View source for Norfolk and Suffolk NHS Foundation Trust v HJ (2023) EWFC 92

{{Case
|Date=2023-06-17
|NCN=[2023] EWFC 92
|ICLR=[2023] WLR(D) 293
|ICLR ID=2023003956
|Essex issue=133
|Essex page=22
|Court=Family Court
|Judges=David Lock
|Parties=Norfolk and Suffolk NHS Foundation Trust, HJ
|Sentence=MCA treatment for MHA patient
|Summary=HJ was detained under [[MHA 1983 s3]] but treatment under restraint for her constipation could not be provided under [[MHA 1983 s63]]. The trust asked the court to authorise deprivation of liberty; the judge in email correspondence expressed doubts; subsequently the trust and Official Solicitor changed their minds and agreed that the treatment did not involve deprivation of liberty. The judge decided: (1) The following principles apply: (a) only in exceptional cases will something amount to a further deprivation of liberty of someone already lawfully deprived of liberty; (b) this is because the usual position is that [[Article 5]](1)(e) is not in principle concerned with suitable treatment or conditions; (c) the test is whether there is an unacceptable element of arbitrariness in the actions taken by a state body. (2) Applying that approach, proper and lawful exercise of clinical judgment will, save in exceptional circumstances, lack arbitrariness and will not amount to deprivation of residual liberty; partly that is because the trust owe a common law duty of care to the patient to provide appropriate treatment (the patient cannot be deprived of liberty by actions that the trust are required to take). (3) The [[MCA 2005 s4]] best interests process, [[MCA 2005 s6]] restraint limitations, MHA framework and [[Mental Health Units (Use of Force) Act 2018]] requirements are a sufficient procedural framework for [[Article 8]] purposes and do not need to be supplemented by a court order.
|Subject=Medical treatment cases
|News=Yes
|RSS pubdate=2023-07-03 11:05:05 PM
}}