View source for M v Murray (Mental Health Officer) (2009) ScotSC 8

''The appellant patient argued that the mental health officer's application to the [[Mental Health Tribunal for Scotland]] was misconceived because the second medical report which accompanied the application did not meet the requirements of the [[Mental Health (Care and Treatment) (Scotland) Act 2003]]; taken as a whole and in the circumstances (that the application is made in the interests of the patient and the Tribunal also hear oral evidence) the report did meet the requirements.''

==Extract==
24. It is important, when considering whether the information in the two mental health reports contained sufficient information to comply with the requirements of sections 57 and 58 of the 2003 Act, not only to look at the application as a whole, but to bear in mind that an order would be made by the Tribunal not on the basis of the application form and the mental health reports alone, but on the basis of all the evidence presented to it. The medical reports with the application form are only the means by which the whole procedure is commenced. I emphasise that the application is made by the mental health officer in the interests of the appellant. The reasons for the conclusions set out in the mental health reports which accompany the application do not require to be spelt out with the precision of a legal document. The reasons require to be sufficient to allow the medical health officer, taking each report as a whole, to conclude that the requirements of sections 57 and 58 have been met and that he should proceed to make an application to the Tribunal and to present them with a proposed care plan in terms of the 2003 Act.

==Citations==
[2009] ScotSC 8; 2009 GWD 14-227

==External link==
{{#bailii:[2009] ScotSC 8}}


[[Category:Scottish cases]]
[[Category:Brief summary]]
[[Category:Transcript]]
[[Category:2009 cases]]