Category:Transcript
The old category structure used on this page is comprehensive as it contains every relevant case. The new database structure was introduced in 2019. It is more potentially useful than the old categorisation system: it includes all cases since January 2017, but only a minority of older cases: see Special:Drilldown/Cases. 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. Asterisks mark those cases which have been added to the new database structure.
| Case and summary | Date added | Categories |
|---|---|---|
| * Complaint about MHA assessment not upheld Medway Council (24 010 714) [2025] MHLO 6 (LGSCO) — LGSCO Summary: "We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the decision to detain her under the Mental Health Act, or about how staff entered her home and transported her to hospital. This is because it would have been reasonable for Miss X to appeal to the mental health tribunal about the decision, and because we are unlikely to add to the responses she has already received from the Council." | 2025‑03‑12 19:45:31 | Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Neutral citation unknown or not applicable, Cases, 2025 cases, Transcript, Judgment available on MHLO, Miscellaneous cases
|
| * Change in status - C/D to recalled AC v Southern Health NHS Foundation Trust [2024] UKUT 297 (AAC) — An application to the tribunal was made by a conditionally discharged patient. The tribunal lost its jurisdiction on the application when the patient was recalled. | 2024‑10‑01 21:14:45 | Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Cases, 2024 cases, Transcript, Judgment available on MHLO, Change of status cases, Judgment available on Bailii
|
| * 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
|
| * Video tribunal hearing set aside Re D [2020] MHLO 51 (FTT) — (1) The decision in this case was set aside because it was not clear whether or not the patient had a reasonable opportunity to hear all the evidence that was given at the hearing: it was not possible to be sure that the patient had a fair hearing. (2) The patient's microphone had been muted for much of the time after giving her evidence at the outset because she "would not stop talking", but this did not amount to exclusion under Tribunal rule 38. [First-tier tribunal decisions are useful but not binding.] | 2020‑10‑20 21:42:23 | Transcript, Judgment available on MHLO, 2020 cases
|
| * 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
|
| * Inherent jurisdiction to authorise DOL of vulnerable adult A Local Authority v BF [2018] EWCA Civ 2962 — An interim order made on 10/12/18 required BF to reside at a care home, over Christmas, and not at his own or his son's home, despite BF's having capacity to make decisions about his residence and wanting to return home. The order was expressed to last until a further hearing to take place no later than 31/1/19 (later fixed for 16/1/19) when the judge could hear full argument on what relief could be granted pursuant to the inherent jurisdiction. The local authority appealed on the basis that the order infringed Article 5. Permission to appeal was refused: (1) BF is a vulnerable adult (old, blind, infirm, in a squalid and dangerous home, with undue influence present in relationship with son) who needs protection despite not lacking capacity. (2) The test of "unsound mind" is different from the test of capacity, and there is prima facie evidence that he may be of unsound mind. (3) In an emergency situation, someone may be deprived of their liberty in the absence of evidence of mental disorder without infringing Article 5 (Winterwerp); even if BF is found not to be of unsound mind, his vulnerability is such that he could not be returned home without careful planning, which is a crucial component of the protection afforded by the inherent jurisdiction. | 2019‑01‑22 23:50:19 | 2018 cases, Brief summary, Cases, Inherent jurisdiction cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Transcript, Judgment available on Bailii, 2018 cases
|
| * Damages for unlawful immigration detention R (Adegun) v SSHD [2019] EWHC 22 (Admin) — "There are two bases of challenge to Mr Adegun's detention which, in broad outline, are as follows. ... There is first an issue, which I shall call the "rule 34 issue", as to whether Mr Adegun declined a medical examination pursuant to rule 34 of the Detention Centre Rules when he was taken into detention. ... The second issue I shall call the "paragraph 55.10 issue". It arises because there is evidence, not disputed by the Secretary of State, that Mr Adegun was suffering from a mental health condition which was not recognised by the Home Office until some time after his admission into detention and was not treated with medication until 19 January 2016. ... I therefore propose to award nominal damages in respect of the early period of Mr Adegun's detention and substantial damages in respect of 40 days' detention." | 2019‑01‑12 22:58:23 | 2019 cases, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Repatriation cases, Transcript, Judgment available on Bailii, 2019 cases
|
| * John Blavo personally ordered to repay Legal Aid claims Lord Chancellor v Blavo and Co Solictors Ltd [2018] EWHC 3556 (QB) — The High Court gave judgment for the Lord Chancellor against John Blavo in the sum of £22,136,001.71 following the allegation that Blavo & Co made dishonest claims for payment on the legal aid fund for thousands of cases where it was not entitled to any fee. | 2019‑01‑01 17:19:29 | 2018 cases, Brief summary, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Miscellaneous cases, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Transcript, Judgment available on Bailii, 2018 cases
|
| * Intervention costs statutory demands John Blavo v Law Society [2018] EWCA Civ 2250 — The Law Society successfully appealed against a decision to set aside two statutory demands (of £151,816.27 and £643,489.20) which had been served on John Blavo in relation to costs incurred in respect of the intervention into his practice. | 2019‑01‑01 17:01:07 | 2018 cases, Brief summary, Cases, ICLR summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Miscellaneous cases, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Transcript, Judgment available on Bailii, 2018 cases
|
| * R (CXF) v Central Bedfordshire Council [2018] EWCA Civ 2852 — The patient's mother drove weekly to accompany her son on escorted community leave bus trips. When he turned 18, the Children Act 1989 funding ceased and she sought judicial review of the refusal to fund her travel costs under MHA 1983 s117. (1) The patient did not "cease to be detained" or "leave hospital" within the meaning of s117(1) when on leave and so was not a person to whom s117 applied, and also the services provided did not constitute "after-care services" within the meaning of s117(6). (2) In other cases, such as a patient living in the community on a either a full-time or part-time trial basis, the s117 duty could arise. (3) (Obiter) It was difficult to see how s117 could have covered the mother's costs as there was no evidence that she was authorised to provide services on behalf of any CCG or LA. (4) The MHA Code of Practice is analogous to delegated legislation (which can only be used as an aid to interpretation if it formed part of Parliament's background knowledge when legislating) and so cannot be used to construe s117(1) which is part of the original text. (5) The court was critical of and provided guidance in relation to the quality of pleadings in statutory interpretation cases. (6) Even if the evidence provided by Mind's QC in written submissions had been relevant, it would not excuse the flagrant breach of the court's order not to stray into the giving of evidence. The matters which are admissible are so limited in statutory interpretation cases that it may be that there is nothing useful an intervenor can contribute. | 2018‑12‑20 14:51:52 | 2018 cases, After-care, Brief summary, Cases, ICLR summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Transcript, Judgment available on Bailii, 2018 cases
|
| * Inherent jurisdiction authorises DOL during conditional discharge Re AB (Inherent Jurisdiction: Deprivation of Liberty) [2018] EWHC 3103 (Fam) — AB had capacity to consent to the care, support and accommodation arrangements which were provided as part of his conditional discharge but, following the MM case, there was an unlawful deprivation of liberty. The High Court extended the inherent jurisdiction to regularise the position of a capacitous detained mental health patient subject to restrictions as part of his conditional discharge which satisfied the objective elements of a deprivation of liberty (firstly, it was clear that there was no legislative provision governing this situation in that the Mental Health Act provided no remedy; secondly, it was in the interests of justice; and, thirdly, there were sound and strong public policy justifications). The court order: authorised the deprivation of liberty for 12 months; required the applicant to apply to court if the restrictions increase, and no less than one month before the expiry of the authorisation; and provided for a review on the papers unless a party requests or the court requires an oral hearing. | 2018‑12‑19 01:55:42 | 2018 cases, Brief summary, Cases, Deprivation of liberty, ICLR summary, Inherent jurisdiction cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Transcript, 2018 cases, Judgment available on Bailii
|
| * CTO and DOL Welsh Ministers v PJ [2018] UKSC 66 — (1) There is no power to impose conditions in a CTO which have the effect of depriving a patient of his liberty. (2) The patient's situation may be relevant to the tribunal's discharge criteria, and the tribunal may explain the true legal effect of a CTO (for the RC to act on that information), but if a patient is being unlawfully detained then the remedy is either habeas corpus or judicial review. | 2018‑12‑17 14:40:29 | 2018 cases, Brief summary, CTO cases, Cases, Deprivation of liberty, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Transcript, Judgment available on Bailii, 2018 cases
|
| * EXB v FDZ [2018] EWHC 3456 (QB) — "This case came before me on 23 April 2018 for the purpose of considering whether to approve the proposed settlement of a personal injuries action reached between the Claimant's Litigation Friend (his mother) and the Third and Fourth Defendants. The settlement required the approval of the court pursuant to CPR Part 21.10 because the Claimant was (and remains) a protected party. I gave my approval to the settlement. [I]t was thought by those who knew him best ... that it would be in the Claimant's best interests not to be told the amount at which the settlement had been achieved. ... The primary question, however, is whether I can conclude, on the balance of probabilities, that the Claimant cannot make for himself the decision about whether he should be told the value of the award. As Ms Butler-Cole says, this is difficult in the present case because 'by definition, the Claimant cannot be presented with the information relevant to the decision in order to assess his capacity, as that would make the entire exercise redundant.' Nonetheless, the Claimant has expressed his views on the matter without the exact figure being known to him and there is evidence (particularly in his comment after he left the videoconference room after giving his evidence) that his ability to make this decision is variable and that he could not necessarily sustain over any meaningful period the making of such a decision given his inability to control his impulses and weigh up all the relevant considerations. In those circumstances a declaration as to incapacity in relation to this specific decision is justified. ... This case is the first I can recall when an issue such as that which has arisen has occurred. ... I will send a copy of this judgment to the Deputy Head of Civil Justice and to the Vice-President of the Court of Protection so that they can consider whether any consultation on this issue is required and whether any action needs to be taken as a result." The draft order included the following declarations: "(1) The Claimant lacks the capacity to decide whether or not he should know the amount of the Settlement. (2) It is in the Claimant's best interests that he does not know the amount of the Settlement. (3) It shall be unlawful for any person (whether the Claimant's deputy or any other person who has knowledge of the amount of the Settlement) to convey by any means to the Claimant information about the amount of the Settlement, save that this declaration does not make unlawful the conveyance of descriptive information to the Claimant to the effect that the Settlement is sufficient to meet his reasonable needs for life." | 2018‑12‑14 22:43:03 | 2018 cases, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Other capacity cases, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Transcript, Judgment available on Bailii, 2018 cases
|
| * Re RD (Deprivation or Restriction of Liberty) [2018] EWFC 47 — "The court is concerned in this application with the circumstances of RD. She is 14½ years old. She is currently the subject of an application for a care order under Part IV Children Act 1989, and is in the interim care of Northumberland County Council. ... RD has been placed by the Local Authority at a residential placement in Scotland, which I shall call Lennox House. ... The issue for my determination is whether the regime which applies to RD at Lennox House deprives her of her liberty in such a way as to engage her Article 5 ECHR rights. ... The implications of my determination are not insignificant. If I were to find as a fact that RD is deprived of her liberty in Article 5 terms, I would feel obliged to adjourn the Part IV proceedings, and would propose that the Local Authority present a petition to the nobile officium of the Court of Session seeking authorisation of that Court for RD's deprivation of liberty ... If I find that she is not deprived of her liberty, then there would be little impediment to my concluding the Part IV proceedings in this jurisdiction." | 2018‑11‑29 21:13:11 | 2018 cases, Cases, Deprivation of liberty, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Transcript, Judgment available on Bailii, 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
|
| Gill v Woodall [2009] EWHC B34 (Ch) — "The Claimant disputes the validity of Mrs Gill's will on two grounds. They are: (1) At the time Mrs Gill executed the will she did not know and approve its contents; (2) Mrs Gill executed the will as a result of coercion or pressure exerted by Mr Gill such as to overcome Mrs Gill's volition with the consequence the will was not the result of the free volition of Mrs Gill." | 2018‑10‑23 18:37:55 | 2009 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Testamentary capacity cases, Transcript
|
| * Inherent jurisdiction Mazhar v Lord Chancellor [2017] EWHC 2536 (Fam) — "This is a claim brought under sections 6, 7(1)(a), 8(1) and 9(1)(c) of the Human Rights Act 1998 against the Lord Chancellor in respect of a judicial act. The act in question is an order made by a High Court judge, Mr Justice Mostyn, who was the Family Division out of hours applications judge on the late evening of Friday, 22 April 2016. The order was made on the application of Birmingham Community Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust. It was an urgent, without notice, out of hours application made in respect of the claimant, Mr Aamir Mazhar. ... Mr Mazhar seeks to argue that the inherent jurisdiction cannot be used to detain a person who is not of unsound mind for the purposes of article 5(1)(e) of the Convention and that a vulnerable person's alleged incapacity as a result of duress or undue influence is not a basis to make orders in that jurisdiction that are other than facilitative of the person recovering, retaining or exercising his capacity. His removal and detention were accordingly unlawful and in breach of article 5. He also seeks to argue that his article 6 rights were engaged such that the absence of any challenge by the judge to his capacity and/or the evidence of the NHS Trust and the absence of any opportunity to challenge those matters himself or though his family or representatives before the order was executed was an unfair process. He says that his article 8 right to respect for family and private life was engaged and that the order was neither necessary nor in accordance with the law. ... The consequence is that I have come to the conclusion that there is nothing in the HRA (taken together with either the CPR or the FPR) that provides a power in a court or tribunal to make a declaration against the Crown in respect of a judicial act. Furthermore, the HRA has not modified the constitutional principle of judicial immunity. Likewise, the Crown is not to be held to vicariously liable for the acts of the judiciary with the consequence that the claim for a declaration is not justiciable in the Courts of England and Wales. A claim for damages against the Crown is available to Mr Mazhar for the limited purpose of compensating him for an article 5(5) breach but the forum for such a claim where the judicial act is that of a judge of the High Court cannot be a court of co-ordinate jurisdiction. On the facts of this case, the only court that can consider a damages claim is the Court of Appeal. If Mr Mazhar wants to pursue his challenge to the order of Mostyn J he must do so on appeal." | 2018‑05‑22 20:51:22 | 2017 cases, Cases, ICLR summary, Inherent jurisdiction cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Transcript, Judgment available on Bailii
|
| 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
|
| R v Press Complaints Commission, ex parte Ian Stewart-Brady [1996] EWCA Civ 986 — "This is a renewed application for leave to apply for judicial review in relation to an adjudication of the Press Complaints Commission. ... The application arises out of a publication in The Sun newspaper on 26 July 1995. The publication contained an article relating to the applicant, Ian Brady, who was convicted of murder and is now a patient at the Ashworth Hospital. The effect of the article was that he was being treated in a way which was wholly inappropriate having regard to the very serious crimes which he had committed. No complaint, however, is made about the article. Although Mr Beloff certainly does not approve of its contents, he accepts that he cannot say that there was any justification for complaining about the article. His complaint is that the article has alongside it a substantial photograph of the applicant, albeit a photograph which is indistinct and does not show Mr Brady clearly. ... Looking at the matter as a whole, I do not think there is any prospect of this application succeeding and therefore I would dismiss it." | 2018‑04‑27 20:00:41 | 1996 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Miscellaneous cases, No summary, Transcript
|
| * 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
|
| * Vexatious COP application Re SW (No 2) [2017] EWCOP 30 — "This is another utterly misconceived application by a son (the son) in relation to his mother, SW. ... The son's application as it was presented to the District Judge was, in my judgment, totally without merit, misconceived and vexatious. His application under Rule 89 is equally devoid of merit. It must be dismissed, with the consequence that the District Judge's order striking out the original application remains in place." | 2018‑03‑19 01:09:49 | 2017 cases, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Other capacity cases, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Transcript, 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
|
| Bunting v W [2005] EWHC 1274 (Ch) — "By the Application the Receiver seeks an order against the Respondent, to whom I shall refer as ("Mr W") that the accounts he delivered in his capacity as Receiver of M for the year ending 21st April 1994 and thereafter annually until year ending 21st April 2002 be re-opened or set aside. The application further seeks an order that Mr W deliver fresh accounts verified by affidavit, identifying (amongst other matters) the funds or assets of M used directly or indirectly for the personal benefit of Mr W or his family; that the Receiver be given permission to raise objections and further inquiries as to whether or not Mr W is to be entitled to charge remuneration for the services of himself and his wife in caring for or attending on M and an order that he should pay into the Court of Protection such sums as may be found due on taking the accounts and inquiries. In the event that there is a jurisdictional impediment to an order for payment into court the Receiver seeks an order authorising her pursuant to section 96(1) (i) of MHA 1983 to make an application to the High Court pursuant section 139(2) MHA, 1983 for leave to bring proceedings against Mr W to recover the sums found due on taking the accounts and inquiries." | 2017‑11‑26 01:16:02 | 2005 cases, Deputyship cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript
|
| * Article 3 immigration case BA v SSHD [2017] UKAITUR IA343212013 — "The Appellant is a citizen of Nigeria born on 26th February 1980. His appeal against a refusal to vary leave was allowed by First-tier Tribunal Judge Abebrese on Article 8 grounds on 23 rd May 2016. ... The Appellant sought permission to appeal against the Article 3 findings only ... On the basis of the factual findings, the opinion in the Amnesty International Report and the opinion of Dr Bell, the Appellant is likely to suffer a breakdown at some point on return to Nigeria whether that be at the airport or some time later. He is likely to come to the attention of the police if he has such a breakdown and he would not be able to access the psychiatric hospital in Lagos because he is unable to afford treatment there. Accordingly, it is likely that he would be held in prison where the conditions for this particular Appellant with his particular condition would result in treatment in breach of Article 3. ... The Applicant would not be at risk of Article 3 treatment because of a heightened risk of suicide. He would, however, be at risk of inhuman and degrading treatment in breach of Article 3 because of the conditions of return. ... The medical evidence indicates that the Appellant is vulnerable to relapse even in the UK and without the threat of removal. His removal to Nigeria is likely to trigger a relapse and his behaviour will draw hostile attention. His treatment by the authorities in detaining him under the Lunacy Act 1958 would amount to inhuman and degrading treatment. There is a reasonable degree of likelihood that he would be detained in a prison, there would be no treatment for his mental health, his situation would deteriorate, the length of detention is indeterminate, there is no right of appeal and there is no requirement for him to consent to treatment. Accordingly, I allow the Appellant's appeal on Article 3 grounds." | 2017‑07‑11 18:05:39 | 2017 cases, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Repatriation cases, Transcript, Judgment available on Bailii
