View source for Derbyshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust v SSHSC (2023) EWHC 3182 (Admin)

{{Case
|Date=2023-12-14
|NCN=[2023] EWHC 3182 (Admin)
|ICLR=[2023] WLR(D) 524
|ICLR ID=2023007121
|Essex issue=132
|Essex page=32
|Court=High Court (Administrative Court)
|Judges=Lane
|Parties=Derbyshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust, Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, NHS England, PQR, Mind
|Cites=Devon Partnership NHS Trust v SSHSC (2021) EWHC 101 (Admin)
|Sentence=Renewal and remote assessments
|Summary=Remote assessment insufficient for renewal of s3, guardianship or CTO (no decision in relation to initial discharge onto CTO).
|Detail===Note==
The judgment has the claimant as "Derbyshire Health Care NHS Trust".

==ChatGPT==
Just for fun, I asked ChatGPT 3.5 to summarise the "Discussion" part of the judgment (paras 79ff). Here is what it said. I've not checked it for accuracy, but at first glance it looks pretty good.

<div class="perm">
The text you provided appears to be a portion of a legal judgment or opinion, likely related to mental health law and the interpretation of certain provisions in the Mental Health Act. It discusses the claimant's request for a declaration regarding the examination requirements under sections 17A, 20, and 20A of the Mental Health Act.

The judge seems to reject the claimant's request for a declaration related to section 17A, expressing concerns about the ambiguity of the term "face-to-face" and the broader analytical exercise required. The judge suggests that attempting to make a declaration on this matter could lead to unintended consequences and is beyond the court's ability to provide sound declaratory relief.

The text then addresses the declaration sought in respect of sections 20 and 20A, focusing on the interpretation of the word "examine." The judge appears to rely on the precedent set in the case of Devon, emphasizing the Divisional Court's view that a medical examination necessarily involves the physical presence of the examining doctor. The judge rejects the claimant's argument that the Divisional Court's conclusions in Devon do not apply to the present case.

The judge discusses the historical context, legislative history, and intent behind sections 20 and 20A, emphasizing Parliament's concern for effective decisions when extending detention or imposing restrictions on a person's liberty. The text suggests a strict interpretation of these sections, underlining the importance of a high-quality examination by a responsible clinician.

The judge considers the argument that advancements in technology, such as video conferencing, should be considered in the interpretation of the word "examine." However, the judge rejects this argument, stating that there is no societal consensus that remote examinations are of the same quality as physical examinations.

The text concludes with the judge refusing the application for declarations and addressing a specific request related to the legality of an examination undertaken in May 2020, suggesting that such issues should be pursued through judicial review, taking into account issues of timeliness.

This is a brief summary and does not capture all the nuances of the legal analysis provided in the text. If you have specific questions or if there's a particular aspect you'd like more information on, feel free to ask.
</div>
|Subject=Coronavirus cases
|News=Yes
|RSS pubdate=2023-12-14 04:21:18 PM
}}