Category:Judgment available on MHLO
The old category structure used on this page is comprehensive as it contains every relevant case. The new database structure was introduced in 2019, and is more potentially useful than the old categorisation system: it includes all cases since January 2016 (browse at Special:Drilldown/Cases) but only a minority of older cases. Asterisks below mark those cases which have been added to the new database structure.
The pages below are initially ordered according to the dates on which they were added to the site (most recent first). The order can be changed by clicking on the symbol beside a column heading: click on the symbol beside "Page and summary" for alphabetical order; click beside "Categories" for the order in which the cases were reported. Click on the arrow symbol again to reverse the order. Click on a page name to view the relevant page.
| Case and summary | Date added | Categories |
|---|---|---|
| * Adjournment and recommendations AC v Cornwall Partnership NHS Foundation Trust [2023] MHLO 1 (UT) — The tribunal panel refused the s3 patient's adjournment request (which was on the basis of a lack of aftercare planning) though it indicated that it would be revisited if aftercare information proved necessary to decide on discharge. It refused to make a statutory recommendation but made an extra-statutory recommendation about transferring hospital and appropriate accommodation. Permission to appeal having been refused by the FTT and UT, the patient now renewed her application for permission. (1) The patient argued that the adjournment refusal was procedurally unfair, but the UT decided that: (a) in high-level terms, case management rulings should only be interfered with when "plainly wrong"; and (b) specifically, the panel's decision was consistent with caselaw in the mental health jurisdiction. (2) The patient also argued that the type of recommendation made undermined the purpose of the statute, given that a statutory recommendation was possible, but the Upper Tribunal decided that the panel had concisely explained a rational basis for its decision and was entitled to take the view that it should not get involved in the onward supervision of the patient's care. (3) The UT set out the test to be applied for permission to appeal: "I must find that the proposed grounds of appeal are arguable, in the sense that there is a realistic prospect of success in showing that the First-tier Tribunal went wrong in law in some way." [The Court of Appeal has expressed this differently: "The court will only refuse leave if satisfied that the applicant has no realistic prospect of succeeding on the appeal. ... The court can grant the application even if it is not so satisfied. ... For example ... public interest ... or ... the law requires clarifying."] (4) The UT noted the courts' approach to expert tribunals' decisions: (a) it is probable that such a tribunal got the law right, decisions should be respected unless it is quite clear the tribunal misdirected itself on the law, and courts should not rush to find misdirections just because of the tribunal's conclusions on the facts (the UT judge christened this "the Lady Hale principle"); and (b) judicial restraint should be exercised when reasons are being examined, and the court should not assume a misdirection too readily just because not every step in its reasoning is fully set out (christened "the Lord Hope principle"). | 2023‑03‑22 22:28:38 | 2023 cases, Cases, Judgment available on MHLO, Neutral citation unknown or not applicable, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Powers, Transcript, Upper Tribunal decisions, 2023 cases
|
| * Hearing in patient's absence PC v Cornwall Partnership NHS Foundation Trust [2023] UKUT 64 (AAC) — The tribunal panel refused an adjournment request and proceeded in the patient's absence. (1) The panel found, under rule 39(1)(a) and (b) respectively, that reasonable steps had been taken to notify the patient of the hearing and that it was in the interests of justice to proceed. However, it made no findings, under rule 39(2)(a)(i) and (ii) respectively, in relation to whether the patient had decided not to attend the hearing or was unable to attend for reasons of ill health, and it was not self-evident that either requirement was satisfied. Proceeding in the patient's absence was therefore an error of law. (2) The First-tier Tribunal judge refusing the appeal had used an out-of-date version of the rules (though this did not affect her reasoning) and had misunderstood the rules, confusing rule 39(1)(a) and rule 39(2)(a). (3) The Upper Tribunal concluded: "A tribunal must always operate within its rules of procedure and that is particularly important when liberty is at stake. This is why I have dealt not only with the tribunal’s reasoning but also with the reasoning in the refusal of permission." | 2023‑03‑22 14:58:22 | 2023 cases, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Judgment available on MHLO, Other Tribunal cases, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Transcript, Upper Tribunal decisions, Judgment available on Bailii, 2023 cases
|
| * Order of evidence Re F [2021] MHLO 6 (FTT) — 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. | 2022‑10‑17 21:30:10 | 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
|
| * Residence K v N Council [2022] MHLO 1 (COP) — The court had to decide where K (who only spoke Polish) should reside: (a) her current culturally Polish case home, where all staff and residents could speak Polish; or (b) a care home proposed by her Polish family which was much closer to them, enabling regular visits, but at which Polish staff were only sometimes on duty. The "magnetic factor" was the need for K to be able to communicate freely 24/7, unhindered by any language barrier, so it was in her best interests to remain where she was. | 2022‑08‑05 12:00:03 | 2022 cases, Best interests, Cases, Judgment available on MHLO, Neutral citation unknown or not applicable, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Transcript, 2022 cases
|
| * Change of status - s37/41 to conditional discharge DD v Sussex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust [2022] UKUT 166 (AAC) — DD applied to the MHT while subject to a s37/41 restricted hospital order but, before the hearing, was conditionally discharged: the MHT decided that it ceased to have jurisdiction. He appealed to the UT but, before that hearing, was absolutely discharged: the UT decided that it retained jurisdiction and should decide the case despite it being academic. The UT concluded that the MHT retain jurisdiction when a s37/41 patient is conditionally discharged. | 2022‑07‑11 15:43:58 | 2022 cases, Cases, Change of status cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Judgment available on MHLO, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Transcript, Upper Tribunal decisions, Judgment available on Bailii, 2022 cases
|
| * Guidance on judicial visits Guidance: Judicial visits to 'P' [2022] EWCOP 5 — This guidance was issued by Hayden J following Re AH [2021] EWCA Civ 1768, and contains information under three headings: (1) Introduction; (2) Principles; and (3) Practicalities. Contained in an appendix is guidance entitled "Facilitating participation of 'P' and vulnerable persons in Court of Protection proceedings" which was originally issued on 14/11/16 by Charles J. | 2022‑02‑10 21:03:32 | 2022 cases, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Judgment available on MHLO, Other capacity cases, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Transcript, Judgment available on Bailii, 2022 cases
|
| * Life sentence or hospital order R v Mbatha (1985) 7 Cr App R (S) 373 — The appellant used further evidence about manic depressive psychosis to persuade the Court of Appeal to grant a restricted hospital order instead of the life sentence imposed by the trial judge for rape and buggery. | 2021‑07‑04 20:20:20 | 1985 cases, Cases, Judgment available on MHLO, Life sentence cases, Neutral citation unknown or not applicable, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Transcript, 1985 cases
|
| * Guidance on making restriction order R v Birch (1990) 90 Cr App R 78 — For the court to impose a restriction order it is the harm which must be serious (rather than just the risk of committing further offences). | 2021‑07‑02 20:27:42 | 1989 cases, Cases, Judgment available on MHLO, Neutral citation unknown or not applicable, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Restriction order cases, Transcript, 1989 cases
|
| * Life sentence or hospital order R v Mitchell (1997) 1 Cr App R (S) 90 — The trial judge had followed R v Fleming (1993) 14 Cr App R (S) 151 in imposing a life sentence rather than a restricted hospital order despite medical opinions being unanimous and a bed being available in a secure hospital, on the basis that the appellant absconding from an earlier hospital order and killing again amounted to exceptional circumstances. The Court of Appeal held that Fleming had been wrongly decided (the Court had believed that the Home Secretary released from a life sentence when in fact it was the Parole Board) and allowed the appeal in this case. | 2021‑06‑28 21:28:25 | 1996 cases, Cases, Judgment available on MHLO, Life sentence cases, Neutral citation unknown or not applicable, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Transcript, 1996 cases
|
| * Life sentence or hospital order R v Fleming (1993) 14 Cr App R (S) 151 — Previous authority had established that where medical opinions are unanimous and a bed is available in a secure hospital a restricted hospital order should be made, but in this case the trial judge had imposed a hospital order. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal given the exceptional circumstances, in particular that the appellant had killed again having been discharged from an earlier hospital order. | 2021‑06‑28 21:21:39 | 1992 cases, Cases, Judgment available on MHLO, Life sentence cases, Neutral citation unknown or not applicable, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Transcript, 1992 cases
|
| * Gaps in service Re Sean Kay (PFD report sent to NHS Norfolk and Waveney CCG) [2021] MHLO 4 — The coroner's concern was that a gap in service provision meant Sean fell between services and did not receive appropriate care. He had been referred by his GP to mental health services. The Early Intervention in Psychosis Team (EIPT) assessed him as not meeting their criteria for first episode of psychosis but as being in the 'at risk mental state' (ARMS) cohort of patients, which meant that his level of risk was now too high for continued work with the Wellbeing Services. He also did not meet the criteria for the Community Mental Health Team, the Crisis Team, or the charity Mind. An Interface Team Meeting did not take place because of an administrative error so at the time of his suicide six days later he was waiting to hear whether and from whom he would receive support. In neighbouring Suffolk (and many other areas) ARMS patients would have met the EIPT criteria. | 2021‑04‑30 10:26:46 | 2021 cases, Cases, Inquest cases - PFD reports, Judgment available on MHLO, Neutral citation unknown or not applicable, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Transcript, 2021 cases
|
| * Discharge to care home Re Alan Massam (PFD report sent to SSHSC, Greater Manchester Health and Social Care Partnership and CQC) [2021] MHLO 3 — The coroner's concerns included: (1) there was no clear agreement or arrangement between agencies as to how effectively to share information in complex cases such as this; (2) there was no national guidance/protocol about what an acute trust should do if attempts to contact a home are unsuccessful or about the obligation to ensure the home can accept the patient back (the care home had not answered the phone but, owing to his needs, would not have accepted him if asked; no observations were made before discharge and no discharge notice was sent with him); (3) there was no defined escalation process in the care home to ensure that the risk presented by his refusal of medication and fluids was recognised and acted upon; (4) there was a national shortage of suitable beds within the adult care sector for complex cases so, after the care home served notice on the family, he remained in a home where staff felt they could no longer safely meet his care needs during the search for a replacement. | 2021‑04‑30 09:01:11 | 2021 cases, Cases, Inquest cases - PFD reports, Judgment available on MHLO, Neutral citation unknown or not applicable, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Transcript, 2021 cases
|
| * PFD report Re Susan Adams (PFD report sent to St George's Hospital, Stafford) [2021] MHLO 2 — The matter of concern was: Susan needed regular psychiatric assistance from secondary mental health services but there were significant difficulties because, living in Staffordshire but 50 feet from the border with Warwickshire, her home address and GP practice were in different counties; she could access the crisis team in Staffordshire but long-term treatment was supposedly to be provided in Warwickshire. The coroner wondered what could be done to facilitate arrangements in these circumstances. | 2021‑04‑24 20:45:47 | 2021 cases, Cases, Inquest cases - PFD reports, Judgment available on MHLO, Neutral citation unknown or not applicable, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Transcript, 2021 cases
|
| * PFD report Re Mary Gwanyama (PFD report sent to Surrey and Borders Partnership) [2021] MHLO 1 — The matters of concern in this Preventing Future Deaths report included: (1) there was no policy to prevent a vulnerable patient being discharged into homelessness from the Abraham Cowley Unit (Mary had been discharged without a discharge planning meeting and with no housing plan beyond 7 days in a Travel Lodge); (2) there was no policy mandating when or if a patient should be subject to face-to-face review by a consultant psychiatrist after discharge (Mary was not subject to a medical review between discharge on 28/3/18 and suicide on 26/5/18); (3) no formal risk assessment was undertaken, and no risk assessment was recorded; (4) informal risk assessments arrived at an incorrect assessment of risk having ignored the impact of discharge with an inchoate housing plan; (5) in part because the imperative to discharge took precedence over discharge planning and assessment, Mary was discharged prematurely with severe depression before sufficient time had been taken to observe the effectiveness of her prescribed medication, in breach of the CPA; (6) Mary was discharged on ineffective medication, without any coherent care plan, without her care coordinator being involved, in breach of the CPA; (7) there was no policy governing how often a patient should be seen in the community to review the risk assessment and monitor medication compliance (Mary was placed out of area which made community treatment and support difficult, and was not seen by her care co-ordinator in the 35 days before she died). | 2021‑04‑24 20:18:34 | 2021 cases, Cases, Inquest cases - PFD reports, Judgment available on MHLO, Neutral citation unknown or not applicable, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Transcript, 2021 cases
|
| * Unlawful DOL damages London Borough of Haringey v Emile [2020] MHLO 70 (CC) — The local authority commenced proceedings seeking payment of £80,913.38 outstanding care fees, and were successful, but ended up also being ordered to pay damages of £130,000 (uplifted to £143,000) for 7 years and 10 months of unlawful deprivation of liberty, and costs following their refusal of an offer to settle. It appealed from the District Judge to a Circuit Judge, unsuccessfully. | 2021‑02‑11 23:06:24 | 2020 cases, Cases, Deprivation of liberty, Judgment available on MHLO, Neutral citation unknown or not applicable, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Transcript, Unlawful detention cases, 2020 cases
|
| * PHEs: "exceptional" merely refers to an exception to the deeming provision EB v Dorset Healthcare University NHS Foundation Trust [2020] UKUT 362 (AAC) — The Amended Pilot Practice Direction: Health, Education and Social Care Chamber of the First-Tier Tribunal (Mental Health) (Coronavirus, 14/9/20) (APPD) deems that PHEs are not "practicable" within the meaning of rule 34, unless an authorised judge directs that "in the exceptional circumstances of a particular case it shall be practicable for such a pre-hearing examination to take place, having regard to the overriding objective and any health and safety concerns". EB appealed against a refusal to allow a PHE. The Upper Tribunal held that: (1) the APPD cannot override the terms of the rule, and has to be interpreted, if possible, so as to be valid; (2) circumstances are "exceptional" if, contrary to the deeming provision, a PHE is practicable [in other words, "exceptional" merely refers to an exception to the deeming provision, and the new procedure adds nothing substantive to rule 34]; (3) health and safety concerns would be relevant to practicability even if there had been no pandemic; (4) the overriding objective is also relevant, although it does not allow the tribunal to refuse a PHE for any reason unrelated to practicability (in particular, the amended practice direction can make no change to the existence of the r34 duty, the cases to which it applies, or the purpose of the examination; and the patient’s ability to participate in the hearing is not relevant); (5) the availability of the requisite technology for PHEs is relevant to the overriding objective and "[w]here that exists, a PHE need not necessarily have (and may well not have) any material impact on the tribunal’s resources" [the decision does not state that the current practice of holding PHEs via CVP and on the hearing day is necessary]; (6) on the facts, the FTT had unlawfully misinterpreted the APPD by considering reasons unrelated to practicability; were EB still detained the decision would have been set aside. | 2020‑12‑30 02:19:41 | 2020 cases, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Judgment available on MHLO, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Powers, Transcript, Upper Tribunal decisions, Judgment available on Bailii, 2020 cases
|
| * Unlawful refusal to adjourn telephone hearing GL v Elysium Healthcare [2020] UKUT 308 (AAC) — It was wrong for the tribunal to have proceeded with the telephone hearing because: (1) the tribunal had, without investigation, assumed that the patient's flatmate (with whom he was self-isolating to avoid coronavirus) could not overhear; (2) the tribunal had improperly dealt with the patient's anxiety: either it had concluded, without investigation, that the anxiety was without foundation (when he had in fact previously been assaulted because other patients discovered his history), or it had believed the same anxiety would arise at a future hearing (when in fact it arose from the specific circumstances that day); the tribunal should have considered whether his anxiety was genuine and, if so, the impact on his ability to participate; (3) the tribunal had wrongly approached the adjournment request as if the patient had been concerned with the mode of hearing (i.e. telephone) rather than the fear of being overheard that day. | 2020‑12‑03 11:19:12 | 2020 cases, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Judgment available on MHLO, Other Tribunal cases, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Transcript, Upper Tribunal decisions, Judgment available on Bailii, 2020 cases
|
| * Case removed Re E [2020] MHLO 52 (FTT) — | 2020‑10‑20 22:08:33 | Cases, First-tier Tribunal decisions, Judgment available on MHLO, Neutral citation unknown or not applicable, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Transcript
|
| * Public hearing and capacity AR v West London NHS Trust [2020] UKUT 273 (AAC) — (1) The four factors set out in AH which must be considered in any application for a public hearing under Tribunal rule 38 are merely factors relevant to the ultimate test of whether a public hearing is in the interests of justice. The first factor ("whether it is consistent with the subjective and informed wishes of the patient (assuming that he is competent to make an informed choice") does not mean that a patient must have capacity in order to be allowed a public hearing, although the wisdom of the patient's wishes is relevant to the application of rule 38. (2) The relevant "matter" for the purposes of assessing capacity is not merely the public hearing application but conduct of the proceedings generally, although lack of capacity in relation to the former entails lack of capacity in relation to the latter. (3) The First-tier Tribunal had restricted its capacity assessment to the decision to apply for a public hearing, and had concluded that "[w]ithout being able to make an informed choice [the patient] cannot have a public hearing", so had erred in relation to both points. | 2020‑09‑29 22:47:26 | 2020 cases, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Judgment available on MHLO, MHT capacity cases, MHT public hearing cases, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Transcript, Upper Tribunal decisions, Judgment available on Bailii, 2020 cases
|
| * Article 2 inquests and community patients Re Lee [2019] MHLO 73 (Coroner) — The coroner, following the Administrative Court decision that she had failed properly to address the Article 2 operational duty as set out in the Rabone case, in this decision sets out reasons for concluding that the operational duty was neither engaged nor breached. | 2020‑07‑30 14:41:12 | 2019 cases, Cases, Inquest cases, Judgment available on MHLO, Neutral citation unknown or not applicable, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Transcript, 2019 cases
|
| * Change in status - s3 to guardianship AD'A v Cornwall Partnership NHS Foundation Trust [2020] UKUT 110 (AAC) — When the patient had been transferred from s3 detention to s7 guardianship, the tribunal had been wrong to strike out her case for want of jurisdiction. The tribunal's jurisdiction arose from the s3 application, and none of the subsequent changes (including a new right to apply to tribunal, different tribunal powers, and different parties) affected that jurisdiction. | 2020‑04‑12 21:40:41 | 2020 cases, Cases, Change of status cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Judgment available on MHLO, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Transcript, Upper Tribunal decisions, Judgment available on Bailii, 2020 cases
|
| * Reviewing appointment of legal representative SB v South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust [2020] UKUT 33 (AAC) — The tribunal appointed a representative under Tribunal rule 11(7)(b) and later refused to put on record another representative who stated that he was acting on instructions. (1) The initial appointment was unlawful because Form 6b was deficient: the rubric did not mention the 14-day time limit for challenging a delegated decision under Tribunal rule 4. If it had done then the patient's attempt to have a new representative put on record might not have been made too late to be resolved before the hearing. (2) By basing its refusal to review the appointment purely on the appointed solicitor's objection, the tribunal had abdicated its decision-making responsibility and had not given sufficient weight to the presumption of capacity in the face of new evidence of instruction. (3) The decision of the tribunal panel in not discharging the patient was not flawed in any material respect. (4) Neither of the unlawful decisions were set aside as the patient had since been discharged. (5) No damages were awarded as the Upper Tribunal has no power to do so. | 2020‑02‑06 23:08:39 | 2020 cases, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Judgment available on MHLO, MHT capacity cases, Mind summary, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Powers, Transcript, Upper Tribunal decisions, Judgment missing from Bailii, 2020 cases
