View source for MP v Mersey Care NHS Trust (2011) UKUT 107 (AAC)

{{Case
|Date=2021/03/15
|NCN=[2011] UKUT 107 (AAC)
|Other citations=[2011] MHLR 146
|Court=Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber)
|Judges=David Pearl
|Parties=MP, Mersey Care NHS Trust
|Sentence=CTO and deferred discharge
|Summary=The Tribunal panel discharged a s47 patient, deferred for six weeks for after-care arrangements, and also stated in para 9 of its decision that it 'would also invite Mr P's care team to consider whether to implement a community treatment order'. A CTO was then made; however, when the panel's decision to discharge the s47 took effect it also discharged the CTO. On the responsible authority's application under [[Tribunal rule 45]], a salaried tribunal judge reviewed and set aside the panel's decision (on the basis that, by directing discharge, the panel had frustrated its intention that there be a CTO) and remitted the case to a fresh panel. The patient appealed, but the relevant decisions were excluded from the appeal jurisdiction so the appeal was treated as a JR application. The Upper Tribunal decided: (1) Where (as here) the panel find any of the statutory criteria not met, there is no power under [[s72]](3A) to recommend a CTO: rather, there is a positive duty to discharge. (2) Para 9 was not expressed as a recommendation; the word 'also' showed that it did not form the basis of the reasoning; in so far as there is an inconsistency (between discharge and a recommendation), it is para 9 which should be given no weight; (3) The review decisions were quashed and a declaration made that the panel's decision be reactivated.
|Detail===Case numbers==
JR/2381/2010 and HM/2336/2010
|Subject=CTO cases,Upper Tribunal decisions
|News=No
|RSS pubdate=2023/08/19 08:28:27 PM
}}