|Page and summary||Date added to site||Categories|
|R (Brown) v North East Thames MHRT  EWHC 640 (Admin) — It was not in the public interest interest to pursue the judicial review of a Tribunal decision to discharge conditionally rather than absolutely: there had subsequently been a recall and a further well-reasoned conditional discharge; even if the applicant won he would be granted no relief.||2009-04-11||2000 cases, Absolute or conditional discharge, Brief summary, Transcript|
|Grey v UK 34377/02  ECHR 854 — A Tribunal granted an absolute discharge because the claimant suffered from no mental disorder, but on judicial review this was quashed because they had not first considered conditional discharge; a subsequent Tribunal reclassified him and upheld continued detention; his complaint under Article 5(1)(e) was rejected (no duty immediately and unconditionally to release into the community), as were complaints under Article 5(4) (no undue delay) and Article 6 (no right to appeal).||2009-04-10||2002 cases, Absolute or conditional discharge, Brief summary, ECHR, Transcript|
|R (SSHD) v MHRT, re Wilson  EWHC 1029 (Admin) — MHRT found that patient did not suffer from psychopathic disorder and directed absolute discharge; their decision was quashed because they had failed to consider conditional discharge criteria (i.e. whether patient should remain liable to be recalled for further treatment). Also: MHRT had no power to defer absolute discharge; had failed to explain why they rejected the RMO's evidence; and had misunderstood the legal definition of treatability.||2007-02-06||2004 cases, Absolute or conditional discharge, Brief summary, Transcript|
|R (SSHD) v MHRT, re BR  EWCA Civ 1616 — MHRT granted absolute discharge without considering conditional discharge criteria; High Court quashed decision, so patient became detained restricted patient again; Home Office refused to grant s17 leave until next MHRT; Court of Appeal partially quashed MHRT decision but declared patient entitled to be conditionally discharged pending MHRT determination of appropriate discharge type.||2006-05-03||2005 cases, Absolute or conditional discharge, Detailed summary, Transcript|
|Reid v Secretary of State for Scotland (1998) UKHL 43 — (1) Treatability test is part of admission criteria for psychopathic disorder, so entitled to discharge when it is not met; definition of treatment is wide and can include treatment only for symptoms rather than underlying disorder, e.g. anger management. (2) Decision not to discharge not irrational.||2006-04-15||1998 cases, Absolute or conditional discharge, Detailed summary, Scottish cases, Transcript, Treatability test and psychopathic disorder|
|R (SSHD) v MHRT, re BR  EWHC 2468 (Admin) — For restricted patients, Tribunals should consider appropriateness of liability to recall even if not satisfied that there is any detainable mental disorder.||2006-04-12||2005 cases, Absolute or conditional discharge, Brief summary, Transcript|
The following 6 pages are in this category.