View source for R (SP) v SSJ (2010) EWHC 1124 (Admin)

''(1) In considering the lawfulness of a s47 transfer the two questions are (a) whether the decision-maker applied his mind to the statutory criteria and (b) whether the material before the decision-maker was sufficient to sustain the eventual conclusion. The court will  review the decision with anxious scrutiny, as transfer at the end of a prison sentence extends detention. (2) It was clear that the decision-maker did apply her mind to the criteria. (3) One of the two medical recommendations was on the old form so did not explicitly address the new "appropriate treatment available" test. However, the medical report provided a sound foundation for the conclusion that the test was met: it was implicit in her report; there is an overlap with the "appropriate to be detained" test, which was addressed; and it was further  confirmed in a letter.''

==Related cases==
[[R (SP) v SSJ (2010) EWCA Civ 1590]]

*[[R (SP) v SSJ (2010) EWHC 1124 (Admin)]]

Cited:

*[[R (TF) v SSJ (2008) EWCA Civ 1457]]

*[[R (DK) v SSJ (2010) EWHC 82 (Admin)]]

==External link==
{{#bailii:[2010] EWHC 1124 (Admin)}}


[[Category:Unlawful detention cases]]
[[Category:Brief summary]]
[[Category:Transcript]]
[[Category:2010 cases]]