View source for AM v Greater Manchester Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust (2024) UKUT 438 (AAC)

{{Case
|Date=2024-12-23
|NCN=[2024] UKUT 438 (AAC)
|Court=Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber)
|Judges=Jacobs
|Parties=AM, Greater Manchester Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust, Secretary of State for Justice
|Sentence=Non-disclosure of victim's statement except to patient's lawyers
|Summary=(1) An interim non-disclosure order was made under [[Tribunal rule 5|rule 5]] allowing disclosure of the victim's statement only to AM's lawyers. That order was continued under [[Tribunal rule 14|rule 14]](2), but the tribunal failed properly to consider either limb of that rule (involving likelihood of serious harm and the interests of justice respectively). This procedural irregularity was capable of making a material difference to the outcome or the fairness of the proceedings (by restricting the ability of AM’s representatives to cross-examine and obtain evidence about an proposed exclusion zone variation) so was an error of law. (2) In relation to materiality, the UT judge stated that there are three "possibilities" in relation to procedural and other irregularities: "(a) the irregularity made a difference; (b) it did not make a difference; and (c) it could have made a difference." His full position can be stated more clearly as follows: the irregularity is material if (and only if) it could have made a difference, whether not or not it did. (3) The UT judge gave guidance on rule 14(2)(a). "This largely involves issues of fact: who might be harmed, what harm might befall them and whether it was serious. It also involved an estimate of the likelihood of that happening. ... Both seriousness and likelihood require not only consideration but separate consideration for each person and each kind of potential harm. ... Different disclosure may be appropriate to different people. Some parts of the information may be irrelevant and so can be discarded on that count. Some parts may be disclosed to some but not to others. Disclosure to any individual may be full or partial. It may be verbatim or may consist of the gist of what the victim has said." (4) As the procedural irregularity justified a rehearing, the substantive challenge to the decision not to amend the exclusion zone was not considered, but the UT noted that the tribunal was entitled to take into account as a relevant consideration the effect of the zone on AM's ability to take up an offer of work.
|Detail===Judicial summary from Gov.uk website==
<div class="perm">
Application to vary exclusion zone imposed as condition on patient’s discharge - direction under rule 14(2) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Health, Education and Social Care Chamber) Rules 2008 (SI No 2699) - interim direction under general case management powers in rule 5 - application of interests of justice, the overriding objective and the duty to co-operate.
</div>
|External links=*[https://www.gov.uk/administrative-appeals-tribunal-decisions/am-v-greater-manchester-mental-health-nhs-foundation-trust-and-the-secretary-of-state-for-justice-2024-ukut-438-aac Transcript on Gov.uk website]
|Subject=Upper Tribunal decisions,Non-disclosure
|Judgment=(2024) UKUT 438 (AAC).pdf
|News=Yes
|RSS pubdate=2025-01-15 08:38:24 PM
}}