|
| * 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
|
| R v GA [2014] EWCA Crim 299, [2014] MHLO 148 — "Section 1(2) of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 provides that 'A person must be assumed to have capacity unless it is established that he lacks capacity'. When capacity to consent is in issue in criminal proceedings, the burden of proving incapacity falls upon the party asserting it and will inevitably be the prosecution. We consider that, other than in criminal proceedings pursuant to section 44 of the Mental Capacity Act, the prosecution must discharge that burden to the criminal standard of proof; that is, they must make the jury sure that the complainant did not have capacity to consent. If the jury cannot be sure that the relevant complainant lacks capacity, then they must be directed to assume that he or she does. The issue for them then will be an examination of all the facts and circumstances to determine whether or not the complainant consented to the act or acts in question and whether the alleged assailant knew they did not consent or did not believe that they did so or were unreasonable in their belief that there was consent. In this particular case, expert evidence was led before the jury on the question of the complainant's capacity. It appears to us that it will inevitably be the case, if capacity is an issue, that an expert will be called to provide evidence which would not otherwise be within the common experience of the jury. It is vitally important that such evidence is 'expert', relevant and only deals with the matter in issue, namely capacity. Having read the transcript of the prosecution expert evidence in this case we regret to say that she exceeded her remit, particularly in articulating her own interpretation of the facts as to whether or not the complainant did consent. It is unfortunate that the witness was not adequately managed in the court process as a whole. What is more, it seems to us that the opinions expressed by the prosecution expert did not reflect the jurisprudence at the time. Therefore, even if not conceded we would have allowed the appeal being certain that decided that the jury's finding was unsafe on two grounds: (i) the judge adopted the wrong standard of proof in his directions to the jury in relation to the issue of capacity; and (ii) the expert evidence not fit for purpose to assist the jury to come to any conclusion at all as to the capacity of by the complainant to consent to sexual relations." | 2016‑12‑29 21:08:41 | 2014 cases, Criminal law capacity cases, ICLR summary, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Sex and marriage cases, Transcript
|
| JMCA v The Belfast Health and Social Care Trust [2014] NICA 37, [2014] MHLO 147 — "Treacy J held that the supervision of this appellant was with legal authority and lawful and that the 1986 Order did authorise the guardian to take the impugned measures in the circumstances of this case. Subsequent to his decision the Supreme Court examined the concepts of deprivation of liberty and restriction of liberty in the case of patients suffering from mental health difficulties in Cheshire West and Chester Council v P [2014] UKSC 19. It is unnecessary for us to set out the facts or reasoning in that decision. It is, however, now accepted by the Trust that the guardianship order did not provide any mechanism for the imposition of any restriction on the entitlement of the appellant to leave the home at which he was residing for incidental social or other purposes. ... Mr Potter on behalf of the appellant in this case recognised that this left a lacuna in the law. That gap had been filled by Schedule 7 of the Mental Health Act 2007 in England and Wales which introduced deprivation of liberty legislation into the Mental Capacity Act 2005 providing a mechanism for the lawful restriction on or deprivation of liberty of a person such as the appellant. It is clear that urgent consideration should now be given to the implementation of similar legislation in this jurisdiction." | 2016‑11‑29 21:00:14 | 2014 cases, Deprivation of liberty, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Northern Irish cases, Transcript
|
| * 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
|
| V v Associated Newspapers Ltd [2016] EWCOP 29, [2016] MHLO 42 — "As the Applicant indicated might be the case she makes an application that part of her costs be paid by the Respondents on an indemnity basis. The application has been made and resisted on written submissions." | 2016‑10‑09 14:42:34 | 2016 cases, COP costs cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function
|
| V v Associated Newspapers Ltd [2016] EWCOP 21, [2016] MHLO 41 — "The application before me is for a reporting restrictions order that extends beyond the period of the reporting restrictions order granted at the first hearing for directions in the case and was not altered by Macdonald J. By its terms it ended on C's death." | 2016‑10‑09 14:39:52 | 2016 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Reporting restriction order cases, Transcript, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function
|
| Miles v The Public Guardian [2015] EWHC 2960 (Ch), [2015] MHLO 139 — "I have before me two appeals from decisions of Senior Judge Lush sitting in the Court of Protection, one in a case called Re Miles and one in a case called Re Beattie in both of which he was concerned with lasting powers of attorney either for property and financial affairs or for health and welfare matters. In each case the former power of attorney had been drafted by the same solicitor and contained provisions which the Judge was asked to rule on, as to whether they were effective." | 2016‑10‑07 22:17:38 | 2015 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, LPA cases - substitute attorneys, No summary, Transcript
|
| R (Lee-Hirons) v SSJ [2016] UKSC 46, [2016] MHLO 38 — "A man is convicted of an offence. Satisfied that he is suffering from mental disorder, the court makes an order for his detention in hospital. Satisfied that it is necessary for the protection of the public, the court also makes a restriction order, which removes from the hospital the power to discharge him. In due course a tribunal directs his discharge from hospital on conditions. Afterwards, however, the Secretary of State for Justice (“the Minister”) exercises his power to recall the man to hospital, where he is subject to renewed detention. This appeal is about the explanation for the recall which the law requires the Minister to provide to the man both at the time of his recall and soon afterwards." | 2016‑10‑07 21:15:28 | 2016 cases, ICLR summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Ministry of Justice cases, Transcript, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii
|
| PJV v Assistant Director Adult Social Care Newcastle City Council [2015] EWCOP 87, [2015] MHLO 138 — "The appeal before me ... relates to the part, if any, that the Court of Protection must play in the finalisation of an award of compensation under the relevant scheme that the Second Respondent (CICA) has decided and the applicant has agreed is to be held on trust." | 2016‑08‑29 20:39:18 | 2015 cases, ICLR summary, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Other capacity cases, Transcript, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function
|
| 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
|
| Al-Jeffery v Al-Jeffery (Vulnerable adult, British citizen) [2016] EWHC 2151 (Fam), [2016] MHLO 25 — "There are two applications before the court. One asks the court to make a statutory forced marriage protection order. The other asks the court to make orders, including mandatory orders, in the exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court to make orders protective of vulnerable adults. ... She now claims that she is being seriously ill-treated by her father and being kept under constraint by him in his flat; and that she is being prevented by him from leaving Saudi Arabia and travelling to Wales or England, which she wishes to do, and is, in the eyes of the law of Wales and England, fully entitled freely to do. ... The father, against whom I [am] asked to make an order, is not a British citizen and owes no allegiance to our Sovereign or this state. Neither of them are present here. Neither of them have lived here for several years. Both of them are citizens of Saudi Arabia and both of them currently live there. There have, indeed, already been recent legal proceedings between them there. Should I, nevertheless, attempt to help her by making the essential order which she seeks for her return here; or should I appreciate that that would be exorbitant and, in my judicial discretion, decline to do so? That is the essential issue and dilemma in this case." | 2016‑08‑27 09:09:22 | 2016 cases, Inherent jurisdiction cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Sex and marriage cases, Transcript
|
| McDonald v McDonald [2016] UKSC 28, [2016] MHLO 20 — "This appeal raises three questions. The first is whether a court, when entertaining a claim for possession by a private sector owner against a residential occupier, should be required to consider the proportionality of evicting the occupier, in the light of section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 and article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The second question is whether, if the answer to the first question is yes, the relevant legislation, in particular section 21(4) of the Housing Act 1988, can be read so as to comply with that conclusion. The third question is whether, if the answer to the first and second questions is yes, the trial judge would have been entitled to dismiss the claim for possession in this case, as he said he would have done. ... The appellant, Fiona McDonald, is aged 45 and, sadly, she has had psychiatric and behavioural problems since she was five. ... In those circumstances, her parents, who are technically the respondents to this appeal, decided to buy a property for her to occupy. ... However, owing to financial difficulties which they unfortunately encountered in their business, they failed to meet all the [loan] interest as it fell due. ... the Receivers served a notice ... indicating that they would be seeking possession of the property." | 2016‑06‑20 21:53:27 | 2016 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Miscellaneous cases, No summary, Transcript
|
| R v Ahmed [2016] EWCA Crim 670, [2016] MHLO 19 — "Saber Ahmed 31, was tried for murder in the Crown Court at Birmingham in 2006 before HHJ Matthews and a jury. On 3 August 2006 he was acquitted of murder and convicted of manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility. On 20 October 2006 HHJ Matthews sentenced him to life imprisonment with a minimum term of 3 years and 6 months, less 462 days spent on remand. The judge recommended deportation. ... We are satisfied that in all the circumstances of this case it is appropriate to impose a hospital order with a restriction order. This is no reflection on the sentencing judge who passed the only sentence available to him on the evidence at the time. We quash the life sentence and we impose orders under Sections 37 and 41 of the Mental Health Act 1983, the latter without limit of time. To that extent the appeal is allowed." | 2016‑06‑11 20:34:39 | 2016 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Life sentence cases, No summary, Transcript
|
| Home Office (Central government) (2016) UKICO FS50618706, [2016] MHLO 18 — "The complainant has requested information about police powers under Section 136 of the Mental Health Act to detain mentally disordered persons found in public places. By the date of this notice the Home Office had not responded to the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that by failing to respond to the request, the Home Office breached sections 1(1) and 10(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the Home Office to take the following steps. to ensure compliance with the legislation: Issue a response to the request under the FOIA by either complying with section 1(1) or issuing a valid refusal notice. The Home Office must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of the Act and may be dealt with as a contempt of court." The request was: "What qualifies a constable to take decisions regarding the mental health of a member of the public, and how is this not a breach of human rights. This is a particularly important request in the context that police forces are unlawfully detaining innocent members of the public by use of this Act." | 2016‑05‑26 13:02:00 | 2016 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Miscellaneous cases, No summary, Transcript
|
| Public Law Project v Lord Chancellor [2015] EWCA Civ 1193, [2015] MHLO 136 — The proposed Legal Aid residence test was lawful (the High Court had been wrong to decide it to be ultra vires and unjustifiably discriminatory). The proposed test is described as follows in the judgment: "To satisfy the residence test, an individual would have to be lawfully resident in the UK, the Channel Islands, Isle of Man or a British Overseas Territory on the day the application for civil legal services was made, and (unless they were under 12 months old or a particular kind of asylum claimant or involved with the UK Armed Forces) have been so lawfully resident for a 12 month period at some time in the past (excluding absences of up to 30 days). There were proposed exceptions to the test. Claimants pursuing certain types of proceedings were not required to satisfy the test (for example, domestic violence cases, and challenges to the lawfulness of detention). In any event, regardless of residence, a claimant who failed the residence test would have been entitled to apply for legal aid under the Exceptional Case Funding regime in s.10 of LASPO whose purpose is to ensure that all those who have a right to legal aid under the ECHR or EU law are able to obtain it." | 2016‑02‑21 22:49:03 | 2015 cases, ICLR summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Miscellaneous cases, Transcript, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function
|
| A Local Authority v M [2015] EWCOP 69, [2015] MHLO 135 — This judgment dealt with various issues including deputyship, deprivation of liberty, and disclosure. | 2016‑02‑08 20:08:33 | 2015 cases, Deprivation of liberty, Deputyship cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function
|
| Re M (Costs): A Local Authority v M [2015] EWCOP 45, [2015] MHLO 134 — Court of Protection costs judgment. | 2016‑02‑08 20:04:52 | 2015 cases, COP costs cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment missing from Bailii
|
| * 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
|
| WH v Partnerships in Care [2015] UKUT 695 (AAC), [2015] MHLO 132 — The tribunal, having decided that the appropriate treatment test in s72(1)(b)(iia) was met, refused to discharge a patient who had a diagnosis of dissocial personality disorder. (1) The Upper Tribunal allowed the appeal on the following grounds: (a) The appropriate treatment test relates only to the treatment that a patient is receiving at the detaining hospital, so the tribunal erred in law by considering the test met because treatment was available elsewhere. (b) The tribunal also erred in law by providing inadequate reasons: (i) the reasons were not set out by reference to the relevant criteria; (ii) the tribunal failed to address any of the solicitor's submissions about appropriate treatment; (iii) it was unclear what evidence was accepted or rejected, and why; (iv) the tribunal made findings which were wholly unsupported by the evidence. (2) The Upper Tribunal also stated that: (a) The tribunal is required to evaluate the evidence and reach its own conclusions, so was not obliged to accept the RC's opinion that no appropriate treatment was available; (b) Looking at the evidence as a whole, it was not necessarily the case that there was no evidence of appropriate treatment being provided to the patient; (c) It would be desirable for the MHRT for Wales to adopt the English Practice Direction on Reports, as the Welsh Rules provided little useful guidance, and full reports would have assisted in this difficult case; (d) The patient was currently detained in England so the Welsh tribunal was invited to transfer the case to England. | 2016‑01‑03 23:08:27 | 2015 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on Bailii, MHLR summary, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Transcript, Upper Tribunal decisions, Judgment available on Bailii
|
| Somerset v MK [2015] EWCOP B1, [2015] MHLO 131 — "In the light of all of this it seems to me that this is plainly a case where the usual order for costs should be departed from to the extent that the Local Authority should pay the costs of all of the other parties involved. The other matter that I should deal with is whether those payments should be on an indemnity basis. ... I am very conscious of the impact of such an order. However, in that same case of G v E [2010] EWHC 3385 (Fam) Mr Justice Baker considered that the local authority's conduct amounted to 'a significant degree of unreasonableness' giving rise to a liability for costs on an indemnity basis. If one reads my judgment in full it is clear that that there was in this case as well a significant degree of unreasonableness both in the Local Authority's approach to the substantive and procedural issues in the case. In those circumstances it seems to me that the argument for indemnity costs is an overwhelming one in this case and that is the order that I intend to make here." | 2015‑12‑22 22:31:12 | 2015 cases, COP costs cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii
|
| Somerset v MK [2014] EWCOP B25, [2014] MHLO 146 — "What I intend to do in it is to set out the history of the case and then of the litigation. Then I will deal with the factual issues upon which I have been asked by the local authority to make findings. I will then deal with the central issue in the case, that of where in her best interests should (P), the subject of this application, live. Next I will consider the conduct of the local authority and make findings on the issues as to whether P had been wrongly deprived of her liberty and, if she had, how long did that go on for; and finally what, if any, lessons can be learned from this case. ... These findings illustrate a blatant disregard of the process of the MCA and a failure to respect the rights of both P and her family under the ECHR. In fact it seems to me that it is worse than that, because here the workers on the ground did not just disregard the process of the MCA they did not know what the process was and no one higher up the structure seems to have advised them correctly about it." | 2015‑12‑22 22:22:55 | 2014 cases, Best interests, Deprivation of liberty, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript
|
| Re CMW: Public Guardian v AM [2015] EWCOP 86, [2015] MHLO 130 — "This is an application by the Public Guardian to revoke a Lasting Power of Attorney ('LPA') for property and affairs. ... I am satisfied that Carla lacks capacity to revoke the LPA herself. ... I am also satisfied that the respondent has behaved in a way that contravenes his authority and is not in the donor's best interests. He has broken virtually every rule in the book and, having exhausted his mother's funds in order to meet his "life's requirements at that time", he blithely expects the taxpayers of Surrey to pick up the tab to meet his mother's care needs now. I have no hesitation in revoking the LPA and directing the Public Guardian to cancel its registration. I shall make a separate order appointing Michael Stirton as Carla's deputy for property and affairs." | 2015‑12‑22 21:53:29 | 2015 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, LPA cases - revocation, No summary, Transcript
|
| Re WP (deceased) and EP [2015] EWCOP 84, [2015] MHLO 129 — "This is an application by two attorneys acting jointly under two separate Enduring Powers of Attorney for the retrospective approval of monthly payments of £150 each that they have made to themselves and to their sister from the donors' funds. ... This application is a composite claim for the payment of an allowance of £150 per month to each attorney in respect of three distinct heads of claim, and I shall deal with these heads of claim in the following order: (1) travelling expenses; (2) remuneration for acting as attorneys; and (3) a 'gratuitous' care allowance. I would prefer not to be cornered into approving any particular mileage rate. If the Public Guardian wishes to give guidance on such matters, that's up to him. What I shall say is simply by way of general observation. ... In my judgment, the business mileage rates quoted by HMRC [45 pence for every business mile for the first 10,000 miles and 25 pence for every business mile thereafter] should be substantially discounted to reflect the fact that these are not 'business' rates but domestic rates. When dealing with the affairs of an elderly and incapacitated relative, attorneys are generally expected to act out of common decency and not to profit from their position. ... I do not propose to allow them any specific remuneration for the actual management of their parents' property and financial affairs. ... I am satisfied in Theresa's case that the care support she provides and the travelling expenses she incurs merit the payment of a sum of £150 a month from her parents' funds. Stephen does slightly less than his sister Theresa in terms of care support, but has to travel a greater distance to perform these functions and, on balance, I am satisfied that he too should continue to pay himself a composite allowance of £150 a month in respect of travelling expenses and care support." | 2015‑12‑22 21:50:32 | 2015 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Other EPA cases, Transcript
|
| V v Associated Newspapers Ltd [2015] EWCOP 88, [2015] MHLO 128 — "I do not propose to say very much in this judgment. The reason I do not propose to say very much is that I am pleased to report that the media respondents have indicated to me that they would wish to put in some further evidence relating to the public interest in identifying C. They would also wish to (and I can understand why they would wish to) put in evidence relating to criticism of an approach by a journalist employed by one of them. Additionally and, to my mind, importantly, they also wish to take the opportunity, if so advised, to put in evidence and/or representations on more general points concerning the mechanics and principles that arise in respect of Court of Protection proceedings that the court directs are to be heard in public and in respect of which the court makes some form of reporting restriction order or anonymity order. ... In those circumstances, it seems to me that it is inevitably appropriate to continue the injunction until 4.30 on the day I hand down judgment. The indication from the Bar is that there will be no need for further oral submissions." | 2015‑12‑22 21:37:31 | 2015 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Other capacity cases, Transcript, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function
|
| V v Associated Newspapers Ltd [2015] EWCOP 83, [2015] MHLO 127 — "MacDonald J ... concluded C did have capacity to refuse the treatment and dismissed the application by the Hospital Trust. C, sadly, died on 28 November 2015. ... I was notified at about 5.45 pm on 2 December 2015 that an application was likely to be made by Mr Vikram Sachdeva Q.C. on behalf of C's daughter, V, for the RRO to be extended after C's death. ... There is no issue between the parties that the court has jurisdiction to extend a RRO in these circumstances. ... I concluded the RRO should be extended for 7 days to enable an effective inter partes hearing to take place." | 2015‑12‑22 21:30:33 | 2015 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Other capacity cases, Transcript, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii
|
| Re JW [2015] EWCOP 82, [2015] MHLO 126 — "This began as an application by a family member to be appointed as a joint deputy for property and affairs with the existing deputy, East Sussex County Council. When it became apparent that the Council was unwilling to act jointly with him, the applicant revised his application and asked the court to remove the Council as deputy and to appoint him in its place. ... I propose to allow Geoffrey's revised application and shall appoint him as Joan's deputy in place of East Sussex County Council. My main reason for appointing him is that I think it would be sensible to repair and renovate the house in Hailsham that Joan inherited from her daughter Daphne so that it can be sold to best advantage, and I am prepared to give it a try. ... Zena Boniface concluded her witness statement by saying that: 'ESCC feel that it would be a conflict of interest for Geoffrey to be appointed deputy, as he stands to make a financial gain from the cost of the building works to his late sister's property and the reimbursement of his time and travel costs in dealing with her estate.' It was entirely reasonable of her to voice this concern and it merits a detailed response. ... I propose to control the conflict between Geoffrey's interests and Joan's by providing the following appropriate and effective safeguards to prevent abuse: ..." | 2015‑12‑22 21:15:24 | 2015 cases, Deputyship cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript
|
| King's College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust v C [2015] EWCOP 80, [2015] MHLO 125 — "The question in this difficult and finely balanced case is whether C has the capacity to decide whether or not to consent to the life saving treatment that her doctors wish to give her following her attempted suicide, namely renal dialysis. Without such treatment the almost inevitable outcome will be the death of C. If the treatment is administered the likelihood is that it will save C's life, albeit that there remains an appreciable and increasing possibility that C will be left requiring dialysis for the rest of her life. C now refuses to consent to dialysis and much of the treatment associated with it. ... For the reasons set out above I am not satisfied on the evidence before the court that the Trust has established on the balance of probabilities that C lacks capacity to decide whether or not to accept treatment by way of dialysis. ... [A] capacitous individual is entitled to decide whether or not to accept treatment from his or her doctor. The right to refuse treatment extends to declining treatment that would, if administered, save the life of the patient and, accordingly, a capacitous patient may refuse treatment even in circumstances where that refusal will lead to his or her death. The decision C has reached to refuse dialysis can be characterised as an unwise one. That C considers that the prospect of growing old, the fear of living with fewer material possessions and the fear that she has lost, and will not regain, 'her sparkle' outweighs a prognosis that signals continued life will alarm and possibly horrify many, although I am satisfied that the ongoing discomfort of treatment, the fear of chronic illness and the fear of lifelong treatment and lifelong disability are factors that also weigh heavily in the balance for C. C's decision is certainly one that does not accord with the expectations of many in society. Indeed, others in society may consider C's decision to be unreasonable, illogical or even immoral within the context of the sanctity accorded to life by society in general. None of this however is evidence of a lack of capacity. The court being satisfied that, in accordance with the provisions of the Mental Capacity Act 2005, C has capacity to decide whether or not to accept treatment C is entitled to make her own decision on that question based on the things that are important to her, in keeping with her own personality and system of values and without conforming to society's expectation of what constitutes the 'normal' decision in this situation (if such a thing exists). As a capacitous individual C is, in respect of her own body and mind, sovereign." | 2015‑12‑22 20:44:29 | 2015 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Other capacity cases, Transcript
|
| Re AG [2015] EWCOP 78, [2015] MHLO 123 — "This is an appeal from an order of His Honour Judge Rogers, sitting as a nominated judge of the Court of Protection. Judge Rogers was considering the appropriate welfare arrangements for AG, a young woman born in October 1985. ... DG's grounds of appeal dated 22 September 2013 identify four grounds of appeal. It is said that Judge Rogers: (a) erred in not conducting an adequate assessment of AG's capacity; (b) failed to make findings of fact in relation to the events in 2011 that had triggered the proceedings; (c) made a decision as to where AG should live which by September 2013 was a fait accompli; and (d) acted in breach of Article 8 in directing that DG's contact with AG should be, as it is put, 'heavily' supervised. It is apparent from her counsel's very helpful skeleton arguments ... that the major thrust of DG's case relates to ground (b). ... For these reasons each of DG's grounds of appeal fails. ... Ms Khalique submits, and I am inclined to agree, that the local authority acted unlawfully in removing AG from OG in November 2011 and placing her at HH without having first obtained judicial sanction. Local authorities must seek and obtain appropriate judicial authority before moving an incapacitous adult from their home into other accommodation. Local authorities do not themselves have power to do this. Local authorities also need to appreciate and take appropriate steps to minimise the understandable distress and anger caused to someone in DG's position when initial relief is obtained from the court on the basis of allegations which are not thereafter pursued." | 2015‑12‑22 20:31:27 | 2015 cases, Best interests, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript
|
| Re HNL: ATL v Public Guardian [2015] EWCOP 77, [2015] MHLO 122 — "This is an application regarding the payment of a gratuitous care allowance. To describe the allowance as 'gratuitous' is slightly incongruous, as it is a payment towards the cost of maintenance of a close relative, who provides care and case management services to someone who is severely incapacitated because of an impairment of, or a disturbance in the functioning of, the mind or brain. ... The Public Guardian is currently reviewing all gratuitous care allowances paid by deputies to family members, particularly in cases where the person to whom the proceedings relate has been awarded damages for clinical negligence or personal injury. Because the number of families who are receiving allowances of this kind and are affected by the Public Guardian's review runs into thousands, I have concluded that it would be in the public interest to publish this judgment. ... Having regard to all the circumstances, therefore, I am satisfied that it is in Helen's best interests for Adrian to continue to provide care and case management services to her and that until further order he should be paid an allowance of £23,000 a year, tax-free in accordance with ESM4016. Even though Adrian has not specifically requested it, I propose to give him the option of index-linking future payments of the allowance. ... I understand that the Public Guardian will shortly be issuing a practice note on gratuitous care payments. ... In our initial discussions, the OPG suggested that these payments should be reviewed regularly. However, a review process of this kind is not cheap and, inevitably, it will have a knock-on effect on the amounts sought by claimants in respect of Court of Protection costs in future claims for damages for personal injury and clinical negligence. ... In Helen's case, because of the wide gulf between the commercial value of the services Adrian is providing and the actual payment he is receiving, I consider that it would be disproportionate to go through this process too frequently, and I suggest that Adrian's gratuitous care allowance should be formally reviewed again in 2022 or earlier, if necessary, because of a change in his or Helen's circumstances." | 2015‑12‑22 20:25:56 | 2015 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Other capacity cases, Transcript
|
| Surrey And Sussex Healthcare NHS Trust v Ms AB [2015] EWCOP 50, [2015] MHLO 121 — "This is an application by the Surrey and Sussex Healthcare NHS Trust for the court to give permission for the respondent, Ms AB, undergoing an above the knee amputation of her left leg. ... On the basis of the agreed psychiatric evidence, which I accepted, I was satisfied that Ms AB lacks the capacity to make a decision about her medical treatment and surgery. ... I am completely satisfied that, very sadly, the only best interests decision I can make is to give permission for the above knee amputation of Ms AB's left leg to be undertaken. I approve the use of reasonable restraint before, during and subsequent to surgery as is necessary to safeguard and protect her, including sedation. Further, I authorise the deprivation of her liberty insofar as it is necessary to perform the procedure." | 2015‑12‑22 20:17:58 | 2015 cases, Best interests, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript
|
| Re FT [2015] EWCOP 49, [2015] MHLO 120 — "This is an application for reconsideration of an order made by an authorised court officer appointing two of FT's daughters as his deputies for property and affairs. ... In my judgment, the factor of magnetic importance in this case is that FT named MA and PB to be the executors of his last will ... Accordingly, pursuant to rule 89(5), I affirm the order made on 2 September 2014 appointing the respondents [MA and PB] jointly and severally to act as FT's deputies for property and affairs. ... Costs ... I am singularly unimpressed with the applicants' conduct. Having made the application, they failed to follow it through. ... This is a case in which a departure from the general rule is justified. ... [T]he fact that [DC's] husband is in receipt of ESA and that she has claimed an exemption from the fees, doesn't grant her immunity from an order for costs being made against her. I intend to make an order that the costs are to be assessed on the standard basis and paid by DC, ST and TT in equal shares, and that the deputies are authorised to make an interest-free loan to the applicants from KT's funds to pay the costs, and that the loan will be repayable by the applicants from their respective shares of FT's estate on his death." | 2015‑12‑22 20:13:50 | 2015 cases, COP costs cases, Deputyship cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript
|
| Health Service Executive of Ireland v CNWL [2015] EWCOP 48, [2015] MHLO 119 — "Must an adult who is the subject of an application under Schedule 3 to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 to recognise and enforce an order of a foreign court that deprives the adult of his or her liberty be joined as a party to the application?" | 2015‑12‑21 23:58:58 | 2015 cases, Deprivation of liberty, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Other capacity cases, Transcript
|
| Ross v A [2015] EWCOP 46, [2015] MHLO 118 — "This is an application by a professional deputy for an order authorising him to apply approximately £17,000 a year from A's damages award towards the payment of her brother's school fees. ... In my judgment, it is in A's best interests for the court to authorise the deputy to pay B's school fees (past, present and future) from her funds ... This judgment is tailored to A's circumstances and should not be construed as an imprimatur for the payment of siblings' school fees from damages awards in other cases." | 2015‑12‑21 23:49:50 | 2015 cases, Deputyship cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript
|
| Dorset County Council v PL [2015] EWCOP 44, [2015] MHLO 117 — "The Applicant council seeks declarations that: (a) it is in PL’s best interests to move to ‘OL’, a care home in Lincolnshire, after a period of transition; and (b) it is in PL’s best interests to have restricted and supervised contact with his mother AL at an off-site location. ... The issues for the court to determine were where PL should live, more particularly OL or CC and with whom he should have contact, again more particularly whether contact with AL should be restricted and supervised and take place at an off-site location." | 2015‑12‑21 23:38:24 | 2015 cases, Best interests, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript
|
| GN v Newland [2015] EWCOP 43, [2015] MHLO 116 — "This is an application for reconsideration of an order made on the papers by an authorised court officer ('ACO'). An ACO is not a judge of the Court of Protection, but a civil servant, who, in most cases, has considerable experience of the court's practice and procedure and is authorised to make a number of specified decisions on the non-contentious property and affairs side of the court's business. Over 90% of the applications to the court involve non-contentious property and financial matters, and can potentially be dealt with by an ACO. ... I dismiss GN's application to be appointed as his mother's deputy for three reasons. First, he is the bane of her life and she wants nothing to do with him. Secondly, he would be unable to act fairly and competently on her behalf because he has an interest in her property, which is adverse to hers, and on which he is unwilling to enter into any compromise. And thirdly, I am satisfied that, having regard to all the relevant circumstances, Julia Newland's appointment as her deputy for property and affairs is in CN's best interests. There is no one more suitable who is willing or able to act, and the purpose for which the appointment is required cannot be as effectively achieved in a way that is less restrictive of CN's rights and freedom of action." | 2015‑12‑21 23:34:59 | 2015 cases, Deputyship cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript
|
| St George's Healthcare NHS Trust v P and Q [2015] EWCOP 42, [2015] MHLO 115 — "On 20 January 2015 the Health Trust responsible for his care made an application seeking declarations in this very serious medical case. They seek declarations: (i) That he lacks capacity (this is uncontentious); (ii) That it is not in his best interests to receive cardio pulmonary resuscitation (CPR) in the event of cardiac arrest (this is also now uncontentious); and (iii) As to whether it is lawful to continue to provide renal replacement therapy (RRT), the Trust wish to discontinue life sustaining treatment with the inexorable and inevitable consequence that as a result P would quickly die. ... There is almost nothing to rebut the very strong presumption that it is in P's best interests to stay alive. I order and direct that the renal replacement therapy should continue. ... The application was launched, it might be thought, somewhat precipitously, before any SMART testing had been undertaken. ... Therefore in all cases where there is any question of doubt about diagnosis, in order to eliminate mistakes or potential tragedies it is essential that those assessments [such as SMART or WHIM] are carried out in good time so that the diagnosis is clear before the Court, then the Court can conduct its own enquiry and balance." | 2015‑12‑21 23:31:30 | 2015 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Other capacity cases, Transcript, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function
|
| Re OL [2015] EWCOP 41, [2015] MHLO 114 — "This is an application by the Public Guardian for the court to revoke a Lasting Power of Attorney ('LPA') for property and financial affairs because the attorneys have used their power carelessly and irresponsibly. I am satisfied that the attorneys have behaved in a way that contravenes their authority or is not in the donor's best interests. ... Their failure to keep accounts of the transactions carried out on the donor's behalf or to produce any record of her income and expenditure would alone be sufficient to warrant the revocation of their appointment. However, in this case both attorneys, and in particular DA, have compounded their culpability by taking colossal advantage of their position and obtaining personal benefits far in excess of the limited power that attorneys have to make gifts of the donor's property under section 12 of the Mental Capacity Act. DA has also failed to keep the donor's money and property interests separate from her own interests in respect of the property she owns in South Norwood. ... I propose to appoint a panel deputy and authorise them to take such steps as are necessary or expedient to restore OL's estate so far as possible to the position in which it would have been before the attorneys began acting so recklessly and irresponsibly. In view of the attorneys' conduct, I consider that a departure from the general rule as to costs in property and affairs proceedings is justified and shall make no order as to costs." | 2015‑12‑21 23:23:11 | 2015 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, LPA cases - revocation, No summary, Transcript
|
| London Borough of Southwark v P [2015] EWCOP 40, [2015] MHLO 113 — "This is an application made both in the Court of Protection and for a Forced Marriage Protection order in the High Court (Family Division). ... I am of the view that the quickest way to deal with this is for me to list the matter for a further one day hearing shortly after the date on which the capacity report is completed. ... I consider that the existing orders should be discharged on the basis of an undertaking by the parents, R and A, that they are not to facilitate, allow or otherwise permit P to undergo any ceremony or purported ceremony of marriage, civil partnership, betrothal or engagement; or from entering into any arrangement in relation to the engagement or matrimony, whether by civil or religious ceremony, of P whether within English jurisdiction or outside it. They are also to undertake not to instruct, encourage or suggest to any other person to do so. They are to undertake not to take him to Bangladesh prior to the next hearing. On that basis I will discharge the forced marriage protection injunction." | 2015‑12‑21 23:19:00 | 2015 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Sex and marriage cases, Transcript
|
| Bournemouth Borough Council v PS [2015] EWCOP 39, [2015] MHLO 112 — "In this case I have to decide (i) whether the package of care provided to BS ('Ben') is in his best interests; (ii) whether that package amounts to a deprivation of liberty within the terms of Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights 1950; and (iii) what contact Ben should have to his mother, the first respondent. ... In the circumstances, in what I suppose will be one of the last orders of its kind to be made, I directed that Ben be discharged as a party. I was wholly satisfied that his voice has been fully heard through the IMCA Katie Turner. Further, in relation to the question of deprivation of liberty, all relevant submissions have been fully put on both sides of the argument by counsel for the applicant and the first respondent. There was no dispute between the applicant and the first respondent concerning issues (i) and (iii). The argument was centrally about the question of deprivation of liberty. ... I cannot say that I know that Ben is being detained by the state when I look at his position. Far from it. I agree with Mr Mullins that he is not. First, he is not under continuous supervision. He is afforded appreciable privacy. Second, he is free to leave. Were he to do so his carers would seek to persuade him to return but such persuasion would not cross the line into coercion. The deprivation of liberty line would only be crossed if and when the police exercised powers under the Mental Health Act. Were that to happen then a range of reviews and safeguards would become operative. But up to that point Ben is a free man. In my judgment, on the specific facts in play here, the acid test is not met. Ben is not living in a cage, gilded or otherwise. ... I do not criticise this local authority in the slightest for bringing this case. In the light of the decision of the Supreme Court local authorities have to err on the side of caution and bring every case, however borderline, before the court. For if they do not, and a case is later found to be one of deprivation of liberty, there may be heavy damages claims (and lawyers' costs) to pay. I remain of the view that the matter needs to be urgently reconsidered by the Supreme Court." | 2015‑12‑21 23:10:54 | 2015 cases, Deprivation of liberty, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript
|
| Re P [2015] EWCOP 37, [2015] MHLO 111 — "This is an application by the Public Guardian for an order revoking an Enduring Power of Attorney ('EPA') on the grounds that, having regard to all the circumstances, H is unsuitable to be his wife's attorney. ... Therefore, having regard to all the circumstances, I am satisfied that H is unsuitable to be P's attorney and I shall by order revoke the EPA. I shall also make a separate order appointing S and D jointly and severally to be P's deputies for property and affairs." | 2015‑12‑21 23:04:05 | 2015 cases, Deputyship cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Other EPA cases, Transcript
|
