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 summary||Date added to site||Categories
|Equilibrium Health Care v AK (2013) UKUT 543 (AAC), (2013) MHLO 101 — A tribunal medical member had referred the RC to the GMC in 2010 in relation to the RC's evidence at a tribunal. The RC argued, following the adjournment of a 2013 hearing, that this medical member should recuse himself because of bias. He was unsuccessful as there was no real possibility of bias, or actual bias, at either the 2010 hearing or the 2013 hearing. Obiter: decisions on recusal are best challenged after the proceedings are concluded.
||2013-11-27||2013 cases, Bias, Brief summary, Transcript, Upper Tribunal decisions|
|Shulepova v Russia 34449/03 (2008) ECHR 1666 — (1) Violation of Article 5(4): Applicant not detained in accordance with a procedure prescribed by domestic law. (2) Violation of Article 6(1): By appointing the hospital's employees as psychiatric experts, the domestic courts placed the applicant at a substantial disadvantage, in breach of the principle of equality of arms.
||2009-04-10||2008 cases, Bias, Brief summary, ECHR, Transcript|
|McGrady, Re Application for Judicial Review (2003) NIQB 15 — (1) The ability to disclose material to the representative on condition that it was not revealed to the patient was compatible with the Convention (obiter, since no decision had been taken on this yet). (2) The medical member's role is to form a provisional view on the patient's mental condition, rather than on the statutory criteria, and he discloses his conclusion during the hearing; if this approach is taken then there is no violation of Article 5(4), DN v Switzerland 27154/95 (2001) ECHR 235 distinguished.
||2008-11-27||2003 cases, Bias, Brief summary, Miscellaneous, Northern Irish cases, Transcript|
|DN v Switzerland 27154/95 (2001) ECHR 235 — The psychiatrist who sat as judge rapporteur on the Administrative Appeals Commission had, before the hearing, concluded that the patient should not be released; the patient had legitimate fears that the doctor had a preconceived opinion and was not acting impartially; this was reinforced because he was sole the psychiatric expert and the only person who had interviewed her; Article 5(4) having been breached, damages and costs were awarded
||2008-11-27||2001 cases, Bias, Brief summary, ECHR, Transcript|
|R (B) v South Region MHRT (2008) EWHC 2356 (Admin) — Unsuccessful challenge to Tribunal's decision not to discharge from Broadmoor hospital.
||2008-10-23||2008 cases, Bias, No summary, Reasons, Transcript|
|R (S) v MHRT (2002) EWHC 2522 (Admin) — Medical member's role.
||2008-09-12||2002 cases, Bias, No summary, Transcript|
|R (RD) v MHRT (2007) EWHC 781 (Admin) — (1) The communication by the medical member of a "very preliminary" view was lawful, even though it went to detainability and not merely to mental condition; (2) the reasons given for not discharging were adequate.
||2007-04-18||2007 cases, Bias, Detailed summary, Transcript|
|R (M) v MHRT (2005) EWHC 2791 (Admin) — There was no appearance of bias where the sentencing judge, who had imposed the hospital order with restrictions, heard the subsequent MHRT appeal; the patient knew the relevant facts and unequivocally decided not to object at the time, so had waived his right to object
||2006-12-27||2005 cases, Bias, Detailed summary, Transcript|
|R (PD) v West Midlands and North West MHRT (2003) EWHC 2469 (Admin) — No appearance of bias just becuase MHRT medical member was employed by same Trust as detained the patient.
||2006-04-16||2003 cases, Bias, Detailed summary, Transcript|
|R (PD) v West Midlands and North West MHRT (2004) EWCA Civ 311 — No appearance of bias when Tribunal medical member was employed by same Trust.
||2006-04-15||2004 cases, Bias, Brief summary, Transcript|