|
| * Proceeding in absence of solicitor and patient DA v Kent and Medway NHS and Social Care Partnership Trust [2019] UKUT 348 (AAC) — The tribunal refused to adjourn the case of a CTO patient who had not attended the hearing, then the solicitor left the hearing because she felt unable to represent the patient in those circumstances. (1) The tribunal's initial decision to proceed in the patient's absence referred to rule 39(1) (whether the party had been notified of the hearing or reasonable steps had been taken to notify the party of the hearing, and whether it was in the interests of justice to proceed with the hearing) and rule 39(2)(a) (whether the patient had decided not to attend the hearing or was unable to attend the hearing for reasons of ill health) but not rule 39(2)(b) (whether a rule 34 medical examination of the patient been carried out or was impractical or unnecessary). However, given the assumption that, as an expert tribunal, it will have got the law right, it was more likely than not that the tribunal decided it was impractical to carry out an examination. (2) The tribunal had not considered making an appointment under rule 11(7), but this was unnecessary as there was no indication that the patient had withdrawn her instructions or lacked capacity. (3) When the solicitor departed, it was incumbent upon the tribunal to make a fresh assessment under rule 39(1) as to whether it was in the interests of justice to proceed with the hearing. Its reasons did not mention the departure and it was unlikely that the tribunal had carried out such an assessment; even if it had done so, the lack of any explanation would have rendered the reasons inadequate. (4) The matter was remitted to the First-tier Tribunal for a re-hearing by a differently-constituted panel. | 2019‑11‑18 14:48:18 | 2019 cases, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Judgment available on MHLO, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Powers, Transcript, Upper Tribunal decisions, Judgment available on Bailii, 2019 cases
|
| * ECHR and tribunal criteria Djaba v West London Mental Health NHS Trust [2018] MHLO 76 (SC) — On 15/3/18 the Supreme Court (Lady Hale, Lord Hodge, Lord Lloyd-Jones) refused Jasmin Djaba permission to appeal, giving brief reasons. | 2019‑05‑15 13:10:40 | 2018 cases, Cases, Judgment available on MHLO, MHLR summary, Neutral citation unknown or not applicable, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Powers, Transcript, Upper Tribunal decisions, 2018 cases
|
| * Residence and care Harrow CCG v IPJ [2018] EWCOP 44 — "The Court is asked to determine where AJ should live and how he should be cared for. The applicant CCG has proposed an extensive package of care at the family home, with (most of) the financial arrangements managed by a third party broker. JA's parents, who are the Second and Third Respondents, do not agree the proposals and seek the dismissal of the application. | 2019‑05‑10 21:18:53 | 2019 cases, Best interests, Cases, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Transcript, 2019 cases
|
| * MHT/Parole Board delay R (LV) v SSJ [2012] EWHC 3899 (Admin) — "This is a renewed application for permission to apply for judicial review challenging delay, it is said, on the part of the Secretary of State for Justice and the Parole Board in fixing a hearing of the Parole Board." | 2019‑03‑23 16:07:39 | 2012 cases, Cases, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Prison law cases, Transcript, 2012 cases
|
| * Aggravated damages following MCA breaches Esegbona v King’s College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust [2019] EWHC 77 (QB) — "The claimant, Dr Gloria Esegbona, brings this claim as administrator of the estate of the deceased, her mother, Christiana Esegbona. The action is brought in negligence and false imprisonment. The amended claim form states that the claimant's claim is a claim in clinical negligence and/or pursuant to the Fatal Accidents Act 1976 and/or the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1934. The claimant claims damages for pain, suffering and loss of amenity as well as damages, including aggravated damages, for false imprisonment. It is the claimant's case not only that the medical, nursing and other staff at the defendant’s hospital owed her mother a duty to treat her with reasonable care and skill but also that the defendant had duties under the Mental Capacity Act 2005: to take reasonable steps to establish whether Mrs Esegbona lacked capacity before doing any act in connection with her care or treatment; and further that if the defendant reasonably believed that Mrs Esegbona lacked capacity whether it would be in her best interests for any act in connection with her care or treatment to be done; and to take steps to obtain a court order or the relevant authorisation under schedule A1 to the Act before depriving Mrs Esegbona of her liberty. The claimant says the defendant acted in breach of these duties." | 2019‑02‑04 23:30:49 | 2019 cases, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Judgment available on MHLO, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Transcript, Unlawful detention cases, 2019 cases, Judgment available on Bailii
|
| * Australian case on capacity and ECT PBU v Mental Health Tribunal (2018) VSC 564 — Headnotes from judgment: (1) "ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – appeal – decisions of Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (‘VCAT’) that two persons with mental illness be compulsorily subjected to electroconvulsive treatment (‘ECT’) – determination that they lacked the capacity to give informed consent to or refuse treatment – whether VCAT properly interpreted and applied requirement that person be able to ‘use or weigh’ information relevant to decision – further requirement that there be no less restrictive way for the person to be treated – whether this requirement only met where treatment immediately needed to prevent serious deterioration in person’s health or serious self-harm or harm to another – ‘capacity to give informed consent’ – Mental Health Act 2014 (Vic) ss 68, 69, 70, 72, 93 and 96." (2) "HUMAN RIGHTS – two persons having mental disability found by VCAT to lack capacity to give informed consent to or refuse ECT – whether incompatible with human rights to self-determination, to be free of non-consensual medical treatment and to personal inviolability – assessing capacity compatibly with those rights and the right to health – applicable principles – dignity of risk – Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (Vic) ss 8(3), 10(c), 13(a), International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights art 12(1), Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities arts 12(4), 24." | 2019‑02‑04 14:50:50 | 2018 cases, Cases, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, Medical treatment cases, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, 2018 cases
|
| * Prosecution of care home provider CQC v Hillgreen Care Ltd [2018] MHLO 50 — (1) The care home provider charged with failing between 1/4/15 and 1/12/15 to comply with the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014 by failing to provide care and treatment in a safe way for service users (reg 12) and failing to put in place, and operate effectively, systems and processes to protect service users from abuse, including sexual abuse (reg 13). The provider had known since 2004 that its resident XX posed risk a of causing sexual abuse. Following an allegation of anal rape of a woman in 2008 his care plan stated that he "identifies with both male and female around his sexual orientation" and that he "needs to be supported at all times and not to be left alone unsupervised when around other service users and when in the community". XX admitted to having sex with two other residents, neither of whom had capacity to consent: a female resident AA in April 2015 and a male resident YY on 1/11/18. The provider had not followed the care plan and the district judge concluded that "[t]he incident with YY could not have happened had there been an extra member of staff on duty to watch XX and where he went." It was found guilty of both charges and was fined £300,000. (2) The judgement states that the CQC's inspection of the care home and seizure of documents took place on 27/7/17: this is the same day as a critical article in the Times (Andrew Norfolk, 'CQC covered up suspected rape in care home' (Times, 27/7/17)). Information about the chronology can be found in the CQC's subsequent report (CQC, 'CQC publishes independent investigation into its regulation of 14 Colne Road' (press release, 13/6/18)). | 2018‑11‑17 22:44:00 | 2018 cases, Cases, Judgment available on MHLO, Miscellaneous cases, Neutral citation unknown or not applicable, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Transcript, 2018 cases
|
| LB Richmond v W [2001] QB 370 — "These four appeals involve an important issue as to whether charges can be levied by local authorities in relation to accommodation provided by them under section 117 of the Mental Health Act 1983 to persons who have been discharged from detention under section 3 of that Act." | 2018‑05‑13 22:46:13 | 2000 cases, After-care, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, No summary, Transcript, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function
|
| * Guidance on sentencing on appeal R v Thompson [2018] EWCA Crim 639 — "These four otherwise unconnected appeals have been listed together as each potentially raises an issue in relation to the effect of s11(3) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 which requires this court, on an appeal against sentence, to exercise its powers such that 'taking the case as a whole, the appellant is not more severely dealt with on appeal than he was dealt with by the court below'. Articulating the issue with reference to the specific sentences that may give rise to the issue, it is about the extent to which this court can substitute what is a standard determinate sentence with (i) a special custodial sentence for offenders of particular concern under s236A of the Criminal Justice Act 2003; (ii) an extended sentence under s226A or B of the 2003 Act; or (iii) a hospital order with restriction or hybrid order under s37 and 41 or 45A of the Mental Health Act 1983." | 2018‑04‑09 23:01:37 | 2018 cases, Cases, ICLR summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Judgment available on MHLO, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Sentence appeal cases, Transcript, Judgment missing from Bailii, 2018 cases, Judgment available on Bailii
|
| * Tribunal reasons M v An NHS Trust [2017] MHLO 39 (UT) — "[T]he tribunal's decision was made in error of law, but not [set aside]. In my grant of permission, I identified two possible errors of law. ... One of those errors was that the tribunal's reasons might be inadequate for being 'long on history and evidence but short on discussion.' ... There is, in truth, only one thing that really has to be said about the quality of reasons, which is that they must be adequate. Everything else is merely application of that principle to the circumstances of a particular case. ... [T]he second possible error [is] that the 'tribunal's reasoning shows that it was confused about its role and the [relevance] of a community treatment order'. ... [T]he reasons at least leave open the possibility that the tribunal may have strayed outside its proper remit. ... The first three sentences read: 'A cardinal issue of this application is whether the patient should be discharged from hospital by a CTO. This issue involves knowledge of the nature of a CTO. A CTO may only be imposed by the patient's RC ...' It may be that the judge did not express himself clearly, but that passage appears to begin by suggesting, and to continue by denying, that the tribunal had power to make Mr M subject to an order or was being asked to approve that course. The judge did then make a distinction between discharge from hospital and discharge from the liability to be detained. So it is possible that his reference to 'discharge from hospital by a CTO' may have been intended, not as a direction about the tribunal's powers on the application, but as a statement of how the responsible clinician envisaged Mr M's eventual progress. This interpretation would be consistent with what the tribunal said later ... In view of Mr M's current status [he had been discharged], I do not have to decide whether those reasons do or do not show that the tribunal misdirected itself. I limit myself to saying that it is risky if reasons can be read in a way that indicates a misdirection. ... Given that Mr M is no longer liable to be detained, I can see no need to venture outside the appropriate role of the Upper Tribunal in mental health cases and state, even in the form of a narrative declaration, that the tribunal should have exercised its power to discharge him. That is why I have exercised my power to refuse to set aside the tribunal's decision regardless of any error of law that it may have made." | 2018‑01‑27 22:25:39 | 2017 cases, CTO cases, Cases, Judgment available on MHLO, Neutral citation unknown or not applicable, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Transcript, Upper Tribunal decisions, 2017 cases
|
| * Refusal to adjourn set aside LB v BMH [2017] MHLO 10 (UT) — "The First-tier Tribunal decided that the patient should not be discharged from liability to be detained and to make no recommendation pursuant to section 72(3) and (3A) of the 1983 Act. Paragraph 19 of its written decision recorded the following: 'The solicitor representing the patient sought an adjournment as she had concerns about the quality of the evidence regarding the patient's clinical treatment in the past. We have some sympathy with the view that the patient's treatment history is incomplete. A summary of the previous treatments should be available to the panel wherever possible. However, the recent treatment history during the in-patient admission at [this hospital] was available to the panel. There was ample evidence before the panel that the patient is floridly psychotic and in our view the evidence satisfied the criteria for detention. We refused the request for an adjournment.' ... The grounds of appeal argue that the reports before the First-tier Tribunal gave very little information about the patient' s previous placement, nor about the reasons for the transfer, nor about any previous trials with clozapine. The application for an adjournment was made with a view to persuading the First-tier Tribunal to recommend a transfer under section 72(3), which was not possible without further information. This was especially important because the First-tier Tribunal proceedings were by way of reference and the patient was unlikely to appeal himself 'and may remain inappropriately placed for a further three years'. I agree with these grounds and also note that the application to adjourn was not made by or on the instructions of the patient but by an experienced specialist solicitor who had herself been appointed by the tribunal and felt that there was inadequate evidence before the tribunal (which, to an extent, the tribunal itself acknowledged). ... [T]he refusal to adjourn amounted to a breach of the rules of natural justice and fair procedure and for these reasons this appeal is allowed." | 2017‑03‑17 21:59:36 | 2017 cases, Cases, Judgment available on MHLO, Neutral citation unknown or not applicable, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Transcript, Upper Tribunal decisions, 2017 cases
|
| * Solicitor struck off - imaginary expert reports Victoria Wadsworth (strike off) [2017] MHLO 51 (SDT) — Since 2007 Victoria Wadsworth had been in charge of a law firm's mental health department, and had invented another firm called "Healthy Minds" to pretend to write medical reports for clients, at the Legal Services Commission's expense. In the Crown Court she had admitted to obtaining £25,000 between 2007 and 2012 (though the law firm stated it had repaid £181,887.72, and the Legal Aid Agency statement referred to a value exceeding £134,000 being repaid). At the time of the hearing, she was in prison having been sentenced to three years (reduced to two on appeal) for fraud, but the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal proceeded in her absence. The Tribunal agreed that the rule 5(2) allegations which had commenced its proceedings had been superseded by the conviction and should lie on file. The Tribunal found breaches of Principle 1 (which requires a solicitor to uphold the rule of law and the proper administration of justice), Principle 2 (which requires a solicitor to act with integrity) and Principle 6 (which requires a solicitor to behave in a way that maintains the trust the public places in him and in the provision of legal services). The mitigation related to Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 proceedings, financial hardship, and caring responsibilities for her severely disabled adult son. She was struck off the roll of solicitors and ordered to pay the agreed costs of £21,864.10. | 2017‑02‑11 21:38:18 | 2017 cases, Cases, Judgment available on MHLO, Neutral citation unknown or not applicable, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, SRA decisions, Transcript, 2017 cases
|
| * Discharge from DOLS P v A Local Authority [2015] EWCOP 89 — "This is an application by P (the Applicant) acting through his litigation friend, the Official Solicitor, for an order under section 21A of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) discharging the standard authorisation made on 24 June 2015 which authorises a deprivation of liberty in his current accommodation (the placement)." | 2016‑11‑24 23:48:11 | 2015 cases, Cases, Deprivation of liberty, Judgment available on Bailii, Judgment available on MHLO, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Transcript, Judgment available on Bailii, 2015 cases
|
| Lucia Benyu v Solicitors Regulation Authority [2015] EWHC 4085 (Admin), [2015] MHLO 137 — "This is the adjourned hearing of the Appellant's appeal brought pursuant to section 49 of the Solicitors Act 1974 against the order of the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal ('SDT') dated 3/10/14, striking the Appellant off the Roll of Solicitors and ordering her to pay costs in the sum of £48,000. The decision followed a full three day hearing at which the Appellant was represented by experienced counsel, although she has indicated that she has now made a complaint against that counsel. The SDT found the Appellant to have been dishonest to the criminal standard. But it went on to say that the seriousness of her misconduct was such that it would have struck her off even if it had not made such a finding. ... The Appellant acted in person at the substantive appeal hearing. She has not attended for the hand down of this judgment, although she is fully on notice of it. She invites the court to the set aside the SDT's order; or, alternatively, to strike her off with no dishonesty attached." | 2016‑08‑27 22:27:41 | 2015 cases, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, No summary, SRA decisions, Transcript, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function
|
| * Freezing order continued Lord Chancellor v John Blavo [2016] EWHC 126 (QB), [2016] MHLO 6 — There was a strongly arguable case that John Blavo was party to an arrangement whereby false claims were submitted to the LAA in many thousands of cases, there was evidence of a less than scrupulous approach to his duty of disclosure to the Court, and evidence of a recent attempt improperly to put property beyond the reach of the Lord Chancellor. Taking these matters together there was a real risk that any judgment would go unsatisfied because of disposal of assets. Given the sums of money involved and the admitted financial difficulties it was just and convenient in all the circumstances to continue the freezing order. (The precursor to the official investigation was an audit during which 49 files were passed to the LAA's counter-fraud team, whose conclusions included: "In respect of 42 of these 49 files HMCTS have confirmed that they have no record of there having been tribunal proceedings either in respect of the individual client or on the date when the file indicates...Following this, the LAA made inquiries of the NHS on a selection of files among the 42 that had no tribunal hearing and the NHS confirmed that they have no records relating to 16 of the clients... After completing this analysis the Applicant undertook a further comparison of all mental health tribunal claims against the HMCTS system. As a result of this analysis, it was found that the Company had submitted a total of 24,658 claims for attendance at tribunals of which 1485 (6%) tribunals were recorded by HMCTS as having taken place... After visiting the Company's Head Office and requesting documentation from the Company and the Respondent, the LAA team used an electronic sampling tool to randomly select 144 cases for further investigation, across the last three complete financial years. Only 3% could be evidenced from HMCTS records...") | 2016‑02‑02 15:46:47 | 2016 cases, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Judgment available on MHLO, Miscellaneous cases, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Transcript, Judgment available on Bailii, 2016 cases
|
| R v Fletcher [2015] EWCA Crim 2007, [2015] MHLO 133 — The appellant unsuccessfully sought a restricted hospital order in place of an IPP sentence. | 2016‑01‑28 17:18:26 | 2015 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, Sentence appeal cases, Transcript
|