| Re X [2015] EWCOP 36, [2015] MHLO 110 — "These proceedings are concerned with X, a young man of 25 who currently lives in a care home. They began as an application by his mother, AY (who is his appointed welfare deputy and has acted throughout without the benefit of legal representation), in respect of his prescribed medication. X was subsequently detained under the Mental Health Act and the issues before the Court were redefined to address AY's concerns as to X's physical health (in particular, the condition of his bowels) and whether the treatment she supported, in the form of dietary exclusion and supplements, fell within the powers of the Mental Health Act or the authority of her deputyship. In the course of proceedings, X has been discharged from detention under the Mental Health Act and the parties have been able to agree a community placement for him, where he is now settled. The issues which remain for the determination of the Court relate to his best interests in relation to diet and whether the welfare deputyship (which is currently suspended) should be restored or discharged. In determining those issues, the Court is asked to reach a series of findings of fact." | 2015‑12‑21 23:01:17 | 2015 cases, Best interests, Deputyship cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript
|
| R (Dyer) v Welsh Ministers [2015] EWHC 3712 (Admin), [2015] MHLO 109 — "In this claim, the Claimant challenges an alleged failure by the public authorities responsible for the National Health Service in Wales to discharge the duty imposed upon them by section 3(1) of the National Health Service (Wales) Act 2006 to provide hospital accommodation 'throughout Wales, to such extent as they consider necessary to meet all reasonable requirements'. In particular, she contends that the duty has been breached because no decision has been taken by any authority as to either (i) the 'reasonable requirements' of women in Wales with ASD and LD for secure in-patient assessment and treatment; or (ii) the level of provision necessary to meet the reasonable requirements found to exist. Indeed, the relevant authorities have not only failed to make those decisions, it is said that they have failed to collate the information required to make them; and so they are not even in a position to make properly informed (and, therefore, lawful) decisions. That is the legal basis of the claim. However, the concern of the Claimant and her family underlying the claim is more personal and practical in nature. The last time the Claimant required compulsory detention on account of her mental condition was in August 2014 when, because there was no appropriate and available facility in Wales, she was sent to a hospital in Brighton where she was detained for some weeks. ... However, this court can intervene only if a decision-making authority has acted unlawfully. For the reasons I have given, none of the Defendants has done so in this case." | 2015‑12‑21 22:52:10 | 2015 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, MHLR summary, Miscellaneous cases, No summary, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Transcript, Judgment available on Bailii
|
| Health Service Executive of Ireland v PA [2015] EWCOP 38, [2015] MHLO 107 — "I turn to the specific orders in these three cases. In each case, I conclude that the individual – PA, PB and PC – is an adult within the meaning of paragraph 4 of the Schedule. I conclude that each is habitually resident in the Republic of Ireland. Having considered the orders of the Irish Court, and the provisions in each order that amount to "protective measures" within the meaning of Schedule 3, (including, in each case, the provision that each individual shall be placed and detained at St Andrew's and the various ancillary orders to facilitate and support the placement and detention), I conclude that there are no grounds for refusing to recognise the measures under paragraph 19(3) or (4). I conclude in each case that the individual was given a proper opportunity to be heard for the purposes of paragraph 19(3)(b); that in each case the individual – PA, PB and PC – satisfies the criteria for detention under Article 5(1)(e), namely the Winterwerp criteria; that the orders of the Irish Court demonstrate that each will be afforded a regular right of review of his or her detention so as to comply with the ongoing requirements of Article 5(4); that as a result recognising and enforcing the orders will not contravene the ECHR; that the measures in each case are not inconsistent with any other mandatory provision of the law of England and Wales; and that the measures cannot be said to be manifestly contrary to public policy. I shall therefore make the orders declaring that the protective measures in the said orders shall be recognised in England and Wales and enforced in this jurisdiction." | 2015‑12‑18 23:03:04 | 2015 cases, ICLR summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Other capacity cases, Transcript
|
| AM v Partnerships in Care Ltd [2015] UKUT 659 (AAC), [2015] MHLO 106 — The First-tier Tribunal, on the basis of their finding that the patient had committed two rapes, refused to discharge because sexual understanding and treatment work had not been undertaken. The Upper Tribunal held: (1) The tribunal had made a mistake of fact which undermined its conclusion as to the rapes, which was a fundamental error in the light of which the tribunal’s decision not to discharge could not stand. (2) The tribunal’s decision was made in error of law because of its failure to take into account relevant considerations. It had not scrutinised the evidence carefully or addressed features of the evidence which may cast doubt on the allegations; rather, the reasons gave the impression that, having found that AM lacked credibility generally, the tribunal simply and illogically accepted that the rape allegations were true because they were viewed as credible at the time. (3) A decision as to risk must involve findings of fact, not merely suspicion that an act was done which would be indicative of risk. Although the discharge criteria involve mixed questions of fact and judgement or evaluation, the judgement or evaluation of what is likely to occur must be based on fact. The next tribunal may consider that there are relevant facts other than the alleged rapes. | 2015‑12‑17 23:08:13 | 2015 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on Bailii, MHLR summary, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Transcript, Upper Tribunal decisions, Judgment missing from Bailii
|
| Re RS (Forced Marriage Protection Order) [2015] EWHC 3534 (Fam), [2015] MHLO 105 — "The identified questions for this hearing are whether: (i) RS had mental capacity to marry at the date of his marriage to W; and if not; (ii) whether the court should exercise its power under the inherent jurisdiction to declare that the marriage is not recognised as valid in England and Wales as a precursor to the initiation of formal proceedings to annul the marriage." | 2015‑12‑10 12:43:13 | 2015 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Sex and marriage cases, Transcript
|
| Winspear v City Hospitals Sunderland NHSFT [2015] EWHC 3250 (QB), [2015] MHLO 104 — (1) The core principle of prior consultation before a DNACPR decision is put into place on the case file applies in cases both of capacity and absence of capacity. If it is both practicable and appropriate to consult before doing so then, in the absence of some other compelling reason against consultation, it would be procedurally flawed to proceed without consultation. It would not meet the requirements of MCA 2005 s4(7); it would accordingly not be in accordance with the law. It would be an interference with Article 8(1) that is not justified under Article 8(2). (2) The claimant (patient's mother) sought damages both personally and as personal representative. The judge was not persuaded that she has any personal claim for damages, and decided that a declaration reflecting the procedural breach of Article 8 was sufficient. | 2015‑11‑29 22:00:53 | 2015 cases, ICLR summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Other capacity cases, Transcript
|
| R (Howard League for Penal Reform) v Lord Chancellor [2015] EWCA Civ 819, [2015] MHLO 101 — This was an appeal against the refusal of permission to apply for judicial review of changes introduced to criminal legal aid for prison law by the Criminal Legal Aid (General) (Amendment) Regulations 2013. (1) The 'lack of consultation' challenge was unarguable. (2) The appellants also challenged the removal of criminal legal aid funding in seven principal areas of prison law (including pre-tariff reviews and return to open condition cases before the Parole Board) on the basis that they either impact upon the liberty of the prisoner or they engage his or her Article 8 Convention rights in a way that is systemically unfair. The Court of Appeal accepted that it was arguable that, without appropriate assistance, the system could carry an unacceptable risk of unlawful decision making in relation to those with mental health, learning or other difficulties which effectively deprive them of the ability effectively to participate in the relevant decisions. | 2015‑11‑14 22:04:40 | 2015 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Miscellaneous cases, Transcript
|
| R v Brown (formerly Latham) [2015] EWCA Crim 1328, [2015] MHLO 100 — "The central ground of appeal is that the appellant's conviction is unsafe because the ruling of the judge – viz. that the appellant's conferences at court with his lawyers were to take place in the presence of two nurses from Rampton Hospital – breached his right at common law to consult privately with his lawyers and under Article 6(3)(c) European Convention on Human Rights to "defend himself through legal assistance of his own choosing" (with the concomitant right to private discussions with his lawyers). ... In our judgment, by way of an additional common law qualification or exception to the inviolable nature of legal professional privilege, and in what is likely to be an extremely narrow band of cases, it will be appropriate to impose a requirement that particular individuals can be present at discussions between an individual and his lawyers if there is a real possibility that the meeting is to be misused for a purpose, or in a manner, that involves impropriety amounting to an abuse of the privilege that justifies interference. This case exemplifies the rare circumstances in which it will be necessary to take this step." | 2015‑11‑14 21:31:37 | 2015 cases, ICLR summary, Judgment available on Bailii, MHLR summary, Other criminal law cases, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Transcript, Judgment available on Bailii
|
| R (Drammeh) v SSHD [2015] EWHC 2984 (Admin), [2015] MHLO 99 — "This is a claim for judicial review of (i) the Defendant's decision of 6 February 2015 (confirmed after further consideration on 16 June 2015) refusing to accept the Claimant's representations as a fresh asylum and human rights claim, and (ii) the lawfulness of the Claimant's detention under immigration powers from 21 November 2014 to 17 April 2015. The Claimant is a foreign criminal with an appalling immigration history, who is liable to deportation in consequence of having been sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment for being concerned in the supply of class A drugs. He has been diagnosed with schizo-affective disorder, which appears to be well-controlled provided that he takes his anti-psychotic medication. Having exhausted his rights of appeal against the refusal of a very belated claim for asylum, he has done everything within his power to avoid being deported." | 2015‑11‑14 20:28:52 | 2015 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Repatriation cases, Transcript
|
| XZ v The Public Guardian [2015] EWCOP 35, [2015] MHLO 98 — "This is an application regarding the effectiveness of some provisions contained in a Lasting Power of Attorney ('LPA') for property and financial affairs. It is not a type of application for which permission would normally be given for a judgment to be published. However, paragraph 16 of the Practice Guidance (Transparency in the Court Of Protection) [2014] EWHC B2 (COP), [2014] MHLO 5, says that "permission to publish a judgment should always be given whenever the judge concludes that publication would be in the public interest." I can't imagine that the general public would have the slightest interest in this judgment, but its publication may be of interest to professionals who specialise in this area of the law and draft LPAs on a regular basis, and also to people who are considering making an LPA themselves, and for this reason I shall permit its publication. ... XZ wants his attorneys to act only when he lacks capacity. In his LPA he has described in intricate detail the circumstances in which he can be identified as no longer having the capacity to make a relevant decision, whereupon his attorneys may make the decision on his behalf and in his best interests. ... XZ acknowledges that his LPA will be less effective because of these provisions but, nevertheless, he wishes them to remain as an integral part of the registered instrument for his own reassurance and peace of mind. Some people may think that this is unwise, but it is his will and preference and it should be treated with respect. The Public Guardian has no right to make a paternalistic judgment on his behalf and decide that it would be in his best interests for these provisions to be severed. ... The Public Guardian's function under paragraph 11 of Schedule 1 to the Act is limited to considering whether the conditions and restrictions are (a) ineffective as part of an LPA or (b) would prevent the instrument from operating as a valid LPA. ... I also order the Public Guardian to register the LPA." | 2015‑11‑13 23:23:27 | 2015 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Other LPA cases, Transcript
|
| L v NG [2015] EWCOP 34, [2015] MHLO 97 — Headnote from judgment: "Application by the sister of NG to be appointed as his deputy for property and affairs together with her sons – Even if NG lacked capacity to manage his property and affairs it was not in his best interests to appoint a deputy to manage his property and affairs." The main part of the decision is the following: "Section 16(4) of the Act provides that when deciding whether it is in the relevant person's interests to appoint a deputy, the court must have regard to section 4 (best interests) and the principle that a decision by the court is to be preferred to the appointment of a deputy to make a decision. The fact that a person generally lacks capacity to manage their property and affairs does not automatically mean that it is in their best interests to appoint a deputy to manage their property and affairs. The best interests requirements of section 4 require the court to consider the wishes, feelings, beliefs and values of the person concerned. One of the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 is that before the act is done, or the decision is made, regard must be had to whether the purpose for which it is needed can be as effectively achieved in a way that is less restrictive of the person's rights and freedom of action. On the evidence a deputyship order is either unnecessary or not in NG's best interests provided that a restriction is entered in the Land Registry requiring the court to authorise any dealings with his home. Any risks in respect of NG's other property and financial affairs which would be minimised by the appointment of a deputy are outweighed by the effect of such an order on his self-esteem, the resulting interference with his autonomy and the impact on family relationships. The sole purpose of the restriction is to act as a light touch safeguard. The court will only not authorise a proposed transaction if NG is being taken advantage of by a third party during a period of illness or is acting in a way that he will be likely to regret on recovering from a period of illness." | 2015‑11‑13 23:14:12 | 2015 cases, Brief summary, Deputyship cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Transcript
|
| Re HS [2015] EWCOP 33, [2015] MHLO 96 — "I have been asked to reconsider two orders I made on the papers. The first was an order dated 29 October 2014 revoking HS's Enduring Power of Attorney and the second was an order made on 10 December 2014 appointing Essex County Council to be HS's deputy for property and affairs." | 2015‑11‑13 23:06:27 | 2015 cases, Deputyship cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript
|
| The Public Guardian v SR [2015] EWCOP 32, [2015] MHLO 96 — "This is an application by the Public Guardian for an order revoking a Lasting Power of Attorney ('LPA') for property and affairs and directing him to cancel its registration." | 2015‑11‑13 23:02:49 | 2015 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, LPA cases - revocation, No summary, Transcript
|
| A Local Health Board v AB [2015] EWCOP 31, [2015] MHLO 95 — "I conclude that: (a) AB lacks capacity to conduct these proceedings herself. (b) AB lacks capacity to make her own decisions about whether to consent to medical treatment for her cardiac condition including dental surgery. (c) Insofar as the jurisdiction of the court is excluded because of the operation of the MHA and MCA, the inherent jurisdiction should be exercised to grant a declaration that it is lawful and in AB's interests to have the proposed medical treatment administered by the Applicant to her. (d) The inherent jurisdiction should be exercised to grant a declaration that it is lawful and in her best interests for AB to be deprived of her liberty to travel to and to remain at the hospital for the proposed medical treatment but that such physical and/or chemical restraint as may be required to deliver the treatment shall bear in mind the need to maintain her dignity to the maximum extent reasonably possible." (Caution: in relation to paragraph [54], on the MCA eligibility test, see An NHS Trust v A [2015] EWCOP 71, [2015] MHLO 91.) | 2015‑11‑13 23:00:17 | 2015 cases, Best interests, Deprivation of liberty, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript
|
| A Hospital NHS Trust v CD [2015] EWCOP 74, [2015] MHLO 94 — CD was willing to have the total abdominal hysterectomy, in order to remove two very large ovarian growths, which the medical experts recommended. (1) Mostyn J held that she lacked capacity in relation to this but that it was in her best interests to have the surgery. (2) The correct way to interpret the MCA ineligibity rules is as follows: "if the MHA regime whereby CD is compulsorily detained in a mental hospital imposes a specific requirement for dealing with the problem of the ovarian masses then CD is ineligible to be deprived of her liberty under the 2005 Act for the purposes of dealing with the problem by a different procedure under that Act. It doesn't (obviously) so she isn't ineligible." (3) In relation to deprivation of liberty the judge noted: "In KW & Ors v Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council [2015] EWCA Civ 1054M at para 32 the Court of Appeal stated 'even if Cheshire West is wrong, there is nothing confusing about it'. It may seem that way from the lofty heights of the Court of Appeal; and of course the literal words of the Supreme Court's test are perfectly easy to understand. But for we hoplites who have to administer it at first instance the scope and ramifications of the test are, with respect, extremely confusing. As Mr Matthewson, instructed by the Official Solicitor for CD, rightly stated 'anyone who deals with this day by day knows this is confusing'. What of the situation where, as here, the protected person actively and fervently expresses the wish to undergo the procedure that is said to amount to a deprivation of liberty? What of the situation, as was the case in Bournemouth Borough Council v PS [2015] EWCOP 39, [2015] MHLO 112, where the protected person shows no inclination whatsoever to leave the home where he is cared for round the clock? What of the situation where the protected person is seriously disabled, perhaps bedridden, perhaps in a coma, and is thus physically incapable of exercising the freedom to leave? The answers I received from the Bar when discussing these scenarios belie the blithe suggestion that 'there is nothing confusing' about the test. I do not accept the criticism that my approach to these cases is 'distorted' by my 'passionate' and 'tenacious' belief that Cheshire West is wrong. Rather, it is a loyal approach which tries to apply literally and purposively the Supreme Court's test while at the same time pointing out how confusing and curious it is, to say nothing of the cost it causes to the public purse. The confusion surrounding the main test is mirrored by the confusion that the interface with the MHA gives rise to." | 2015‑11‑13 22:53:01 | 2015 cases, Best interests, Brief summary, Deprivation of liberty, Judgment available on Bailii, Transcript
|
| Re AFR [2015] EWCOP 73, [2015] MHLO 93 — "This is an application by the Public Guardian to discharge two joint and several deputies for property and affairs on the grounds that they have behaved in a way that has contravened their authority or is not in their father's best interests." | 2015‑11‑12 18:47:24 | 2015 cases, Deputyship cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript
|
| Re DWA [2015] EWCOP 72, [2015] MHLO 92 — "On 1 October 2014 I made an order on the papers revoking a Lasting Power of Attorney ('LPA') for property and financial affairs in respect of one of three attorneys because I was satisfied that the donor was incapable of revoking the appointment herself and that the attorney in question had behaved in a way that contravened her authority or was not in the donor's best interests. This is an application by the attorney whose appointment was revoked for me to reconsider that decision pursuant to rule 89 of the Court of Protection Rules 2007." | 2015‑11‑12 18:45:20 | 2015 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, LPA cases - revocation, No summary, Transcript
|
| An NHS Trust v A [2015] EWCOP 71, [2015] MHLO 91 — A patient detained under MHA 1983 s3 was not ineligible to be deprived of his liberty in a general hospital under the MCA 2005 for the purpose of physical treatment (and the previous case on this point, A Local Health Board v AB [2015] EWCOP 31, [2015] MHLO 95, should be read as if the judge accidentally omitted a negative and inadvertently and mistakenly stated the law wrongly). | 2015‑11‑12 18:42:52 | 2015 cases, Brief summary, Deprivation of liberty, Judgment available on Bailii, Transcript
|
| Re AMH [2015] EWCOP 70, [2015] MHLO 90 — "This is an application by the Public Guardian to revoke a Lasting Power of Attorney ('LPA') for property and financial affairs." | 2015‑11‑12 18:23:55 | 2015 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, LPA cases - revocation, No summary, Transcript
|
| Tricker v Church [2013] EWCOP 2, [2013] MHLO 152 — The application for an order to enforce the receiver's security bonds was rejected, and costs were to be paid by the applicant personally. | 2015‑11‑04 23:04:41 | 2013 cases, Brief summary, Deputyship cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Transcript
