View source for R (Brady) v Dr Collins (2000) EWHC 639 (Admin)

''(1) The hunger strike was a manifestation or symptom of the patient's personality disorder, and the commencement of force-feeding was justified under [[s63]] as medical treatment for mental disorder; even if s63 did not apply, the patient lacked capacity and the doctors had acted in what they lawfully believed was his best interests; (2) The appropriate test when considering challenges to compulsory treatment under [[s63]] was the "super-Wednesbury" test [caution: the law has since changed] 

==Notes==

See [[R (Wilkinson) v Broadmoor Hospital (2001) EWCA Civ 1545]] para 27:
:I would accordingly regard the Brady approach as no longer appropriate in the case of the forcible treatment of detained patients, at any rate those who contend they are competent. Brady, I repeat, was decided before the Human Rights Act took effect. The super-Wednesbury tested adopted from Smith (itself an article 8 case) was, as is well known, subsequently held to be inadequate by the ECtHR in Smith and Grady v United Kingdom (1999) 29 EHRR 493. I can see no basis on which an approach disapproved in the context of homosexuality in the armed forces could be supported in the present context of forcibly treating mental patients. Quite the contrary, given that this case raises also a real question under article 3.

==Citations==
[2000] MHLR 17 

==External link==
{{#bailii:[2000] EWHC 639 (Admin)}}


[[Category:Challenges to compulsory treatment]]
[[Category:Brief summary]]
[[Category:Transcript]]
[[Category:2000 cases]]