| * CTO DOL condition PJ v A Local Health Board [2015] UKUT 480 (AAC) — The MHRT for Wales had rejected PJ's argument that his CTO should be discharged because its conditions unlawfully deprived him of his liberty. He appealed to the Upper Tribunal. (1) In deciding that PJ was not deprived of his liberty, the MHRT had erred in law in its application of the Cheshire West decision. (2) The MHRT also erred in law in concluding that the CTO framework must take precedence over any human rights issues. The tribunal must take into account whether the implementation of the conditions of a CTO will or may create a breach of Article 5 or any Convention right. If an issue remains to be decided on whether a breach exists or could be avoided (by authorisation or consent, or changing conditions), then generally the tribunal should adjourn to give an opportunity to make lawful the implementation of conditions. But if the treatment could not be provided without breach of Convention rights then the tribunal (whether by the statutory criteria or under its discretion) should discharge the CTO. (3) Guidance to tribunals was given under the following (paraphrased) headings: (a) whether implementation of the conditions will objectively amount to a deprivation of liberty; (b) whether the patient has capacity to consent; (c) if the patient has capacity, whether consent avoids a breach of Article 5; (d) if the patient lacks capacity, whether the objective deprivation of liberty can be authorised under the MCA; (e) if the patient lacks capacity, whether s64D can be relied upon to avoid an Article 5 breach; (f) how the conclusions on the above should help decide whether to adjourn, or discharge or uphold the CTO. (Caution: see Court of Appeal decision.) | 2015‑09‑10 00:18:19 | 2015 cases, CTO cases, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Judgment available on MHLO, MHLR summary, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Transcript, Upper Tribunal decisions, Judgment available on Bailii, 2015 cases
|
| Case HM/0339/2015 [2015] MHLO 57 (UT) — After the case had been adjourned part-heard, the patient's withdrawal was agreed by a tribunal clerk. The panel judge spoke with a salaried tribunal judge, who then set aside the decision to consent to withdrawal, and the tribunal reconvened without discharging the patient. The salaried tribunal judge's decision was unlawful and the tribunal therefore had no jurisdiction to continue with the hearing. (Under the subsequent Practice Statement: Delegation of Functions to Staff and to Registrars on or after 27 April 2015 (27/4/15) the original decision would not have been made by a clerk.) | 2015‑07‑26 23:29:14 | 2015 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on MHLO, MHLR summary, Neutral citation unknown or not applicable, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Transcript, Upper Tribunal decisions
|
| * Conditional discharge and DOL SSJ v KC [2015] UKUT 376 (AAC) — (1) A conditional discharge may include conditions which will, on an objective assessment, give rise to a deprivation of liberty, if that deprivation of liberty is authorised under the MCA. (2) (Obiter) The same conditions would be lawful for a patient with capacity who gives real consent since this would mean there is no Article 5 deprivation of liberty. | 2015‑07‑15 22:54:29 | 2015 cases, Cases, Deprivation of liberty, Discharge conditions cases cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Judgment available on MHLO, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Transcript, Upper Tribunal decisions, Judgment available on Bailii, 2015 cases
|
| Re MOD (Deprivation of Liberty) [2015] EWCOP 47, [2015] MHLO 48 — Nine cases which had been issued under the Re X streamlined procedure were listed for directions before DJ Marin. (1) One case (ML) would require a best interests hearing so never really belonged in the Re X procedure, but orders under the Re X procedure would or would potentially have been made in the other cases. (2) The Court of Appeal in Re X had (obiter, and without referring to new rule 3A) decided that P should be a party in every deprivation of liberty case. (3) Party status would entail the need for a litigation friend but, except for an IMCA in one case (MOD), no-one suitable had been identified: (a) in most of these cases, the family may be said to have an adverse interest to the person concerned; (b) there must be a question in every case as to whether family members have the required expertise; (c) the Official Solicitor refused to act as his COP Health & Welfare team was already "fire-fighting" at an unsustainable level owing to budgetary constraints; (d) IMCAs in one borough refused to act without indemnity insurance, which it was hoped would be in place by the end of 2016. (4) The result was that none of these cases could proceed, and neither could hundreds and potentially thousands of others: the judge said he "cannot think of a more serious situation to have faced a court in recent legal history". (5) These cases were transferred to the Vice President of the COP (Charles J) to decide on the following issues: (a) whether P must be joined as a party in a case involving deprivation of liberty; (b) whether the appointment of a rule 3A representative is sufficient in a case involving deprivation of liberty; (c) if P must be joined as a party, in the absence of any suitable person to act as litigation friend, what should be done in circumstances where the Official Solicitor cannot accept an invitation to act; (d) whether a family member can act as litigation friend in circumstances where that family member has an interest in the outcome of the proceedings; (e) whether other deprivation of liberty cases not before the court on this occasion but which raise similar issues to this case should be stayed pending a determination of the issues recorded at paragraphs (a) to (d). (6) The Official Solicitor was ordered to file and serve a statement which would: (a) provide a full and evidence-based explanation of why he cannot cope with the number of deprivation of liberty applications in which he is invited to act as litigation friend; (b) explain in full detail providing evidence where appropriate as to which areas or processes cause him difficulty and why; (c) inform the court when he expects to be able to cope with deprivation of liberty cases and the likely time scale in which he can start work on a case; (d) provide any other information to the court what will assist the court to make decisions in this case regarding the position of the Official Solicitor. (7) The court refused to approve deprivations of liberty on an interim basis ..→ | 2015‑07‑12 21:32:07 | 2015 cases, Brief summary, Deprivation of liberty, Judgment available on Bailii, Judgment available on MHLO, Transcript
|
| R (MT) v Oxford City Council [2015] EWHC 795 (Admin), [2015] MHLO 47 — The claimant's application via his deputy to the defendant as homeless was rejected on the basis that his lack of capacity to make such an application meant that there was no duty under Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996. (1) The claimant's argument that Article 14 (with Article 8) meant the otherwise-binding House of Lords decision in Garlick should not be followed was unsuccessful. (2) In any event, it is not discriminatory to provide two different systems for provision of accommodation (the system potentially available to MT was at that time s21 National Assistance Act 1948). | 2015‑06‑26 22:53:16 | 2015 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, Other capacity cases, Transcript
|
| KD v A Borough Council [2015] UKUT 251 (AAC), [2015] MHLO 42 — "Permission to bring this appeal was granted by the First-tier Tribunal (the FTT) because in the view of the judge it raises points upon which guidance is needed. Those points concern the relationship between the functions and powers of the FTT under the Mental Health Act 1983 (the MHA) and those of the Court of Protection, managing authorities and supervisory bodies under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (the MCA) and its Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DOLS). The most relevant provisions of the MHA in this case are those relating to guardianship." This judgment includes guidance under the headings "The approach to be taken by the parties and the FTT on an application to discharge a guardianship under s. 72 of the MHA on the basis that an alternative has the consequence that the guardianship is no longer necessary as it is not the least restrictive way of achieving what is in the patient’s best interests" and "A check list for FTT’s when an issue involving an argument that an alternative involving the application of the MCA is said to be the basis for a discharge of guardianship". | 2015‑06‑08 21:43:37 | 2015 cases, 39 Essex Chambers summary, Deprivation of liberty, Judgment available on Bailii, Judgment available on MHLO, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Transcript, Upper Tribunal decisions, Judgment available on Bailii
|
| * Deputyship and MHT AMA v Greater Manchester West MH NHSFT [2015] UKUT 36 (AAC) — A personal welfare deputy cannot appoint himself (or anyone else) as a representative unless the order appointing him expressly provides for this. This case related to the withdrawal of a tribunal application, and was followed up by Tribunal Policy: Withdrawals (23/2/15). | 2015‑02‑12 23:42:15 | 2015 cases, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Judgment available on MHLO, MHT capacity cases, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Transcript, Upper Tribunal decisions, Judgment missing from Bailii, 2015 cases
|
| LB Hillingdon v PS [2015] MHLO 3 (COP) — Faced with an impasse about contact between PS and M, Hillingdon asked the court to determine what was in PS's best interests. Permission was required under MCA 2005 s50 and CS objected to the grant of permission. The factors in s50 required for permission were satisfied. Also, the court could give effect to the rules in accordance with the overriding objective (dealing with the case justly, including having regard to proportionality). The judge gave the following directions: (a) M to be served with a copy of the application and joined as a party; (b) CS to be joined as party; (c) permission to the attorneys to intervene; (d) final hearing listed and provision made for statements to be filed; (e) Court of Protection Visitor to visit PS to ascertain his wishes and feelings and to gather information relevant to the issue of contact in the same way Cafcass would report in a children's case; (f) costs reserved. | 2015‑01‑29 15:33:43 | 2015 cases, Best interests, Brief summary, Judgment available on MHLO, Neutral citation unknown or not applicable, Transcript
|
| NL v Hampshire CC [2014] UKUT 475 (AAC), [2014] MHLO 107 — The patient was deprived of his liberty and appealed against the tribunal's refusal to exercise its discretion to discharge him from guardianship. (1) Upper Tribunal Judge Jacobs stated that the cause of deprivation of liberty was the care plan, not the guardianship, adding in relation to guardianship powers generally: "I find it difficult to imagine a case that could realistically arise in which those basic powers could be used in a way that would satisfy the conditions for deprivation of liberty." (2) He dismissed the appeal on the ground that the guardianship did not give rise to a deprivation of liberty and the tribunal was not obliged to exercise its discretion to discharge the patient. (3) The approach to discretionary discharge in the GA case (relating to CTOs) was equally relevant to guardianship or detention: "it is difficult to imagine a case in which the tribunal could properly exercise its discretion to discharge without there being appropriate safeguards to ensure the necessary treatment and protection." (4) That the burden of proof in guardianship cases remained with the patient (in contrast with detention cases) was not a drafting oversight but a further indication that guardianship is not designed to involve a deprivation of liberty. (5) The tribunal had not misplaced the burden of proof (or given any directions on the legal burden). In assessing arguments on this issue it is important to distinguish between the legal burden and the evidential burden. (6) Tribunals are entitled to require the parties to satisfy them by evidence and argument that concessions (on matters of fact or law) are sound and, if they fail to do so, tribunals are not obliged to accept them. | 2014‑11‑04 22:44:48 | 2014 cases, Deprivation of liberty, Detailed summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Judgment available on MHLO, Powers, Transcript, Upper Tribunal decisions
|
| K v Hospital Managers of the Kingswood Centre [2014] EWHC 2271 (Admin), [2014] MHLO 101 — Service of nearest relative's order for discharge of s3 patient. | 2014‑11‑02 23:17:08 | 2014 cases, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, No summary, Other NR cases, Transcript
|
| Lucia Benyu (SRA decision: control of practice) [2014] MHLO 99 (SRA) — (1) The SRA decided that as Lucia Benyu, née Ndoro, was in an Individual Voluntary Arrangement, and her conduct was under investigation, the following conditions on her 2013/14 practising certificate were necessary: (a) she may act as a solicitor only as an employee; which role has first been approved in writing by the SRA; she is not a sole practitioner, or a manager or owner of any authorised body or authorised non-SRA firm except as a minority share owner in Peters Legal Limited (SRA ID 607645); (c) she does not hold, receive or have access to client money or have responsibility for any client money; (d) she is not a signatory to any client or office account and does not have the power to authorise electronic payments or transfers from any client or office account; (e) Mrs Benyu shall immediately inform any actual or prospective employer of these conditions and the reasons for their imposition. (2) She was subsequently struck off the roll of solicitors by an order of the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal dated 3/10/14. | 2014‑10‑27 15:47:00 | 2014 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on MHLO, Neutral citation unknown or not applicable, No transcript, SRA decisions, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function
|
| Re DG: David v Peter [2014] EWCOP 31, [2014] MHLO 94 — Contested application for the appointment of a deputy for property and affairs. | 2014‑09‑09 22:42:32 | 2014 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Judgment available on MHLO, No summary, Other capacity cases, Transcript
|
| Re MM [2013] MHLO 150 (UT) — (1) The tribunal did not misdirect itself by applying the s2 criteria to a s3 case. (2) However, the tribunal's reasoning was inadequate. The tribunal stated that all the evidence was to the effect that MM's mental disorder 'warrants his treatment in hospital' (this is language from the s2 criteria), but it was only (part of) the medical evidence in which there was any confusion as to the criteria. The findings of fact (that the condition was chronic and relapsing etc) did not show that the mental disorder warranted detention (or made it appropriate). The only finding that could support the tribunal's decision was the medical evidence, which was affected by reference to the wrong legal test. In those circumstances the tribunal should have (a) shown that they had applied the correct criteria and not made the same mistake as the doctor, and (b) shown by precise findings of fact that the s3 criteria were satisfied. A blanket reference to a possibly-contaminated report did not suffice, and the tribunal made things worse by expressing its legal conclusions in the same confused terms as the medical report. | 2014‑08‑17 19:00:23 | 2013 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on MHLO, Neutral citation unknown or not applicable, Transcript, Upper Tribunal decisions, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function
|
| Bostridge v Oxleas NHS Foundation Trust [2014] EWCA Civ 1005, [2014] MHLO 85 — The judge had awarded only nominal damages because the patient had suffered no loss as a result of his unlawful detention. The Court of Appeal gave permission to appeal, stating as follows: "Mr Drabble submits that in approaching the matter as he did the judge fell into error because the decisions of the Supreme Court in Lumba and Kambadzi do not establish that only nominal damages follow where there was a complete absence of statutory authority for a detention. To the contrary, Mr Drabble argues, there is a distinction between an unlawful detention where there was no threshold power to detain and detention which is unlawful on other grounds despite there having been lawful authority to detain in the first place. Moreover, Mr Drabble continues, the Act reflects the particular importance of compliance with the procedural requirements for lawful detention and it is simply no answer to the appellant's claim to say that he could have been detained had the appropriate procedures been followed. What is more, says Mr Drabble, the appellant has lost the protection of the rights and procedures which Parliament has provided in the Act for vulnerable persons such as him. That, he says, is a real not a nominal loss. I have been persuaded that these are points which merit consideration by this court, both because an appeal would have a reasonable prospect of success and because the appeal raises a point of principle, namely the approach to be adopted where a person responsible for an unlawful detention was not in a position lawfully to detain the subject without ensuring that an important condition precedent had been fulfilled, the condition precedent being compliance with the safeguards contained in section 3 of the Act. Further, in the circumstances of this case, compliance with those safeguards was not a matter which lay wholly within the power of the respondent." | 2014‑08‑06 21:56:14 | 2014 cases, 39 Essex Street summary, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Transcript, Unlawful detention cases
|
| * Public tribunal hearing Re Jared Britton [2013] MHLO 146 (FTT) — Extract from decision: "In a decision given on 26 September 2011, the application by Mr Jared Britton that his application dated 4th September 2009 should be held in public was granted. The fact of this decision should be published. The reasons for the decision must not to be made public. An open hearing is now listed at Liverpool Crown Court on Wednesday 3rd April 2013 for an all day hearing starting at 10.30am." | 2014‑07‑17 22:11:11 | 2013 cases, Cases, First-tier Tribunal decisions, Judgment available on MHLO, MHT public hearing cases, Neutral citation unknown or not applicable, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, 2013 cases
|
| Bostridge v Oxleas NHS Foundation Trust [2014] MHLO 42 (CC) — A tribunal’s deferred discharge from s3 took place just before a CTO was purportedly imposed. Recall from that (non-existent) CTO, and subsequent detention, had been unlawful; however, because no loss had been shown, following Lumba (a Supreme Court decision on immigration detention), only nominal damages were awarded in this county court case. (The Court of Appeal gave permission to appeal.) | 2014‑06‑17 21:48:34 | 2014 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on MHLO, Neutral citation unknown or not applicable, Transcript, Unlawful detention cases
|
| AB v LM [2013] EWHC 1234 (COP), [2013] MHLO 139 — "I find on paying close attention to Dr P's advice, but also considering the contribution of Dr G, that Lisa does possess the abilities required to lead to the conclusion that she has capacity to make decisions about whether or not to have sexual relations. She is somebody who has been full to sexually active in the past; she has had children; she understands the rudiments of the sexual act; she has a basic understanding of issues of contraception and the risks of sexually transmitted diseases. The area in which she is weakest is her ability to understand the implications for herself should she become pregnant. Pregnancy for Lisa would be an extremely serious state of affairs; there can be no doubt about that. But her weakness in that respect does not, for me, lead to the conclusion that her capacity is absent; it argues for her to receive continued safeguarding and help, advice and explanation as and when the question of sexual activity might become a reality." | 2014‑02‑15 23:55:00 | 2013 cases, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, No summary, Sex and marriage cases, Transcript
|
| R v Yusuf (Nadia Ali) [2013] EWCA Crim 2077, [2013] MHLO 137 — The appellant sought a restricted hospital order in place of an IPP sentence, but was unsuccessful as her medical evidence addressed the current situation rather than the situation at the time of sentencing. | 2013‑12‑30 22:38:44 | 2013 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, Sentence appeal cases, Transcript
|
| R v Anderson (Darren Gabriel) [2013] EWCA Crim 2212, [2013] MHLO 134 — Appellant sought restricted hospital order, in place of IPP and s45A hybrid order, but was unsuccessful. | 2013‑12‑30 21:55:03 | 2013 cases, Brief summary, Hybrid order cases, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, Transcript
|
| Re L (A Child) [2013] EWCA Civ 1557, [2013] MHLO 133 — Mother unsuccessfully sought permission to appeal against Court of Protection order (a) that her son lacked capacity in relation to welfare matters, and (b) that it was in his best interests to remain at his current placement for at least a year and finish at the existing school (as opposed to living with the mother and attending a school near her, or moving to a residential home near the mother and have some education in her area). | 2013‑12‑30 16:29:47 | 2013 cases, Best interests, Brief summary, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, Transcript
|
| R v Odiowei [2013] EWCA Crim 2253, [2013] MHLO 131 — The appellant sought a restricted hospital order in place of a life sentence, relying on two recent medical reports which were critical of previous reports. The matter was adjourned for six weeks to obtain responses from the previous reports' authors. | 2013‑12‑30 14:46:12 | 2013 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, Life sentence cases, Transcript
|
| R v G (A) [2013] EWCA Crim 2256, [2013] MHLO 130 — Unsuccessful appeal against restriction order. | 2013‑12‑30 14:35:21 | 2013 cases, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, No summary, Restriction order cases, Transcript
|
| R v Fry (David George) [2013] EWCA Crim 2337, [2013] MHLO 126 — Unsuccessful appeal against conviction. Summary from judgment: "The central complaints are that his legal team (a) failed to ensure that he was mentally and/or emotionally able to decide whether or not on give evidence; (b) failed to ensure that he properly understood that an adverse inference might be drawn by the jury if he did not give evidence; (c) failed to ensure that he properly understood that if he did not give evidence the jury would have no account from him as to the allegation made by SB, given that he had declined to answer questions during his police interview about those allegations; (d) failed to make the judge aware of his mental difficulties before she decided whether or not the jury should be directed that they might, subject to various conditions, draw an adverse inference from his failure to give evidence; (e) failed to place evidence of his mental condition before the jury to explain his failure to give evidence; and (f) in the circumstances to which we have referred gave him flawed advice not to give evidence." | 2013‑12‑30 11:15:21 | 2013 cases, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, No summary, Other criminal law cases, Transcript
|
| R (Muaza) v SSHD [2013] EWHC 3764 (Admin), [2013] MHLO 112 — "These two cases raise common issues over the lawfulness of the exercise by the Secretary of State for the Home Department of her powers of detention in respect of immigration detainees whose refusal to take food and fluids causes them life threatening physical conditions, and over whether there comes a stage at which such a detainee's continued detention after the refusal to take food or fluids involves a breach of rights under Articles 2 and 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights." | 2013‑12‑15 13:54:35 | 2013 cases, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, No summary, Repatriation cases, Transcript
