Fennell, Letts and Wilson, Mental Health Tribunals (Law Society 2013):
Foreword | Review | Amazon | Law Society bookshop | 20% discount

Email updates | Email discussion list | Twitter
CPD scheme (12 points for £60)



Category:1999 cases

From Mental Health Law Online

Jump to: navigation, search
The pages below are initially ordered according to the dates on which they were added to the site (most recent first). The order can be changed by clicking on the symbol beside a column heading: click on the symbol beside "Page and summary" for alphabetical order; click beside "Categories" for the order in which the cases were reported. Click on the arrow symbol again to reverse the order. Click on a page name to view the relevant page.
Page and summaryDate added to siteCategories
R v Weekes (1999) EWCA Crim 1225 — Restricted hospital order given on appeal, instead of life imprisonment. 2011-12-181999 cases, Brief summary, Life sentence cases, Transcript
R (Hagan) v Anglia and Oxfordshire MHRT (1999) MHLR 204 — In relation to the powers as to classification and reclassification of categories of mental disorder that existed under the MHA 1983 before its amendment by the MHA 2007, the question to be asked as to the use of the power was whether the patient had a mental disorder in a particular category (even if it was in remission) not whether that mental disorder was such as to justify detention. Accordingly, a Tribunal was not required to reclassify a patient who had been detained on the basis of 2 forms of disorder as being detained only under 1 form when the other was in remission and would not justify detention. [MHLR.] 2010-02-261999 cases, Brief summary, No transcript, Other classification cases
R (Moyle) v London South and South West Region MHRT (1999) MHLR 195 — A Tribunal is not acting in an appellate or review jurisdiction, but exercising an original jurisdiction in which it forms an evaluative judgment as to whether the criteria for discharge are made out; as such, it may disagree with the evidence in front of it. When the illness is one that will relapse in the absence of medication, the appropriateness of liability to detention depends on an assessment of the probability of relapse in the near future. (At the time, the test for discharge placed the burden of proof on the patient and so the patient had to show that there was no probability of relapse to demonstrate that the nature of the illness did not justify detention; it was also held that the admission criteria had to be considered, but in the context of the burden of proof being reversed. Its conclusion that the admission criteria were not relevant meant that there was an error of law that led to the decision being quashed.) [MHLR.] 2010-02-261999 cases, Brief summary, No transcript, Powers
Bath and North East Somerset Council v AJC (1999) MHLR 184 — As a Tribunal order for discharge had not been challenged, it had to be given effect, despite the local authority’s view that it was invalid: the purported renewal was therefore of no effect. [MHLR.] 2010-02-261999 cases, Brief summary, Miscellaneous, No transcript
Re D (mental patient: nearest relative) (1999) MHLR 181 — The approach to whether a relative “cares for” a patient so as to become their nearest relative by reason of s26(4) Mental Health Act 1983 involves the provision of more than minimal care services; the social worker’s decision as to who “appears to be” the nearest relative for the purposes of consultation under s11(4) of the Act has to involve an acceptable approach to the question of who is the nearest relative but did not require the making of enquiries (unless it would be irrational not to make enquiries). [MHLR.] 2010-02-261999 cases, Brief summary, Consulting NR, No transcript
JF v LB Hackney, Re TF (A Child: Guardianship) (1999) MHLR 175 — A desire to return to an inadequate home is not “seriously irresponsible” and so cannot found a conclusion that there is mental impairment. [MHLR.] 2010-02-261999 cases, Brief summary, Miscellaneous, No transcript
R v Aspinall (Paul James) (1999) MHLR 12 — The failure to follow the requirements to have an appropriate adult in the interview of a mentally disordered suspect meant that, despite his apparent lucidity in interview, it was unfair to admit it in evidence. [MHLR.] 2010-02-261999 cases, Brief summary, No transcript, Other criminal law cases
Her Majesty's Advocate v S (1999) ScotHC 183 — Fitness to plead. [Summary required.] 2009-11-301999 cases, No summary, Scottish cases, Transcript, Unfitness and insanity cases
Wilkinson v Secretary of State for Scotland (1999) ScotCS 49 — Paedophilia alone did not justify detention, as it is a sexual deviancy; but on the facts there was a mental disorder. If there is a mental disorder that manifests itself in paedophile conduct, that can be within the definition of mental disorder. [MHLR.] 2009-11-011999 cases, Brief summary, Scottish cases, Transcript, Treatability test and psychopathic disorder
Ruddle v Secretary of State for Scotland (1999) ScotSC 24 — Whilst a structured hospital environment could amount to treatment, it did not on the facts, but was mere containment; and as an anti-social personality disorder was not on the facts alleviated or prevented from deterioration as a result of any treatment interventions, it was untreatable; and as there was no need for recall, an absolute discharge followed. [MHLR.] 2009-11-011999 cases, Brief summary, Other Tribunal cases, Scottish cases, Transcript
