View source for R (Afework) v London Borough of Camden (2013) EWHC 1637 (Admin)

{{Case
|Date=2013-06-13
|NCN=[2013] EWHC 1637 (Admin)
|MHLR=[2014] MHLR 32
|Other citations=[2013] MHLO 51
|Court=High Court (Administrative Court)
|Judges=Mostyn
|Parties=Tewodros Afework, London Borough of Camden
|Sentence=Accommodation and s117
|Summary=The judge held that as a matter of law s117(2) is only engaged vis-à-vis accommodation if: '(i) The need for accommodation is a direct result of the reason that the ex-patient was detained in the first place ("the original condition"); (ii) The requirement is for enhanced specialised accommodation to meet needs directly arising from the original condition; and (iii) The ex-patient is being placed in the accommodation on an involuntary (in the sense of being incapacitated) basis arising as a result of the original condition.' No obvious reason is given for the third requirement, which is probably wrongly decided (or, as the COP Newsletter puts it, 'will fall to be considered again in due course').
|External links=* [https://www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/adult-social-care/307-adult-care-features/14701-section-117-after-care-and-accommodation Lee Parkhill, 'The scope of section 117 after-care and accommodation' (Local Government Lawyer, 4/7/13)]
|Subject=After-care
|News=No
|RSS pubdate=2025-4-13 08:44:26 PM
}}