View source for R (Lee-Hirons) v SSJ (2014) EWCA Civ 553, (2014) MHLO 23

''(1) A restricted patient who had been recalled argued that the Secretary of State was under a duty to provide written (not merely oral) reasons for recall, that the oral reasons given were inadequate and were not the Secretary of State’s true reasons, and that therefore the recall and consequent detention was unlawful. (2) The Court of Appeal held that: (a) [[Article 5]](1) does not require the reasons for detention to be given immediately upon detention; (b) a fortiori, it does not require reasons to be given in writing; (c) Article 5(2) requires those reasons to be adequately and promptly given to him following detention; (d) on the facts, there had been a breach of the Secretary of State’s policy to provide reasons "as soon as possible and in any event within 72 hours" (HSG(93)20) and a breach of Article 5(2); (e) these breaches did not render unlawful what was originally a lawful recall. (3) The Court noted, in relation to the practice of the Secretary of State in relation to recall, that "It is now his practice to include in the warrant a brief reason for recall, and a reminder is given to the person executing the warrant to explain the reason at the time of execution." ''

==Related judgments==
{{related judgments|R (Lee-Hirons) v SSJ (2013) EWHC 1784 (Admin), (2013) MHLO 54}}

==ICLR==
{{ICLR|R (Lee-Hirons) v SSJ (2014) EWCA Civ 553, (2014) MHLO 23}}

==External link==
{{#bailii:(2014) EWCA Civ 553}}

[http://www.lawgazette.co.uk/law/law-reports/mental-health/5041121.article Law Society Gazette, Law Report, 6/4/14]†

[[Category:Ministry of Justice cases]]
[[Category:Transcript]]
[[Category:2014 cases]]