and damages were awarded.§
  • Edwards v UK 46477/99 [2002] ECHR 303 — Christopher Edwards was killed by a prison cellmate, Richard Linford; both suffered from schizophrenia. (1) The duty under Article 2 to protect life could extend to taking preventive operational measures to protect an individual against criminal acts of another, where the authorities knew (or ought to have known) of a real and immediate risk to the life of an identified individual. Information was available identifying Linford as posing such a risk. The failure to pass on this information, and the inadequate screening of Linford, amounted to a breach of Article 2. (2) No inquest was held, and the trial did not involve witness evidence. The private inquiry which was held (a) had no power to compel witnesses, and (b) was held in private, with the parents unable to participate to the extent necessary to safeguard their interests: Article 2 was breached in this respect. (3) There was no appropriate domestic means of determining whether the authorities failed to protect the right to life or of obtaining compensation, so Article 13 (effective remedy) was breached.§
  • Rutten v The Netherlands 32605/96 [2001] ECHR 482 — The decision to renew the patient's confinement order was taken after the order had expired, but under domestic law there was nothing requiring release in these circumstances; under Convention law the detention was not arbitrary, being based on a court order and expert evidence, so there was no violation of Article 5(1); however, the lawfulness of detention was not decided speedily, so there was a violation of Article 4(4); this finding constituted just satisfaction.§

Transcripts now available

Website information

  • Legal Aid page updated (NB there is still a lot of work to do on this page)
  • New pages added for
  • New categories created:
Retrieved from "https://www.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/index.php?title=November_2008_update&oldid=52690"