Information for "R (VC) v SSHD (2016) EWHC 273 (Admin), (2016) MHLO 7"

Basic information

Display title	R (VC) v SSHD [2016] EWHC 273 (Admin), [2016] MHLO 7
Default sort key	R (VC) v SSHD (2016) EWHC 273 (Admin), (2016) MHLO 7
Page length (in bytes)	1,448
Page ID	8402
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

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	21:59, 17 February 2016
Latest editor	Jonathan (talk \| contribs)
Date of latest edit	12:57, 20 May 2019
Total number of edits	8
Total number of distinct authors	1
Recent number of edits (within past 90 days)	0
Recent number of distinct authors	0

Hidden categories (2)	This page is a member of 2 hidden categories: Category:Judgment available on Bailii Category:Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function
Transcluded templates (13)	Templates used on this page: Template:Add drilldown link date (view source) Template:Add drilldown links (view source) Template:Add drilldown links ul (view source) Template:Case (view source) Template:Case subject note (view source) Template:Convert brackets (view source) Template:Database header (view source) Template:Extension DPL (view source) Template:ICLR (view source) Template:Linkless exists (view source) Template:Page creation date (view source) Template:What links here (view source) Text:ICLR (2016) WLR(D) 90 (view source)

Description	Content
Article description: (`description`) This attribute controls the content of the `description` and `og:description` elements.	Repatriation case with mental health background. "There are two strands to the contentions made by the Claimant in this claim, as argued before me: (1) a challenge to the lawfulness of his detention on the basis that it was in breach of (a) the Defendant's policy on detaining the mentally ill which, had it been applied lawfully, would have precluded the Claimant's detention; (b) Hardial Singh principle 3 because from 31 October 2014 there was no realistic prospect of the Claimant's removal within a reasonable timescale; and (c) Hardial Singh principle 2 because the Claimant was detained for an unreasonable length of time. (2) a challenge to the treatment of the Claimant in detention on the basis that it was: (a) in violation of Article 3 ECHR; (b) contrary to the Mental Capacity Act 2005; (c) discriminatory, contrary to the Equality Act 2010; and (d) procedurally unfair."

Information from Extension:WikiSEO