MM v WL Clinic (2015) UKUT 644 (AAC)

Conditional discharge and DOL (1) For the purposes of Article 5, a restricted patient with the capacity to do so can give a valid and effective consent to conditions of a conditional discharge that when implemented will, on an objective assessment, create a deprivation of liberty. (2) In determining whether to discharge conditionally, the tribunal has to consider whether the consent is freely given and (as raised in KC at [134-139]) consider any practical problems arising from the ability to withdraw consent. (3) MM's case was remitted to the First-tier Tribunal with a direction that it apply the decisions in KC and this case. (Caution: see Court of Appeal decision.)

MHLR

The summary below has been supplied by Kris Gledhill, Editor of the Mental Health Law Reports. The full report can be purchased from Southside Online Publishing (if there is a "file not found" error, it means this particular report is not yet available online). More similar case summaries from the year 2016 are available here: MHLR 2016.

Whether a restricted patient with capacity could consent to a conditional discharge that involved a deprivation of liberty - MM v (1) WL Clinic and (2) MHU – [2016] MHLR 198

Points Arising: Orders under the Mental Health Act 1983 authorise detention in hospital; a person with capacity could consent to detention outside hospital, and so that could be the outcome of a conditional discharge if consent was given.

Facts and Outcome: MM sought a conditional discharge on the basis of conditions which would involve a deprivation of liberty: but the Tribunal concluded that the consent was not genuine and in any event it could not discharge to a position that was detention. Charles J, in the Upper Tribunal, remitted the matter, finding that the Tribunal had made an error in the legal position, which affected its conclusion as to consent (which in any event was not supported by reasons).

CASES DATABASE

Full judgment: BAILII

Subject(s):

• Deprivation of liberty🔍
• Powers🔍
• Upper Tribunal decisions🔍

Date: 23/11/15🔍

Court: Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber)🔍

Judicial history:

MM case:

• SSJ v MM [2018] UKSC 60
• SSJ v MM; Welsh Ministers v PJ [2017] EWCA Civ 194 (joint judgment)
• MM v WL Clinic [2016] UKUT 37 (AAC) (permission to appeal refused)
• MM v WL Clinic [2015] UKUT 644 (AAC)

PJ case:

• Welsh Ministers v PJ [2018] UKSC 66
• SSJ v MM; Welsh Ministers v PJ [2017] EWCA Civ 194 (joint judgment)
• PJ v A Local Health Board [2015] UKUT 480 (AAC)

Judge(s):

• Charles🔍

Parties:

• MM🔍
• WL Clinic🔍
• Secretary of State for Justice🔍

Citation number(s):

• [2015] UKUT 644 (AAC)^B
• [2015] MHLO 103

What links here:

• PJ v A Local Health Board [2015] UKUT 480 (AAC)
• MM v WL Clinic [2016] UKUT 37 (AAC)
• SSJ v MM; Welsh Ministers v PJ [2017] EWCA Civ 194
• SSJ v MM [2018] UKSC 60
• Welsh Ministers v PJ [2018] UKSC 66
• Jonathan Wilson, 'Mental health: update' (Legal Action, February 2017)
• Jonathan Wilson, 'Mental health: update' (Legal Action, February 2018)
• Jonathan Wilson, 'Mental health: update' (Legal Action, February 2019)
• Jonathan Wilson, 'Mental health: update' (Legal Action, April 2016)

Published: 26/11/15 20:58

Cached: 2025-04-26 12:46:17