Information for "GJ v The Foundation Trust (2009) EWHC 2972 (Fam)"
Basic information
| Display title | GJ v The Foundation Trust [2009] EWHC 2972 (Fam) |
| Default sort key | GJ v The Foundation Trust (2009) EWHC 2972 (Fam) |
| Page length (in bytes) | 8,616 |
| Page ID | 4880 |
| 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 |
Page protection
| Edit | Allow only users with "editing" permission (infinite) |
| Move | Allow only users with "editing" permission (infinite) |
Edit history
| Page creator | Jonathan (talk | contribs) |
| Date of page creation | 07:53, 24 November 2009 |
| Latest editor | Jonathan (talk | contribs) |
| Date of latest edit | 16:01, 21 November 2024 |
| Total number of edits | 21 |
| Total number of distinct authors | 1 |
| Recent number of edits (within past 90 days) | 0 |
| Recent number of distinct authors | 0 |
Page properties
SEO properties
Description | Content |
Article description: (description)This attribute controls the content of the description and og:description elements. | (1) As between the MHA 1983 and the MCA 2005 Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards, the MHA has primacy: professionals cannot pick and choose as they think fit. (2) In deciding whether P is within the scope of the MHA, the eligibility assessor must ask whether, in his own opinion, P could be detained under the MHA. (3) With respect to objections, what matters is whether P objects generally to what is proposed. (4) The correct overall approach for the eligibility assessor is to (a) look at the reality of the situation, rather than the words of the authorisation, (b) separate the mental treatment from the purely physical treatment, and (c) apply a "but for" test, i.e. whether, but for the physical treatment, P should be detained (and whether the only effective reason for detention is physical treatment); if "no" (and "yes", respectively) then P isn't ineligible for DOLS. (5) On the facts, but for his diabetes, P would not have been detainable, so he was not ineligible. It is worth reading the full summary page and the judgment. |