Information for "PQR v Derbyshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust (2023) UKUT 195 (AAC)"
Basic information
| Display title | PQR v Derbyshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust [2023] UKUT 195 (AAC) |
| Default sort key | PQR v Derbyshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust (2023) UKUT 195 (AAC) |
| Page length (in bytes) | 2,344 |
| Page ID | 15857 |
| 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 | 10:12, 21 October 2024 |
| Latest editor | Jonathan (talk | contribs) |
| Date of latest edit | 21:30, 5 February 2025 |
| Total number of edits | 3 |
| Total number of distinct authors | 1 |
| Recent number of edits (within past 90 days) | 1 |
| Recent number of distinct authors | 1 |
Page properties
SEO properties
Description | Content |
Article description: (description)This attribute controls the content of the description and og:description elements. | The medical examination for a CTO renewal in 2020 had been conducted remotely, though renewals in 2021 and 2022 were conducted in person. The tribunal decided that it did not have jurisdiction to consider the validity of the CTO. The Upper Tribunal proceeded on the assumption (which the High Court subsequently confirmed) that the 2020 examination did not comply with the s20A requirements. It decided that: (1) the logical approach, being that the CTO had not been extended in 2020, would be self-defeating as it would remove the tribunal's power to deal with an application at all; (2) the pragmatic approach, which the judge preferred, was that the renewal had legal effect unless and until it was set aside in some lawful manner, but the tribunal still had no power to deal with issues of validity; (3) in any event, even if the tribunal had that power, (a) there would be no need to exercise the discretion to discharge, as deciding that the extension was invalid would mean that the CTO had already ended, and (b) taking into account the relevant factors (which are that such cases involve the liberty of the subject, the health and safety of the patient, and the protection of others) it would have been perverse for the tribunal to have exercised its discretion to discharge the patient. |