View source for RN v Curo Care (2011) UKUT 263 (AAC)

''(1) If the representative was right that the judge stated at the outset that the Tribunal would refuse to make a CTO recommendation, then reaching that firm conclusion (as opposed to an provisional opinion), and preventing the patient from arguing to the contrary, was a breach of natural justice and the ECHR right to a fair hearing. (2) In any event, the lack of reasons for not making the requested recommendation amounted to an error of law. (3) There would be no point in setting aside the decision if a recommendation were impossible or not a realistic possibility, but this was not a case where a CTO would never become a realistic option in the foreseeable future: the Tribunal can make a CTO recommendation not only if it considers that the criteria are satisfied (here it did not) but also in order to trigger consideration of future steps that could be taken to move the patient towards eventual release [not sure what this means]. (4) The decision was set aside and remitted to a differently-constituted panel for reconsideration.''

==Other==
Before: UTJ Edward Jacobs
 
Dated: 11/4/11

Stephen Simblet (instructed by Wolton and Co Solicitors) for the Applicant

The Respondent was unrepresented and did not appear

==Citations==
Case no HM/2201/2010

==Thanks==
{{thanks|Wolton, Karen|Wolton & Co Solicitors}}

==External link==
{{#bailii:(2011) UKUT 263 (AAC)}}

[[Media:RN v CC (2011) UKUT x (AAC).pdf|Transcript]]

[[Category:CTO cases]]
[[Category:Bias cases]]
[[Category:Upper Tribunal decisions]]
[[Category:Brief summary]]
[[Category:Transcript]]
[[Category:2011 cases]]