Category:Hospital managers hearings
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.
| Page and summary | Date added to site | Categories |
|---|---|---|
| South Staffordshire and Shropshire Healthcare NHSFT v Hospital Managers of St George's Hospital [2016] EWHC 1196 (Admin) —
Trust's JR of hospital managers' discharge decision "This is an application for judicial review of a decision by an independent panel on 12 April 2016 to discharge the Interested Party, AU, from detention under the Mental Health Act 1983. It is brought by South Staffordshire and Shropshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust and Dr Whitworth (previously AU's responsible clinician). ... To put the case in general terms the claimants are concerned about the Panel's decision to discharge AU in the light of the views of the clinical team and also a decision of the First Tier Tribunal ... which decided on 10 March 2016 not to discharge him from detention. ... The judicial review raises an important point of principle as to the capacity of a body to seek judicial review of a decision which it could have made itself. In broad terms the Trust appointed the Panel and under the 1983 Act it exercised delegated powers. Because AU raised this ..→ | 2016-05-22 | 2016 cases, Cases, Hospital managers hearings, ICLR summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Re-sectioning after hearing |
| R (Tagoe-Thompson) v The Hospital Managers of the Park Royal Centre [2002] EWHC 2803 (Admin) — Panel of three hospital managers must be unanimous in order to discharge patient. | 2011-04-10 | 2002 cases, Brief summary, Hospital managers hearings, Judgment available on Bailii, Transcript |
| R (GC) v Managers of the Kingswood Centre of Central and North West London NHS Foundation Trust (CO/7784/2008) — {{Case
|Date=2008 |NCN=no tran |Other citations=CO/7784/2008 |Court=High Court (Administrative Court) |Judges=King |Parties=GC, Managers of the Kingswood Centre of Central and North West London NHS Foundation Trust, Kingswood Centre of Central and North West London NHS Foundation Trust, Kingswood Centre |Cites=London Borough of Newham v BS [2003] EWHC 1909 (Fam) |Sentence=Seriously irresponsible conduct |Summary=The patient's compulsion to pick up litter, even if that litter was in the road, amounted to seriously irresponsible conduct in the context of the definition of mental impairment; the patient was likely to act in a dangerous manner so the hospital managers were right not to discharge. |Detail===Summary== Thanks to Alex Ruck Keene of 39 Essex Chambers for this summary: The case concerned a patient with OCD which manifested itself as a compulsion to pick up litter, even if that litter was in the road. The patient had been knocked down by vehicles but considered himself invincible. The managers at a hearing prompted by a barring order made by the RMO had decided that the patient suffered from a mental impairment for purposes of the Act; The patient’s mother challenged on the basis that the managers had erred in considering such behavior to be seriously irresponsible, relying on Newham LBC v Mr BS and S [2003] EWHC 1909 (Fam)M. In a rolled up permission and substantive hearing, King J refused permission, but after full argument from the Claimant. He found that it was not arguable that BS set down as a proposition of law that a tendency to rush into the road could never amount to seriously irresponsible conduct. | 2009-07-20 | Cases, Hospital managers hearings, Judgment does not exist, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function |
| R (Tagoe-Thompson) v The Hospital Managers of the Park Royal Centre [2003] EWCA Civ 330 — Panel of three hospital managers must be unanimous in order to discharge patient. | 2006-04-16 | 2003 cases, Detailed summary, Hospital managers hearings, Judgment available on Bailii, Transcript |
| R v Riverside Mental Health Trust, ex p Huzzey [1998] EWHC Admin 465 — {{Case
|Date=1998/04/29 |NCN=[1998] EWHC Admin 465M |Other citations=[1998] 43 BLMR 167 |Court=High Court (Administrative Court) |Judges=Latham |Parties=Riverside Mental Health Trust, Gary Huzzey |Sentence=Dangerousness criterion and hospital managers |Summary=Managers must consider dangerousness criterion when reviewing detention after RMO's barring order, and in almost all circumstances discharge if not satisfied of that criterion. |Detail=== Facts == Huzzey was detained under s2 then s3. His nearest relative sought his discharge under s23. The RMO issued a barring order under s25 as he believed the dangerousness criterion to be met. A barring order contains a certification of the dangerousness criterion as follows:
In such a situation the hospital managers are required by the Code of Practice to review the detention. A Hospital Managers' Hearing was convened on 30 July 1996 and upheld the section without referring to dangerousness. These were their reasons:
A MHRT subsequently discharged the patient on 24 October 1996. The claimant argued that the decision was unlawful and irrational, and that the managers had not given proper reasons. It was accepted by both sides that if the decision was so flawed that it should be quashed then the detention following the managers' hearing had been unlawful. | 2006-04-15 | 1998 cases, Cases, Hospital managers hearings, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, Other NR cases, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Transcript |
| R (O) v West London MH NHS Trust [2005] EWHC 604 (Admin) — Hospital managers are under a common law duty to provide both oral and written reasons at the time of the decison; the decision is legally defective if the reasons are inadequate; this defect cannot be cured by later evidence giving a proper explanation of the reasons; the supplementary evidence was more than mere elucidation so was not accepted. | 2006-04-13 | 2005 cases, Detailed summary, Hospital managers hearings, Judgment available on Bailii, Transcript |
| R (SR) v Huntercombe Maidenhead Hospital [2005] EWHC 2361 (Admin) — {{Case
|Date=2005/09/21 |NCN=[2005] EWHC 2361 (Admin)M |Court=High Court (Administrative Court) |Judges=Jackson |Parties=SR, Huntercombe Maidenhead Hospital, London Borough of Hackney, East London and City Mental Health NHS Trust |Sentence=Hospital managers and dangerousness |Summary=Usually the managers should discharge if they disagree with the RMO's barring report, but there can be exceptions; they have an unfettered discretion. |Detail===Summary== Hospital managers discharged SR from section. Decision to discharge quashed because (a) discretion fettered by the assumption that disagreeing with the RMO automatically led to duty to discharge and (b) the decision itself was irrational. | 2006-04-12 | 2005 cases, Cases, Hospital managers hearings, Judgment available on Bailii, Other NR cases, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function |
Article titles
The following 7 pages are in this category.
R
- R (GC) v Managers of the Kingswood Centre of Central and North West London NHS Foundation Trust (CO/7784/2008)
- R (O) v West London MH NHS Trust (2005) EWHC 604 (Admin)
- R (SR) v Huntercombe Maidenhead Hospital (2005) EWHC 2361 (Admin)
- R (Tagoe-Thompson) v The Hospital Managers of the Park Royal Centre (2002) EWHC 2803 (Admin)
- R (Tagoe-Thompson) v The Hospital Managers of the Park Royal Centre (2003) EWCA Civ 330
- R v Riverside Mental Health Trust, ex p Huzzey (1998) EWHC Admin 465