MM v WL Clinic (2015) UKUT 644 (AAC): Difference between revisions
(Created page with "''(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 w...") |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
''(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 [[SSJ v KC (2015) UKUT 376 (AAC), (2015) MHLO 49|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.'' | ''(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 [[SSJ v KC (2015) UKUT 376 (AAC), (2015) MHLO 49|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.'' | ||
==External link== | ==External link== | ||
Revision as of 21:00, 26 November 2015
(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.
External link
...
The following categories (in blue boxes) can be clicked to view a list of other pages in the same category: