Re GK (Patient: Habeas Corpus) [1999] EWHC Admin 577

NR discharge The nearest relative gave a discharge notice to the hospital receptionist, who put it in the MHA Administrator's pigeon hole; it was received by the administrator, on his return from work, more than 72 hours later. The High Court decided that 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" (as required by the regulations) until the MHA Administrator received it; therefore, the subsequent barring order was effective.

Case name

Kinsey v North Mersey Community NHS Trust

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.

CASES DATABASE

Full judgment: Possible Bailii link (not there when checked last night, but might have appeared since)
Download here

Subject(s):

Other NR cases🔍

Date: 21/6/99🔍

Court: High Court (Administrative Court)🔍

Judge(s):

Sedley🔍
Collins🔍

Parties:

GK🔍
Kinsey🔍
North Mersey Community NHS Trust🔍

Citation number(s):

[1999] EWHC Admin 577^{Not on Bailii!}
[1999] MHLR 128

What links here:

Right to request discharge of s2 or s3 or CTO

Published: 11/4/09 19:21

Cached: 2024-12-19 12:48:15