|
| Re H [2015] EWCOP 52, [2015] MHLO 89 — "There are two provisions in the Mental Capacity Act 2005 ('MCA') that seem to contradict each other. Section 16(4)(b) envisages that a deputyship appointment will be of limited duration, whereas section 19(5) facilitates an appointment that could last for decades. ... When it comes to the crunch, section 16(4)(b) trumps section 19(5) because it is a principle to which the court must have regard when deciding whether it in P's best interests to appoint a deputy, while section 19(5) is simply a discretion conferred upon the court, once it has decided to appoint a deputy." | 2015‑10‑31 21:06:39 | 2015 cases, Deputyship cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript
|
| Re KW [2015] EWCOP 53, [2015] MHLO 88 — "DW objects to the deprivation of liberty and made the application to the Court of Protection on 5th December 2014 pursuant to Section 21A of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 to challenge the purpose of the standard authorisation. The application was made on the following grounds: (a) LCC failed to make an application to the Court of Protection (despite the recommendations of the Ombudsman). (b) LCC failed to take reasonable steps to plan a move for KW to a more suitable placement, closer to her family and KW has suffered distress as a result. (c) It is not in KW's best interests to be deprived of her liberty at R H therefore one of the qualifying requirements of Schedule 1A is not satisfied." | 2015‑10‑31 21:03:27 | 2015 cases, Deprivation of liberty, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript
|
| P v Surrey County Council [2015] EWCOP 54, [2015] MHLO 87 — "The issues for me to determine are these: (i) Was P's detention at the care home between 5 September 2014 and 23 December 2014 lawful or was it in breach of Article 5 and/or Article 8? (ii) If P's detention during that period was unlawful or in breach of Article 5, does a right to compensation or damages arise and, if so, how much? No claim for compensation or damages is in fact pursued. (iii) Was P's detention at the care home between 23 December 2014 and the date of cessation of detention lawful pursuant to a properly-made standard authorisation? If not, was it in breach of his Article 5 and/or Article 8 rights? (iv) Does a right to compensation or damages arise and, if so, how much? No claim for compensation or damages is in fact pursued." | 2015‑10‑31 20:54:14 | 2015 cases, Deprivation of liberty, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript
|
| Re ARL [2015] EWCOP 55, [2015] MHLO 86 — "This is an application by the Public Guardian for the court to revoke a Lasting Power of Attorney ('LPA') for property and financial affairs." | 2015‑10‑31 20:50:26 | 2015 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, LPA cases - revocation, No summary, Transcript
|
| Re RS [2015] EWCOP 56, [2015] MHLO 85 — "The matters before the court proceed as a challenge to the standard authorisation pursuant to Section 21A of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. ... On 28th May ... capacity being the gateway to the jurisdiction of this court a report was ordered pursuant to Section 49 of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 ... I am not prepared to vary or alter the principle behind the original order of 28th May. Finally, this is a difficult and recurring problem and brings into sharp focus the burden upon any Trust or NHS body to comply with such direction while at the same time maintaining the provision of its service to existing patients. The cost of the report is also funded by the Trust. There is no provision within Section 49 for the court to order payment of fees or expenses in that regard. These are matters that ultimately may have to be considered elsewhere." | 2015‑10‑31 20:48:24 | 2015 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Other capacity cases, Transcript
|
| Re SF [2015] EWCOP 68, [2015] MHLO 84 — "This is an application by the Public Guardian for the court to revoke an Enduring Power of Attorney ('EPA') and to direct him to cancel its registration." | 2015‑10‑31 20:40:13 | 2015 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Other EPA cases, Transcript
|
| Re GMP [2015] EWCOP 67, [2015] MHLO 83 — "This is an objection to an application for the appointment of a deputy for property and affairs." | 2015‑10‑31 20:38:34 | 2015 cases, Deputyship cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript
|
| Re RG [2015] EWCOP 66, [2015] MHLO 82 — "This is an application by Northamptonshire County Council for the court to revoke an Enduring Power of Attorney ('EPA') and to appoint a professional deputy to manage the donor's property and affairs in place of the attorney." | 2015‑10‑31 20:36:37 | 2015 cases, Deputyship cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Other EPA cases, Transcript
|
| Aidiniantz v Riley [2015] EWCOP 65, [2015] MHLO 81 — "These proceedings in the Court of Protection are the latest setting for the poisonous feud between the children of Mrs Grace Aidiniantz. On this occasion, they dispute where their mother should live, who should care for her, who should see her, and whether her finances should be investigated." | 2015‑10‑31 20:34:19 | 2015 cases, Best interests, COP costs cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript
|
| Re MLJ [2015] EWCOP 63, [2015] MHLO 80 — "This is a contested application for the appointment of an additional deputy to act jointly with the existing deputy for property and affairs." | 2015‑10‑31 20:29:16 | 2015 cases, Deputyship cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript
|
| Re AJ [2015] EWCOP 62, [2015] MHLO 79 — "This is an application by the respondent for the court to reconsider two orders that were made on the papers. The first order discharged him as his daughter's deputy for property and affairs and the second order appointed a panel deputy to act in his place." | 2015‑10‑31 20:27:01 | 2015 cases, Deputyship cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript
|
| Medway Council v M and T [2015] EWFC B164, [2015] MHLO 78 — "In this judgment, within ongoing care proceedings, I have determined the applications by T and Mother under the Human Rights Act for declarations and damages. I have set out below the alarming history of the unlawful accommodation of T by Medway Council for over 2 years, and my reasons for declarations to that effect and for the award of damages of £20,000 each to T and her Mother for breaches of their rights to respect for their family life under Article 8 and to fair trial under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. [The following are two paragraphs of the judgment which set out just part of the history.] [24] Instead, again, the Social Worker AT, accompanied by Mother's mental health Social Worker, visited Mother on 3.10.13 and purported to obtain a fresh s20 agreement which they were satisfied she understood and had capacity to make as Mother was able to repeat back to them that it was her consent to Medway Council, that it was voluntary and she accepted she could not care for T then. Medway Council has not been able to provide this document. To its credit, Medway Council does not now attempt to suggest that they obtained a valid s20 agreement from Mother. It is conceded that the August and October 'consents' should not have been relied upon. Clearly Mother should have been properly assessed for her decision-specific capacity, and been fully informed and supported. It is highly unlikely that she would have been assessed as having capacity given her low functioning in combination with her mental illness. [25] In the meantime on 10.9.13, the social work records reveal a note entered by DH, presumably then managing this case as it is headed "Manager's Decisions: Supervision". She wrongly describes T as having been placed in foster care as an "abandoned child when Mother was detained under the MHA". T was not abandoned. Detention in hospital for treatment under the Mental Health Act does not constitute and should never be treated as an abandonment by a parent of their child. DH, however, correctly goes on to say the following: "Mother has signed the Section 20 but Social Worker was concerned whether she fully understood the meaning of this", and with a mixed stab at an accurate understanding of the position wrote: "T cannot remain under Section 20 indefinitely and clear decision making should be made…", continuing under the heading "Actions" she includes this: "Attend a legal gateway meeting to discuss actions regarding long term care plan for child (permanency). The local authority do not have PR and cannot make decisions regarding child under Section 20 without consent from M". These last comments are of course correct, but again such a meeting did not occur and still no steps were taken to address the situation." | 2015‑10‑30 23:13:26 | 2015 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Miscellaneous cases, No summary, Transcript
|
| Re P (Application for Secure Accommodation Order) [2015] EWHC 2971 (Fam), [2015] MHLO 77 — "In my judgment it is clear that the restrictions imposed by reg. 5(2) on making a secure accommodation order under s.25 in respect of a child over the age of 16 are limited to children who are accommodated as a matter of discretion under s.20(5) and do not extend to children who are accommodated as a matter of duty under s.20(3). Where a looked-after child aged between 16 and 18 is accommodated under s.20(3) of the Children Act 1989 the court has the power to make her the subject of a secure accommodation order under s.25. It follows, therefore, that in this circumstances of this case it is appropriate that the local authority's application for a secure accommodation order be adjourned generally with liberty to restore should circumstances arise in which it considers it appropriate to do so." | 2015‑10‑30 22:58:10 | 2015 cases, Deprivation of liberty, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript
|
| CWM TAF University v F [2015] EWHC 2533 (Fam), [2015] MHLO 75 — "This application was issued ... for a declaration under s.15 of the Mental Capacity Act: Firstly, that F lacks capacity; secondly, to make decisions about her clinically assisted nutrition and hydration; and, thirdly, the central issue, that it is not in F's best interests for clinically assisted nutrition and hydration to be continued, that it is lawful and in her best interests for clinically assisted nutrition and hydration to be withdrawn." | 2015‑10‑30 22:44:50 | 2015 cases, Best interests, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript
|
| Re AB (A child: deprivation of liberty) [2015] EWHC 3125 (Fam), [2015] MHLO 74 — "There is a large measure of agreement between the parties on the relevant factual matrix and the legal principles applicable to the issues I am asked to determine, namely: (1) Whether AB is deprived of his liberty at X. (2) If so, are the parents and/or the local authority entitled to consent to the same? (3) If not, whether the court will sanction the deprivation of liberty and, if so, under what provision, power or jurisdiction? (4) Whether it would be appropriate to give guidance on the approach to, and conduct of, similar cases." | 2015‑10‑30 22:39:14 | 2015 cases, Deprivation of liberty, ICLR summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Transcript
|
| R (MM and DM) v SSWP (Costs) [2015] UKUT 566 (AAC), [2015] MHLO 73 — Tribunals Judiciary website summary: "When a case is transferred to the Upper Tribunal by the High Court in the exercise of its discretion, the Upper Tribunal will apply the approach to costs taken under CPR." | 2015‑10‑30 22:30:40 | 2015 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Transcript, Upper Tribunal decisions
|
| R (Letts) v The Lord Chancellor & Ors [2015] EWHC 402 (Admin), [2015] MHLO 72 — "This application for judicial review concerns the criteria applied by the Legal Aid Agency to determine whether relatives of a deceased should be granted legal aid for representation at an inquest into a death which has arisen in circumstances which might engage Article 2... What this case boiled down to was a consideration of how Article 2 applies to the suicide of mental health patients and an assessment of the (in)adequacy of the Guidance in reflecting the law. I have come to the conclusion that in one material respect the Guidance is inadequate and both incorporates an error of law and, also, provides a materially misleading impression of what the law is. ... [I]n the absence of a clear recognition that there is a category of case where the investigative duty arises quite irrespective of the existence of arguable breach by the State the Guidance is materially misleading and inaccurate." | 2015‑10‑28 23:27:05 | 2015 cases, ICLR summary, Inquest cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript
|
| Rochdale MBC v KW [2015] EWCA Civ 1054, [2015] MHLO 71 — (1) The judge (in his second decision) had misinterpreted the consent order (on appeal from his first decision) when he said that the Court of Appeal had not decided that KW was being deprived of her liberty. Therefore, this second appeal would be allowed. (2) The judge was also wrong to say that the Court of Appeal had taken "a procedurally impermissible route" so that its decision was "ultra vires". An order of any court is binding until it is set aside or varied: it is futile and inappropriate for a judge to seek to undermine a binding order by complaining that it was ultra vires or wrong for any other reason. In any event, the consent order was made by a procedurally permissible route: the appeal court has a discretion to allow an appeal by consent on the papers without determining the merits at a hearing if it is satisfied that there are good and sufficient reasons for doing so. If the appeal court is satisfied that (i) the parties' consent to the allowing of the appeal is based on apparently competent legal advice, and (ii) the parties advance plausible reasons to show that the decision of the lower court was wrong, it is likely to make an order allowing the appeal on the papers and without determining the merits. (3) The Court of Appeal stated that the judge's disagreement with the Cheshire West decision was in danger of distorting his approach to these cases and, in light of the two successful appeals, the review should be conducted by a different judge. | 2015‑10‑23 22:29:42 | 2015 cases, Deprivation of liberty, ICLR summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Transcript, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function
|
| Re PAW [2015] EWCOP 57, [2015] MHLO 68 — "This is a contested application for the appointment of a deputy for property and affairs." | 2015‑09‑30 20:59:29 | 2015 cases, Deputyship cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript
|
| DGP Law v DGHP [2015] EWCOP 58, [2015] MHLO 67 — "This is a reconsideration of a decision made on the papers on 16 February 2015 by District Judge Bellamy, who dismissed the respondents' objections to the applicant's application to be appointed as her mother's deputy for property and affairs." | 2015‑09‑30 20:57:33 | 2015 cases, Deputyship cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript
|
| Re NRA [2015] EWCOP 59, [2015] MHLO 66 — "I have ten cases before me seeking welfare orders under s. 16(2)(a) of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (the MCA). The welfare orders are sought to authorise the deprivation of liberty that, it is common ground, is being, or will be, created by the implementation of the regime of care, supervision, control and support (the care package) upon which the welfare orders are based. If it had been thought that the care packages did not result in a deprivation of liberty it is highly likely that the relevant public authorities would have relied on s. 5 of the MCA and no application to the Court of Protection would have been made. When the cases were transferred to me they were regarded as test cases on the directions that should be given for their determination and in particular on whether the subject of the proceedings (P) should be a party." | 2015‑09‑30 20:53:15 | 2015 cases, Deprivation of liberty, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript
|
| Re ME [2015] EWCOP 61, [2015] MHLO 64 — "This is an objection to an application for the appointment of a deputy for property and affairs." | 2015‑09‑30 20:46:16 | 2015 cases, Deputyship cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, 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
|
| Commissioner of the Police of the Metropolis v Ahsan [2015] EWHC 2354 (Admin), [2015] MHLO 62 — The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis applied for an order to impose notification requirements for a period of 15 years on Syed Talha Ahsan under the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008. The notification order would require him for that period to attend police stations to provide, and update, information about his living arrangements and to provide details about his travel plans, for which permission can be refused; breach of the requirements is punishable with imprisonment of up to 5 years. (1) Ahsan had been convicted in the United States of providing material assistance for the Taliban, while they were harbouring Osama bin Laden, through his involvement in a US-hosted website, but he argued that this did not constitute an act which "would have constituted an offence… if it had been done in any part of the United Kingdom…" because it was in fact done within the United Kingdom. The judge decided that (a) Parliament must have intended that the notification requirements should apply to terrorist conduct committed here which results in a conviction in a foreign court, even if it could have been prosecuted here but was not; (b) by inadvertence Parliament had failed to give effect to that purpose; (c) taking a purposive approach, even assuming that all elements of Mr Ahsan's offending occurred here, the offences he was convicted of in the US were corresponding foreign offences. (2) Ashan argued that the Commissioner had failed to take into account relevant considerations and therefore the exercise of discretion to make the application was unlawful. The judge decided that: (a) since there is a discretion, its exercise should be open to public law challenge; (b) only in exceptional circumstances would this be successful, because of the strong legislative steer that, where there has been a corresponding foreign conviction and the requisite sentence has been imposed, an application should be made; (c) the public law challenge should, to avoid wasting time and money, be heard within the 2008 Act proceedings rather than by separate judicial review proceedings; (d) failure to consider the sentencing remarks, his mental health, and the fact that Ahsan had not been prosecuted here, did not render the decision unlawful. (3) The notification requirements did not meet the minimum level of severity required for a successful Article 3 claim. (4) The interference with Ahsan's private and family life was not necessary and proportionate under Article 8: (a) this was an exceptional case where there was no significant future risk; (b) the medical evidence was that that the notification requirements were likely to have a severe adverse impact on Ahsan's mental health, and despite this likelihood the requirements would continue for 15 years with no review mechanism. (5) The application was therefore dismissed. | 2015‑08‑23 22:33:37 | 2015 cases, ICLR summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Miscellaneous cases, Transcript
|
| SL v Ludlow Street Healthcare [2015] UKUT 398 (AAC) — The patient was living outside hospital on s17 leave but was required to attend hospital for fortnightly psychology sessions and a monthly ward round. He challenged the tribunal's decision that it remained appropriate for him to be liable to be detained in hospital under s3 for medical treatment. This was unsuccessful as the tribunal had applied the correct legal test and had applied it properly. The UT judge added that medical treatment includes rehabilitation under medical supervision, which meant that the s17 leave and the rehabilitation provided outside hospital, both of which operated under medical supervision, were themselves part of the treatment plan. | 2015‑08‑07 22:27:01 | 2015 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Transcript, Upper Tribunal decisions
|
| R (Samadi) v SSHD [2015] EWHC 1806 (Admin), [2015] MHLO 59 — "This is the hearing of the Claimant's claim for damages for what he argues was his unlawful immigration detention for 19 days from 14 May to 1 June 2012. In broad summary his case is that there were breaches of §55.10 of the Defendant's Enforcement Instructions and Guidance (the 'Guidance') which provides for two categories of potential detainees who will normally only be considered suitable for detention in very exceptional circumstances: (a) those suffering from serious mental illness which cannot be satisfactorily managed in detention, and (b) those where there is independent evidence that they have been tortured. It is the Claimant's case that he fell into both those categories; and that in any event the Defendant (c) wrongfully continued to detain him after it had become clear that his removal was no longer imminent." | 2015‑08‑07 22:08:10 | 2015 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Repatriation cases, Transcript
|
| 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
|
| Re EL: Public Guardian v CS [2015] EWCOP 30, [2015] MHLO 56 — "This is an application by the Public Guardian for an order revoking a Lasting Power of Attorney ('LPA') for property and financial affairs and directing him to cancel its registration." | 2015‑07‑20 20:54:31 | 2015 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, LPA cases - revocation, No summary, Transcript
|
| Re HC: Public Guardian v CC [2015] EWCOP 29, [2015] MHLO 55 — "This is an application by the Public Guardian for an order under section 16(8) of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 revoking the appointment of a deputy because he has behaved in a way that contravenes the authority conferred on him by the court or is not in the best interests of the person for whom he acts as deputy." | 2015‑07‑20 20:51:39 | 2015 cases, Deputyship cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript
|
| Re SM: Public Guardian v MO [2015] EWCOP 27, [2015] MHLO 54 — "This is an application by the Public Guardian for the revocation of a Lasting Power of Attorney ('LPA') for property and financial affairs." | 2015‑07‑20 20:47:12 | 2015 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, LPA cases - revocation, No summary, Transcript
|
| Re ED: Public Guardian v JD [2015] EWCOP 26, [2015] MHLO 53 — "This is an application by the Public Guardian to revoke an Enduring Power of Attorney." | 2015‑07‑20 20:39:32 | 2015 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Other EPA cases, Transcript