|
| Cuthbertson v Rasouli (2013) SCC 53, [2013] MHLO 109 — Canadian Supreme Court's consideration of a patient in persistent vegetative state, where physicians wished to remove his support and to provide palliative care, but the statutory 'substitute decision maker' refused to consent. | 2013‑12‑12 21:43:09 | 2013 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, Other capacity cases, Transcript
|
| Re Devillebichot (deceased) [2013] EWHC 2867 (Ch), [2013] MHLO 107 — The testator had capacity to make his will and (although subject to persuasion) had not been under undue influence. | 2013‑12‑12 20:30:22 | 2013 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, Other capacity cases, Transcript
|
| Re P (A Child) [2013] EWHC 4383 (Fam), [2013] MHLO 106 — Decision of Charles J on reporting restrictions in 'forced caesarian' case. | 2013‑12‑11 22:51:58 | 2013 cases, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, No summary, Other capacity cases, Transcript
|
| R v Edgington [2013] EWCA Crim 2185, [2013] MHLO 102 — The appellant had been sentenced to life imprisonment for murder and attempted murder, with a minimum term of 37 years. (1) Appeal against conviction dismissed, as the judge was not wrong to prevent counsel from re-examining the defence expert on whether she would 'as a matter of practice ... ever be released' from a hospital order. (2) Appeal against sentence dismissed as it was not manifestly excessive. | 2013‑12‑03 14:57:56 | 2013 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, Sentence appeal cases, Transcript
|
| R (Z) v Camden and Islington NHS Foundation Trust [2013] EWCA Civ 1425, [2013] MHLO 100 — Unsuccessful challenge to (1) detention under s2 (a subsequent tribunal decision to discharge was consistent with a lawful initial detention) and (2) decision not to hold hospital managers' hearing (it was reasonable to wait a few days for the tribunal). | 2013‑11‑19 23:10:58 | 2013 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, Miscellaneous cases, Transcript
|
| Re Ian Brady [2013] MHLO 89 (FTT) — After a public hearing the tribunal issued a notice on 28/6/13 that: 'Mr Ian Stewart Brady continues to suffer from a mental disorder which is of a nature and degree which makes it appropriate for him to continue to receive medical treatment and that it is necessary for his health and safety and for the protection of other persons that he should receive such treatment in hospital and that appropriate medical treatment is available for him.' The full reasons, dated 11/12/13, were published on 24/1/14: (1) When deciding to hold a public hearing the tribunal had concluded that it was not satisfied that Ian Brady suffered from schizophrenia but, in reaching the opposite conclusion when considering the detention criteria, it did not consider itself bound by its previous finding of fact. (2) The tribunal set out at length the reasons for concluding that the detention criteria were met in this case. | 2013‑09‑14 20:43:40 | 2013 cases, Brief summary, First-tier Tribunal decisions, Judgment available on MHLO, MHT public hearing cases, Neutral citation unknown or not applicable, No transcript
|
| Neary v LB Hillingdon [2013] MHLO 87 (SEC) — Mark Neary's appeal against Hillingdon's decision to end Housing Benefit was unsuccessful: as he was estranged from his wife, who lived separately in a jointly-owned property, his share of the property counted towards the statutory limit for Housing Benefit purposes. | 2013‑09‑08 21:21:43 | 2013 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on MHLO, Miscellaneous cases, Neutral citation unknown or not applicable, Transcript
|
| * MHT/PB delay R (LV) v SSJ [2013] EWCA Civ 1086 — The applicant had been given an IPP sentence then transferred to hospital under s47/49. On 12/12/11 the MHT decided she met the criteria for conditional discharge. The dossier reached the Parole Board on 29/3/12, and the hearing was arranged for 12/3/13. She claimed a breach of Article 5(4) during: (a) the period before the dossier was ready, when no judicial body was responsible for supervising her progress and the potentiality for release, and (b) the subsequent long period until the Parole Board met. The Court of Appeal gave permission to apply for judicial review (being simpler than giving permission to appeal the High Court's refusal of permission to apply for judicial review). | 2013‑08‑30 21:58:45 | 2013 cases, Cases, Deprivation of liberty, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Prison law cases, Transcript, 2013 cases
|
| R (JG) v LSC [2013] EWHC 804 (Admin), [2013] MHLO 76 — Payment for expert evidence. | 2013‑08‑12 22:27:59 | 2013 cases, Detailed summary, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, Miscellaneous cases, Transcript
|
| AM v West London MH NHS Trust [2013] EWCA Civ 1010, [2013] MHLO 73 — The tribunal twice refused to adjourn in circumstances where there was relatively little in the social circumstances report about aftercare on discharge, the author of the report did not attend the hearing, and the social worker who did attend could not provide any further relevant information. The Upper Tribunal decided that this 'did not affect the tribunal’s ability to give Mr M a fair hearing and to deal with his case fairly and justly' and that the patient 'had not yet progressed to the point where the issue of aftercare that was actually available would arise'. The Court of Appeal refused permission to appeal. | 2013‑08‑10 02:03:26 | 2013 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, Powers, Transcript
|
| A Local Authority v HS [2013] EWHC 2410 (COP), [2013] MHLO 58 — "These applications for costs against the local authority are made by the Official Solicitor on behalf of the First Respondent and by the Third Respondent, HLS, who is the brother of the First Respondent." | 2013‑08‑01 21:49:35 | 2013 cases, COP costs cases, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, No summary, Transcript
|
| Re Joan Treadwell (Deceased); OPG v Colin Lutz [2013] EWHC 2409 (COP), [2013] MHLO 57 — "This judgment concerns an application by the Public Guardian to enforce a security bond in respect of unauthorised gifts made by the late Mrs Joan Treadwell’s deputy for property and affairs, Colin Lutz." | 2013‑08‑01 21:43:03 | 2013 cases, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, No summary, Other capacity cases, Transcript
|
| Re Clarke [2013] EWCA Civ 811, [2013] MHLO 52 — On 14/1/13 Mr Clarke had been committed to prison for 3 months by HHJ Pelling QC for breach of injunctions prohibiting him from publicising matters to do with this Court of Protection case; as a result he decided to remain in Spain and wished to appeal the committal. (1) There was no merit in his separate appeal against an earlier costs order, so permission to appeal was refused. (2) His request for the costs appeal to be adjourned and considered alongside the future appeal against committal (the delay on this being because it took until June to obtain a transcript) was rejected as this would merely complicate matters. | 2013‑07‑15 19:47:06 | 2013 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, Other capacity cases, Transcript, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function
|
| Re SK [2013] MHLO 49 — "This is the final hearing of proceedings under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 concerning Mr SK, a mentally incapacitated adult aged 56. Various questions and issues have arisen at this hearing, but in the end they have mostly been dealt with by agreement. This Judgment is concerned with the question of SK's residence and whether the order made should be a 'final' or 'interim' order." [Summary required, but detailed external summary available.] | 2013‑07‑04 15:47:49 | 2013 cases, Judgment available on MHLO, Neutral citation unknown or not applicable, No summary, Other capacity cases, Transcript
|
| Bialek v Circuit Court in Warsaw Poland [2013] EWHC 930 (Admin), [2013] MHLO 39 — Extradition case with psychiatric element. | 2013‑05‑05 13:31:07 | 2013 cases, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, No summary, Repatriation cases, Transcript
|
| R (Z) v Whittington Hospital [2013] EWHC 358 (Admin), [2013] MHLO 29 — "The claimant, Mrs Z, who very ably represented herself, was sectioned under the Mental Health Act shortly after giving birth to her first baby after a prolonged and very difficult labour. ... Miss Z says that looking at the reasons that were given at the time, which are recorded in a document signed by both doctors (Form A3, that is the formal sectioning document) the reasons that are there recorded are insufficient reasons to warrant her detention under the Mental Health Act." | 2013‑03‑28 11:33:06 | 2013 cases, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, MHLR summary, Miscellaneous cases, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Transcript
|
| R v Caress [2013] EWCA Crim 218, [2013] MHLO 27 — "In the circumstances, there is no reason to believe that the diagnosis at the time of sentence was wrong or that sentence [a restricted hospital order] was passed on a wrong factual basis. If, as appears to be the case, the diagnosis has now changed that is a matter that should be dealt with by the Mental Health Tribunal, rather than by late appeal against sentence." | 2013‑03‑27 23:44:43 | 2013 cases, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, MHLR summary, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Sentence appeal cases, Transcript
|
| SRA decision: Billy Chucks of Chris Solicitors [2013] MHLO 22 (SRA) — "It is reported that whilst employed by various legal practices: Mr Chucks failed to comply with restrictions on his attendance imposed by a number of hospital trusts, and that he prepared a “consent to disclosure” request at a hospital for a client who has confirmed that he had not instructed Mr Chucks to act on his behalf, and that he improperly removed clients’ files/documentation without authority from a former employer. Those papers have not yet been returned. ... I FIND that Mr Billy Chucks, (Date of birth: 23 August 1975) of [London] who is or was involved in legal practice but is not a solicitor has, in the Society’s opinion occasioned or been a party to, with or without the connivance of a solicitor, an act or default in relation to a legal practice which involved conduct on his part of such a nature that in the Society’s opinion it would be undesirable for him to be involved in a legal practice in one or more of the ways mentioned in sub-section (1A) of Section 43. ... This includes being on hospital premises after he knew that a ban prohibiting his attendance had been imposed. On one occasion police were called to the hospital as a result. He had objected to the bans imposed but he did not take any action to challenge these through the appropriate legal route. ... Also, it is a matter of grave concern that client’s papers, improperly in Mr Chucks’ possession, are not held securely and client confidentiality is compromised. An assurance given that these would be returned to the firm of solicitors responsible for their safe keeping has not been honoured. ... For these reasons, I have concluded that it would be undesirable for Mr Chucks to be involved in a legal practice. The effect of this Order is that he may not be employed in legal practice without the knowledge and prior approval of the SRA. Any approval granted is likely to be subject to strict conditions in order to protect clients and the public." | 2013‑03‑27 00:09:45 | 2013 cases, Judgment available on MHLO, Neutral citation unknown or not applicable, No summary, SRA decisions, Transcript
|
| Re Buckley: The Public Guardian v C [2013] EWHC 2965 (COP), [2013] MHLO 13 — "This is an application by the Public Guardian for the court to revoke a Lasting Power of Attorney (‘LPA’) and to direct him to cancel the registration of the LPA. ... Having regard to all the circumstances, therefore, I am satisfied that: (a) the attorney has contravened her authority and acted in a way that is not in Miss Buckley’s best interests; (b) Miss Buckley is incapable of revoking the LPA herself; (c) the revocation of the LPA in order to facilitate the appointment of a deputy is both a necessary and proportionate response for the protection of Miss Buckley’s right to have her financial affairs managed competently, honestly and for her benefit, and for the prevention of crime; and (d) it is in Miss Buckley’s best interests that the court should revoke the LPA." | 2013‑03‑26 21:27:53 | 2013 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Judgment available on MHLO, LPA cases - revocation, No summary, Transcript
|
| WCC v AB [2012] MHLO 168 (COP) — Whether AB's aunt should be appointed as litigation friend. | 2013‑03‑26 21:08:16 | 2012 cases, Judgment available on MHLO, Neutral citation unknown or not applicable, No summary, Other capacity cases, Transcript
|
| LB Waltham Forest v WD [2010] MHLO 195 — "The issues which I have to consider are four fold: first, WD’s future accommodation and residence; secondly, his contact arrangements with other members of his family; thirdly, the application by the Local Authority for the appointment of a deputy under the Mental Capacity Act 2005; and fourthly, whether or not these proceedings should now come to an end. Other matters of the care plan are fully agreed between the parties. As I have said, the plan put before me is comprehensive and this court is happy to endorse it." | 2013‑03‑26 18:06:00 | 2010 cases, Judgment available on MHLO, Neutral citation unknown or not applicable, No summary, Other capacity cases, Transcript
|
| Pender v DPP [2013] EWHC 2598 (Admin) — An ASBO was imposed with a 'no begging' condition. A Crown Court appeal, based on uncontradicted medical evidence (that the appellant suffered learning difficulties, schizophrenia and severe nicotine addiction, and that begging was the manifestation of nicotine addiction), was unsuccessful. The Court of Appeal allowed an appeal by way of case stated, because the judge had failed to set out the factual basis for her factual conclusion (which was contrary to the medical evidence) that the appellant had been capable of complying with the ASBO. | 2013‑03‑26 17:42:34 | 2013 cases, Brief summary, Criminal law capacity cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Judgment available on MHLO, No transcript
|
| DO v LBH [2012] EWHC 4044 (Admin), [2012] MHLO 165 — "I have before me listed two applications for permission to bring judicial review proceedings and/or for directions against a local authority (LBH) and another interested party, ostensibly in the name of DO, by his sister (EC), the applicant as his Litigation Friend in one of the applications and by both as claimants in respect of the other. ... EC may not agree with the order being made in the Court of Protection proceedings but that does not justify, in my judgment, proceeding by way of judicial review rather than by application or appeal in the Court of Protection proceedings." | 2013‑03‑25 23:05:31 | 2012 cases, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, No summary, Other capacity cases, Transcript
|
| * Informal admission A PCT v LDV [2013] EWHC 272 (Fam) — "The two questions considered at the hearing, which form the subject of this judgment, are (1) Do L's current circumstances amount objectively to a deprivation of liberty? (2) When assessing whether L has capacity to consent to her accommodation at WH, in circumstances which amount to a deprivation of liberty, what information is relevant to that decision?" | 2013‑03‑25 22:35:38 | 2013 cases, Cases, Deprivation of liberty, Judgment available on Bailii, Judgment available on MHLO, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Transcript, Judgment available on Bailii, 2013 cases
|
| R (S) v Mental Health Tribunal [2012] MHLO 164 (UT) — S unsuccessfully challenged by judicial review (a) the decision of the FTT setting aside its own decision that she be discharged and (b) her continued detention by the hospital. | 2013‑02‑08 17:45:42 | 2012 cases, Judgment available on MHLO, Neutral citation unknown or not applicable, No summary, Transcript, Upper Tribunal decisions
|
| Re P (abortion) [2013] EWHC 50 (COP), [2013] MHLO 1 — (1) The solicitor who was one of P's deputies queried whether P had capacity in relation to whether to continue with her pregnancy or have an abortion. (2) Hedley J held that she manifestly lacked litigation capacity but did have capacity in relation to continuing the pregnancy. (3) Generally courts and health officials should not try to decide whether P would be able to bring up a child but should instead concentrate solely on whether the pregnancy itself is in her best interests (the reasoning being that once a child is born, if the mother does not have the ability to care for a child, society has perfectly adequate processes to deal with that). (4) The judge also stated that '[t]he purpose of [mental capacity legislation] is not to dress an incapacitated person in cotton wool but to allow them to make the same mistakes that all other human beings are able to make and not infrequently do'. [Summary based on press article; judgment now available.] | 2013‑01‑25 11:36:58 | 2013 cases, Best interests, Brief summary, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, Transcript
|
| R v Fletcher [2012] EWCA Crim 2777, [2012] MHLO 161 — IPP sentence quashed and a restricted hospital order substituted in its place: the judge had not properly been informed as to the appellant's mental state, because the original reports focussed on mental illness (which the appellant did not suffer from) rather than learning disability (which he did). | 2013‑01‑07 16:47:26 | 2012 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, Sentence appeal cases, Transcript
|
| Re L; The NHS Trust v L [2012] EWHC 2741 (COP), [2012] MHLO 159 — The Trust sought a declaration that it was not in the best interests of L to be the subject of forcible feeding or medical treatment notwithstanding that in the absence of such nutrition and treatment she would inevitably die. The court declared (to paraphrase) that: (1) L lacked capacity to litigate and to make decisions in relation to the serious medical treatment at issue, specifically, (a) nutrition and hydration, and (b) dextrose for hypoglycaemic episodes. (2) L had capacity to make decisions as to anti-biotic treatment, analgesia and treatment of her pressure sores. (3) In L's best interests, the clinicians were permitted: (a) to provide nutrition and hydration and medical treatment where L complies; (b) to administer dextrose solution to L despite her objections where immediately necessary to save life; (c) not to provide L with nutrition and hydration with which she does not comply (all reasonable steps to gain L's co-operation having been taken); (d) to provide palliative care in the terminal stage of L's illness. | 2012‑12‑23 00:30:19 | 2012 cases, Best interests, Brief summary, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, Transcript
|
| R v Channer [2012] EWCA Crim 1667, [2012] MHLO 157 — IPP sentence with minimum term of 23 months quashed and restricted hospital order substituted in its place. | 2012‑12‑21 01:00:13 | 2012 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, Sentence appeal cases, Transcript
|
| R v Searles [2012] EWCA Crim 2685, [2012] MHLO 156 — Custodial sentence of two years' detention in a young offender institution quashed and unrestricted hospital order substituted in its place. | 2012‑12‑21 00:44:16 | 2012 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, Sentence appeal cases, Transcript
|
| R v Searles [2012] EWCA Crim 1839, [2012] MHLO 155 — Criminal appeal adjourned for second medical report in relation to the making of a hospital order. | 2012‑12‑21 00:40:54 | 2012 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, Sentence appeal cases, Transcript
|
| Southend-on-Sea BC v Armour [2012] EWHC 3361 (QB), [2012] MHLO 152 — The recorder's decision to refuse to grant a possession order (on the basis that by the time of the delayed hearing possession was no longer appropriate because there had been full compliance with the terms of the tenancy for the 12 months prior to the hearing) was upheld on appeal. | 2012‑12‑20 23:49:50 | 2012 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, Miscellaneous cases, Transcript
|
| R (O) v SSHD [2012] EWHC 2899 (Admin), [2012] MHLO 149 — Another immigration case with mental health background. | 2012‑12‑20 23:26:25 | 2012 cases, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, No summary, Repatriation cases, Transcript
|
| R (BA) v LB Hillingdon [2012] EWHC 3050 (Admin), [2012] MHLO 148 — "This is a claim for interim relief brought on behalf of BA by his litigation friend, the official solicitor, against the London Borough of Hillingdon and Hillingdon National Health Service Primary Care Trust. The relief sought is first, an order that the claimant be provided with community care services under section 117 of the Mental Health Act 1983 against both defendants and/or section 21 of the National Assistance Act 1948 against the first defendant, and secondly an order that the defendants jointly carry out assessments of his need of community care services under section 47 of the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990." | 2012‑12‑20 21:57:39 | 2012 cases, After-care, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, No summary, Transcript
|
| Re Ian Brady [2012] MHLO 145 (FTT) — The tribunal's decision is as follows: "The hearing in public of the application by Mr Ian Brady has been re-listed for Monday 17/6/13. The arrangements for the hearing will be the same as those made for the hearing which had to be adjourned last July namely that the Tribunal will hear the case at Ashworth Hospital and it will be relayed to the Civil Justice Centre Manchester for members of the public and press to watch the proceedings. The precise details of those arrangements will be published as soon as possible." | 2012‑12‑20 02:04:25 | 2012 cases, Detailed summary, First-tier Tribunal decisions, Judgment available on MHLO, MHT public hearing cases, Neutral citation unknown or not applicable, Transcript
|
| R v Jenkin [2012] EWCA Crim 2557, [2012] MHLO 141 — Having pleaded guilty to GBH with intent (for gouging his girlfriend's eyes out), the appellant was sentenced to life imprisonment with a six-year minimum term, combined with a hospital direction and limitation direction under s45A MHA 1983. He appealed against sentence, arguing for a restricted hospital order or alternatively an IPP sentence. (1) A hospital order means that 'release is dependent on the responsible authority being satisfied that the defendant no longer presents any danger which arises from his medical condition': this would be inadequate as, irrespective of his delusional disorder, the appellant posed a significant risk of serious harm to the public. (2) A life sentence should be reserved for those cases where the culpability of the offender is particularly high or the offence itself particularly grave (R v Kehoe): both those limbs were met in this case. (3) The s45A hybrid order was appropriate as the criteria were met and the disorder was treatable, but when treatment is no longer necessary the risk to the public required that he be released from hospital to prison and for the Parole Board to make the release decision. | 2012‑12‑20 00:00:12 | 2012 cases, Brief summary, Hybrid order cases, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, Transcript
