Information for "MP v Mersey Care NHS Trust (2011) UKUT 107 (AAC)"
Basic information
| Display title | MP v Mersey Care NHS Trust [2011] UKUT 107 (AAC) |
| Default sort key | MP v Mersey Care NHS Trust (2011) UKUT 107 (AAC) |
| Page length (in bytes) | 1,730 |
| Page ID | 5751 |
| 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 | 21:14, 30 March 2011 |
| Latest editor | Jonathan (talk | contribs) |
| Date of latest edit | 20:47, 19 August 2023 |
| Total number of edits | 6 |
| Total number of distinct authors | 1 |
| Recent number of edits (within past 90 days) | 0 |
| Recent number of distinct authors | 0 |
Page properties
| Transcluded templates (10) | Templates used on this page:
|
SEO properties
Description | Content |
Article description: (description)This attribute controls the content of the description and og:description elements. | The Tribunal panel discharged a s47 patient, deferred for six weeks for after-care arrangements, and also stated in para 9 of its decision that it 'would also invite Mr P's care team to consider whether to implement a community treatment order'. A CTO was then made; however, when the panel's decision to discharge the s47 took effect it also discharged the CTO. On the responsible authority's application under Tribunal rule 45, a salaried tribunal judge reviewed and set aside the panel's decision (on the basis that, by directing discharge, the panel had frustrated its intention that there be a CTO) and remitted the case to a fresh panel. The patient appealed, but the relevant decisions were excluded from the appeal jurisdiction so the appeal was treated as a JR application. The Upper Tribunal decided: (1) Where (as here) the panel find any of the statutory criteria not met, there is no power under s72(3A) to recommend a CTO: rather, there is a positive duty to discharge. (2) Para 9 was not expressed as a recommendation; the word 'also' showed that it did not form the basis of the reasoning; in so far as there is an inconsistency (between discharge and a recommendation), it is para 9 which should be given no weight; (3) The review decisions were quashed and a declaration made that the panel's decision be reactivated. |