|
| Re LC: Bedford Borough Council v Mrs C and Mr C [2015] EWCOP 25, [2015] MHLO 52 — "The proceedings concern Mrs C’s best interests in relation to residence and her contact with her husband and a deprivation of her liberty. ... There is also in existence a separate application by the local authority for a deputy for property and affairs to be appointed for her." | 2015‑07‑20 20:26:13 | 2015 cases, Best interests, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript
|
| The Mental Health Trust v DD [2015] EWCOP 4, [2015] MHLO 50 — "For the reasons set out above, I propose to declare: (i) pursuant to section 15 of the 2005 Act that DD lacks capacity to litigate in relation to the relevant issues; (ii) pursuant to section 15 of the 2005 Act that DD lacks capacity to make decisions in respect of contraception; (iii) pursuant to section 15 of the 2005 Act that it is lawful and in DD's best interests to undergo a therapeutic sterilisation and authorise the applicants' staff to do so, together with the provision of all ancillary care and treatment; Further, (iv) subject to certain safeguards (more fully set out in the care plan and reflected in the proposed draft order) being required, I propose to authorise the applicants to remove DD from her home and take steps to convey her to hospital for the purposes of the sterilisation procedure, and authorise the use of reasonable and proportionate measures to ensure that she is able to receive the said treatment even if any deprivation of liberty is caused by the same; (v) I authorise the applicants to take such necessary and proportionate steps to give effect to the best interests declarations above to include, forced entry and necessary restraint, and authorise that any interferences with DD's rights under Article 8 of the ECHR as being in her best interests." | 2015‑07‑20 20:15:19 | 2015 cases, Best interests, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii
|
| * 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
|
| Re A [2015] EWHC 1709 (Fam), [2015] MHLO 45 — "The Local Authority applies for a secure accommodation order in respect of her under s.25 of the Children Act 1989. The Local Authority's case is that A is a danger to herself and others, and that she is no longer containable in any form of ordinary residential unit. ... Put in lay language, the expert consensus of CAMHS is that A's problems, although recognised as being severe and extreme, are not of a mental health or psychiatric nature; but rather are of a behavioural nature. Therefore, admission to a Young Person's Psychiatric Unit for assessment and potential subsequent treatment is not currently 'on offer' as a way of dealing with A's problems. ... Conventionally, a specific placement is identified before a secure accommodation order is made. However, that is simply not possible here, and both the Local Authority and the Children's Guardian invite me to make the order in general terms, leaving it to the Local Authority, on consultation with the Children's Guardian, to place A at an appropriate unit as and when one is identified. ... A can be seen as falling between two stools. She is not amenable to a psychiatric disposal on the expert report available, but she is unable to be contained in ordinary residential homes. It is clearly unsatisfactory that no secure arrangements can readily be found for her, and that she remains currently at some measure of risk, howsoever hard the staff struggle to contain it, in the ordinary residential unit where she is placed. The Local Authority must, and will, therefore continue its efforts to find secure accommodation. They tell me that funding is not a problem in this case. The Local Authority will also be considering the possibility of obtaining an independent psychiatric report into her situation, which could then be shared with the local CAMHS team to see if it affected their current opinion." | 2015‑06‑24 09:59:09 | 2015 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Miscellaneous cases, No summary, Transcript
|
| Re X (Court of Protection Practice) [2015] EWCA Civ 599, [2015] MHLO 44 — This case concerned the hearings arranged by Munby LJ, the President of the Court of Protection, in relation to devising a streamlined and minimally Article 5 compliant process for the anticipated higher numbers of court applications following Cheshire West. (1) Whether the Court of Appeal has jurisdiction to hear an appeal from the Court of Protection depends on whether there was a "decision" (MCA 2005 s53), which must mean a decision determining an issue arising between parties (involving or about the person concerned) rather than decision made on a hypothetical basis. (2) The President's judgments contained no appealable "decision" as the relevant issues had not arisen in the appellants' cases. (2) (Obiter) In theory the person concerned need not always be a party to deprivation of liberty proceedings if his participation can reliably be secured by other means, but given the tools presently available in our domestic procedural law, the person concerned must always be a party, so the streamlined "Re X" procedure was not compliant with Article 5. (Detailed summary on case page.) | 2015‑06‑17 19:08:12 | 2015 cases, Deprivation of liberty, Detailed summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Transcript, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function
|
| AF v Nottinghamshire NHS Trust [2015] UKUT 216 (AAC), [2015] MHLO 43 — "There is nothing in the law that requires the social circumstances report to have been written by a social worker or CPN and not a nurse, or requiring that the nursing report and social circumstances reports must have different authors, and the tribunal therefore did not err in law in having those two reports before it. Nor was there any legal requirement on the report’s author to attend the hearing and so the tribunal did not err in law in allowing another nurse to attend and speak to that report. Further, the question of whether any deficits in the report (assuming there were such) led the tribunal to err in law must be judged on the facts of the individual case. In a case where the tribunal decided that the appellant had not got to the point of being able to be discharged and needed to remain under section, the relevance of any after-care package in place simply falls away. And the tribunal adequately explained why it was not adjourning." | 2015‑06‑08 23:16:19 | 2015 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript, Upper Tribunal decisions
|
| 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
|
| LB Redbridge v G (No 6) [2015] EWCA Civ 446, [2015] MHLO 40 — The Official Solicitor unsuccessfully appealed against an order that Associated Newspapers Limited should pay (only) 30% of his costs. (1) The primary ground of appeal - that the COP Rules did not apply - was described by the Court of Appeal as "simply a device to suggest that the costs presumption should be reversed". (2) The alternative ground was that if the COP Rules did apply then the judge had erred in the exercise of his discretion in the proportionate costs order that he made. In relation to this the Court of Appeal held that (a) given that inaccurate letters from the OS (stating that that ANL were prevented from visiting G) had triggered ANL's application, and that the OS had not understood the public importance of the media's general role, a proportionate costs order was unsurprising; and (b) multiple representation where there is no significant difference between the arguments of parties on an application is to be discouraged by a limitation in costs. | 2015‑05‑23 22:30:03 | 2015 cases, 39 Essex Chambers summary, Brief summary, COP costs cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Transcript, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function
|
| H v USA [2015] EWHC 1066 (Admin), [2015] MHLO 37 — Extradition case with mental health factual background. | 2015‑04‑29 21:35:39 | 2015 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Repatriation cases, Transcript
|
| W City Council v Mrs L [2015] EWCOP 20, [2015] MHLO 35 — "This hearing concerns a 93-year old lady with a diagnosis of severe dementia, Alzheimer's disease. She lives in her own home, with care and safety arrangements set up for her between her adult daughters and the Local Authority. This simple scenario raises the following issues: (a) whether the care arrangements for the lady (Mrs L) constitute a deprivation of her liberty; (b) if so, then whether the State is responsible for such deprivation of liberty; and (c) if so, then whether such deprivation of liberty should be authorised by the court and what the arrangements for continuing authorisation should be." | 2015‑04‑16 10:57:25 | 2015 cases, Deprivation of liberty, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript
|
| NM v Kent County Council [2015] UKUT 125 (AAC), [2015] MHLO 34 — NM was subject to both guardianship and a DOLS authorisation. His residence at a particular home was enforced and he was escorted while on leave. The First-tier tribunal decided that he "had the capacity to decide where to live but not the capacity to decide on the supervision that was required to keep him and any child he came into contact with safe", and that he would not remain in the home without being subject to the guardianship; it refused to discharge him. (1) An ideal set of reasons would identify the relevant legal differences between guardianship and DOLS and include findings of fact sufficient to show their significance to the legal criteria set out in s72(4). (2) Upper Tribunal Judge Jacobs accepted the council's position that the differences include: DOLS assumes that the person lacks capacity to make the relevant decisions in their best interests; DOLS cannot impose a requirement that the person reside at a particular address, whereas a guardian can; and DOLS cannot authorise anyone to give, or consent to, treatment for someone with a mental disorder. He also said that a limitation inherent in the DOLS regime was that, while it could prevent NM from leaving, it could not deal with the possibility that he may abscond. (3) In some (other) cases guardianship may not be necessary for the purposes of s72(4)(b) as DOLS may provide sufficiently for the person’s welfare and the protection of others. (4) The First-tier Tribunal's reasons on the statutory criteria (the key being that NM would not remain at the home without guardianship) and the relationship with DOLS (concerning return following absconsion) were in substance adequate to explain and justify its decision. | 2015‑04‑10 20:09:05 | 2015 cases, Brief summary, Deprivation of liberty, Judgment available on Bailii, Transcript, Upper Tribunal decisions, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii
|
| R v Marshall [2015] EWCA Crim 474, [2015] MHLO 32 — "On 12th March 2014 in the Crown Court at Newcastle upon Tyne the appellant pleaded guilty to an offence of violent disorder, contrary to section 2(1) of the Public Order Act 1986. On 12th August 2014 he was made subject to a hospital order, pursuant to section 37 of the Mental Health Act 1983, and a Football Banning Order for six years. With the leave of the single judge he appeals against sentence on the ground that a suspended sentence of imprisonment should have been imposed, not a hospital order. ... Having reviewed the updated psychiatric report, we are satisfied that the conditions for a hospital order under section 37 continue to be met, and it remains the most suitable disposal." | 2015‑03‑31 22:41:36 | 2015 cases, Hospital order cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript
|
| Donna v Martin [2015] EWCOP 23, [2015] MHLO 31 — "This is an application under rule 89 of the Court of Protection Rules 2007 inviting me to reconsider an order I made on the papers on 27 November 2014. As this is a case in which there is a dispute as to who should act as a deputy, I am required ... to publish this judgment." | 2015‑03‑29 18:24:01 | 2015 cases, Deputyship cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript
|
| Re CJ: Public Guardian v MP [2015] EWCOP 21, [2015] MHLO 30 — "This is a reconsideration of a decision made on the papers on 4 November 2104 by District Judge S. E. Rogers, who made an order: (a) revoking the respondent's appointment as his partner's deputy for property and affairs; and (b) inviting a panel deputy to apply to be appointed as deputy in his place. ... I am absolutely certain that there has been no dishonest misappropriation of CJ's funds by MP, but that's not the point. ... To turn a blind eye to MP's wilful refusal to comply with his duties would erode and undermine the safeguarding work carried out by the OPG's supervision and compliance teams, which cannot possibly be in the public interest. It would also ride roughshod over the court's obligations under international human rights law to ensure that the protective measures it makes contain appropriate and effective safeguards to prevent abuse: United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, Article 12.4. ... Accordingly, I confirm District Judge Rogers' order revoking MP's appointment as deputy and inviting a panel deputy to apply to be appointed in his place." | 2015‑03‑26 09:54:39 | 2015 cases, Deputyship cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript
|
| Baker v Cambridgeshire and Peterborough NHSFT [2015] EWHC 609 (QB), [2015] MHLO 29 — "This action arises out of the tragic suicide of Philip Baker ... The claim is brought on behalf of his widow, Pauline Baker ... It is alleged that the treatment plan provided by Dr Kabacs on 29 September was inadequate and her decision on 26 October 2010 to discharge Mr Baker to the care of his general practitioner, caused him to take his own life." | 2015‑03‑24 21:45:50 | 2015 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Miscellaneous cases, No summary, Transcript
|
| Re ID (Revocation of LPA) [2015] EWCOP 19, [2015] MHLO 28 — "This is an application by the Public Guardian for the revocation of a Lasting Power of Attorney." | 2015‑03‑24 20:22:24 | 2015 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, LPA cases - revocation, No summary, Transcript
|
| Re AW [2015] EWCOP 16, [2015] MHLO 27 — "These are competing applications by DB and DW to be appointed as AW's deputy for property and affairs." | 2015‑03‑24 20:20:35 | 2015 cases, Deputyship cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript
|
| BG v MHTS [2015] CSIH 18, [2015] MHLO 26 — "This is an appeal by JG’s son from a decision of the sheriff principal of Lothian and Borders refusing his appeal against a decision of the Mental Health Tribunal for Scotland. The decision of the MHTS which he had appealed against was a decision to make a compulsory treatment order in relation to his mother." | 2015‑03‑24 20:17:50 | 2015 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Scottish cases, Transcript
|
| Re PL (Objection Hearing) [2015] EWCOP 14, [2015] MHLO 25 — "This is an objection by PL's daughters to his son's application to be appointed as his deputy for property and affairs." | 2015‑03‑24 20:14:11 | 2015 cases, Deputyship cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript
|
| Rochdale MBC v KW [2015] EWCOP 13, [2015] MHLO 24 — (1) The Court of Appeal's decision to allow an appeal against the judge's earlier decision (that KW was not being deprived of her liberty at home) by consent, and without an oral hearing or judgment, was procedurally impermissible. (2) Although the Court of Appeal had set aside the decision, it had not actually declared that KW was deprived of her liberty: therefore, her status will be in limbo until the judge decides the matter at an oral 12-month review hearing. (3) The provisions for a review on the care plan becoming more restrictive would only be triggered if the changes amount to bodily restraint comparable to that which obtained in Cheshire West, as any restrictions short of that would amount to no more than arrangements for her care in her own home and would not amount to state detention. (4) The judge concluded that: "In this difficult and sensitive area, where people are being looked after in their own homes at the state's expense, the law is now in a state of serious confusion." | 2015‑03‑24 20:09:36 | 2015 cases, Brief summary, Deprivation of liberty, Judgment available on Bailii, Transcript, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function
|
| A Healthcare NHS Trust v P and Q [2015] EWCOP 15, [2015] MHLO 23 — "The Trust ... applied to the Court for a declaration in P's best interests firstly, not to escalate his care and secondly to discontinue some care, inevitably leading to his demise. ... At the same time they also applied for a reporting restriction order with accompanying documentation. When they sought to serve that material on the Press Association through the service known as CopyDirect, but now in fact called the Injunctions Alert Service, the second respondent objected to the disclosure of any identity either of P or of P's family. ... As a result I listed a hearing ... for the Court to consider four questions: (Generally) (1) Whether in applications for reporting restrictions orders the applicant, when notifying the Press of the application, is required to identify the parties and or P. (Specifically in this application) (2) Whether further hearings in these proceedings should be heard in public. (3) Whether there should be any reporting restrictions in relation to these proceedings and if so those restrictions. (4) Such further directions as seemed appropriate to the Court." | 2015‑03‑24 19:35:57 | 2015 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Other capacity cases, Transcript
|
| Re BN [2015] EWCOP 11, [2015] MHLO 22 — "This is an application under rule 89 of the Court of Protection Rules 2007 for me to reconsider an order I made on the papers. ... BN does not lack capacity to revoke the LPAs and, indeed, she has no wish to revoke them, so the court is powerless to intervene. ... CN acted in bad faith, was motivated by spite, and was unsuccessful. BN responded to the application by taking advice from her solicitors, who sensibly narrowed the matter down to a single issue. It would be unjust to expect BN to pay the legal costs she had to incur in order to resist such an unmeritorious application." | 2015‑03‑24 17:34:53 | 2015 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, LPA cases - revocation, No summary, Transcript
|
| Sekerani v SSHD [2014] UKAITUR DA/00301/2014, [2014] MHLO 144 — "The appellant had claimed asylum on the bases that he fears the ZANU PF in Zimbabwe which claim was rejected in 2003. The appellant no longer relies on his asylum claim but on his claim for humanitarian protection. The appellant claims he cannot return to Zimbabwe because of his mental health problems as he has been diagnosed as suffering from paranoid schizophrenia. He relies on a report from Dr Gillian Wainscott, a consultant psychiatrist dated 27 February 2014. The appellant claims that he has established a family and private life in the United Kingdom because he has a cousin in this country who has been helping him." | 2015‑03‑24 17:28:44 | 2014 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Repatriation cases, Transcript
|
| Re DT: Public Guardian v IT [2015] EWCOP 10, [2015] MHLO 21 — "This is an application by the Public Guardian to revoke and cancel the registration of an Enduring Power of Attorney. It is unusual for me to dismiss an application by the Public Guardian, but on this occasion I am not satisfied that the order he is seeking: (a) is proportionate; (b) is less restrictive in terms of DT's rights and freedom of action; (c) respects DT's rights, will and preferences; (d) warrants public interference in his private and family life; or (e) is in his best interests." | 2015‑03‑24 17:17:28 | 2015 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Other EPA cases, Transcript
|
| Re F [2004] EWHC 725 (Ch) — "This is an appeal from the refusal of Master Lush, the Master of the Court of Protection, to register an enduring power of attorney dated 10th July 2000 which was made by the donor (Mrs F) in favour of her son (Mr A). The Master upheld an objection to registration on grounds of the unsuitability of Mr A to be the donor's attorney, which was lodged by his sister (Mrs B)." | 2015‑03‑24 17:09:47 | 2004 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Other EPA cases, Transcript
|
| Re GW [2015] EWCOP 9, [2015] MHLO 20 — "This is an application by the Public Guardian to revoke a Lasting Power of Attorney for property and financial affairs because the attorney has behaved in a way that contravenes his authority and is not in the donor's best interests." | 2015‑03‑24 16:59:53 | 2015 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, LPA cases - revocation, No summary, Transcript
|
| R v M [2014] EWCA Crim 1641, [2014] MHLO 143 — "The Advice on Appeal submitted on behalf of the applicant contains two grounds: first, that the judge was wrong in principle to make a s45A hospital and limitation direction when the conditions for making a restriction order under section 41 were not met; and second, that a section 37 order was the appropriate order. Those orders and directions refer to the provisions of the Mental Health Act 1983, as amended by the Mental Health Act 2007. The Registrar has also referred the making of the Victim Surcharge Order to the full court on two separate issues." | 2015‑02‑12 23:58:04 | 2014 cases, Hybrid order cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript
|
| YA v Central and NW London NHSFT [2015] UKUT 37 (AAC), [2015] MHLO 18 — This case concerned the appointment and duties of a legal representative appointed by the tribunal under rule 11(7). There is a distinction between the rule 11 test (capacity to ‘appoint a representative’) and capacity to conduct proceedings, but this is ‘theoretical rather than real’. The judge decided this as otherwise (given the wording of the rule 11 test) there would be cases where the tribunal could not make an appointment. The role of an appointed legal representative is akin to the role of the litigation friend in civil proceedings – ‘to provide that a patient has an effective role in the proceedings and his best interests are advanced and considered by them’. The representative should ‘advance all arguable points to test the bases for the detention in hospital’ unless he disagrees with the patient’s wishes, in which case he should ‘advance such arguments as [he] properly can in support of the patient’s expressed views…’. Having been appointed (and generally) if the representative forms the view that the patient does have capacity, he should inform the Tribunal and take instructions as normal, and act on those instructions. | 2015‑02‑12 23:49:18 | 2015 cases, Detailed summary, Judgment available on Bailii, MHT capacity cases, Transcript, Upper Tribunal decisions