|
| G v DPP [2012] EWHC 3174 (Admin), [2012] MHLO 140 — At the Youth Court it had been argued that the case should be stayed since it would be an abuse of the court's process to proceed to an adjudication when the appellant was unfit to plead, to participate in his trial and to instruct his defence. Having heard medical evidence from both sides, the District Judge declined to stay the proceedings, arranged for the appointment of an intermediary and accepted the intermediary's advice as to the way in which the appellant should be assisted during the course of the hearing; he found the charge proved. This was an appeal by way of case stated in relation to the appellant's conviction at the Youth Court. (1) The High Court set out the rules for appeals and commented that the way in which the appeal had been prepared is was lamentable. (2) The District Judge had correctly followed the guidance (from DPP v P) for proceedings in the Youth Court in which capacity is relevant. (3) The defence expert confused the propriety of a prosecution with the ability to understand the nature of proceedings and communicate instructions and the District Judge was entitled to disagree with her. | 2012‑12‑19 23:22:42 | 2012 cases, Brief summary, Criminal law capacity cases, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, Transcript
|
| AG's reference (no 60 of 2012) sub nom R v Edwards [2012] EWCA Crim 2746, [2012] MHLO 135 — "This is a case which presented to the judge an intractable but by no means unknown sentencing problem. ... The intractable difficulty presented by this defendant and by, sadly, a number of others is this: he has a variety of personality disorders, but the doctors all report that there is no medical treatment available." | 2012‑12‑19 18:49:07 | 2012 cases, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, No summary, Sentence appeal cases, Transcript
|
| R v Tudor [2012] EWCA Crim 1507, [2012] MHLO 127 — Following receipt of a psychiatric report which did not recommend a hospital order, the trial judge was entitled to impose an IPP sentence without adjourning for a second psychiatrist's report. | 2012‑12‑17 01:15:24 | 2012 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, Sentence appeal cases, Transcript
|
| Buck v Norfolk and Waveney MH NHS Foundation Trust [2012] MHLO 123 (CC) — The defendant Trust granted unescorted leave to a detained patient who then ran in front of a bus. The claimant bus driver suffered PTSD and sued the Trust. The court held that a custody authority responsible for the negligent release of a patient did not owe a duty to a victim unless that victim had been identifiable: the Trust therefore owed no duty of care to the driver. | 2012‑12‑17 00:47:55 | 2012 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on MHLO, Miscellaneous cases, Neutral citation unknown or not applicable, Transcript
|
| Lacki v Poland [2012] EWHC 1747 (Admin), [2012] MHLO 120 — Extradition and mental health. | 2012‑12‑17 00:23:01 | 2012 cases, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, No summary, Repatriation cases, Transcript
|
| R (C) v SSHD [2012] EWHC 801 (Admin), [2012] MHLO 118 — Mental health and immigration. | 2012‑12‑16 22:32:41 | 2012 cases, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, No summary, Repatriation cases, Transcript
|
| Court Martial in the case of Sergeant Nightingale [2012] MHLO 116 — (1) The accused pleaded guilty of possessing (a) a Glock 9mm pistol and (b) the following live ammunition: 122 x 9mm, 40 x 7.62mm, 50 x 9mm (frangible), 50 x .338 (armour piercing), 2 x .308, 74 x 5.56mm. (2) In mitigation he relied, inter alia, on evidence from a neuropsychologist and a clinicial psychologist to the effect that a brain injury had caused memory problems and confabulation. (3) He was sentenced to 18 months for the Glock and 6 months concurrently for the ammunition. | 2012‑11‑19 02:16:59 | 2012 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on MHLO, Neutral citation unknown or not applicable, Other criminal law cases, Transcript
|
| Re AS; SH v LC [2012] MHLO 113 (COP) — AS's niece objected to a panel solicitor's application to be appointed deputy with specific authority to sell a property. (1) Generally speaking the order of preference for the appointment of a deputy is: (a) P's spouse or partner; (b) any other relative who takes a personal interest in P’s affairs; (c) a close friend; (c) a professional adviser, such as the family's solicitor or accountant; (d) a local authority's Social Services Department; and finally (e) a panel deputy, as deputy of last resort. (2) The court prefers to appoint a family member or close friend because of: (a) familiarity with P’s affairs, wishes and communication methods; (b) likely greater ability to consult with P and encourage participation; (c) reasons of economy; (d) the concept of deputyship of last resort. (3) The appointment of a family member will generally be a less restrictive alternative, though the question remains as to whether this will achieve the desired objective as effectively as the appointment of a panel deputy. (4) The court would not appoint a family member in cases involving, for example: (a) financial or other abuse; (b) conflict of interests; (c) an unsatisfactory track record in managing financial affairs; and (d) ongoing friction between various family members. (5) On the facts, the niece was appointed as there was no need for a deputy of last resort. (6) The general rule as to costs (that AS pay) was followed. | 2012‑11‑12 23:12:51 | 2012 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on MHLO, Neutral citation unknown or not applicable, Other capacity cases, Transcript
|
| A, B and C v X, Y and Z [2012] EWHC 2400 (COP), [2012] MHLO 112 — The court considered X's capacity to marry, make a will or power of attorney, manage affairs, and litigate. (1) X did not lack capacity to marry. The basis for this assessment was correctly stated in Sheffield as follows: (a) it is not enough that someone appreciates that he or she is taking part in a marriage ceremony or understands its words; (b) he or she must understand the nature of the marriage contract; (c) this means that he or she must be mentally capable of understanding the duties and responsibilities that normally attach to marriage; (d) that said, the contract of marriage is in essence a simple one, which does not require a high degree of intelligence to comprehend, and the contract of marriage can readily be understood by anyone of normal intelligence. (2) The judge did not make a general declaration that X lacked testamentary capacity, but qualified this by saying that (a) there would be increasingly many times when X lacked such capacity, and (b) any will now made, if unaccompanied by contemporary medical evidence asserting capacity, might be seriously open to challenge. (3) The same observations applied to X's capacity to revoke or create lasting or enduring powers of attorney. (4) X lacked capacity to manage his own affairs: although a snapshot of X's condition at certain times would reveal an ability to manage his affairs, the general concept of managing affairs is an ongoing act and relates to a continuous state of affairs whose demands may be unpredictable and may occasionally be urgent. (5) X also lacked capacity to litigate: this required separate consideration because the time frame involved is different to managing affairs on the one hand, or making a will or granting power of attorney on the other. The basis for this assessment was stated in Masterman-Lister: 'whether the party to the legal proceedings is capable of understanding, with the assistance of proper explanation from legal advisers and experts in other disciplines as the case may require, the issues on which his consent or decision is likely to be necessary in the course of those proceedings'. (6) No finding was sought in relation to capacity to decide on contact, and the judge thought 'the idea that this distinguished elderly gentleman’s life should be circumscribed by contact provisions as though he was a child in a separated family' to be deeply unattractive. (7) There should be (a) a greater emphasis on judicial continuity in the COP, and (b) a pre-hearing review in any case estimated to last three days or more. | 2012‑11‑12 22:59:02 | 2012 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, LPA cases - capacity to make an LPA, Other capacity cases, Transcript
|
| R v Petrolini [2012] EWCA Crim 2055, [2012] MHLO 105 — The appellant had unsuccessfully argued diminished responsibility at trial, but subsequently it became apparent that he had indeed been in the prodromal stage of schizophrenia at the time of the offence. The Court of Appeal (1) granted an extension of time of 16 years and 16 months, (2) quashed the conviction for murder and substituted for it a verdict of manslaughter by reason of diminished responsibility, and (3) made a restricted hospital order in place of the 16-year-tariff life sentence. The hospital order was made for admission to Broadmoor, but the intention was that the patient would remain in Carstairs hospital in Scotland. | 2012‑10‑27 20:24:11 | 2012 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, Life sentence cases, Transcript
|
| * Marriage and cohabitation CYC v PC and NC [2012] MHLO 103 (COP) — (1) PC lacked capacity to litigate and lacked capacity to decide whether to resume married life with NC (upon the expiry of a 13-year sentence for his sexual offences against previous wives). (2) The resumption of married life with NC was lawful as being in her best interests. | 2012‑10‑24 20:51:12 | 2012 cases, Cases, Judgment available on MHLO, Neutral citation unknown or not applicable, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Sex and marriage cases, Transcript, 2012 cases
|
| R (RW) v SSJ [2012] EWHC 2082 (Admin), [2012] MHLO 87 — The responsible clinician and tribunal were of the view in March 2011 that the patient required continued treatment in detention in hospital, and the tribunal recommended transfer from Broadmoor to a medium secure unit; in June the RC sought permission for trial leave to a MSU, with return to prison being the planned consequence if it were unsuccessful; trial leave in September was unsuccessful and, that month, the Secretary of State remitted the patient to prison on the RC's advice. (1) There had been new information since the tribunal which put a different complexion on the case, namely the unsuccessful trial leave, so the Secretary of State was entitled to take at face value the RC's new opinion that the patient did not require treatment in hospital for mental disorder. (2) It was not necessary for the Secretary of State to consider that lack of treatment in prison might breach Article 3 or require almost immediate re-transfer to hospital; the correct approach was to consider the remission request when made, and consider transfer to hospital later if necessary. (3) Permission to amend the grounds to challenge the alleged ongoing failure to transfer under s47 was refused, but the judge directed that if a fresh application were made within six weeks that the permission application be referred to him. | 2012‑09‑01 00:21:12 | 2012 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, Ministry of Justice cases, Transcript
|
| R v Fletcher [2012] EWCA Crim 1550, [2012] MHLO 86 — Permission granted to appeal, on fresh evidence, against IPP and argue that restricted hospital order should have been imposed. | 2012‑08‑31 23:03:22 | 2012 cases, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, No summary, Sentence appeal cases, Transcript
|
| Re MW; LB Hammersmith and Fulham v MW [2012] MHLO 82 (COP) — (1) MW lacked capacity to make decisions in relation to contact with his childhood friend JC. (2) It was not in MW's best interests for JC to visit MW's home, so an order was granted restraining JC from doing so; this was endorsed with a penal notice because of previous breaches of an injunction. (3) The local authority and Official Solicitor's requested that MW, who lacked litigation capacity, should not attend the hearing because this would be stressful and not conducive to the maintenance of his good mental health: the court acceded to this application. (4) Sensitive evidence was withheld from JC, at the request of the local authority and Official Solicitor, but the court came to its final decision based on the open evidence. | 2012‑08‑29 21:27:52 | 2012 cases, Best interests, Brief summary, Judgment available on MHLO, Neutral citation unknown or not applicable, Transcript
|
| Re BS; SC v BS [2012] MHLO 78 (COP) — The jointly-instructed psychiatrist, although an expert in autism, did not have experience of applying the test for capacity in the context of litigation in the Court if Protection, so the court directed that an alternative expert be instructed. | 2012‑08‑17 15:17:27 | 2012 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on MHLO, Neutral citation unknown or not applicable, Other capacity cases, Transcript
|
| Re Ian Brady [2012] MHLO 76 (FTT) — The tribunal hearing was adjourned from 9/7/12, to a date to be fixed, because of the patient's (physical) medical condition. | 2012‑08‑17 14:13:00 | 2012 cases, Brief summary, First-tier Tribunal decisions, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment does not exist, MHT public hearing cases, Transcript
|
| Re Ian Brady [2012] MHLO 75 (FTT) — The media's request for one or more representatives to be present in the tribunal room at Ashworth was refused. | 2012‑08‑17 14:05:31 | 2012 cases, Brief summary, First-tier Tribunal decisions, Judgment available on MHLO, MHT public hearing cases, Neutral citation unknown or not applicable, Transcript
|
| Re Harcourt [2012] MHLO 74 (LPA) — "This application relates to an investigation by the Office of the Public Guardian into the management of Mrs Harcourt’s property and financial affairs by her daughter under a Lasting Power of Attorney. It considers the powers of the OPG and the Court of Protection when an attorney impedes an investigation and the circumstances in which the court may revoke an LPA." | 2012‑08‑16 22:13:15 | 2012 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on MHLO, LPA cases - revocation, Neutral citation unknown or not applicable, Transcript
|
| Re Newman [2012] MHLO 73 (EPA) — The donor made an EPA in which, amongst other defects, he failed to select either of the following alternatives: "with general authority to act on my behalf" or "with authority to do the following on my behalf". The court confirmed that this failure did not invalidate the EPA, because it was an immaterial difference from the prescribed form within paragraph 2(4) of Schedule 4 of the MCA. [OPG summary - EPA case.] | 2012‑08‑16 22:02:19 | 2012 cases, Brief summary, EPA cases - formalities, Judgment available on MHLO, Neutral citation unknown or not applicable, Transcript
|
| Re Stapleton [2012] MHLO 72 (EPA) — (1) The court directed the Public Guardian to cancel the registration of the EPA, because the attorney's financial abuse made him unsuitable. (2) A panel deputy was appointed instead. (3) D was ordered to pay his own costs (a departure from the general rule in property and affairs cases that P pays) because of D's conduct before and during proceedings. | 2012‑08‑16 21:57:10 | 2012 cases, Brief summary, EPA cases - revocation and suitability, Judgment available on MHLO, Neutral citation unknown or not applicable, Transcript
|
| Re HA [2012] EWHC 1068 (COP), [2012] MHLO 67 — "This case comes before me for directions today. The person whose best interests have to be considered by the court is a HA. The Official Solicitor now acts for her as her litigation friend and in that capacity has continued an application under s.21A of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (the Act) that was instigated before his appointment." | 2012‑06‑23 14:28:12 | 2012 cases, Deprivation of liberty, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, No summary, Transcript
|
| Sedge v Prime [2012] MHLO 66 (QB) — "This is an application for an interim payment of £300,000 to enable the Claimant to move from the 'Little Oyster' residential care home, Sheerness, Kent where he currently lives into his own accommodation with a 24 hour care regime. At first this is to be by way of a trial run in a bungalow which has already been rented for one year and adapted for him. If the trial is successful then permanent renting or purchase of a home are the options. If not, return to a residential home is likely." | 2012‑06‑23 14:16:30 | 2012 cases, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, No summary, Other capacity cases, Transcript
|
| Re Phillips [2012] MHLO 60 (LPA) — The donor appointed three attorneys, A, B and C. She did not name any persons to be notified, and so there were two certificate providers. The Public Guardian refused to register on the ground that one certificate provider, X, was a member of the family of A. He was the unmarried partner of A but did not live at the same address. In his Part B certificate X said: "I am the partner of A and have known the donor for 3 years." The attorney applied to court for a direction to register and the Public Guardian was joined as respondent. The court decided that X was to be treated as a member of the family of A, and so the instrument could not be registered. The judge said: "In my judgment, anyone who describes himself in this context as the attorney's partner is courting trouble and automatically disqualifies himself from being a person who can give an LPA certificate. This applies regardless of whether he describes himself as the attorney's partner intentionally or inadvertently, whether they live at the same address or at separate locations, whether the relationship is intimate or platonic, and whether the statement is true or false." Although it was unnecessary to the decision, the judge added that, even if X were not to be treated as a family member, he was not independent of the attorney, as required by the prescribed LPA form. [OPG summary - LPA case.] | 2012‑06‑23 13:14:36 | 2012 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on MHLO, LPA cases - formalities, Neutral citation unknown or not applicable, Transcript
|
| Parascineti v Romania 32060/05 [2012] MHLO 59 (ECHR) — The conditions in an overcrowded psychiatric ward with very poor standards of hygiene led to inhuman and degrading treatment in violation of Article 3. | 2012‑06‑23 11:47:20 | 2012 cases, Brief summary, ECHR, Judgment available on MHLO, Miscellaneous cases, Neutral citation unknown or not applicable, Transcript
|
| GP v Derby City Council [2012] EWHC 1451 (Admin), [2012] MHLO 58 — The claimant applied for a writ of habeas corpus, challenging the AMHP's decision not to consult the nearest relative (under s11) before making a s3 application. The AMHP's evidence was that, having tried to telephone the NR on five or six occasions, he dispensed with consultation because nursing staff were anxious about the patient's presentation and needed him on s3 to move him to a psychiatric intensive care unit. (1) The question which arises on an application of this sort is whether the AMHP's decision was plainly wrong, or whether it was within the range of appropriate decisions available. (2) In the circumstances his decision was unlawful, in particular because: (a) the notes showed that the claimant had essentially been stable (and, in the event, had not been transferred to the PICU for over two weeks after the s3 began); and (b) the s3 assessment finished about 4.30pm and the s2 was due to expire at midnight, so to drive about 30 minutes to the NR's house would not have taken a disproportionate amount of time. (3) The judge added that: (a) the position would have been different if admission to the PICU would only be possible if the patient were on s3, and if there had been a spiralling and acute deterioration of condition coupled with evidence of significant risk to nursing staff, and (b) s11 provides constitutional protection for those that are faced with detention under the Mental Health Act and there is a heavy duty on those who carry out these tasks to ensure that those statutory provisions are complied with. | 2012‑06‑21 22:26:23 | 2012 cases, Brief summary, Consulting NR, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, Transcript
|
| EM v SC [2012] EWHC 1518 (COP), [2012] MHLO 56 — "This is an application made by the Official Solicitor on behalf of the Applicant EM, for the discharge of the latest of a series of standard authorisations made on 16 January 2012 pursuant to the Mental Capacity Act 2005. The effect of the standard authorisation is to deprive EM of his liberty and oblige him to live at a nursing home, RH, rather than at the home which he had shared with his wife and son for many years." | 2012‑06‑21 21:25:21 | 2012 cases, Deprivation of liberty, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, No summary, Transcript
|
| Re G [2012] EWCA Civ 431, [2012] MHLO 52 — The local authority issued proceedings under the court's inherent jurisdiction in relation to a 30-year-old with Downs Syndrome history who was in the exclusive care of her mother. This decision relates to an unsuccessful appeal against case management orders. | 2012‑05‑05 22:07:35 | 2012 cases, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, No summary, Other capacity cases, Transcript
|
| R v Parkins [2012] EWCA Crim 856, [2012] MHLO 50 — The sentencing judge had not been wrong to impose a restriction order contrary to the medical recommendations. | 2012‑05‑05 13:44:51 | 2012 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, Restriction order cases, Transcript
|
| Verlander v Rahman [2012] EWHC 1026 (QB), [2012] MHLO 49 — Personal injury quantum judgment including the following issues: (1) whether and to what extent the claimant's disabilities were due to frontal lobe brain damage (and are now incapable of significant improvement) or due depression or psychological factors (which may well improve over time); (2) whether the claimant had capacity to manage her properties and affairs. | 2012‑05‑05 13:28:22 | 2012 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, Other capacity cases, Transcript
|
| LB Haringey v FG (No. 2) [2011] EWHC 3933 (COP) — "There are many issues that have arisen in this case, but now the critical welfare issue is whether or not H should be returned home to live with her mother. This is an outcome sought by the mother, but opposed both by the Local Authority and by the Official Solicitor as litigation friend to H." | 2012‑05‑05 12:50:54 | 2011 cases, Best interests, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, No summary, Transcript
|
| LB Haringey v FG (No. 1) [2011] EWHC 3932 (COP) — "In this case there are a number of matters: does H have capacity to conduct litigation; does she have capacity to decide where she should live, or capacity to decide where she should be educated, or capacity to decide on the extent of the contact and relationship she should have with her natural family; capacity to deal with her financial affairs, or to enter into what has been described as a tenancy agreement, and capacity in a sense to judge her own best interests in those respects?" | 2012‑05‑05 12:50:35 | 2011 cases, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, No summary, Other capacity cases, Transcript
