Page values for "Re F (2021) MHLO 6 (FTT)"

"_pageData" values

1 row is stored for this page
FieldField typeValue
_creationDateDatetime2022-10-17 9:30:10 PM
_modificationDateDatetime2023-05-31 9:51:04 AM
_creatorStringJonathan
_fullTextSearchtext{{Case |Date=2021/12/04 |Court=First-tier Tribunal |Judges=Birrell |Parties=F |Sentence=Order of evidence |Summary=The tribunal, without first consulting the patient's representative, directed that the patient give evidence first in a video hearing, and rejected a submission that the responsible aut ...
_categoriesList of String, delimiter: |2021 cases Cases First-tier Tribunal decisions Judgment available on MHLO Neutral citation unknown or not applicable Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function Transcript 2021_cases
_isRedirectBooleanNo
_pageNameOrRedirectStringRe F (2021) MHLO 6 (FTT)
_pageIDInteger14,654
_pageNamePageRe F (2021) MHLO 6 (FTT)
_pageTitleString

Re F [2021] MHLO 6 (FTT)

_pageNamespaceInteger0

"Cases" values

1 row is stored for this page
FieldField typeValue
SentenceWikitext

Order of evidence

SummaryWikitext

The tribunal, without first consulting the patient's representative, directed that the patient give evidence first in a video hearing, and rejected a submission that the responsible authority should be heard first. The representative stated that the judge had referred to a policy which required this order of evidence in CVP hearings (the panel judge accepted it was possible she used the term 'policy'). On review, the STJ decided that there was a clear error of law: if the justification for the direction on the order of evidence included reference to a policy, whether that was intended to convey a tribunal wide policy or a policy specific to this judge it would constitute an unlawful fetter of the tribunal's discretionary powers. There is no policy that patients must give evidence first in CVP hearings.

DetailText==Note== The Deputy Chamber President has asked for this statement to be published: "Permission has been granted by the First Tier Tribunal to publish this case on the MHLO website. This is not a reported judgement. The decision is only made in relation to this case and as a decision of the FTT, there is no obligation on any other FTT judge or panel to follow this." ==Thanks== Thanks to Ben Conroy (Conroys Solicitors) for providing this decision. He also provided the following comment on the case: <blockquote>It is extremely important that the legal representative confirms with the client whether and when the client wishes to give evidence, and advice on this issue is essential. It can potentially make a difference as to whether the patient remains detained or not. The tribunal should not, as it did in this case, make a decision on the order of evidence without consultation, or summarily dismiss submissions on the order of evidence made by the patient’s legal representative - remembering that the burden of proof, save in guardianship cases, is on the Responsible Authority and they should not automatically get to hear the patient’s or, indeed, the nearest relatives evidence, before providing their own.</blockquote>
SubjectList of String, delimiter: ,First-tier Tribunal decisions
Judicial_historyWikitext
Judicial_history_first_pagePage
DateDate2021-12-04
JudgesList of String, delimiter: ,Birrell
PartiesList of String, delimiter: ,F
CourtStringFirst-tier Tribunal
NCNString
MHLRString
ICLRString
ICLR_IDString
EssexString
Essex_issueString
Essex_pageString
Other_citationsList of String, delimiter: ,
CitesList of String, delimiter: #
External_linksText
JudgmentFile
(2021) MHLO 6 (FTT).pdf

"Contributors" values

1 row is stored for this page
FieldField typeValue
NameStringConroy, Ben
PlaceStringConroys Solicitors
ContributionStringproviding this decision

"News" values

1 row is stored for this page
FieldField typeValue
Which_tableStringCases
RSS_titleWikitext
RSS_descriptionWikitext
RSS_pubdateDatetime2022-10-17 9:11:10 PM