|
| * 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
|
| Re SB: Public Guardian v BB [2015] EWCOP 7 [2015] MHLO 15 — "This is an application to revoke a Lasting Power of Attorney for property and financial affairs because the attorneys have behaved in a way that contravenes their authority and is not in the donor's best interests. It is also a contested application as to who should be appointed as SB's deputy for property and affairs in place of the attorneys." | 2015‑02‑12 23:07:50 | 2015 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, LPA cases - revocation, No summary, Transcript
|
| Re EG: Public Guardian v GB [2015] EWCOP 6, [2015] MHLO 14 — "This is an application by the Public Guardian to revoke a Lasting Power of Attorney for property and financial affairs ('LPA') because the attorneys have behaved in a way that contravenes their authority and is not in the donor's best interests." | 2015‑02‑12 23:05:52 | 2015 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, LPA cases - revocation, No summary, Transcript
|
| R (Kent CC) v SSH [2015] EWCA Civ 81, [2015] MHLO 13 — "This case concerns the question of which of a number of local authorities should be responsible for funding the residential accommodation of a disabled adult pursuant to section 21 of the National Assistance Act 1948. In particular, it concerns the proper construction of section 24(5) which deems a person to be ordinarily resident in a local authority area when he is in fact ordinarily resident elsewhere." | 2015‑02‑12 23:03:10 | 2015 cases, Community care, ICLR summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Transcript
|
| Bostridge v Oxleas NHS Foundation Trust [2015] EWCA Civ 79, [2015] MHLO 12 — "The single issue in this appeal is whether the appellant, a mentally disordered patient unlawfully detained in hospital for some 442 days, is entitled to substantial damages instead of the nominal damages awarded by the judge, in circumstances where he would anyway have been detained lawfully had the defendant NHS trust been aware of the unlawfulness. ... I would dismiss this appeal." | 2015‑02‑12 22:58:20 | 2015 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript, Unlawful detention cases, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function
|
| Re AJ (DOLS) [2015] EWCOP 5, [2015] MHLO 11 — "This case raises a number of issues about the provisions of the Mental Capacity Act 2005, and in particular the amendments that were introduced into that Act by the Mental Health Act 2007 concerning the procedures to be followed in cases of deprivation of liberty. The provisions under consideration include the selection and appointment of relevant person's representatives under Part 10 of Schedule A1 and independent mental capacity advocates under s.39D which have not, so far as I am aware, been considered in any previous judgment. More fundamentally, the case addresses the question of the extent of the duty on a local authority to ensure that a person who lacks capacity is able to challenge a deprivation of their liberty." | 2015‑02‑12 22:48:15 | 2015 cases, Deprivation of liberty, ICLR summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Transcript
|
| MASM v MMAM [2015] EWCOP 3, [2015] MHLO 10 — (1) The issue: "The point the case raises is a short but important one: namely the legal status of declaratory orders in the Court of Protection and the consequences, if any, for deliberate defiance of them. ... Mr MASM and his son have plainly colluded to defeat the declaration made by this court. ... Two questions have fallen for consideration here in the light of this background: (i) What is the legal status of a declaration of best interests in the Court of Protection? (ii) Can a party who deliberately acts in defiance of a declaration be held to be in contempt of court?" (2) Decision: "Ultimately, a declaration of best interests connotes the superlative or extreme quality of welfare options. It by no means follows automatically that an alternative course of action to that determined in the Declaration, is contrary to an individual's welfare. There may, in simple terms, be a 'second best' option. For this reason, such a declaration cannot be of the same complexion as a Court Order. It lacks both the necessary clarity and fails to carry any element of mandatory imperative. I am ultimately not prepared to go as far as Mr McKendrick urges me to and elevate the remit of the Court of Protection, in its welfare decision making, to such a level that anything hampering the court in the exercise of its duty, or perpetrated in wanton defiance of its objectives is capable, without more, of being an interference with the administration of justice and therefore criminal contempt. Such an approach would it seems to me be entirely out of step with the development of our understanding of the importance of proper and fair process where the liberty of the individual is concerned. I would add that this has long been foreshadowed by the recognition that the necessary standard of proof in a application to commit is the criminal standard. Moreover, though my order of 20th February 2015 was expressed to have been made pursuant to section 16, it was drafted in declaratory terms. As such, for the reasons I have set out above, it cannot, in my judgement, trigger contempt proceedings. There cannot be 'defiance' of a 'declaration' nor can there be an 'enforcement' of one. A declaration is ultimately no more than a formal, explicit statement or announcement. That said I emphasise that Mr MASM, in fact acted, through the agency of his son, in a way which was cynically contrary to his mother's best interests. The course he took was not a 'second best' option but one entirely inimical to his mother's welfare, physically, mentally and emotionally. He has frustrated the objectives of the litigation but he is not, as I ultimately find, acting in defiance of an order and therefore is not exposed to contempt proceedings." (3) Guidance: "Such guidance as I can give can only be limited: (i) Many orders pursuant to Section 16 seem to me to be perfectly capable of being drafted in clear unequivocal and even, where appropriate, prescriptive language. This Section ..→ | 2015‑01‑31 20:37:41 | 2015 cases, Brief summary, ICLR summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Other capacity cases, Transcript
|
| Border v Lewisham and Greenwich NHS Trust [2015] EWCA Civ 8, [2015] MHLO 8 — "This is an appeal against an order ... which ... dismissed the claimant's claim for damages for clinical negligence. Permission to appeal was granted on a single ground, which relates to the issue of the claimant's consent to a particular medical procedure, namely the insertion of a cannula into her left arm for the purpose of intravenous access. ... A finding of absence of consent to the insertion of the cannula leads inexorably in this case to a finding of breach of duty in inserting it. The duty to obtain the patient's consent to treatment is a fundamental tenet of medical practice and is inherent in the case-law concerning the duty to take reasonable steps to warn a patient of the risks of treatment so that the patient can make an informed decision about whether to consent to it ... I would dispose of the appeal by (i) granting a declaration that Dr Prenter was in breach of his duty of care by inserting the cannula without the claimant's consent and (ii) remitting the matter to Judge Moloney to determine the outstanding issue of causation and, if liability is thereby established, to reach a final determination with regard to damages." | 2015‑01‑31 20:14:53 | 2015 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Miscellaneous cases, No summary, Transcript
|
| Re RG: Public Guardian v PB [2015] EWCOP 2, [2015] MHLO 6 — "This is an application for the court to reconsider an order made on the papers, partially revoking an enduring power of attorney." | 2015‑01‑30 10:00:31 | 2015 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Other EPA cases, Transcript
|
| R v Wells [2015] EWCA Crim 2, [2015] MHLO 5 — "In each appeal and application before the court, the defendant has been found unfit to plead: that is to say, based on medical evidence, the court has found that one or more of the following criteria is satisfied namely that he or she does not have the ability to plead to the indictment, to understand the course of the proceedings, to instruct a lawyer, to challenge a juror, to understand the evidence. ... Where a defendant's disability impacts on his/her ability to take part in a trial but he/she is not otherwise affected by a psychiatric condition such as renders what is said in interview unreliable (whether or not the delusional traits are apparent on the face of the interview), there is no reason why the jury should not hear them albeit with an appropriate warning. When considering the extent to which evidence of the interview should be admitted, it remains relevant to consider all the circumstances." | 2015‑01‑30 09:41:02 | 2015 cases, ICLR summary, Judgment available on Bailii, MHLR summary, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Transcript, Unfitness and insanity cases, Judgment available on Bailii
|
| 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
|
| Essex County Council v RF [2015] EWCOP 1, [2015] MHLO 2 — (1) A final declaration was made that P lacked capacity to make decisions in relation to his residence and care arrangements, but retained capacity to make decisions in relation to contact with others. (2) In considering quantum for unlawful detention there is a difference between procedural breaches (which would have made no difference to P's living or care arrangements) and substantive breaches (where P would not have been detained if the authority had acted lawfully). (3) The judge approved the following compromise agreement: (a) a declaration that ECC unlawfully deprived P of his liberty for approximately 13 months; (b) £60,000 damages; (c) care home fees to be waived (around £23-25,000); (d) damages to be excluded from means testing for community care costs; (e) costs to be paid (may exceed £64,000). (4) The judge described the situation as follows: "It is hard to imagine a more depressing and inexcusable state of affairs. A defenceless 91 year old gentleman in the final years of his life was removed from his home of 50 years and detained in a locked dementia unit against his wishes. Had it not been for the alarm raised by his friend RF he may have been condemned to remain there for the remainder of his days. There can be no doubt that ECC's practice was substandard. They failed to recognise the weakness of their own case and the strength of the case against them. They appeared unprepared to countenance any view contrary to their own. They maintained their resolute opposition to P returning to his home until the last possible moment. In my judgment the conduct of ECC has been reprehensible. The very sad and disturbing consequences for P cannot be ignored." | 2015‑01‑21 21:48:32 | 2015 cases, Brief summary, Deprivation of liberty, Judgment available on Bailii, Transcript
|
| The Mental Health Trust v DD [2014] EWCOP 44, [2014] MHLO 141 — "I do not propose to give a detailed judgment in this case today in light of the large measure of agreement. However, I want to make some comments about the proposed draft order. ... In preparation for this four day hearing, in which I was to be considering questions of long-term contraception or sterilisation of DD, I have read with care ..." | 2015‑01‑14 22:52:56 | 2014 cases, Best interests, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii
|
| R (AMG) v SSHD [2015] EWHC 5 (Admin), [2015] MHLO 1 — Immigration case with mental health background. | 2015‑01‑13 16:35:32 | 2015 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Repatriation cases, Transcript
|
| DD v SSHD [2014] EWHC 3820 (Admin), [2014] MHLO 140 — "Currently, the effects of the [Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measure] in general, whatever the particular effects of certain restrictions, and the effects of the three most contentious conditions apart from the tag, plainly do not cross that high threshold so as to breach of Article 3. I reach that conclusion recognising that the maintenance of the TPIM and those conditions is significantly worse for DD than for a person who is in normal mental health, and that particular care is required in judging whether a mentally ill and vulnerable person is being treated with proper respect for the fact that he is a human being. The tag as described by Professor Fahy and Dr Deeley is undoubtedly the most severe requirement in its impact on DD, because of his paranoid ideation. DD's delusions about the tag being an explosive device and a camera are very frightening and distressing. He wants to remove it, as voices tell him to, yet knows this would continue with the cycle of breaching the TPIM, facing prison, release, revival of the TPIM and breach. The doctors agree that the removal of the tag would not simply lead to paranoid delusions associated with it being transferred to another object, because of the particular nature of the tag. Its removal would reduce the number and intensity of the stressors he has to cope with, which could increase his ability to handle those which remain. That is a judgment I make, but it is consistent with the medical evidence; indeed it seems obvious. However, I am not persuaded that the effect of the tag, on top of the other TPIM effects, does breach Article 3 in these circumstances in view of the high threshold required to be crossed." | 2014‑12‑31 20:49:25 | 2014 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Miscellaneous cases, No summary, Transcript
|
| Lazariu v Romania 31973/03 [2014] ECHR 1219, [2014] MHLO 139 — Detention in psychiatric hospital breached Article 5(1) and (4). | 2014‑12‑31 20:33:35 | 2014 cases, Deprivation of liberty, ECHR, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript
|
| Lucia Benyu (strike off) and Ronnie Benyu (section 43 order) [2014] MHLO 138 (SDT) — (1) In relation to Lucia Shingirai Benyu, née Ndoro, who at the material time practised as a sole practitioner under the style of Peters & Co Solicitors, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal concluded that: "The First Respondent had admitted a lack of integrity and had had several allegations of dishonesty proved against her. The Tribunal had heard a litany of the most ruthless exploitation of an obviously vulnerable individual and had disbelieved much of what the First Respondent had to say whilst giving evidence on oath. In cases where dishonest misappropriation of client’s funds had been found then it was well-established that that would invariably lead to strike off. There were no circumstances put before the Tribunal that might lead it to mitigate that penalty. The First Respondent would be struck off the Roll of Solicitors. Indeed, the seriousness of her misconduct was such that this would have been the appropriate sanction even if she had not been found to be dishonest." (2) In relation to Ronnie Benyu, her husband who held the position of Practice Manager and Bookkeeper, the SDT concluded that: "It was clear that, even by his own admission, the Second Respondent was a totally unfit person to work in a solicitor’s office. The Tribunal would have no hesitation in making the section 43 Order requested by the Applicant." | 2014‑12‑31 20:11:15 | 2014 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available offline, Neutral citation unknown or not applicable, SRA decisions, Transcript, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function
|
| AG's reference (no 91 of 2014) sub nom R v Joseph Williams [2014] MHLO 137 (CA) — The trial judge had imposed a sentence of 14 years' imprisonment, together with with a s45A hospital order and limitation direction, on an offender (W) who had pleaded guilty to attempted murder. Following an AG's reference the Court of Appeal held that: (1) The appropriate range was 17-25 years, the starting point was 20 years after a trial, and the judge was not at fault for reducing the sentence by six years given the unusual facts of the case that related to W's mental health. (2) It was not certain that the offence was motivated by antipathy to V's sexual orientation; it could equally have been the case that W did not want to share his flat with anyone. (3) As the judge considered that W's dangerousness was not confined to his mental illness, he should have passed an extended sentence to protect the public in the event that the criteria for the hospital order and restrictions were no longer satisfied, but the offender remained a risk to the public. (4) An extended period of five years was added to the 14-year sentence. The hospital direction with restrictions remained unchanged. (Summary based on Lawtel summary of ex tempore judgment.) | 2014‑12‑31 17:38:26 | 2014 cases, Brief summary, Hybrid order cases, Neutral citation unknown or not applicable, Sentence appeal cases, Transcript
|
| Kicks v Leigh [2014] EWHC 3926 (Ch), [2014] MHLO 136 — "The Claimants claim that the transfer by Mrs Smith to the Defendant of the Proceeds should be set aside on either of two grounds, namely that: (1) Mrs Smith lacked the mental capacity to make such a gift or transfer; (2) The gift or transfer was procured by the Defendant's exercise of undue influence over Mrs Smith." | 2014‑12‑31 16:26:55 | 2014 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Other capacity cases, Transcript
|
| Hysaj v SSHD [2014] EWCA Civ 1633, [2014] MHLO 135 — In each of these three cases, which were heard together, the applicant failed to file a notice of appeal within the time prescribed by CPR 52.4(2), which made it necessary for him to seek an extension of time. The mental health case involved a nearest relative who had been awarded costs after displacement proceedings and who (nearly six years out of time) wished to appeal against the sum ordered by the judge. The Court of Appeal, having held that the guidance in the Mitchell and Denton cases applied to applications for extensions of time for filing a notice of appeal, dealt with some questions of general importance (public law cases, shortage of funds, litigants in person, the merits). In the mental health case, the extension of time was refused. | 2014‑12‑31 16:04:25 | 2014 cases, Brief summary, ICLR summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Miscellaneous cases, Transcript
|
| Aster Healthcare Ltd v The Estate of Mohammed Shafi [2014] EWCA Civ 1350, [2014] MHLO 134 — This appeal by Aster Healthcare was unsuccessful. | 2014‑12‑31 15:42:31 | 2014 cases, Community care, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Other capacity cases, Transcript
|
| Aster Healthcare Ltd v The Estate of Mohammed Shafi [2014] EWHC 77 (QB), [2014] MHLO 133 — "This is an appeal from the decision ... to grant summary judgment to the Claimant in a claim against the Estate of the late Mr Mohammed Shafi for outstanding care home fees. It raises interesting and important issues about the relationship between section 7 of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the provisions of Part III of the National Assistance Act 1948, Part III of the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990, and related statutes, regulations and guidance that concern the obligations or powers of a local authority to provide residential accommodation and care services for persons who by reason of age, illness, disability or any other circumstances are in need of care and attention which is not otherwise available to them. ... The total amount claimed is £62,199.94. The key issue is who, if anyone, is legally liable for payment of fees to the Claimant? There are only two candidates; the Estate of the late Mr Shafi (represented by his wife), and Brent." | 2014‑12‑31 15:38:07 | 2014 cases, Community care, ICLR summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Other capacity cases, Transcript
|
| R (Guntrip) v Parole Board [2014] EWHC 4180 (Admin), [2014] MHLO 132 — (1) When the prisoner was transferred to psychiatric hospital an unlawful and unfair decision was taken to cancel (rather than adjourn) a Parole Board hearing. (2) The delay of 12 months breached Article 5(4) and damages of £2,500 were awarded. | 2014‑12‑31 11:53:56 | 2014 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Prison law cases, Transcript, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function
|
| Re BM [2014] EWCOP B20, [2014] MHLO 131 — "This is a case in which there is a dispute as to who should be appointed as BM’s deputy for property and affairs." | 2014‑12‑31 11:02:12 | 2014 cases, Deputyship cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript
|
| LB Tower Hamlets v TB [2014] EWCOP 53, [2014] MHLO 130 — "All parties are agreed that TB lacks capacity to make decisions concerning her residence, her care and her contact with SA. The issues that I have to decide are these: (i) Where should TB live in her best interests? ... (ii) If TB does not return to 9 Emerald Mansions what should her contact be with SA, in her best interests? (iii) Does SA have the capacity to consent to sex? This is an abstract question if she does not return to 9 Emerald Mansions, but a very real one if she does. (iv) Whatever I decide about residence does her care regime amount to a deprivation of liberty within the terms of Article 5?" | 2014‑12‑31 10:58:36 | 2014 cases, Best interests, Deprivation of liberty, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Sex and marriage cases, Transcript
|
| The Public Guardian v VT [2014] EWCOP 52, [2014] MHLO 129 — This is an application by the Public Guardian for the court to revoke a Lasting Power of Attorney ('LPA') for property and financial affairs on the ground that the donee of the power has behaved in a way that contravenes her authority or is not in the donor's best interests. | 2014‑12‑31 10:25:22 | 2014 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, LPA cases - revocation, No summary, Transcript
|
| The Public Guardian v CT [2014] EWCOP 51, [2014] MHLO 128 — "This is the first occasion on which a respondent has sought an order for costs against the Public Guardian in respect of a safeguarding application regarding the respondent's conduct as the donee of a Lasting Power of Attorney." | 2014‑12‑31 10:21:46 | 2014 cases, COP costs cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Other LPA cases, Transcript
|
| Royal Free NHSFT v AB [2014] EWCOP 50, [2014] MHLO 127 — "The Trust seeks three declarations that: (a) AB lacks capacity to consent to medical treatment, including to a Caesarean Section; (b) AB lacks capacity to monitor and regulate her own intake of food and/or drink; (c) AB lacks capacity to decide whether to comply with her regime of diabetic medication." | 2014‑12‑30 23:45:05 | 2014 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Other capacity cases, Transcript
|
This category uses the form Case.