|
| B v B [2010] EWHC 543 (Fam) — "This is an application by the Official Solicitor for an order that Mr B do pay the Official Solicitor’s costs, on an indemnity basis, of acting on behalf of Mr B as his guardian ad litem, until the Official Solicitor was discharged by order of 19th August 2009." | 2012‑05‑05 12:41:58 | 2010 cases, COP costs cases, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, No summary, Transcript
|
| R v Ahmed [2012] EWCA Crim 708, [2012] MHLO 40 — The appellant was found unfit to plead, spent 35 years subject to s37/41, pleaded guilty to diminished responsibility manslaughter, was given an IPP sentence with a 63-month tariff, and was transferred back to hospital under s47/49. (1) The appropriate minimum term was 39 months. (2) The appeal was adjourned to obtain medical evidence and for future consideration of whether a hospital order ought to have been imposed. | 2012‑04‑28 18:22:13 | 2012 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, Sentence appeal cases, Transcript
|
| Re JC; D v JC [2012] MHLO 35 (COP) — JC's daughter D, who had been conceived following a post-marital rape of JC’s ex-wife and adopted by other parents very shortly after her birth, and who had never met or had any contact with JC, sought a statutory will giving her an equal share JC's £3.5m estate alongside his other children (A, B and C). (1) The criterion now for making statutory wills on behalf of adults who lack testamentary capacity is what is in their best interests rather than substituted judgment; however, best interests contains a strong element of substituted judgment. (2) The value of the 'balance sheet' approach is of doubtful effectiveness in statutory will applications, and in this case it was a struggle to identify benefits or disbenefits, but usually there is at least one factor of 'magnetic importance'. (3) In this case, the idea of being remembered with affection for having done the 'right thing' was of no assistance: 'JC has an appalling track record. He has spent his entire lifetime doing precisely "the wrong thing" in his relationships with others, and his malevolence is such that he would rejoice at being remembered by them with disaffection.' (4) A substituted judgment approach would lead to JC dying intestate, but it was in his best interests to make a will in order to appoint independent professional executors who are familiar with the background and can provide continuity in the administration of his estate before and after his death. (5) JC had poor relationships with his other children, but none at all with D: this factor was of 'magnetic importance' so the statutory will would be in favour of A, B and C only. (6) A, B and C would be allowed to decide the devolution of their shares of the estate if any of them predeceased JC, as it was unlikely that they would want their shares to go to each other. (7) The normal rule on costs (that in property and affairs cases the costs be paid by P) was not departed from. | 2012‑04‑28 16:56:13 | 2012 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on MHLO, Neutral citation unknown or not applicable, Statutory will cases, Transcript
|
| R v Levey [2012] EWCA Crim 657, [2012] MHLO 34 — Tariff in life sentence for murder reduced from 24 years to 22 years, partly because the sentencing judge made insufficient allowance for the borderline personality disorder which played a significant part in the killing. | 2012‑04‑28 15:47:35 | 2012 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, Sentence appeal cases, Transcript
|
| R (W) v Dr Larkin [2012] EWHC 556 (Admin), [2012] MHLO 23 — A warrant for the claimant's transfer to prison was issued on the RC's advice in the context of Broadmoor's DSPD unit being about to close on 29/3/12. (1) It is not unlawful for an RC to tick both the 'no longer requires treatment in hospital for mental disorder' and the 'no effective treatment for his disorder can be given in the hospital to which he has been removed' boxes on the s50 proforma. (2) There was no evidence that the views expressed on the form were not those of the RC or that he had subordinated his clinical judgment to expediency or national strategies. (3) No relief would have been granted even had there been unlawfulness: the claimant had to leave Broadmoor, no MSU would then take him, so he had to return to prison in any event. | 2012‑03‑20 22:07:58 | 2012 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, Miscellaneous cases, Transcript
|
| Re H [2012] MHLO 21 (LPA) — The donor used the 2007 version of the LPA prescribed form and failed to tick the box to confirm that she had read (or had read to her) the prescribed information on pages 2, 3 and 4. On the attorney's application the court was unable to find on balance of probability that the donor had read (or had read to her) the prescribed information. This was a failure of execution and the court had no discretion to uphold it. [OPG summary - LPA case.] | 2012‑03‑19 22:36:29 | 2012 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on MHLO, LPA cases - formalities, Neutral citation unknown or not applicable, No transcript
|
| Re Ian Brady [2012] MHLO 19 (FTT) — (1) Ian Brady's Mental Health Tribunal hearing will be held on 9/7/12 with a time estimate of 8 days; (2) the hearing at Ashworth will be broadcast at the Civil Justice Centre Manchester where the public and media can observe; (3) in relation to the hearing itself, the public will not be allowed to attend, and the position of the media will be the subject of further directions. | 2012‑03‑12 23:08:05 | 2012 cases, Brief summary, First-tier Tribunal decisions, Judgment available on MHLO, MHT public hearing cases, Neutral citation unknown or not applicable, Transcript
|
| R v SCL [2012] EWCA Crim 182, [2012] MHLO 16 — The renewed application for extension of time (the delay being caused by the appellant pondering negative legal advice before deciding to appeal anyway) in which to apply for leave to appeal against restriction order was refused, as there was ample material to justify the restriction order. | 2012‑03‑05 20:47:40 | 2012 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, Restriction order cases, Transcript
|
| R v Chiles [2012] EWCA Crim 196, [2012] MHLO 10 — The judge should not have should not have taken into account her concerns about the future of the NHS (she had said, 'I cannot be confident in the current fluctuating state of the NHS that the security that the public needs to be protected from you will be ensured unless there is an another government department which has input into the issue of your release and that is what I will achieve by the section 41 order') but there was ample material to justify the conclusion that a restriction order was necessary for the protection of the public from serious harm. | 2012‑03‑01 22:27:40 | 2012 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, Restriction order cases, Transcript
|
| R v Stead [2012] EWCA Crim 92, [2012] MHLO 9 — The appellant, who had been sentenced to ten years' detention in a young offender institution together with an indefinite Sexual Offences Prevention Order, successfully argued for the imposition of a hybrid order under MHA 1983 s45A. | 2012‑02‑09 23:55:27 | 2012 cases, Brief summary, Hybrid order cases, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, Transcript
|
| R v Nottingham MHRT, ex p Secretary of State for the Home Department (Thomas) [1988] MHLO 1 — The Tribunal has no power to adjourn to give an opportunity for the patient's condition to improve or to see if an improvement already made is sustained. | 2012‑02‑09 15:01:22 | 1988 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on MHLO, Neutral citation unknown or not applicable, No transcript, Powers
|
| Re M [2011] EWHC 3590 (COP) — Under MCA 2005 s63 and schedule 3, which incorporates the Hague Convention on the International Protection of Adults 2000 into domestic law, the High Court recognised and gave effect to an order of the Southern Irish High Court which required M's transfer to and treatment at an English psychiatric hospital. | 2012‑02‑04 17:51:15 | 2011 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, Other capacity cases, Transcript
|
| Re VW; NK v VW (2010) COP 27/10/10 11744555 — NK sought (a) to have his mother VW removed from a care home (where she was detained under a DOLS authorisation) and placed in one more local to him, and consequently (b) to have more frequent contact than permitted by the current DOLS authorisation and (c) to be appointed welfare and financial deputy. He was refused permission to make his applications, because of medical evidence that to move VW would be detrimental to her welfare. | 2012‑01‑02 10:35:54 | 2010 cases, Best interests, Brief summary, Judgment available on MHLO, Neutral citation unknown or not applicable, Transcript
|
| Cardiff Council v Peggy Ross (2011) COP 28/10/11 12063905 — Cardiff Council used the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards to prevent an elderly couple going on holiday cruise; the court decided that it was in the respondent's best interests to go on the cruise, and gave permission for ITV Wales to report that decision and broadcast interviews; later the court decided that the respondent herself had capacity to decide whether or not to go. | 2011‑12‑10 14:34:17 | 2011 cases, Best interests, Brief summary, Judgment available on MHLO, Neutral citation unknown or not applicable, Transcript
|
| Re S (Adult Patient) (Inherent Jurisdiction: Family Life); Sheffield City Council v S [2002] EWHC 2278 (Fam) — Dispute between a local authority and S‘s father, DS, as to where S should live: prior to the events which precipitated the proceedings, S had always lived at home with DS. | 2011‑12‑10 13:00:54 | 2002 cases, Best interests, Judgment available on Bailii, Judgment available on MHLO, No summary, Transcript
|
| * Reasons for publishing reasons after public hearing Re Albert Haines [2011] MHLO 170 (FTT) — These are the First-tier Tribunal's reasons for directing that the reasons for its decision not to discharge Albert Haines should be published. | 2011‑12‑10 11:04:33 | 2011 cases, Cases, First-tier Tribunal decisions, Judgment available on MHLO, MHT public hearing cases, Neutral citation unknown or not applicable, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Transcript, 2011 cases
|
| * Decision after public hearing Re Albert Haines [2011] MHLO 169 (FTT) — These are the First-tier Tribunal's reasons for not discharging Albert Haines from liability to be detained. | 2011‑12‑10 11:01:50 | 2011 cases, Cases, First-tier Tribunal decisions, Judgment available on MHLO, MHT public hearing cases, Neutral citation unknown or not applicable, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Transcript, 2011 cases
|
| Re Ian Brady (2011) First-tier Tribunal 7/12/11 — In a decision given on 17th October 2011, the application by Mr Ian Brady for a hearing in public that his application dated 4th August 2010 should be held in public was granted. The date of the hearing and appropriate arrangements are presently being determined and will be published as soon as possible. The fact of this decision should be published. The Tribunal also ordered that the reasons for the decision must not be made public. [Judge's summary.] | 2011‑12‑10 10:47:51 | 2011 cases, Brief summary, First-tier Tribunal decisions, Judgment available on MHLO, MHT public hearing cases, Neutral citation unknown or not applicable, Transcript
|
| R (Baisden) v Leicester City Council [2011] EWHC 3219 (Admin) — Section 117 and accommodation. | 2011‑12‑08 21:20:37 | 2011 cases, After-care, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, No summary, Transcript
|
| R v Shah [2011] EWCA Crim 2333 — Following a special verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity, a restricted hospital order was imposed; an appeal, relying on post-sentence medical evidence, was made against the restriction order. (1) In exceptional cases the court can consider good progress after sentencing, but in this case the task was to decide whether, on the material before him on the date of sentence, the judge's sentence was wrong in principle or manifestly excessive: it was not. (2) The sentence provides a mechanism for release by a Tribunal from the restriction order and the full rigour therefore of the hospital order [this is incorrect], so the appeal court should not taken over the function of that body. | 2011‑11‑21 23:00:06 | 2011 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, Restriction order cases, Transcript
|
| R v Goucher [2011] EWCA Crim 2473 — On appeal, the restriction order was quashed: the judge had applied the correct test (whether it was necessary to protect the public from serious harm) but, as confirmed by a psychiatric report prepared for the appeal, he had got the answer wrong. [Summary based on All ER (D) report.] | 2011‑11‑21 20:08:44 | 2011 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, Restriction order cases, Transcript
|
| R v Heaney [2011] EWCA Crim 2682 — The appellant had been convicted of two offences under MCA 2005 s44 and sentenced to consecutive 3- and 6-month sentences of imprisonment; on appeal, these were ordered to be served concurrently. The court took into account that 'neither of the victims in fact sustained any distress or injury and they were very short incidents', that the consequences for the appellant had been grave because she had lost her career, that she was a middle-aged woman with two young daughters, and that she was of previous good character. | 2011‑11‑21 18:27:21 | 2011 cases, Brief summary, Criminal law capacity cases, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, Other capacity cases, Transcript
|
| R v Lavender [2011] EWCA Crim 2420 — (1) On the material before the sentencing judge, there was nothing wrong in principle with an extended sentence. (2) However, given the recent psychiatric evidence, it was now arguable that the option of a hospital order with or without a restriction order needed to be considered, so leave to appeal was given and a representation order was granted. | 2011‑11‑14 21:15:03 | 2011 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, Sentence appeal cases, Transcript
|
| R (Smith) v LB Camden [2011] EWCA Civ 1207 — Unsuccessful application for permission for second appeal against strike-out of claim for want of compliance with s139. (The claim was for damages of £100 billion for wrongful removal from his flat and for being forced to live in various mental health institutions where he claimed to have been assaulted many times.) | 2011‑11‑14 21:06:37 | 2011 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, Transcript, Unimportant cases
|
| R v Clark [2011] EWCA Crim 2516 — The defendant appealed against a sentence of 56 months' imprisonment for GBH (financial worries had led him to decide to kill his wife and himself). The sentencing guidelines could never have been intended to apply to such an exceptional case; the sentence was replaced with a community rehabilitation order with a mental health treatment requirement. | 2011‑11‑14 20:55:09 | 2011 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, Sentence appeal cases, Transcript
|
| Re Clarke (2011) COP 19/9/11 — The donor made an LPA for property and financial affairs, appointing her husband and daughter as attorneys and her other two daughters as replacement attorneys. She also made an LPA for health and welfare, appointing her husband and three daughters as attorneys. When an application was made to register the instruments, the husband objected on the ground that the instruments had not been properly witnessed. He alleged that the witness had not been in the house when the donor signed, but had added his signature later. The court preferred the evidence of the witness and one daughter, to the effect that the donor had signed at the dining room table and that the witness was in an adjacent room and could see her sign through glass doors separating the two rooms. Applying the old case Casson v Dade (1781), the court held that the instruments had been properly witnessed. (The husband also objected on the ground that the donor lacked capacity to make an LPA, but this was also dismissed. The donor's GP had acted as certificate provider and the court commented on the difficulties facing GPs who act as certificate providers within the time constraints of an appointment at the surgery). [OPG summary - LPA case.] | 2011‑11‑14 19:29:17 | 2011 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on MHLO, LPA cases - formalities, Neutral citation unknown or not applicable, Transcript
|
| Re HM: SM v HM [2011] EWHC B30 (COP) — 'The issue is whether it is ever, and if so in what circumstances, appropriate for the Court (ie the Court of Protection) to authorise the creation of a trust – in particular a personal injury trust - of P’s assets as the means of administering those assets for him, rather than appointing a deputy for him under s 16 of the 2005 Act.' | 2011‑11‑09 22:04:16 | 2011 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Judgment available on MHLO, No summary, Other capacity cases, Transcript
|
| Re GM; FP v GM and A Health Board [2011] EWHC 2778 (COP) — This was an application for a DOLS standard authorisation to be discharged, thus permitting GM, on discharge from hospital, to return to his home rather than be sent to an EMI home. (1) For there to be an order preventing GM from returning home (in practice, permanently) it would have to be 'so contrary to his interests to return that the court must not even contemplate seriously a placement' at home. (2) Factors in favour of a return home included: the 'emotional dimension'; GM's short life expectancy, and the fact that a move to EMI accommodation would be permanent; and Article 8 considerations. (3) Factors against were: the probability of a lesser quality of physical care at home; the risk of risk of breakdown and conflict; and the risk of deterioration, for instance in sleep pattern. (4) The DOLS authorisation was discharged. (5) As GM was ready for discharge from hospital, and the decision would have permanent effect, Hedley J decided the issue in one day in January instead of waiting for a five-day hearing in May (before a DJ) or October (before a High Court judge). He commented that 'it seems to me that it is absolutely essential that the Court of Protection establishes a practice that these interim cases must be dealt with quickly, and, having regard to the demands on the system generally, proportionately, that is to say almost certainly without detailed oral evidence.' | 2011‑10‑26 23:07:59 | 2011 cases, Best interests, Brief summary, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, Transcript
|
| Re S; D v R (the deputy of S) [2010] EWHC 3748 (COP) — Costs judgment in Court of Protection: (1) up to the December 2009 hearing, because the proceedings had been necessary, the normal rule that costs were to be paid by S's estate was to apply, but (2) from that point onwards, because of her conduct of proceedings, Mrs D was to bear her own costs, plus 75% of the Deputy's costs on the standard (not indemnity) basis. | 2011‑10‑16 22:10:15 | 2010 cases, Brief summary, COP costs cases, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, Transcript
|
| R v Abdi [2011] EWCA Crim 2179 — Unsuccessful appeal against s41 restriction order. | 2011‑10‑13 22:43:27 | 2011 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, Restriction order cases, Transcript
|
| Selwood v Durham CC (2011) Newcastle-upon-Tyne county court 25/2/11 — The claimant social worker was not informed of a patient's threats to kill her and was subsequently stabbed by him; she sued the local authority and relevant NHS Trusts in negligence or breach of statutory duty and alternatively alleged a breach of Article 2. The Trusts' application for strike out was successful. [Caution.] | 2011‑08‑22 22:40:53 | 2011 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on MHLO, Miscellaneous cases, Neutral citation unknown or not applicable, Transcript
|
| Magritz v Public Prosecutors Office Bremen [2011] EWHC 1861 (Admin) — In relation to the claimant's extradition, where the sentence was for him to be 'placed in a psychiatric hospital for an indefinite period of time': (1) section 25 of the Extradition Act 2003 (the purpose of which is to protect a requested person whose physical or mental health is so poor that the act of extradition would be oppressive or unjust) was not engaged; and (2) there would be no breach of Article 3, Article 5 or Article 8. | 2011‑08‑22 22:04:18 | 2011 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, Repatriation cases, Transcript
|
| Ross v SSWP (2011) UKFTT 8/8/11 (SEC) — Unsuccessful application by BBC journalist to record and broadcast proceedings of First-tier Tribunal (Social Entitlement Chamber). | 2011‑08‑16 21:51:57 | 2011 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on MHLO, Miscellaneous cases, Neutral citation unknown or not applicable, Transcript
|
| R v Louka [2010] EWCA Crim 2015 — Appeal against sentence. | 2011‑08‑09 20:06:02 | 2010 cases, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, No summary, Sentence appeal cases, Transcript
|
| R (Francis) v West Midlands Probation Board [2010] EWCA Civ 955 — Permission to appeal in relation to two issues granted: (1) 'The first concerns the relationship between the Parole Board, the Probation Service acting through one or more of its regional boards, MAPPA, and the prisoner who is serving a life sentence, when it comes to considering his life after release'; (2) 'The second issue concerns the rights of the appellant and Ms Kemp under Article 8'. | 2011‑08‑09 19:55:49 | 2010 cases, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, No summary, Prison law cases, Transcript
|
| Re DU; A NHS Trust v DU [2009] EWHC 3504 (Fam) — It was in DU’s best interests to be permitted to return to Nigeria subject to the making of practicable arrangements. [Official summary available.] | 2011‑07‑31 21:39:08 | 2009 cases, Best interests, Brief summary, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Transcript
|
| JP v Birmingham and Solihull MH NHS Trust (2010) Upper Tribunal 30/7/10 (HM/535/2010) — Unsuccessful appeal in which it was argued that the Tribunal's reasons for preferring the RC's and responsible authority's evidence to the evidence of independent experts were inadequate. | 2011‑07‑25 22:20:54 | 2010 cases, Judgment available on MHLO, Neutral citation unknown or not applicable, No summary, Transcript, Upper Tribunal decisions
|
| R v Hopkins; R v Priest [2011] EWCA Crim 1513 — Prosecution under MCA 2005 s44. | 2011‑07‑18 22:30:54 | 2011 cases, Criminal law capacity cases, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, No summary, Other capacity cases, Transcript
|
| R v Goucher [2011] EWCA Crim 1456 — The hearing of an application for an extension of time and for permission to appeal against a restricted hospital order was adjourned in order to obtain evidence from the new Responsible Clinician. | 2011‑06‑22 20:01:22 | 2011 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, Restriction order cases, Transcript
