| Display title | AM v Greater Manchester Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust [2024] UKUT 438 (AAC) |
| Default sort key | AM v Greater Manchester Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust (2024) UKUT 438 (AAC) |
| Page length (in bytes) | 3,214 |
| Page ID | 16106 |
| Page content language | en - English |
| Page content model | wikitext |
| Indexing by robots | Allowed |
| Number of redirects to this page | 0 |
| Counted as a content page | Yes |
| Edit | Allow only users with "editing" permission (infinite) |
| Move | Allow only users with "editing" permission (infinite) |
| Page creator | Jonathan (talk | contribs) |
| Date of page creation | 20:57, 15 January 2025 |
| Latest editor | Jonathan (talk | contribs) |
| Date of latest edit | 13:22, 16 January 2025 |
| Total number of edits | 4 |
| Total number of distinct authors | 1 |
| Recent number of edits (within past 90 days) | 4 |
| Recent number of distinct authors | 1 |
Description | Content |
Article description: (description)
This attribute controls the content of the description and og:description elements. | (1) An interim non-disclosure order was made under rule 5 allowing disclosure of the victim's statement only to AM's lawyers. That order was continued under rule 14(2), but the tribunal failed properly to consider either limb of that rule (involving likelihood of serious harm and the interests of justice respectively). This procedural irregularity was capable of making a material difference to the outcome or the fairness of the proceedings (by restricting the ability of AM’s representatives to cross-examine and obtain evidence about an proposed exclusion zone variation) so was an error of law. (2) In relation to materiality, the UT judge stated that there are three "possibilities" in relation to procedural and other irregularities: "(a) the irregularity made a difference; (b) it did not make a difference; and (c) it could have made a difference." His full position can be stated more clearly as follows: the irregularity is material if (and only if) it could have made a difference, whether not or not it did. (3) The UT judge gave guidance on rule 14(2)(a). "This largely involves issues of fact: who might be harmed, what harm might befall them and whether it was serious. It also involved an estimate of the likelihood of that happening. ... Both seriousness and likelihood require not only consideration but separate consideration for each person and each kind of potential harm. ... Different disclosure may be appropriate to different people. Some parts of the information may be irrelevant and so can be discarded on that count. Some parts may be disclosed to some but not to others. Disclosure to any individual may be full or partial. It may be verbatim or may consist of the gist of what the victim has said." (4) As the procedural irregularity justified a rehearing, the substantive challenge to the decision not to amend the exclusion zone was not considered, but the UT noted that the tribunal was entitled to take into account as a relevant consideration the effect of the zone on AM's ability to take up an offer of work. |