Article titles
The following 200 pages are in this category.
(previous page) (next page)A
- A County Council v E (2012) EWHC 4161 (COP), (2012) MHLO 176
- A County Council v MB (2010) EWHC 2508 (COP)
- A Healthcare NHS Trust v P and Q (2015) EWCOP 15, (2015) MHLO 23
- A Hospital NHS Trust v CD (2015) EWCOP 74, (2015) MHLO 94
- A Local Authority v AK (2012) EWHC B29 (COP), (2012) MHLO 166
- A Local Authority v B, F and G (2014) EWCOP B18, (2014) MHLO 70
- A Local Authority v B, F and G (2014) EWCOP B21, (2014) MHLO 71
- A Local Authority v BF (2018) EWCA Civ 2962
- A Local Authority v C (2013) EWHC 4036 (Fam), (2013) MHLO 125
- A Local Authority v DL (2010) EWHC 2675 (Fam)
- A Local Authority v DL (2011) EWHC 1022 (Fam)
- A Local Authority v E (2007) EWHC 2396 (Fam)
- A Local Authority v ED (2013) EWHC 3069 (COP), (2013) MHLO 92
- A Local Authority v HS (2013) EWHC 2410 (COP), (2013) MHLO 58
- A Local Authority v K (2013) EWHC 242 (COP), (2013) MHLO 11
- A Local Authority v M (2014) EWCOP 33, (2014) MHLO 119
- A Local Authority v M (2015) EWCOP 69, (2015) MHLO 135
- A Local Authority v Mrs A and Mr A (2010) EWHC 1549 (Fam)
- A Local Authority v SY (2013) EWHC 3485 (COP), (2013) MHLO 96
- A Local Authority v TZ (2013) EWHC 2322 (COP), (2013) MHLO 91
- A Local Authority v TZ (No 2) (2014) EWCOP 973, (2014) MHLO 72
- A Local Authority v WMA (2013) EWHC 2580 (COP), (2013) MHLO 79
- A Local Health Board v AB (2015) EWCOP 31, (2015) MHLO 95
- A London Borough v VT (2011) EWHC 3806 (COP)
- A London Local Authority v JH (2011) EWHC 2420 (COP)
- A PCT v LDV (2013) EWHC 272 (Fam)
- A Primary Care Trust v AH (2008) EWHC 1403 (Fam)
- A Primary Care Trust v P (2009) EW Misc 10 (EWCOP)
- A v A Health Authority (2002) EWHC 18 (Fam)
- A v A Local Authority (2011) EWCOP 727
- A v UK 25599/94 (1998) ECHR 85
- A, B and C v X, Y and Z (2012) EWHC 2400 (COP), (2012) MHLO 112
- AA v Cheshire and Wirral Partnership NHS Foundation Trust (2009) UKUT 195 (AAC)
- AB v LM (2013) EWHC 1234 (COP), (2013) MHLO 139
- AB v MHTS (2008) GWD 36-543
- AB v MHTS (2011) ScotSC B694/11
- AB v Nugent Care Society (2009) EWCA Civ 827
- AC v Cornwall Partnership NHS Foundation Trust (2023) MHLO 1 (UT)
- AC v Partnerships in Care Ltd (2012) UKUT 450 (AAC), (2012) MHLO 163
- AC v Southern Health NHS Foundation Trust (2024) UKUT 297 (AAC)
- AD'A v Cornwall Partnership NHS Foundation Trust (2020) UKUT 110 (AAC)
- Adorian v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis (2008) EWHC 1081 (QB)
- Adorian v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis (2009) EWCA Civ 18
- AF v Nottinghamshire NHS Trust (2015) UKUT 216 (AAC), (2015) MHLO 43
- AG v Mental Health Tribunal for Scotland (2006) ScotSC 113
- AG's ref (no 34 of 2014) sub nom R v Jenkin (2014) EWCA Crim 1394, (2014) MHLO 56
- AG's ref (no 54 of 2011) (2011) EWCA Crim 2276
- AG's ref (no 71 of 2002) sub nom R v Martin (Wayne) (2003) EWCA Crim 1824
- AG's ref (no 83 of 2001) sub nom R v Fidler (Stephen David) (2001) EWCA Crim 2443
- AG's ref (nos 37, 38 and 65 of 2010) sub nom R v Khan (2010) EWCA Crim 2880
- AG's reference (no 127 of 2006) sub nom R v H (2007) EWCA Crim 53
- AG's reference (no 3 of 1998) (1999) EWCA Crim 835
- AG's reference (no 60 of 2012) sub nom R v Edwards (2012) EWCA Crim 2746, (2012) MHLO 135
- AG's reference (no 91 of 2014) sub nom R v Joseph Williams (2014) MHLO 137 (CA)
- Aidiniantz v Riley (2015) EWCOP 65, (2015) MHLO 81
- Aintree University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust v David James (2013) EWCA Civ 65, (2013) MHLO 17
- Aintree University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust v David James (2013) UKSC 67, (2013) MHLO 95
- AK v Central and NW London Mental Health NHS Trust (2008) EWHC 1217 (QB)
- AL v Mental Health Tribunal for Scotland (2007) ScotSC 44
- Al-Jeffery v Al-Jeffery (Vulnerable adult, British citizen) (2016) EWHC 2151 (Fam), (2016) MHLO 25
- All About Rights Law Practice v LSC (2011) EWHC 964 (Admin)
- AM v Greater Manchester Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust (2024) UKUT 438 (AAC)
- AM v Partnerships in Care Ltd (2015) UKUT 659 (AAC), (2015) MHLO 106
- AM v SLAM NHS Foundation Trust (2013) UKUT 365 (AAC)
- AM v West London MH NHS Trust (2012) UKUT 382 (AAC), (2012) MHLO 139
- 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 English Local Authority v SW and A Scottish Local Authority (2014) EWCOP 43, (2014) MHLO 122
- An NHS Foundation Hospital v P (2014) EWHC 1650 (Fam), (2014) MHLO 35
- An NHS Foundation Trust v D (2010) EWHC 2535 (COP)
- An NHS Foundation Trust v M and K (2013) EWHC 2402 (COP), (2013) MHLO 67
- An NHS Foundation Trust v Ms X (2014) EWCOP 35, (2014) MHLO 96
- An NHS Trust v A (2015) EWCOP 71, (2015) MHLO 91
- An NHS Trust v DE (2013) EWHC 2562 (Fam), (2013) MHLO 78 (COP)
- An NHS Trust v DJ (2012) EWHC 3524 (COP), (2012) MHLO 138
- An NHS Trust v Dr A (2013) EWHC 2442 (COP), (2013) MHLO 4
- An NHS Trust v J (2014) EWCOP 2675, (2014) MHLO 58
- An NHS Trust v L (2012) EWHC 4313 (Fam), (2012) MHLO 180 (COP)
- Anam v SSHD (2009) EWHC 2496 (Admin)
- Anam v SSHD (2010) EWCA Civ 1140
- Anderson v Scottish Ministers (2001) UKPC D5
- Antoine v UK 62960/00 (2003) ECHR 709
- AR v West London NHS Trust (2020) UKUT 273 (AAC)
- Arshad v Court of Magistrates Malta (2013) EWHC 3619 (Admin), (2013) MHLO 138
- Ashingdane v UK 8225/78 (1985) ECHR 8
- Ashworth Hospital Authority v MGN Ltd (2000) EWCA Civ 334
- Ashworth Hospital Authority v MGN Ltd (2002) UKHL 29
- Aster Healthcare Ltd v The Estate of Mohammed Shafi (2014) EWCA Civ 1350, (2014) MHLO 134
- Aster Healthcare Ltd v The Estate of Mohammed Shafi (2014) EWHC 77 (QB), (2014) MHLO 133
- Atanasov v Bulgaria 73281/01 (2008) ECHR 1266
- Attorney General v Ratra (2003) EWHC 1291 (Admin)
- Austin v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis (2007) EWCA Civ 989
- Austin v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis (2009) UKHL 5
- Austin v UK 39692/09 (2012) ECHR 459, (2012) MHLO 22
- Aylott v Stockton-On-Tees BC (2010) EWCA Civ 910
- Aylott v Stockton-on-Tees BC (2010) EWCA Civ 910
B
- B v B (2010) EWHC 543 (Fam)
- B v Croydon Health Authority (1995) Fam 133
- B v R (2013) EWCA Crim 3, (2013) MHLO 7
- BA v SSHD (2017) UKAITUR IA343212013
- Bailey v Warren (2006) EWCA Civ 51
- Baker Tilley (A Firm) v Makar (2013) EWHC 759 (QB), (2013) MHLO 33
- Baker v Cambridgeshire and Peterborough NHSFT (2015) EWHC 609 (QB), (2015) MHLO 29
- Barber v LB Croydon (2010) EWCA Civ 51
- Barker v Barking Havinering and Brentwood Community Healthcare NHS Trust (1998) EWCA Civ 1347
- Barnsley MBC v GS (2014) EWCOP 46, (2014) MHLO 124
- 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)
- BB v Cygnet Health Care (2008) EWHC 1259 (Admin)
- BB v South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust (2009) UKUT 157 (AAC)
- BCZ v SSHD (2014) EWHC 3585 (Admin), (2014) MHLO 114
- Beattie v Dunbar (Mental Health Officer) (2006) ScotSC 108
- Benjamin and Wilson v UK 28212/95 (2002) ECHR 636
- Bensaid v UK 44599/98 (2001) ECHR 82
- BG v MHTS (2015) CSIH 18, (2015) MHLO 26
- Bialek v Circuit Court in Warsaw Poland (2013) EWHC 930 (Admin), (2013) MHLO 39
- BIM v MD (2014) EWCOP 39, (2014) MHLO 100
- Black v MHTS (2011) CSIH 83
- Border v Lewisham and Greenwich NHS Trust (2015) EWCA Civ 8, (2015) MHLO 8
- Bostridge v Oxleas NHS Foundation Trust (2014) EWCA Civ 1005, (2014) MHLO 85
- Bostridge v Oxleas NHS Foundation Trust (2014) MHLO 42 (CC)
- Bostridge v Oxleas NHS Foundation Trust (2015) EWCA Civ 79, (2015) MHLO 12
- Bournemouth Borough Council v PS (2015) EWCOP 39, (2015) MHLO 112
- Bradbury v Paterson (2014) EWHC 3992 (QB), (2014) MHLO 110
- Brand v The Netherlands 49902/99 (2004) ECHR 196
- Breslin v McKenna (Omagh Bombing case) (2009) NIQB 50
- Bristol City Council v AW (2009) UKUT 109 (AAC)
- Broadmoor Hospital Authority v R (1999) EWCA Civ 3039
- Buck v Norfolk and Waveney MH NHS Foundation Trust (2012) MHLO 123 (CC)
- Buck v Nottinghamshire Healthcare NHS Trust (2006) EWCA Civ 1576
- Buckinghamshire CC v RB of Kingston upon Thames (2011) EWCA Civ 457
- Buckinghamshire Council (24 003 060) (2024) MHLO 6 (LGSCO)
- Bunting v W (2005) EWHC 1274 (Ch)
- Bury Metropolitan Borough Council v D (2009) EWHC 446 (Fam)
- Byrne v Mental Health Tribunal for Scotland (2006) ScotSC 29
C
- C v Clinical Director of St Patricks Hospital (2009) IEHC 13
- C v D (2010) EWHC 2940 (Ch)
- C v D (2011) EWCA Civ 646
- C v R (2012) EWCA Crim 2034, (2012) MHLO 104
- C v Sevenoaks Youth Court (2009) EWHC 3088 (Admin)
- C v South London and Maudsley Hospital NHS Trust (2001) EWHC Admin 480
- C v SSHD (2012) EWHC 1543 (Admin), (2012) MHLO 125
- Calvert v Clydesdale Bank Plc (2012) EWCA Civ 962, (2012) MHLO 131
- 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)
- Cathleen Williams v Anthony Williams (2001) EWCA Civ 197
- CB v Sussex County Council (2010) UKUT 413 (AAC)
- Cheltenham Borough Council v Laird (2009) EWHC 1253 (QB)
- Cheshire West and Chester Council v P (2011) EWCA Civ 1257
- Cheshire West and Chester Council v P (2011) EWCA Civ 1333
- Cheshire West and Chester Council v P (2011) EWHC 1330 (COP)
- Cheshire West and Chester Council v P (2014) UKSC 19
- Chief Constable of Lincolnshire Police v Caston (2009) EWCA Civ 1298
- City of Edinburgh Council v D (2010) ScotSC 165
- City of Westminster v FS (2009) COP 11685959
- Clift v Slough BC (2010) EWCA Civ 1484
- Clunis v UK 45049/98 (1998) ECHR 116
- CM v Derbyshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust (2011) UKUT 129 (AAC)
- CNWL NHS Foundation Trust v HJ-H (2012) UKUT 210 (AAC), (2012) MHLO 88
- Commissioner of the Police of the Metropolis v Ahsan (2015) EWHC 2354 (Admin), (2015) MHLO 62
- Cook v Bradford Community Health NHS Trust (2002) EWCA Civ 1616
- Coombs v Dorset NHS PCT (2012) EWHC 521 (QB), (2012) MHLO 13
- Coombs v North Dorset NHS PCT (2013) EWCA Civ 471, (2013) MHLO 35
- Cornelius v de Taranto (2000) EWHC 561 (QB)
- Cornelius v De Taranto (2001) EWCA Civ 1511
- Cotterham v UK (1999) ECHR 185
- County Durham and Darlington NHSFT v PP (2014) EWCOP 9, (2014) MHLO 65
- Court Martial in the case of Sergeant Nightingale (2012) MHLO 116
- CPS v P (2007) EWHC 946 (Admin)
- CQC v Hillgreen Care Ltd (2018) MHLO 50
- Crawford v Suffolk MH Partnership NHS Trust (2012) EWCA Civ 138, (2012) MHLO 14
- Croke v Ireland 33267/96 (2000) ECHR 680
- CS v Elysium Healthcare (2021) UKUT 186 (AAC)
- Cuthbertson v Rasouli (2013) SCC 53, (2013) MHLO 109
- CV v South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust (2010) EWHC 742 (Admin)
- CWM TAF University v F (2015) EWHC 2533 (Fam), (2015) MHLO 75
- CX v A Local Authority (2011) EWHC 1918 (Admin)
- CYC v PC and NC (2012) MHLO 103 (COP)
D
- D County Council v LS (2010) EWHC 1544 (Fam)
- D v Barnet Healthcare Trust (2000) EWCA Civ 3027
- D'Souza v DPP (1992) UKHL 10
- DA v Kent and Medway NHS and Social Care Partnership Trust (2019) UKUT 348 (AAC)
- Dalton v Latnam (2003) EWHC 796 (Ch)
- Davis v West Sussex County Council (2012) EWHC 2152 (QB), (2012) MHLO 83
- DB v SSWP (2010) UKUT 144 (AAC)
- DC v Nottinghamshire Healthcare NHS Trust (2012) UKUT 92 (AAC), (2012) MHLO 53
- DCC v KH (2009) COP 11729380
- DD v Durham County Council & Anor (2013) EWCA Civ 96, (2013) MHLO 31
- DD v Durham County Council (2012) EWHC 1053 (QB), (2012) MHLO 51
- DD v Durham County Council (2013) EWCA Civ 96, (2013) MHLO 31
- DD v Lithuania 13469/06 (2012) ECHR 254, (2012) MHLO 29
- DD v SSHD (2014) EWHC 3820 (Admin), (2014) MHLO 140
- DD v Sussex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust (2022) UKUT 166 (AAC)
- Decision of the Social Security Commissioner (2007) UKSSCSC CIS 3760 2006
- Decision of the Social Security Commissioner (2007) UKSSCSC CSS 239 2007
- Derbyshire County Council v AC (2014) EWCOP 38, (2014) MHLO 121
- Derbyshire County Council v Kathleen Danby (2014) EWCOP B22, (2014) MHLO 73
- Derbyshire County Council v Kathleen Danby (2014) EWCOP B26, (2014) MHLO 106
The following category (in the blue box) can be clicked to view a list of other pages in the same category: