Flag of England.gif

Page values for "R (Gisagara) v Upper Tribunal (2021) EWHC 300 (Admin)"

"_pageData" values

1 row is stored for this page
FieldField typeValue
_creationDateDatetime2021-02-18 12:13:00 AM
_modificationDateDatetime2022-01-14 11:25:59 AM
_creatorStringJonathan
_fullTextSearchtext{{Case |Date=2021/02/16 |NCN=[2021] EWHC 300 (Admin) |Court=High Court (Administrative Court) |Judges=Steyn |Parties=R, Sam Gisagara, Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber), Camden and Islington NHS Foundation Trust |Sentence=Timing of CTO discharge |Summary=The Responsible Clinician's evid ...
_categoriesList of String, delimiter: |2021 cases CTO cases Cases Judgment available on Bailii Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function Judgment_available_on_Bailii 2021_cases
_isRedirectBooleanNo
_pageNameOrRedirectStringR (Gisagara) v Upper Tribunal (2021) EWHC 300 (Admin)
_pageIDInteger11,347
_pageNamePageR (Gisagara) v Upper Tribunal (2021) EWHC 300 (Admin)
_pageTitleString

R (Gisagara) v Upper Tribunal [2021] EWHC 300 (Admin)

_pageNamespaceInteger0

"Cases" values

1 row is stored for this page
FieldField typeValue
SentenceWikitext

Timing of CTO discharge

SummaryWikitext

The Responsible Clinician's evidence to the MHT was that the Community Treatment Order (CTO) criteria were met, and that a CTO was an "essential precondition" to discharge as otherwise the patient would not accept medication; she had granted s17 leave while the CTO was being arranged. When the MHT did not discharge him from s3, the patient argued that: (a) the discharge criteria mirror the admission criteria, s3(2)(c) requires detention, and the tribunal had failed to determine whether he was detained or merely liable to be detained; (b) the CTO criteria are incompatible with the detention criteria. In this application for permission for judicial review of the Upper Tribunal's refusal of permission to appeal, the Administrative Court decided that: (a) in relation to the principle that the discharge criteria mirror the admission criteria, there was no conflict of authority (the Court of Appeal had repeatedly agreed with the House of Lords on this despite the Court of Appeal decision to the contrary never having been overruled) so there was no important point of principle; and (b) there no arguable case. Permission was therefore refused.

DetailText
SubjectList of String, delimiter: ,CTO cases
Judicial_historyWikitext
Judicial_history_first_pagePage
DateDate2021-02-16
JudgesList of String, delimiter: ,Steyn
PartiesList of String, delimiter: ,R Sam Gisagara Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber) Camden and Islington NHS Foundation Trust
CourtStringHigh Court (Administrative Court)
NCNString[2021] EWHC 300 (Admin)
MHLRString
ICLRString
ICLR_IDString
EssexString
Essex_issueString
Essex_pageString
Other_citationsList of String, delimiter: ,
CitesList of String, delimiter: #
External_linksText
JudgmentFile

"News" values

1 row is stored for this page
FieldField typeValue
Which_tableStringCases
RSS_titleWikitext
RSS_descriptionWikitext
RSS_pubdateDatetime2021-02-17 11:31:22 PM