Ferguson v State Hospital Management Committee (1999) ScotSC 10 — In considering discharge, it was not necessary to consider the hypothetical question of whether the sentencing court would impose a hospital order on the basis of present knowledge of the patient’s condition; the requirement of treatability in relation to a personality disorder was satisfied by the structured setting that made F more settled and stable and cognitive behavioural therapy and counselling. [MHLR.] 2009-11-011999 cases, Brief summary, Other Tribunal cases, Scottish cases, Transcript
R (Watson) v LB Richmond (1999) EWHC Admin 749 — Claimants' accommodation must be provided under section 117(2) and not under s21 National Assistance Act 1948; s117 not a gateway section; it follows that the Respondents are not entitled to charge the Applicants for their accommodation. 2009-04-111999 cases, After-care, Brief summary, Transcript
R (London Borough of Harrow) v Maidstone Crown Court (1999) EWHC Admin 385 — A Crown Court judge’s purported finding that a defendant was not guilty by reason of insanity was outside his jurisdiction and so not pursuant to the indictment, and so could be challenged by judicial review. [MHLR.] 2009-04-111999 cases, Brief summary, Transcript, Unfitness and insanity cases
R (Gilkes) v SSHD (1999) EWHC Admin 47 — One of the two medical reports was too out-of-date to be reasonably relied upon for a s47 transfer to hospital; a transfer at the end of a prison sentence was not inherently unlawful; based on subsequent material from the same doctor, no relief would be granted as if the Secretary of State had insisted on an up-to-date report he would have made a transfer direction anyway. 2009-04-111999 cases, Brief summary, Ministry of Justice, Transcript
R (AX London) v Central London County Court (1999) EWCA Civ 988 — The county court can, on an ex parte application, make an interim displacement order under s29; it is lawful to detain a patient under s3 on the basis of it, although unless there are cogent reasons it is preferable to wait until the final order; even if the order had been declared invalid, the decision to admit the patient would still be valid. 2009-04-111999 cases, Brief summary, Displacement, Transcript
Palmer v Tees Health Authority (1999) EWCA Civ 1533 — The proximity required for a duty of care as between a hospital and the victim of a patient only arises if the victim is a member of an identifiable at risk group. [MHLR.] 2009-04-111999 cases, Brief summary, Miscellaneous, Transcript
Merrill v Herefordshire District Council (1999) EWCA Civ 1976 — It had been within the judge’s discretion not to adjourn displacement proceedings involving a nearest relative alleged to be mentally incapable of acting as nearest relative who sought an adjournment in order to obtain legal representation; and the displacement order was open to the judge on the evidence. It was suggested that the displaced nearest relative had no right to apply to the Mental Health Review Tribunal. [MHLR.] 2009-04-111999 cases, Brief summary, Displacement, Transcript
Manchester City Council v Ingram (1999) EWCA Civ 1689 — The test for the displacement of a nearest relative is objective; the Court of Appeal will not interfere with factual findings that were open to the trial judge. [MHLR.] 2009-04-111999 cases, Brief summary, Displacement, Transcript
Re GK (Patient: Habeas Corpus); Kinsey v North Mersey Community NHS Trust (1999) EWHC Admin 577 — The statutory provisions meant that a hand delivered notice of intention to discharge by a nearest relative had to come into the hands of the Mental Health Act Administrator to start the 72 hour period for a barring order (s25 Mental Health Act 1983); if the notice was sent by post to the Managers, it was their responsibility to ensure that an authorised officer was available to open it and deal with it. [MHLR.] 2009-04-111999 cases, Brief summary, Other NR cases, Transcript
Broadmoor Hospital Authority v R (1999) EWCA Civ 3039 — A High Secure hospital has a duty to treat patients, maintain security and provide a therapeutic environment; and implicit rights and powers to secure these objectives, including seeking to control events outside the hospital that might impact upon its duties. [MHLR.] (No injunction to prevent patient publishing book about index offence.) 2009-04-111999 cases, Brief summary, Miscellaneous, Transcript
R v Crookes (1999) EWCA Crim 1065 — On an appeal against a restriction order, the progress made after sentence can be relevant to show that a restriction order, although properly imposed, should be lifted by the Court of Appeal. [MHLR.] 2009-04-111999 cases, Brief summary, Restriction order cases, Transcript
R v Cox (Lee Michael) (1999) EWCA Crim 848 — The judge was able to impose a restriction order against the views of the doctors giving evidence; there was assistance as to the meaning of “serious harm” in the s31 Criminal Justice Act 1991, and so it covered serious physical or psychological injury; the risk of such harm had to be real, not fanciful or remote. [MHLR.] 2009-04-111999 cases, Brief summary, Restriction order cases, Transcript
