| Display title | R (Gisagara) v Upper Tribunal [2021] EWHC 300 (Admin) |
| Default sort key | R (Gisagara) v Upper Tribunal (2021) EWHC 300 (Admin) |
| Page length (in bytes) | 1,493 |
| Page ID | 11347 |
| 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 |
| 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 | 00:13, 18 February 2021 |
| Latest editor | Jonathan (talk | contribs) |
| Date of latest edit | 11:25, 14 January 2022 |
| Total number of edits | 9 |
| Total number of distinct authors | 1 |
| Recent number of edits (within past 90 days) | 0 |
| Recent number of distinct authors | 0 |
Description | Content |
Article description: (description)
This attribute controls the content of the description and og:description elements. | The Responsible Clinician's evidence to the MHT was that the Community Treatment Order (CTO) criteria were met, and that a CTO was an "essential precondition" to discharge as otherwise the patient would not accept medication; she had granted s17 leave while the CTO was being arranged. When the MHT did not discharge him from s3, the patient argued that: (a) the discharge criteria mirror the admission criteria, s3(2)(c) requires detention, and the tribunal had failed to determine whether he was detained or merely liable to be detained; (b) the CTO criteria are incompatible with the detention criteria. In this application for permission for judicial review of the Upper Tribunal's refusal of permission to appeal, the Administrative Court decided that: (a) in relation to the principle that the discharge criteria mirror the admission criteria, there was no conflict of authority (the Court of Appeal had repeatedly agreed with the House of Lords on this despite the Court of Appeal decision to the contrary never having been overruled) so there was no important point of principle; and (b) there no arguable case. Permission was therefore refused. |