Re GK (Patient: Habeas Corpus); Kinsey v North Mersey Community NHS Trust [1999] EWHC Admin 577

The statutory provisions meant that a hand delivered notice of intention to discharge by a nearest relative had to come into the hands of the Mental Health Act Administrator to start the 72 hour period for a barring order (s25 Mental Health Act 1983); if the notice was sent by post to the Managers, it was their responsibility to ensure that an authorised officer was available to open it and deal with it. [MHLR.]

MHLR

The summary below has been supplied by Kris Gledhill, Editor of the Mental Health Law Reports. The full report can be purchased from Southside Online Publishing (if there is a "file not found" error, it means this particular report is not yet available online). More similar case summaries from the year 1999 are available here: MHLR 1999.

Whether delivery of notice of a nearest relative’s intention to discharge was complete when handed to the hospital receptionist or when opened by the Mental Health Act Administrator - Re GK (Patient: Habeas Corpus) [1999] MHLR 128

Points Arising: The statutory provisions meant that a hand delivered notice of intention to discharge by a nearest relative had to come into the hands of the Mental Health Act Administrator to start the 72 hour period for a barring order (s25 Mental Health Act 1983); if the notice was sent by post to the Managers, it was their responsibility to ensure that an authorised officer was available to open it and deal with it.

Facts and Outcome: GK was detained under s3 Mental Health Act 1983; his nearest relative sought to exercise her powers of discharge under s23 of the Act and handed a letter to the hospital receptionist on 27 May 1999; on 3 June 1999, the hospital administrator, who had been absent, received the letter and arranged for a barring order to be made under s25 of the Act. In habeas corpus proceedings raising the argument that the failure to issue a barring order within 72 hours of the letter being delivered to the hospital meant that there was no jurisdiction to detain, the High Court held that Regulations required that the s23 discharge application had to be delivered to an authorised officer, which meant that it had to come to the attention of the relevant administrator; and that the time for a barring order commenced then, and so was in time on the facts.

Old wiki summary

The nearest relative gave a discharge notice to the hospital receptionist; it was more than 72 hours before it was received by the MHA Administrator; the order was not served by "delivery of the order or notice at that hospital to an officer of the managers authorised by them to receive it" until the MHA Administrator received it; therefore the subsequent barring order was effective.

External link

Possible Bailii link (not there when checked last night, but might have appeared since)
The judgment in this case is available but has not yet been uploaded to MHLO. Contact me if you need to read it. (MHLR)