Dangerousness criterion: Difference between revisions

Latest revision as of 21:41, 6 April 2019

In ‘barring order’ cases (see Right to request discharge of s2 or s3 or CTO) the Tribunal, in addition to the usual criteria, must also be satisfied that:

(iii) … that the patient, if released, would be likely to act in a manner dangerous to other persons or to himself.

It is more difficult to justify continued detention on this ground. Para 32.23 of the MHA Code of Practice states:

This question focuses on the probability of dangerous acts, such as causing serious physical injury or lasting psychological harm, not merely on the patient’s general need for safety and others’ general need for protection.

If a Tribunal happens to follow a barring certificate (as opposed to being held as a result of a nearest relative’s application) then the Tribunal is not obliged to consider dangerousness (R (MH) v Secretary of State for the Department of Health [2004] EWHC 56 (Admin)^M).

The hospital managers when reviewing the case following a barring order consider the same issue. The managers will, in almost all circumstances, discharge if not satisfied of the dangerousness criterion (see the Code and R (Huzzey) v Riverside MH Trust [1998] EWHC Admin 465^M), but retain the discretion not to discharge in exceptional circumstances (R (SR) v Huntercombe Maidenhead Hospital [2005] EWHC 2361 (Admin)^M).

INFORMATION

What links here:

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-Whether the patient, if released/discharged, would be likely to act in a manner dangerous to himself or other persons.
+{{Information-header}}
+In ‘barring order’ cases (see [[Right to request discharge of s2 or s3 or CTO]]) the Tribunal, in addition to the usual criteria, must also be satisfied that:
-Considered by:
+:(iii) … that the patient, if released, would be likely to act in a manner dangerous to other persons or to himself.
-* the [[RC]] after the [[nearest relative]] has requested discharge.
+It is more difficult to justify continued detention on this ground. Para 32.23 of the MHA Code of Practice states:
-* by the [[MHT]] in [[s3]] and [[CTO]] cases where the nearest relative has made an application to the Tribunal having been barred from discharging the patient.
+<blockquote>This question focuses on the probability of dangerous acts, such as causing serious physical injury or lasting psychological harm, not merely on the patient’s general need for safety and others’ general need for protection.</blockquote>
-* the [[hospital managers]] after the RC has issued a [[barring order]]
+If a Tribunal happens to follow a barring certificate (as opposed to being held as a result of a nearest relative’s application) then the Tribunal is not obliged to consider dangerousness (R (MH) v Secretary of State for the Department of Health [2004] EWHC 56 (Admin)).
-In the first two cases, if the criterion is not met, the patient must be discharged.
+The hospital managers when reviewing the case following a barring order consider the same issue. The managers will, in almost all circumstances, discharge if not satisfied of the dangerousness criterion (see the Code and R (Huzzey) v Riverside MH Trust [1998] EWHC Admin 465), but retain the discretion not to discharge in exceptional circumstances (R (SR) v Huntercombe Maidenhead Hospital [2005] EWHC 2361 (Admin)).
+{{Information-footer
-In the third case the managers retain the discretion not to discharge in exceptional circumstances: see [[R (Huzzey) v Riverside MH Trust (1998) EWHC Admin 465]] which was applied in [[R (SR) v Huntercombe Maidenhead Hospital (2005) EWHC 2361 (Admin)]].
+|maincat=Nearest relative
+}}
-See [[Nearest relative]] page for further details.
-[[Category:Routes to discharge]]