View source for PS v Camden and Islington NHS Foundation Trust (2011) UKUT 143 (AAC)

{{Case
|Date=2011/03/30
|NCN=[2011] UKUT 143 (AAC)
|Court=Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber)
|Judges=Jacobs
|Parties=PS, Camden and Islington NHS Foundation Trust
|Sentence=CTO reference hearings
|Summary=The Tribunal's policy was that a reference made under [[s68]](7) (triggered by the revocation of a CTO) would be treated as having lapsed if the patient subsequently was placed on a new CTO (see [[Guidance: References made under section 68(7) Mental Health Act 1983 (updated 22/9/10)]]). When the patient's representative argued that the case should be heard, the Tribunal treated that letter as the patient's own application. (1) The policy was unlawful: (a) whether the reference has lapsed depends on the nature of the reference, which is a matter of statutory interpretation, so neither the overriding objective nor the policy is relevant; (b) the subject matter of a reference under s68(7) (the duty to consider the [[s72]] criteria) is not related to the circumstances that trigger it (the revocation of the CTO) so survives the change in circumstances; (c) the policy was inconsistent with s68(3)(c) (no six-month reference if revocation reference has been made) which would not be necessary if the revocation reference lapses. (2) The power to treat a letter as a Tribunal application is only appropriately exercised for the applicant's advantage, not potential detriment; it is not permissible to override an unequivocal indication by the solicitor to the opposite effect, especially if to do so would deprive the patient of the chance to make an application later should discharge not be obtained on the reference. (3) If the hospital managers had been represented, the judge would have wanted to know why it took 12 days to complete the simple referral form. (4) The Tribunal Procedure Committee will be consulting on rule changes to make it easier to handle CTO revocation cases in which the patient does not 'co-operate': in the meantime, the judge suggested that proceedings could be stayed, or hearings conducted in patients' absence.
|Detail===Representation==
Roger Pezzani (instructed by Blavo & Co) for the applicant

The respondent did not appear and was not represented

==Thanks==
{{thanks|Pezzani, Roger|Garden Court Chambers}}
|Subject=Change of status cases,Upper Tribunal decisions
|Judgment=PS v Camden and Islington NHS Foundation Trust (2011) UKUT 143 (AAC).doc
|News=No
|RSS pubdate=2020/10/17 09:11:16 AM
}}