View source for R (Worcestershire County Council) v SSHSC (2023) UKSC 31

{{Case
|Date=2023/08/10
|NCN=[2023] UKSC 31
|ICLR=[2023] WLR(D) 354
|ICLR ID=2021001460
|Essex issue=134
|Essex page=51
|Other citations=[2023] 1 WLR 2790, [2023] PTSR 1593
|Court=Supreme Court
|Judges=Reed, Hamblen, Leggatt, Burrows, Richards
|Parties=Worcestershire County Council, Secretary of State for Health and Social Care
|Judicial history first case=R (Worcestershire County Council v SSHSC (2021) EWHC 682 (Admin)
|Cites=R (CXF) v Central Bedfordshire Council (2018) EWCA Civ 2852# R (Cornwall Council v SSH (2015) UKSC 46# R (Hertfordshire CC) v LB Hammersmith and Fulham (2011) EWCA Civ 77
|Sentence=Ordinary residence and s117
|Summary=JG was detained under s3 in Worcestershire (Area 1), discharged to residential care in Swindon (Area 2), detained again under s3 in Swindon and discharged again. The Supreme Court held that: (1) a duty under [[s117|section 117]](2) to provide after-care services automatically ceases when the patient is detained again under s3 (or another provision specified in section 117(1)), and upon the second discharge a new duty is placed on the local authority of the area in which the patient was ordinarily resident immediately before the second detention; (2) there is no deeming or disregarding provision in the MHA (unlike the [[Care Act 2014]] or [[Children Act 1989]]) so the words "is ordinarily resident" must be given their usual meaning, with the adaption where there is lack of capacity that the mental aspects of the ''Shah'' test (voluntary adoption and settled purpose) must be supplied by considering the state of mind of whoever has the power to make relevant decisions on behalf of the person concerned; (3) on the facts, JG was ordinarily resident in Swindon immediately before the second detention, so Swindon was now responsible for after-care.
|Subject=After-care
|News=Yes
|RSS pubdate=2023/08/14 10:38:57 PM
}}