| Display title | ML v Priory Healthcare Limited [2023] UKUT 237 (AAC) |
| Default sort key | ML v Priory Healthcare Limited (2023) UKUT 237 (AAC) |
| Page length (in bytes) | 2,466 |
| Page ID | 15337 |
| Page content language | en - English |
| Page content model | wikitext |
| Indexing by robots | Allowed |
| Number of redirects to this page | 1 |
| Counted as a content page | Yes |
| Page image |  |
| 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 | 10:42, 10 October 2023 |
| Latest editor | Jonathan (talk | contribs) |
| Date of latest edit | 12:57, 1 October 2024 |
| Total number of edits | 9 |
| Total number of distinct authors | 1 |
| Recent number of edits (within past 90 days) | 1 |
| Recent number of distinct authors | 1 |
Description | Content |
Article description: (description)
This attribute controls the content of the description and og:description elements. | A s47/49 post-tariff lifer sought a notification that if he were a s37/41 patient he would be entitled to conditional discharge (with 24-hour support and medication being governed by the MCA) and a recommendation that he remain in hospital pending release. The MHT refused, believing that "the only environment where his medication regime can be enforced is in hospital". This refusal was based on errors of law: (1) the tribunal was under the misapprehension that there was no way for it to coordinate the MHA proceedings with an MCA authorisation, and it made its decision on the s72(1)(b) detention criteria without reference to the possibility that an alternative framework for managing the patient was available; (2) its reasons were inadequate as it had ignored the central argument that there was a less restrictive alternative to hospital detention. |
