Category:First-tier Tribunal decisions

|Date=2023-02-24 |Court=First-tier Tribunal |Judges=K Chahal, P Egleston |Parties=G |Sentence=Absolute discharge of imprisoned conditionally discharged patient |Summary=In this decision the First-tier Tribunal sets out its reasons for absolutely discharging a conditionally discharged patient who at the time was an imprisoned lifer many years pre-tariff. Permission to publish this decision was subsequently granted by the FTT. |Detail===Thanks== Thanks to Joseph Railton (patient's representative) of Conroys Solicitors for providing the judgment.

|Date=2023-03-24 |Court=First-tier Tribunal |Judges=Sarah Johnston |Parties=A |Judicial history first case=Re A (same-sex panel) [2020] MHLO 14 (FTT) |Sentence=Open justice in the First-tier Tribunal |Summary=Permission to publish the First-tier Tribunal decision (which was an interlocutory decision setting aside the initial refusal of the patient's request for an all-female panel) was granted. The Deputy Chamber President took into account that "departing from the open justice principle can only be justified in exceptional circumstances when [it is] strictly necessary to secure the proper administration of justice" and that "in circumstances where the patient wants the decision to be published on the website and thereby waives her privacy, the balance falls in favour of publication". She noted that there were no exceptional circumstances for departing from the open justice principle, that she had taken into account the contents and nature of the decision and the level of redaction and anonymity, and that all cases will be considered on their own merits. The patient's argument that permission to publish was not necessary was rejected. |Detail===Note== The Deputy Chamber President has asked that the following statement 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."

|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 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. |Detail===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."

|Date=2020/10/15 |Court=First-tier Tribunal |Judges=Jo Briggs |Parties=D |Sentence=Video tribunal hearing set aside |Summary=(1) The decision in this case was set aside because it was not clear whether or not the patient had a reasonable opportunity to hear all the evidence that was given at the hearing: it was not possible to be sure that the patient had a fair hearing. (2) The patient's microphone had been muted for much of the time after giving her evidence at the outset because she "would not stop talking", but this did not amount to exclusion under Tribunal rule 38. [First-tier tribunal decisions are useful but not binding.] |Detail===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."

|Date=2020/08/21 |Other citations=[2020] MHLO 48 (FTT) |Court=First-tier Tribunal |Judges=Birrell |Parties=C |Sentence=Remote pre-hearing examinations are practicable |Summary=(1) A salaried tribunal judge initially refused to allow a pre-hearing examination (PHE) because the coronavirus Pilot Practice Direction states: "During the Covid-19 pandemic it will not be 'practicable' under rule 34 of the 2008 Rules for any PHE examinations to take place, due to the health risk such examinations present." (2) Having treated the rule 46 application for permission to appeal as a rule 6 challenge, a different salaried tribunal judge decided that: (a) the practice direction is subordinate to the rules and overriding objective; (b) in video-enabled hearings with a full panel a PHE is practicable by that means; (c) hearings and PHEs should be conducted remotely as, even if the hospital would allow access, the tribunal will not put its members at risk of contracting or spreading coronavirus; (d) in this case, the PHE would take place by video link on the morning of the hearing. [First-tier Tribunal decisions are not binding.] |Detail===Thanks== Thanks to Ben Conroy (Conroys Solicitors) for providing the decision.

|Date=2020-02-10 |Other citations=[2020] MHLO 14 (FTT) |Court=First-tier Tribunal |Judges=Callcott |Parties=A |Judicial history=* Re A (publication of MHT decision) [2023] MHLO 3 (FTT)

• Re A (same-sex panel) [2020] MHLO 14 (FTT)

|Sentence=Direction for all-female panel |Summary=In this (non-binding) interlocutory decision, a decision to refuse the patient's request for an all-female panel was set aside. The main factor was the overriding objective, in particular ensuring, so far as practicable, that the parties are able to participate fully: the patient's mental state meant that she could only attend the hearing or pre-hearing medical examination if the panel were all female. The judge referred to obiter guidance on single-sex panels in a social entitlement case, which referred to "appeals involving sensitive and uniquely female medical conditions" (the other category was "cases raising cultural issues about the giving of evidence"), and noted that the arguments in this case were even more clear cut. |Detail===Notes== The Deputy Chamber President has asked for this statement to be published: "Permission has been granted by the FTT 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 First-tier Tribunal, there is no obligation on any other FTT judge or panel to follow this."

This is only an interlocutory decision (given on Form STJ2, "Interlocutory Decision Before Hearing") and is not in any way binding; however, it is an interesting illustration of the tribunal's approach to such a case. All information about the patient's case has been removed from the following extract from the decision.