View source for MM v WL Clinic (2015) UKUT 644 (AAC)

{{Case
|Date=2015/11/23
|NCN=[2015] UKUT 644 (AAC)
|Other citations=[2015] MHLO 103
|Court=Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber)
|Judges=Charles
|Parties=MM, WL Clinic, Secretary of State for Justice
|Judicial history first case=PJ v A Local Health Board (2015) UKUT 480 (AAC)
|Sentence=Conditional discharge and DOL
|Summary=(1) For the purposes of [[Article 5]], a restricted patient with the capacity to do so can give a valid and effective consent to conditions of a conditional discharge that when implemented will, on an objective assessment, create a deprivation of liberty. (2) In determining whether to discharge conditionally, the tribunal has to consider whether the consent is freely given and (as raised in [[SSJ v KC (2015) UKUT 376 (AAC), (2015) MHLO 49|KC]] at [134-139]) consider any practical problems arising from the ability to withdraw consent. (3) MM's case was remitted to the First-tier Tribunal with a direction that it apply the decisions in KC and this case. (Caution: see Court of Appeal decision.)
|Detail===MHLR==
{{MHLR|2016|198}}
|Subject=Deprivation of liberty,Powers,Upper Tribunal decisions
|News=No
|RSS pubdate=2021/02/16 09:14:36 PM
}}