|
| B v Croydon Health Authority [1995] Fam 133 — (1) Medical treatment for mental disorder under s63 includes treatment of the symptoms of the disorder (as well as the disorder itself) and includes a range of acts ancillary to the core treatment; (2) on the facts, nasogastric feeding was treatment ancillary to treatment for psychopathic disorder. | 2011‑05‑29 15:05:04 | 1995 cases, Brief summary, Challenges to compulsory treatment, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, Transcript
|
| A Council v X [2011] EWHC B10 (COP) — Direct contact between X, a 94 year old lady who lacked capacity due to advanced dementia, and her daughter Y was no longer in X's best interests. | 2011‑05‑26 21:15:23 | 2011 cases, Best interests, Brief summary, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii
|
| Re Putt (2011) COP 22/3/11 — (1) Two LLP partners were appointed attorneys; the certificate provider, as an associate at the same firm, was ineligible to act; (2) A direction that 'My attorneys (or any of them) may delegate in writing any of his, her or their functions to any person and shall not be responsible for the default of that person (even if the delegation was not strictly necessary or expedient) provided that he, she or they took reasonable care in his, her or their selection and supervision' was 'not simply contrary but almost repugnant to the special relationship of personal obligation and faith that one might reasonably expect to exist between a donor and the attorney of an LPA'. | 2011‑05‑26 20:07:42 | 2011 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on MHLO, LPA cases - formalities, LPA cases - substitute attorneys, Neutral citation unknown or not applicable, Transcript
|
| R (WG) v Local Authority A [2010] EWHC 2608 (Admin) — Judicial review of failure to assess under s47 NHSCCA 1990. Claim stayed for three months, during which the local authority was to carry out the assessment and the claimant was to provide her identity to the court. | 2011‑04‑30 21:35:23 | 2010 cases, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, No summary, No transcript, Unimportant cases
|
| R (Monday) v SSHD [2010] EWHC 3079 (Admin) — There was no prospect (for psychiatric reasons) of deportation of the claimant within a reasonable period, so ongoing detention would be unlawful. | 2011‑04‑30 20:03:48 | 2010 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, Repatriation cases, Transcript
|
| R v Chowdhury [2011] EWCA Crim 936 — The judge imposed a restriction order (contrary to the medical recommendations) because of the serious nature of the offence and his concerns about previous non-compliance. The Court of Appeal were willing to quash the restriction order if the appellant made the following undertakings: to surrender his Bangladeshi passport; not to apply for another Bangladeshi passport; to surrender his UK passport; not to apply for another UK passport; not to apply for any other travel documents; and to give irrevocable instructions that such documents are not to be returned to him without the written consent of his treating psychiatrist. | 2011‑04‑30 17:31:33 | 2011 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, Restriction order cases, Transcript
|
| Re CM; LBB v JM (2010) COP 5/2/10 — "The local authority took the view that since the intervention of the court would engage a potential breach of the Article 8 rights of the parties, that it may be incumbent upon them to establish on a factual basis why it was that the court's jurisdiction should be exercised. Broadly speaking, I would endorse that approach and recognise that where an Article 8.2 justification is required then the case should not be dealt with purely as a welfare case if there are significant factual issues between the parties which might bear on the outcome of the consideration under Article 8.2 as to whether state intervention was justified." | 2011‑04‑30 15:37:31 | 2010 cases, Detailed summary, Judgment available on MHLO, Neutral citation unknown or not applicable, No transcript, Other capacity cases
|
| * CTO reference hearings PS v Camden and Islington NHS Foundation Trust [2011] UKUT 143 (AAC) — The Tribunal's policy was that a reference made under s68(7) (triggered by the revocation of a CTO) would be treated as having lapsed if the patient subsequently was placed on a new CTO (see Guidance: References made under section 68(7) Mental Health Act 1983 (updated 22/9/10)). When the patient's representative argued that the case should be heard, the Tribunal treated that letter as the patient's own application. (1) The policy was unlawful: (a) whether the reference has lapsed depends on the nature of the reference, which is a matter of statutory interpretation, so neither the overriding objective nor the policy is relevant; (b) the subject matter of a reference under s68(7) (the duty to consider the s72 criteria) is not related to the circumstances that trigger it (the revocation of the CTO) so survives the change in circumstances; (c) the policy was inconsistent with s68(3)(c) (no six-month reference if revocation reference has been made) which would not be necessary if the revocation reference lapses. (2) The power to treat a letter as a Tribunal application is only appropriately exercised for the applicant's advantage, not potential detriment; it is not permissible to override an unequivocal indication by the solicitor to the opposite effect, especially if to do so would deprive the patient of the chance to make an application later should discharge not be obtained on the reference. (3) If the hospital managers had been represented, the judge would have wanted to know why it took 12 days to complete the simple referral form. (4) The Tribunal Procedure Committee will be consulting on rule changes to make it easier to handle CTO revocation cases in which the patient does not 'co-operate': in the meantime, the judge suggested that proceedings could be stayed, or hearings conducted in patients' absence. | 2011‑04‑16 13:06:11 | 2011 cases, Cases, Change of status cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Judgment available on MHLO, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Transcript, Upper Tribunal decisions, Judgment available on Bailii, 2011 cases
|
| R (G) v South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust [2011] EWHC 747 (Admin) — The claimant sought judicial review of the NHS Trust and the Met police in relation to a proposed visit to his home. (1) A civil restraint order had been made after the JR application was made: so he did not need leave of the High Court to have the claim considered on the papers; however, he did need leave for this renewed application for permission. (2) On the merits, permission would have been refused because (a) it is not the function of the court to review operational decisions such as this, and (b) the claimant had not been detained so the points regarding the MHA were academic. (3) In any event, the civil restraint order was thoroughly appropriate and would not be discharged. | 2011‑04‑10 19:41:25 | 2011 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, Transcript, Unimportant cases
|
| R v PA [2010] EWCA Crim 3121 — The appellant appealed against a sentence of 18 months' imprisonment as being excessive; then, following her transfer to hospital she instead sought a community order with a mental health requirement. Her mental condition, and lack of insight, led to the conclusion that a hospital order was required to ensure that she continued to receive treatment. | 2011‑04‑09 17:31:05 | 2011 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, Transcript
|
| R v O [2011] EWCA Crim 376 — Life sentence quashed and s37/41 restricted hospital order substituted. The life sentence had been passed in the context of confusion about bed availability, and the lack of a second s37 recommendation. There was utility in making the Appellant a patient rather than a prisoner because: (1) it was manifestly the right order to make on all the evidence; (2) there were advantages in terms of treatment; (3) it had advantages to the Appellant in terms of benefits; (4) it would best ensure the protection of the public. | 2011‑04‑09 16:54:58 | 2011 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, Life sentence cases, Transcript
|
| V v R [2011] EWHC 822 (QB) — Litigation capacity. The experts agreed that, as a result of her impulsive nature, V lacked capacity to manage her financial affairs; however, they disagreed on whether she had litigation capacity. The critical future decisions would be in connection with settlement offers (including the global value of the claim, provisional damages and periodical payments) albeit in the conext of the common understanding that she would not have unfettered access to the money. V would have difficulties in weighing the evidence and making decisions, but they could be ameliorated, if not entirely overcome, by the careful and structured support that the statute contemplates: the decisions would be made in the presence of her mother and lawyers; there was no suggestion that V would be left to make decisions on her own. On balance she did not lack capacity to ligitate. | 2011‑04‑09 15:14:40 | 2011 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, Other capacity cases, Transcript
|
| R (Woods) v Rochdale MBC [2009] EWHC 323 (Admin) — Unsuccessful JR of alleged failure to comply with obligations under the NHS and Community Care Act 1990 to assess the claimant's needs and to provide the resources to meet those needs. | 2011‑03‑30 22:01:47 | 2009 cases, Community care, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, No summary, Transcript
|
| Re Hunt (2008) (Preston county court, 12/6/08) — Mr Hunt suffered from Huntington's disease and had shut himself off from the world, in his home; he had ignored demands for payment of council tax; the court (not knowing his condition) made a bankruptcy order, then an order that he be arrested and brought before the court for failure to attend for public examination. (1) Under rules 7.43-7.44 Insolvency Rules 1986 (since amended to reflect the MCA) an 'incapacitated person' was one who is incapable of managing and administering his property and affairs either (a) by reason of mental disorder within the meaning of the Mental Health Act 1983, or (b) due to physical affliction or disability; the court may appoint a representative for such a person. (2) A bankruptcy order may be annulled if the order 'ought not to have been made' at the time. (3) The onus cannot lie on the debtor to establish lack of capacity because lack of capacity would itself render the debtor unable to do so: courts should investigate capacity where there is reason to suspect it may be absent. (4) On the facts, Mr Hunt was incapable of engaging in the proceedings by reason not only of mental disorder but also physical affliction or disability. (5) If there had been a representative the outcome could have been different, and one was required. (6) There is no point in an annulment if there is no prospect of a bankruptcy order being refused on a re-hearing; however, in this case the outcome could have been different, particularly given the potential DDA and HRA issues, and the order was annulled. | 2011‑03‑29 23:45:57 | 2008 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on MHLO, Neutral citation unknown or not applicable, Other capacity cases, Transcript
|
| Re P; A Local Authority v PB [2011] EWHC 502 (COP) — (1) The judge's view was that in exercising a welfare or best interests jurisdiction (whether under the Children Act, under the inherent jurisdiction, or under the MCA) the court is choosing between available options; a point then arises whether the COP can add to the available options (by application of public law and HRA tests in the private law proceedings) or whether judicial review is necessary; these jurisdictional issues should be addressed well before a case comes on for final hearing, so that the relevant authority does not refuse to provide the services after the court has decided that they are in P's best interests; in this case there may be a further hearing to decide the issue. (2) At an appropriate stage in most COP welfare cases, a direction along the following lines should be given (paraphrased) - Each party shall serve a document on the other setting out (a) the facts he asks the court to find, the disputed facts he asserts the court need not determine, and the findings that he invites the court to find by reference to the former facts; (b) the investigations he has made of alternative care and thence the alternatives he asserts should be considered (and by whom the relevant services should be provided); (c) by reference to (a) and (b), the factors he asserts the court should take into account; (d) the relief sought and why he asserts the factors support the granting of that relief; (e) the relevant issues of law. (3) Procedural/substantive fairness did not require overnight contact at the mother's home before the final hearing, and this would not be in P's best interests | 2011‑03‑29 21:24:38 | 2011 cases, Best interests, Brief summary, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, Transcript
|
| Re CW; A Primary Care Trust v CW [2010] EWHC 3448 (COP) — (1) Medical treatment is of no benefit to a person in a persistent vegetative state because he is not sentient and has no prospect of recovery; whether the withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment measures is in P's best interests depends on whether the diagnosis of PVS is correct; if it is correct then the provision of any treatment is futile and cannot be in his best interests. (2) CW was in a persistent vegetative state with no prospect of recovery; it was in his best interests for artificial nutrition and hydration to be withheld, which could be done lawfully; it was in his best interests to receive treatment and nursing care to ensure that he retains the greatest dignity possible until death. | 2011‑03‑02 17:44:09 | 2011 cases, Best interests, Brief summary, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, Transcript
|
| NMC Conduct and Competence Committee decision: Josiah Foeka Amara 18/2/11 — Nurse was struck off for misconduct. The following charges were proved: 'That you, on or around 19 December 2005, whilst working as a Staff Nurse on Vincent Ward at the Gordon Hospital, Bloomberg Street, London SW1V 2RH: (1) Purchased crack cocaine in the company of Patient A, a patient on the ward; (2) Took crack cocaine with Patient A; (3) Had sexual intercourse with an unknown female when Patient A was also present in your flat; AND in light of the above, your fitness to practise is impaired by reason of your misconduct.' | 2011‑02‑24 21:33:09 | 2011 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on MHLO, Miscellaneous cases, Transcript
|
| Haworth v Cartmel and HMRC [2011] EWHC 36 (Ch) — Disability Discrimination Act, and lack of capacity, used to annul bankruptcy order. | 2011‑02‑24 20:51:39 | 2011 cases, Detailed summary, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, Other capacity cases, Transcript
|
| Massie v H [2011] EWCA Civ 115 — The general rule is that an appeal shall lie from a decision of a county court to the High Court. One exception is for final decisions in Part 7 CPR multi-track cases, which go to the Court of Appeal. (1) This exception does not apply in nearest relative displacement cases under s29 MHA as the application is made under Part 8 CPR; no other exception applied. (2) The court declared that it lacked jurisdiction and that a previous consent order was therefore a nullity. (3) Because of the passage of time and costs involved, rather than abandon the matter or simply transfer it to the High Court, the case was transferred to the High Court for one of the Court of Appeal judges to consider it as a High Court judge there and then. | 2011‑02‑17 23:12:22 | 2011 cases, Brief summary, Displacement, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, Transcript
|
| Re KM; NCC v KM (2009) COP 1145479102 — Consideration of the legal aid position in relation to deprivation of liberty reviews following final hearing. | 2011‑01‑24 21:23:37 | 2009 cases, Brief summary, Deprivation of liberty, Judgment available on MHLO, Neutral citation unknown or not applicable, Transcript
|
| Re JP; DP v JCP (2010) COP 11692737 — DP's application to be appointed financial deputy for her father JP was opposed by her siblings, who also disputed DP's claim to the ownership of their mother's ashes. Guidance was given as to the ownership of the ashes. DP was capable of acting as deputy but did not have the necessary independence so a panel deputy was appointed. [Summary based on Eld LJ case report.] | 2011‑01‑23 18:47:10 | 2010 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on MHLO, Neutral citation unknown or not applicable, Other capacity cases, Transcript
|
| * Revocation of LPA Re J [2010] MHLO 167 (COP) — Under MCA 2005 s22(3) ('Powers of court in relation to validity of lasting powers of attorney') the court can consider any past behaviour or apparent prospective behaviour by the attorney (not just behaviour as P's attorney); depending on the circumstances and gravity of any offending behaviour found, it can then take whatever steps it regards as appropriate in P’s best interests (this only arising if P lacks capacity) whether by revoking the power or by taking some other course. | 2011‑01‑22 23:30:24 | 2010 cases, Cases, Judgment available on MHLO, LPA cases - revocation, Neutral citation unknown or not applicable, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Transcript, 2010 cases
|
| GSCC conduct committee decision: Philip Julian Davies 10/12/10 — Social worker suspended for misconduct for 12 months. Two of the proven allegations were: '(4) Without authority, on or around 18th July 2008, you requested service user Mrs Z to sign financial papers after she had been diagnosed by a consultant psychiatrist as having a lack of mental capacity. (5) Between 20th May 2008 and 30th October 2009, you failed to ensure that an application for a Court of Protection order in respect of a service user Mr Z, was made expeditiously, or at all.' | 2011‑01‑22 19:38:34 | 2010 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on MHLO, Miscellaneous cases, Transcript
|
| Re HM; PM v KH [2010] EWHC 3279 (Fam) — PM sentenced to 4 months' imprisonment for contempt of court. | 2011‑01‑06 20:07:06 | 2010 cases, Best interests, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, No summary, Transcript
|
| Re RK; YB v BCC [2010] EWHC 3355 (COP) — (1) Given the terms of s20(8) Children Act 1989 (that any person with parental responsibility may at any time remove the child) the provision of accommodation to a child under s20(1), (3), (4) or (5) will not ever give rise to a deprivation of liberty within the terms of Article 5. If the child is being accommodated under the auspices of a care order, interim or full, or if the child has been placed in secure accommodation under s25, then the position might be different. (2) In any event: (a) the objective element of deprivation of liberty was not remotely close to being met on the facts; (b) the subjective element was not met, as the parents had consented on RK's behalf; (c) RK's placement was at the behest of her parents and could not be imputed to the state. [Detailed summary to follow.] | 2011‑01‑04 23:38:25 | 2010 cases, Brief summary, Deprivation of liberty, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, Transcript
|
| Re KS (2010) COP 99162476 — Costs under the Court of Protection Rules. | 2010‑12‑20 23:17:05 | 2010 cases, Judgment available on MHLO, Neutral citation unknown or not applicable, No summary, Other capacity cases, Transcript
|
| R (Khela) v Brandon MH Unit [2010] EWHC 3313 (Admin) — This renewed application for permission to judicially review a Tribunal decision and to quash the RC's previous diagnosis was dismissed and the claim found to be totally without merit. | 2010‑12‑19 21:51:16 | 2010 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, Transcript, Unimportant cases
|
| Re ADE (Scope of Schedule A1) (2010) COP 11821802 — Given that a standard authorisation extends to restraining a person from leaving the accommodation, it must also extend to compelling him to return: "Do the powers under the existing standard authorisation extend to coercing ADE back to the nursing home if ADE refuses to return? It would be little short of absurd if the local authority and AHNH had powers to restrain him from leaving but not to compel him to return: the greater power must include the lesser. I will therefore declare that this power is implicit in the current and any future standard authorisation." | 2010‑12‑17 00:30:50 | 2010 cases, Brief summary, Deprivation of liberty, Judgment available on MHLO, Neutral citation unknown or not applicable, Transcript
|
| Re MM; City of Sunderland v MM [2011] 1 FLR 712 — P's partner's Article 8 rights were breached by the denial of contact between them. | 2010‑12‑16 23:14:25 | 2010 cases, Judgment available on MHLO, Neutral citation unknown or not applicable, No summary, Other capacity cases, Transcript
|
| Re Collis (2010) COP 27/10/10 — An application was made to the court to direct the Public Guardian to cancel the registration of an LPA on the grounds that the instrument was not a valid LPA because the Donor lacked capacity to create an LPA at the date of execution. In the course of his judgment the Senior Judge set out the law relating to capacity to create an LPA. [OPG summary - LPA case.] | 2010‑11‑06 12:31:19 | 2010 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on MHLO, LPA cases - capacity to make an LPA, Neutral citation unknown or not applicable, Transcript
|
| Re HP (Remuneration of a Financial Guardian under Section 68 of the Adults with Incapacity (Scotland) Act 2000) [2010] ScotSC 21/7/10 — This appeal concerns a decision of the Public Guardian regarding the question of the remuneration payable to a financial guardian in respect of the work undertaken by him in connection with the applications he submitted for renewal of the guardianship. Following an application to the Public Guardian for remuneration in connection with the renewal process, it was decided that additional remuneration was appropriate, but the proposed payment was at a level the guardian did not regard as adequate. The court held that this case was an exceptional circumstance in which the Public Guardian should authorise payment on a time and trouble basis. | 2010‑10‑30 14:57:29 | 2010 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on MHLO, Neutral citation unknown or not applicable, Scottish cases, Transcript
|
| Re LC [2005] ScotSC 19/5/05 — A sheriff may dispense with intimation, or notification, of an application for Guardianship where such intimation "would be likely to pose a serious risk to the health of the adult". It was held that it was insufficient for the medical practitioners to simply repeat the words which appear in the statute and that concise and articulate reasons should be given in order that the court has proper information on which to form a view. | 2010‑10‑30 14:42:39 | 2005 cases, Judgment available on MHLO, No summary, Scottish cases, Transcript
|
Article titles
The following 200 pages are in this category.