Warren v UK 36982/97 (1999) ECHR 186 — Detention under the MHA following an order made by a criminal court should be considered under Art 5(1)(e) ECHR. [MHLR.] 2009-04-101999 cases, Brief summary, ECHR, Transcript, Unimportant cases
Musial v Poland 24557/94 (1999) ECHR 15 — Requesting a second opinion did not amount to a waiver of the right to a speedy hearing; the court’s agreement to request a second opinion did not absolve it of the duty to ensure speediness (including using powers such as the fining of witnesses); complexity of a medical file was relevant to the issue of speediness; reliance on an out-of-date medical report could breach Art 5. [MHLR.] 2009-04-101999 cases, Brief summary, Transcript, Tribunal delay
Matter v Slovakia 31534/96 (1999) ECHR 38 — Proceedings relating to capacity are covered by Art 6 ECHR; in assessing whether the proceedings are completed within a reasonable time, account has to be taken of any complexity arising from the need for expert evidence and any conduct by the patient, but special diligence is required from the court in light of the importance of the question. A forced medical examination, which is an interference for the purposes of Art 8(1), could be a proportionate method of protecting a patient’s rights as part of the resolution of capacity proceedings and so justified for the purposes of Art 8(2) ECHR. [MHLR.] 2009-04-101999 cases, Brief summary, ECHR, Transcript
FC v UK (1999) 37344/97 (1999) ECHR 184 — The applicant complained under Article 8 of the Convention that her adoptive father (whom she claims sexually abused her) automatically became her nearest relative under s26, that he consequently had access to personal information about her (including her treatment and whereabouts) and that she was not entitled to apply to have someone else act as her nearest relative; the case was struck out of the list by way of a friendly settlement on the basis that the government would change the law. 2009-04-091999 cases, Brief summary, Displacement, Transcript
Cotterham v UK (1999) ECHR 185 — The 10-month delay between the MHRT application and the hearing at first sight appeared to be a breach of Article 5(4); however, in the circumstances, there was no lack of diligence on the part of the judicial authorities: the delays were due to postponements for an independent report which arrived late and was served later still, and for the solicitor to be available. 2009-04-091999 cases, Brief summary, Transcript, Tribunal delay
Re Whitbread (No 2) (Habeas Corpus: Continued Detention) (1999) EWHC Admin 2 — (1) The duty to discharge under s72 following a Tribunal decision to discharge on a future date is subject to s29(4) which provides a further basis for detention during displacement proceedings; (2) The managers' reasons for upholding the RMO's barring certificate were adequate. 2009-03-151999 cases, Brief summary, Displacement, Transcript
R v Antoine (1999) EWCA Crim 1171 — Post-judgment discussion. 2008-09-221999 cases, No summary, Transcript, Unfitness and insanity cases
R v Antoine (1999) EWCA Crim 1170 — Court of Appeal judgment. 2008-09-221999 cases, No summary, Transcript, Unfitness and insanity cases
R (Manns) v London North and East MHRT (1999) EWHC 497 (Admin) — A Tribunal had been entitled to find that there was an enduring mental illness based on symptoms before transfer to hospital and that it was asymptomatic because of a response to medication; this entitled it to reject an opinion in favour of discharge which was based on the view that there was no enduring illness. [MHLR.] 2008-09-121999 cases, Brief summary, Reasons, Transcript
R (Hall) v MHRT (1999) EWHC Admin 351 — The provisions of s117 Mental Health Act 1983 are designed to ensure that there is always an aftercare authority, being the place where the patient resided before detention or, if there was no such residence, the place where the patient was to be sent on release; the duty as to aftercare included the provision of information to a Tribunal and so arose before discharge. [MHLR.] 2008-09-121999 cases, After-care, Brief summary, Discharge conditions, Transcript
R (Hall) v MHRT (1999) EWCA Civ 2052 — The fact that there will be delay in the implementation of conditions in a conditional discharge does not mean that they are unlawful; it would have been open to the Tribunal to be proactive in adjourning for reports as to the progress of an aftercare package. [MHLR.] 2008-09-121999 cases, After-care, Brief summary, Discharge conditions, Transcript
R (Wey) v Pathfinder NHS Trust (1999) EWHC Admin 672 — When the Tribunal has decided on classification, the RMO cannot subsequently reclassify unless there is some change in circumstance of a significant kind which would enable a tribunal to take a different view if the matter were referred to them again. The remedy to the doctor and to the Trust would instead be to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Tribunal 2007-02-061999 cases, Brief summary, Other classification cases, Re-sectioning after hearing, Transcript

Article titles

The following 34 pages are in this category.

B

C

F

H

J

K

M

P

R

R cont.

W