September 2016 chronology

See September 2016 update for a thematic summary of these changes.

25/09/16 (3): Office of the Public Guardian, 'Giving gifts for someone else: A guide for attorneys and deputies' (document OPG2, published 18/5/16, updated 20/6/16). "Attorneys and deputies can sometimes give gifts on behalf of the person they have been appointed to help make decisions for. Only deputies and attorneys making financial decisions can give gifts; you can’t give gifts if you have been appointed just to make health and welfare decisions. If you do have the authority to give gifts, you can do so only in some situations and if it is in the person’s best interests. This guide includes practical advice such as: (a) what counts as a gift; (b) who can give gifts for someone else; (c) when you can give gifts; (d) changing the limits on gift-giving; (e) what happens with unauthorised gifts." See Office of the Public Guardian

25/09/16 (2): Deprivation of liberty case. Staffordshire County Council v SRK [2016] EWCOP 27 — "This case concerns an individual SRK who was severely injured in a road traffic accident. The effects of those injuries are that (a) he lacks capacity to make decisions on the regime of care, treatment and support that he should receive (SRK's care regime), and (b) applying the approach in Cheshire West (see Surrey County Council v P and others; Cheshire West and Chester Council v P and another [2014] UKSC 19^M, [2014] AC 896^B), SRK's care regime creates, on an objective assessment, a deprivation of liberty. SRK was awarded substantial damages that were paid to his property and affairs deputy (the third Respondent IMTC). He lives at a property that has been bought and adapted for him. His regime of care and support there is provided by private sector providers. The damages funded that purchase and adaptation and fund that regime of care. The issue is whether this situation on the ground is a deprivation of liberty that has to be authorised by the Court of Protection (the COP) by it making a welfare order. The test that the COP would apply in making such an order is whether SRK's care regime is the least restrictive available option to best promote his best interests. The same test applies to the decision makers on the ground. It is common ground that at present SRK's care regime satisfies that test."

25/09/16 (1): Medical treatment case. Re W (Medical Treatment: Anorexia) [2016] EWCOP 13, [2016] MHLO 35 — "In this case, Miss W, a young woman aged 28, has suffered from a severe and enduring eating disorder for 20 years, with physical, social and psychological consequences of the kind described above. In this judgment I will call her W. Since the age of 11, she has had six admissions for inpatient treatment, spread between five units around the country and amounting to about 10 years in total. Her current admission has lasted for 2½ years and yet, despite the most intensive support, she is barely eating and is losing weight at the rate of 500 g – 1 kg per week. She now weighs less than 30 kg and her BMI is 12.6. If she continues to lose weight at this rate, she will die. ... The outcome is that, accepting the unanimous professional view, I approve the plan of the Health Board. This is that W should now be discharged into the community with a closely thought-out package of support for her and her family. Given W's fragile condition, it is a plan that has only been arrived at after the most anxious consideration by her care team. It will at first seem counterintuitive that someone so ill should be discharged from hospital. The conventional assumption is that hospital treatment is likely to bring benefits, but the evidence has persuaded me that in this case that is not so. The outcome is to some extent in accordance with W's wishes, which I will describe below."§

23/09/16 (1): Consultation. Ministry of Justice, 'Transforming our justice system' (consultation from 15/9/16 to 27/10/16). The main proposal relevant to the MHT is an amendment (a) providing that a tribunal panel in the First-tier Tribunal is to consist of a single member unless otherwise determined by the Senior President of Tribunals, and (b) removing the existing requirement to consider the arrangements that were in place before the tribunal transferred into the unified system. A detailed summary is available on MHLO by clicking the page link.

16/09/16 (1): Edge Training: AMHP Conference - London, 18/11/16 — No results

11/09/16 (3): Welsh Government, 'Mental Health Act 1983: Code of Practice for Wales' (2016). See Mental Health Act 1983 Code of Practice for Wales

11/09/16 (2): Welsh Government, 'Consultation - summary of responses: Revision of the Mental Health Act 1983 Code of Practice for Wales' (document WG26160, June 2016). See Consultation on revision of the Mental Health Act 1983 Code of Practice for Wales

11/09/16 (1): Law Society, 'Consultation on the Revision of the Mental Health Act 1983 Code of Practice for Wales: Law Society Response' (27/11/15). See Consultation on revision of the Mental Health Act 1983 Code of Practice for Wales

05/09/16 (1): After-care legislation. National Health Service Commissioning Board and Clinical Commissioning Groups (Responsibilities and Standing Rules) (Amendment) Regulations 2016 — These regulations amend National Health Service Commissioning Board and Clinical Commissioning Groups (Responsibilities and Standing Rules) Regulations 2012 by repealing regulation 14(2)(a) of those Regulations (which gave s117 after-care responsibility to 'CCG B' instead of the usual 'CCG A' for "(a) patients provided with primary medical services by a member of CCG B; or (b) patients who usually reside in the CCG B's area and are not provided with primary medical services by a member of any clinical commissioning group"). In force 1/4/16. A transitional provision states that where, immediately before the amendment came into force a 'CCG B' had s117 after-care responsibility under regulation 14(2)(a), responsibility will remain with that CCG "(a) for as long as that person needs after-care; or (b) until that person is detained under a provision referred to in section 117(1) of the 1983 Act". Regulation 14(2)(b), which sets out other circumstances in which responsibility is transferred to 'CCG B', has not been repealed. The amendments made in April 2016 to paragraphs 33 and 34 of the August 2013 ‘Who Pays?’ document (noted on the After-care page) should be read subject to the Regulations themselves.

01/09/16 (2): Section 117 after-care responsibilities. The following documents relate to amendments to the 'Who Pays' document, effective from 1/4/16 (once the amended 'Who Pays' document has been located it will be uploaded here): (a) LGA, ADASS and NHS England, 'Building the right support - Frequently Asked Questions (finance)' (gateway reference 04659, updated 9/4/16) (full text is in Annex A); (b) ADASS, 'Updated NHS "Who Pays" s117 Guidance' (19/4/16); (c) Emmett Maginn, 'Who pays? Significant changes to determining which CCG is responsible for funding s117 MHA 1983 aftercare after 1 April 2016' (Browne Jacobson, 11/5/16). This guidance relates to determining which CCG is responsible for s117 aftercare: for further details, see After-care

01/09/16 (1): Ministry of Justice, 'Offender Management Statistics Bulletin, England and Wales: Quarterly October to December 2015; Annual January to December 2015' (28/4/16). See Statistics#Ministry of Justice