(previous page) (next page)A
- A Council v X (2011) EWHC B10 (COP)
- A Local Authority v HS (2013) EWHC 2410 (COP), (2013) MHLO 58
- A PCT v LDV (2013) EWHC 272 (Fam)
- A v A Health Authority (2002) EWHC 18 (Fam)
- A, B and C v X, Y and Z (2012) EWHC 2400 (COP), (2012) MHLO 112
- AB v LM (2013) EWHC 1234 (COP), (2013) MHLO 139
- AB v MHTS (2008) GWD 36-543
- AC v Cornwall Partnership NHS Foundation Trust (2023) MHLO 1 (UT)
- AC v Southern Health NHS Foundation Trust (2024) UKUT 297 (AAC)
- AD'A v Cornwall Partnership NHS Foundation Trust (2020) UKUT 110 (AAC)
- AG's reference (no 60 of 2012) sub nom R v Edwards (2012) EWCA Crim 2746, (2012) MHLO 135
- AM v Greater Manchester Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust (2024) UKUT 438 (AAC)
- AM v SLAM NHS Foundation Trust (2013) UKUT 365 (AAC)
- AM v West London MH NHS Trust (2013) EWCA Civ 1010, (2013) MHLO 73
- AMA v Greater Manchester West MH NHSFT (2015) UKUT 36 (AAC)
- An NHS Foundation Trust v D (2010) EWHC 2535 (COP)
- AR v West London NHS Trust (2020) UKUT 273 (AAC)
B
- B v B (2010) EWHC 543 (Fam)
- B v Croydon Health Authority (1995) Fam 133
- Bath and North East Somerset Council (06/B/16774) (2007) MHLO 1 (LGO)
- Bath and North East Somerset Council v AJC (1999) MHLR 184
- BB v AM (2010) EWHC 1916 (Fam)
- Bialek v Circuit Court in Warsaw Poland (2013) EWHC 930 (Admin), (2013) MHLO 39
- Bostridge v Oxleas NHS Foundation Trust (2014) EWCA Civ 1005, (2014) MHLO 85
- Bostridge v Oxleas NHS Foundation Trust (2014) MHLO 42 (CC)
- Buck v Norfolk and Waveney MH NHS Foundation Trust (2012) MHLO 123 (CC)
- Buckinghamshire Council (24 003 060) (2024) MHLO 6 (LGSCO)
C
- Cambridgeshire County Council (13 016 935) (2015) MHLO 9 (LGO)
- Cardiff Council v Peggy Ross (2011) COP 28/10/11 12063905
- Case HM/0339/2015 (2015) MHLO 57 (UT)
- City of Westminster v FS (2009) COP 11685959
- Court Martial in the case of Sergeant Nightingale (2012) MHLO 116
- CQC v Hillgreen Care Ltd (2018) MHLO 50
- CS v Elysium Healthcare (2021) UKUT 186 (AAC)
- Cuthbertson v Rasouli (2013) SCC 53, (2013) MHLO 109
- CYC v PC and NC (2012) MHLO 103 (COP)
D
- DA v Kent and Medway NHS and Social Care Partnership Trust (2019) UKUT 348 (AAC)
- DCC v KH (2009) COP 11729380
- DD v Sussex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust (2022) UKUT 166 (AAC)
- Devon County Council (24 005 923) (2025) MHLO 5 (LGSCO)
- Di Mascio v MHTS (2008) GWD 37-559
- Djaba v West London Mental Health NHS Trust (2018) MHLO 76 (SC)
- DO v LBH (2012) EWHC 4044 (Admin), (2012) MHLO 165
- Dorset CC v EH (2009) EWHC 784 (Fam)
- Dr A Malik v Cygnet Behavioural Health Ltd (reconsideration) (2021) MHLO 7 (ET)
E
G
- G v DPP (2012) EWHC 3174 (Admin), (2012) MHLO 140
- Gale v Gale (2010) EWHC 1575 (Ch)
- GJ v The Foundation Trust (2009) EWHC 2972 (Fam)
- GL v Elysium Healthcare (2020) UKUT 308 (AAC)
- GP v Derby City Council (2012) EWHC 1451 (Admin), (2012) MHLO 58
- Grant v MHRT (1986) The Times 28/4/86
- GSCC conduct committee decision: Philip Julian Davies 10/12/10
- Guidance: Judicial visits to 'P' (2022) EWCOP 5
H
J
K
- K v Hospital Managers of the Kingswood Centre (2014) EWHC 2271 (Admin), (2014) MHLO 101
- K v N Council (2022) MHLO 1 (COP)
- KC v City of Westminster Social and Community Services Department (2007) EWHC 3096 (Fam)
- KD v A Borough Council (2015) UKUT 251 (AAC), (2015) MHLO 42
- Kent County Council (10 012 742) (2012) MHLO 102A (LGO)
- Kent County Council (11 001 504) (2012) MHLO 101 (LGO)
- Kirklees MBC (11 004 229) (2013) MHLO 122 (LGO)
- Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council (24 013 803) (2024) MHLO 7 (LGSCO)
L
- Lacki v Poland (2012) EWHC 1747 (Admin), (2012) MHLO 120
- LB Enfield v SA (2010) EWHC 196 (Admin)
- LB Haringey v FG (No. 1) (2011) EWHC 3932 (COP)
- LB Haringey v FG (No. 2) (2011) EWHC 3933 (COP)
- LB Hillingdon v PS (2015) MHLO 3 (COP)
- LB Richmond v W (2001) QB 370
- LB v BMH (2017) MHLO 10 (UT)
- LB Waltham Forest v WD (2010) MHLO 195
- LBX v K, L and M (2011) EWHC 2419 (Fam)
- LBX v K, L and M (2012) EWHC 439 (Fam)
- LBX v K, L and M (2013) EWHC 3230 (Fam)
- LBX v K, L and M (2013) EWHC 4170 (Fam)
- Leeds City Council (24 001 390) (2024) MHLO 4 (LGSCO)
- Leonard Leonard (2024) EWHC 321 (Ch)
- LM v MHTS (2010) ScotSC 150
- London Borough of Haringey v Emile (2020) MHLO 70 (CC)
- Lord Chancellor v John Blavo (2016) EWHC 126 (QB), (2016) MHLO 6
- Lucia Benyu (SRA decision: control of practice) (2014) MHLO 99 (SRA)
- Lucia Benyu v Solicitors Regulation Authority (2015) EWHC 4085 (Admin), (2015) MHLO 137
M
- M v An NHS Trust (2017) MHLO 39 (UT)
- M v East London NHS Foundation Trust CO/1065/2009
- M v Hospital Managers of Queen Mary's Hospital (2008) EWHC 1959 (Admin)
- Magritz v Public Prosecutors Office Bremen (2011) EWHC 1861 (Admin)
- Manchester City Council v MI (1999) EWCA Civ 1689
- Massie v H (2011) EWCA Civ 115
- MC v Cygnet Behavioural Health Ltd (2020) UKUT 230 (AAC)
- Medway Council (24 010 714) (2025) MHLO 6 (LGSCO)
- ML v Priory Healthcare Limited (2023) UKUT 237 (AAC)
N
P
- P v A Local Authority (2015) EWCOP 89
- Parascineti v Romania 32060/05 (2012) MHLO 59 (ECHR)
- PBU v Mental Health Tribunal (2018) VSC 564
- PC v Cornwall Partnership NHS Foundation Trust (2023) UKUT 64 (AAC)
- Pender v DPP (2013) EWHC 2598 (Admin)
- PJ v A Local Health Board (2015) UKUT 480 (AAC)
- PM v Midlands Partnership NHS Foundation Trust (2020) UKUT 69 (AAC)
- Poole Borough Council (06/B/7542) (2007) MHLO 2 (LGO)
- PS v Camden and Islington NHS Foundation Trust (2011) UKUT 143 (AAC)
R
- R (BA) v LB Hillingdon (2012) EWHC 3050 (Admin), (2012) MHLO 148
- R (Baisden) v Leicester City Council (2011) EWHC 3219 (Admin)
- R (C) v SSHD (2012) EWHC 801 (Admin), (2012) MHLO 118
- R (East London and the City MH NHS Trust) v MHRT, re IH (2005) EWHC 2329 (Admin)
- R (EM) v SSWP (2009) EWHC 454 (Admin)
- R (Evans) v Brockhill Prison (1996) EWHC Admin 234
- R (Francis) v West Midlands Probation Board (2010) EWCA Civ 955
- R (G) v South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust (2011) EWHC 747 (Admin)
- R (Gould) v Devon County Council (2025) EWHC 96 (Admin)
- R (JG) v LSC (2013) EWHC 804 (Admin), (2013) MHLO 76
- R (Khela) v Brandon MH Unit (2010) EWHC 3313 (Admin)
- R (L) v Bournewood Community and Mental Health NHS Trust (1997) EWHC Admin 850
- R (LV) v SSJ (2012) EWHC 3899 (Admin)
- R (LV) v SSJ (2013) EWCA Civ 1086
- R (Monday) v SSHD (2010) EWHC 3079 (Admin)
- R (MT) v Oxford City Council (2015) EWHC 795 (Admin), (2015) MHLO 47
- R (Muaza) v SSHD (2013) EWHC 3764 (Admin), (2013) MHLO 112
- R (O) v SSHD (2012) EWHC 2899 (Admin), (2012) MHLO 149
- R (RW) v SSJ (2012) EWHC 2082 (Admin), (2012) MHLO 87
- R (S) v Broadmoor Special Hospital Authority (1997) EWHC Admin 875
- R (S) v Broadmoor Special Hospital Authority (1998) EWCA Civ 160
- R (S) v Collins (1997) EWCA Civ 2019
- R (S) v Mental Health Tribunal (2012) MHLO 164 (UT)
- R (Smith) v LB Camden (2011) EWCA Civ 1207
- R (Southall) v Dudley PCT (2009) EWHC 1780 (Admin)
- R (Stewart) v Managers of the NW London MH NHS Trust (1997) EWCA Civ 2201
- R (W) v Dr Larkin (2012) EWHC 556 (Admin), (2012) MHLO 23
- R (WG) v Local Authority A (2010) EWHC 2608 (Admin)
- R (Woods) v Rochdale MBC (2009) EWHC 323 (Admin)
- R (Worcestershire County Council v SSHSC (2021) EWHC 682 (Admin)
- R (Z) v Camden and Islington NHS Foundation Trust (2013) EWCA Civ 1425, (2013) MHLO 100
- R (Z) v Whittington Hospital (2013) EWHC 358 (Admin), (2013) MHLO 29
- R v Abdi (2011) EWCA Crim 2179
- R v Ahmed (2012) EWCA Crim 708, (2012) MHLO 40
- R v Anderson (Darren Gabriel) (2013) EWCA Crim 2212, (2013) MHLO 134
- R v Ansell (2023) EWCA Crim 1529
- R v Birch (1990) 90 Cr App R 78
- R v C (2008) EWCA Crim 1155
- R v Caress (2013) EWCA Crim 218, (2013) MHLO 27
- R v Channer (2012) EWCA Crim 1667, (2012) MHLO 157
- R v Chiles (2012) EWCA Crim 196, (2012) MHLO 10
- R v Chowdhury (2011) EWCA Crim 936
- R v Clark (2011) EWCA Crim 2516
- R v Edgington (2013) EWCA Crim 2185, (2013) MHLO 102
- R v Fleming (1993) 14 Cr App R (S) 151
- R v Fletcher (2012) EWCA Crim 1550, (2012) MHLO 86
- R v Fletcher (2012) EWCA Crim 2777, (2012) MHLO 161
- R v Fletcher (2015) EWCA Crim 2007, (2015) MHLO 133
- R v Fry (David George) (2013) EWCA Crim 2337, (2013) MHLO 126
- R v G (A) (2013) EWCA Crim 2256, (2013) MHLO 130
- R v Goucher (2011) EWCA Crim 1456
- R v Goucher (2011) EWCA Crim 2473
- R v Heaney (2011) EWCA Crim 2682
- R v Hopkins; R v Priest (2011) EWCA Crim 1513
- R v Hutchinson (2010) EWCA Crim 1364
- R v Jenkin (2012) EWCA Crim 2557, (2012) MHLO 141
- R v Lavender (2011) EWCA Crim 2420
- R v LB Richmond, ex p Watson (1999) EWHC Admin 749
- R v Levey (2012) EWCA Crim 657, (2012) MHLO 34
- R v Louka (2010) EWCA Crim 2015
- R v Matthews (2010) EWCA Crim 1936
- R v MB (2010) EWCA Crim 1684
- R v Mbatha (1985) 7 Cr App R (S) 373
- R v MHRT, ex p Hall (1999) EWHC Admin 351
- R v Mitchell (1997) 1 Cr App R (S) 90
- R v Nottingham MHRT, ex p Secretary of State for the Home Department (Thomas) (1988) MHLO 1
- R v O (2011) EWCA Crim 376
- R v Oakley (2010) EWCA Crim 2419
- R v Odiowei (2013) EWCA Crim 2253, (2013) MHLO 131
- R v Orr (2016) EWCA Crim 889
- R v Osker (2010) EWCA Crim 955
- R v PA (2010) EWCA Crim 3121
- R v Parkins (2012) EWCA Crim 856, (2012) MHLO 50
- R v Patsalosavvis (2010) EWCA Crim 1383
- R v Paul Martin (1998) EWCA Crim 3166
- R v Petrolini (2012) EWCA Crim 2055, (2012) MHLO 105
- R v Riverside Mental Health Trust, ex p Huzzey (1998) EWHC Admin 465
- R v SCL (2012) EWCA Crim 182, (2012) MHLO 16
- R v Searles (2012) EWCA Crim 1839, (2012) MHLO 155
- R v Searles (2012) EWCA Crim 2685, (2012) MHLO 156
- R v Shah (2011) EWCA Crim 2333
- R v SSHD, ex p Harry (1998) EWHC Admin 420
- R v Stead (2012) EWCA Crim 92, (2012) MHLO 9
- R v Thompson (2018) EWCA Crim 639
- R v Tudor (2012) EWCA Crim 1507, (2012) MHLO 127
- R v Yusuf (Nadia Ali) (2013) EWCA Crim 2077, (2013) MHLO 137
- Re A (Medical Treatment: Male Sterilisation) (2000) 1 FLR 549, (2000) 1 FCR 193
- Re A (same-sex panel) (2020) MHLO 14 (FTT)
- Re ADE (Scope of Schedule A1) (2010) COP 11821802
The following category (in the blue box) can be clicked to view a list of other pages in the same category: