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
Re M (2011) EWHC 3590 (COP) — Under MCA 2005 s63 and schedule 3, which incorporates the Hague Convention on the International Protection of Adults 2000 into domestic law, the High Court recognised and gave effect to an order of the Southern Irish High Court which required M's transfer to and treatment at an English psychiatric hospital.	2012-02-04	2011 cases, Brief summary, Other capacity cases, Transcript
Wychavon District Council v EM (HB) (2012) UKUT 12 (AAC), (2012) MHLO 5 — The UT judge reviewed his previous decision because he had overlooked a legislative provision which could have had a material effect on the decision: in this case MCA 2005 s7, which provides that 'If necessary goods or services are supplied to a person who lacks capacity to contract for the supply, he must pay a reasonable price for them.' (1) Although the purported tenancy agreement between P and her father was void because the lack of capacity was known, under s7 P was still 'liable to make payments in respect of the dwelling which she occupies as her home' so she was entitled to benefits under the Housing Benefits Regulations 2006. (2) Even if 'services' in s7 is not wide enough to cover the provision of accommodation, the common law rules as to necessaries survive and the provision of accommodation is an obvious necessary.	2012-02-04	2012 cases, Brief summary, Other capacity cases, Transcript
DM v Doncaster MBC (2011) EWHC 3652 (Admin) — DM sought to avoid the care home fees for her husband FM who was subject to the deprivation of liberty safeguards: the main argument was that the s22 National Assistance Act 1948 charging provision did not apply because the DOLS created a duty to accommodate within the meaning of s21(8). The court held that: (1) the MCA 2005 did not create either a duty or power to accommodate FM; (2) FM fell within the terms of s21 NAA and was not excluded from its scope by the operation of s21(8); (3) s3 HRA 1998 gave no reason to read down s21(8) to reach any other conclusion; (4) FM's accommodation had thus to be paid for by him or on his behalf, in accordance with s22 and regulations made under it; (5) this is not discriminatory upon an application of Article 14 read with Article 1 of Protocol 1 (FM was not materially in the same position as those who receive after-care under s117 MHA and the State would in any event have offered sufficient justification for the result); (6) ..→	2012-01-22	2011 cases, Brief summary, Other capacity cases, Transcript
The People (at the suit of the Director of Public Prosecutions) v McMahon (2011) IECCA 94 — The Southern Irish DPP appealed an 11.5-year sentence and invited the Criminal Court of Appeal to impose a life sentence as a form of preventive detention (akin to the English IPP sentence). The court held: 'The protection of the public is an appropriate factor in the exercise of the sentencing function, but it cannot be extracted from that function to create a self-standing judicially created jurisdiction to impose a form of preventive detention. Whether sentencing courts should have the power to order the detention of individuals deemed to posed an immediate threat to the public, over and beyond any appropriate sentence for the crime committed, is a matter which should be addressed in the first place by detailed legislation by the Oireachtas after appropriate research and debate, and subject to Constitutional and Convention review if appropriate.'	2012-01-20	2011 cases, Brief summary, Southern Irish cases, Transcript
R v Clinton (2012) EWCA Crim 2, (2012) MHLO 2 — In the new 'loss of control' partial defence to murder, which replaces the provocation defence, when determining whether a loss of self-control had a 'qualifying trigger' (as set out in s55(3) and (4) Coroners and Justice Act 2009) 'the fact that a thing done or said constituted sexual infidelity is to be disregarded' (s55(6)(c)). The Court of Appeal held that where sexual infidelity is integral to and forms an essential part of the context in which to make a just evaluation whether a qualifying trigger properly falls within the ambit of subsections 55(3) and (4), the prohibition in section 55(6)(c) does not operate to exclude it.	2012-01-17	2012 cases, Brief summary, Other criminal law cases, Transcript
Stanev v Bulgaria 36760/06 (2012) ECHR 46, (2012) MHLO 1 — (1) The applicant's placement in a social care home for people with mental disorders and his inability to obtain permission to leave the home led to breaches of Article 5(1), (4) and (5). (2) The living conditions in the home led to breaches of Article 3, and of Article 13 in conjunction with Article 3. (3) The lack of access to a court to seek release from partial guardianship breached Article 6(1). (4) No separate issue arose under Article 8 so it was unnecessary to examine that complaint. (5) Compensation of €15,000 was awarded.	2012-01-17	2012 cases, Brief summary, ECHR, ECHR deprivation of liberty cases, Other capacity cases, Transcript
Re AH (Costs); AH v Hertfordshire Partnership NHS Foundation Trust (2011) EWHC 3524 (COP) — The relevant respondents were ordered to pay the costs of the nine applicants in this welfare case: (1) half the costs between issue of proceedings and settlement or final hearing, and (2) full costs of the costs application. The judge concluded: 'The conclusion I have reached in this case represents a partial departure from the general rule that there should be no order for costs. It is a case where there has been no bad faith or flagrant misconduct, but there has been substandard practice and a failure by the public bodies to recognise the weakness of their own cases and the strength of the cases against them. In such circumstances they cannot invoke Rule 157 at the expense of others.'	2012-01-12	2011 cases, Brief summary, COP costs cases, Transcript
Re Tucker (2011) COP 9/12/11 — The donor appointed one attorney and one replacement attorney and then directed as follows: "My replacement attorney shall only act if my attorney is unable to act by virtue of:- (a) the power to the attorney is revoked by me; or (b) the power is terminated by reason of the death, disclaimer or other incapacity of my attorney to act as my attorney; whichever shall first occur. For the avoidance of doubt my replacement attorney shall act alone if my attorney is not able to act." On the application of the Public Guardian the words "by virtue of:- (a) the power to the attorney is revoked by me; or (b) the power is terminated" were severed because revocation of the attorney's appointment is not one of the events listed in section 13(6)(a)-(d) of the MCA that trigger the activation of the appointment of a replacement attorney. [OPG summary - LPA case.]	2012-01-09	2011 cases, Brief summary, LPA cases - all, LPA cases - severance of invalid restrictions as to when a replacement attorney may act, No transcript
Re Evans (2011) COP 24/11/11 — The donor appointed A (his wife) and B as attorneys, to act jointly and severally, and C as replacement attorney. He then directed as follows: "My replacement attorney will replace both my attorneys and act alone if and when my wife becomes unable or unwilling to carry out her duties as my attorney." On the application of the Public Guardian the direction was severed because the donor was attempting to provide for attorney B to be replaced even though one of the triggering events for his replacement listed in section 13(6)(a)-(d) of the MCA had not occurred. [OPG summary - LPA case.]	2012-01-09	2011 cases, Brief summary, LPA cases - all, LPA cases - severance of invalid restrictions as to when a replacement attorney may act, No transcript
Re Steven Neary; LB Hillingdon v Steven Neary (2011) EWHC 3522 (COP) — (1) Each application for costs must be considered on its own merit: the previous cases were illustrative only and provided no guidance on the Rules. (2) The judge departed from the general rule in welfare cases (that each party bears his own costs) as this was not a typical case: Hillingdon's actions were significantly unreasonable in relation to the illegality of its actions, its disorganised decision-making, the lack of a proper best interests assessment, its uncooperative attitude to Stephen's father, its delay in referring the matter to the court (thereby increasing costs), and its attempt to defend its actions to the end, both in court and in the media. (3) Hillingdon were ordered to pay the OS's costs from the date of issue to the conclusion of the main hearing in May 2011 but not (a) costs in relation to the press issue, which raised issues of general public importance, or (b) costs following the main hearing, during which Hilingdon adopted a cooperative stance. (4) The ..→	2012-01-04	2011 cases, Brief summary, COP costs cases, Transcript
DP v Hywel DDA Health Board (2011) UKUT 381 (AAC) — WP's order for his son DP's discharge was barred by the Responsible Clinician; WP was then advised by the responsible authority that he was not the nearest relative, and that therefore his order and the barring report were of no effect; on this basis the Tribunal rejected WP's subsequent application. DP appealed. (1) The judge treated the barring report as having been withdrawn (rather than never having been valid): because there was no report, the Tribunal had no jurisdiction, so it had been correct to reject the application. (2) If the barring report had not been withdrawn, the question would have been whether a nearest-relative application made by a non-nearest-relative can be rejected: this was left undecided (despite the clear wording of s66).	2012-01-03	2011 cases, Brief summary, Other NR cases, Transcript, Upper Tribunal decisions
Re VW; NK v VW (2011) COP 27/10/10 11744555 — NK sought (a) to have his mother VW removed from a care home (where she was detained under a DOLS authorisation) and placed in one more local to him, and consequently (b) to have more frequent contact than permitted by the current DOLS authorisation and (c) to be appointed welfare and financial deputy. He was refused permission to make his applications, because of medical evidence that to move VW would be detrimental to her welfare.	2012-01-02	2010 cases, Best interests, Brief summary, Transcript
SSJ v RB (2011) EWCA Civ 1608 — The Mental Health Tribunal may not grant a conditional discharge in circumstances where the conditions would inevitably lead to an Article 5 deprivation of liberty.	2011-12-31	2011 cases, Brief summary, Deprivation of liberty, Discharge conditions, Transcript
R v Weekes (1999) EWCA Crim 1225 — Restricted hospital order given on appeal, instead of life imprisonment.	2011-12-18	1999 cases, Brief summary, Life sentence cases, Transcript
Cardiff Council v Peggy Ross (2011) COP 28/10/11 12063905 — Cardiff Council used the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards to prevent an elderly couple going on holiday cruise; the court decided that it was in the respondent's best interests to go on the cruise, and gave permission for ITV Wales to report that decision and broadcast interviews; later the court decided that the respondent herself had capacity to decide whether or not to go.	2011-12-10	2011 cases, Best interests, Brief summary, Transcript
PFZ v West London MH NHS Trust (2011) Settlement 28/11/11 — PFZ, an informal patient with a long history of mental illness, was allowed to run away from hospital in a suicidal state, then jumped from a balcony sustaining and permanent and catastrophic spinal cord injury which left him tetraplegic and wheelchair-bound. He sued the Trust for negligent failure to provide him with adequate treatment. The Trust agreed to compensate him on the basis of 40% liability, and made an advance payment of £75,000; the full amount was yet to be assessed but to meet PFZ's care needs for the remainder of his life was estimated to require millions of pounds.	2011-12-10	2011 cases, Brief summary, Miscellaneous, No transcript
Scottish Ministers v MHTS (2011) CSIH 76 — The Scottish Ministers challenged revocation by a Mental Health Tribunal of a restriction order affecting a patient suffering from paranoid schizophrenia and living in the community, and successfully argued that the compulsion order and restriction order should remain in force until the final hearing.	2011-12-10	2011 cases, Brief summary, Scottish cases, Transcript
Re Ian Brady (2011) First-tier Tribunal 7/12/11 — In a decision given on 17th October 2011, the application by Mr Ian Brady for a hearing in public that his application dated 4th August 2010 should be held in public was granted. The date of the hearing and appropriate arrangements are presently being determined and will be published as soon as possible. The fact of this decision should be published. The Tribunal also ordered that the reasons for the decision must not be made public. [Judge's summary.]	2011-12-10	2011 cases, Brief summary, First-tier Tribunal decisions, Publicity, Transcript
Re AB; AB v LCC (A Local Authority) (2011) EWHC 3151 (COP) — There is no impediment to a RPR acting as a litigation friend to P in a s21A application provided that: (i) the RPR is not already a party to the proceedings; (ii) the RPR fulfils the COP rule 140 conditions (that he can fairly and competently conduct proceedings on behalf of P, and has no interests adverse to P's); (iii) the RPR can and is willing to act as litigation friend in P's best interests; and (iv) the procedure as set out in COP rule 143 is complied with. The judge set out the pros and cons of this course of action; in this case, he appointed the RPR to as P's litigation friend.	2011-12-08	2011 cases, Brief summary, Other capacity cases, Transcript
Re RB (Adult); A London Borough v RB (Adult) (No 1) (2010) EWHC 2423 (Fam) — This case under the inherent jurisdiction concerned RB's best interests in relation to residence and contact. Of the 16 issues considered by the judge, he found for RB's partner MF in relation to one sub-issue (which was a 'saddening example of the institutional inability of some bureaucracies ever to admit that something has gone wrong') but against him in relation to all others (most of which were MF's unfounded criticisms of almost everybody involved in the case: the judge's own criticisms of Dr Kahtan and the MP are worth reading). Had she not died during the hearing, it would have been, given MF's inability to cooperate with any community care package, in RB's best interests to continue residing at the care home.	2011-12-03	2011 cases, Brief summary, Other capacity cases, Transcript
Re RB (Adult); A London Borough v RB (Adult) (No 2) (2011) EWHC 112 (Fam) — MF's applications for permission to appeal and for a re-trial were refused as being devoid of merit.	2011-12-03	2011 cases, Brief summary, Other capacity cases, Transcript
Re RB (Adult); A London Borough v RB (Adult) (No 3) (2011) EWHC 2576 (Fam) — (1) MF's claim for compensation was dismissed as it had no factual foundation; it also had no legal basis. (2) MF sought costs from the local authority; the Official Solicitor sought costs against MF (from a certain date) and the local authority (to the extent that costs were increased by their stance): there was no order for costs, except that MF was to pay 20% of the Official Solicitor's costs between certain dates, to reflect the time spent on the peripheral issues which MF had raised and the 'extravagant, strident and on occasions vicious way in which he chose to pursue them'.	2011-12-03	2011 cases, Brief summary, COP costs cases, Other capacity cases, Transcript
Re Clare (2011) COP 8/9/11 — The donor made two LPAs, each appointing an attorney and a replacement attorney. In each she directed as follows: "My Attorney may at any time appoint a substitute to act as my Attorney and may revoke any appointment without giving a reason. Each appointment is to be in writing signed by my Attorney. Every substitute has full powers as my Attorney as if appointed by this Deed, except the power to appoint a substitute." On the application of the Public Guardian the provision was severed as being a plain breach of section 10(8)(a) of the MCA, which provides that an LPA cannot give the attorney power to appoint a substitute or successor. [OPG summary - LPA case.]	2011-11-30	2011 cases, Brief summary, LPA cases - all, LPA cases - appointment of substitute by an attorney, No transcript
Re Dhir (2011) COP 15/11/11 — The donor set out eight restrictions, one of which was: "My attorney must not sell any of my properties unless it is required for my wife's medical treatment." On the application of the Public Guardian the restriction was severed on the ground that it authorised the attorneys to make gifts beyond the scope of the statutory power set out in section 12 of the MCA 2005. [OPG summary - LPA case.]	2011-11-30	2011 cases, Brief summary, LPA cases - all, LPA cases - severance of invalid restrictions relating to gifts, No transcript
Re Hamilton (2011) COP 25/10/11 — The donor appointed one primary attorney and one replacement attorney. On page 5 of the LPA the donor inappropriately ticked the box indicating that the attorneys were appointed to act jointly for some decisions and jointly and severally for other decisions, and continued: "My No 1 Attorney will make all decisions re my everyday expenses and decisions [and] will make joint decisions with the Replacement Attorney in reference to any large decisions re the selling of investments, property and the eventual need of a nursing home etc." On the application of the Public Guardian the provision was severed on the ground that, having appointed the attorneys to act successively, the donor could not authorise them to make any decisions concurrently, whether jointly or jointly and severally. [OPG summary - LPA case.]	2011-11-30	2011 cases, Brief summary, LPA cases - all, LPA cases - severance of invalid restrictions as to when a replacement attorney may act, No transcript
Re Stewart (2011) COP 9/11/11 — The donor included the following direction in the guidance section: "I authorise my attorneys to refuse or consent to my deprivation of liberty." The Public Guardian applied for severance on the ground that: "The deprivation of the donor's liberty is only lawful if ordered by the court or done in accordance with the procedures prescribed by law under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 as amended by the Mental Health Act 2007. The donor does not have power to authorise her attorneys to consent to the deprivation of her liberty in the absence of a court order or going through the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguarding procedures." The court determined that the direction was invalid for the reasons given by the Public Guardian. [OPG summary - LPA case.]	2011-11-30	2011 cases, Brief summary, LPA cases - all, LPA cases - severance of restrictions incompatible with a Health and Welfare LPA, No transcript
Re McGregor (2011) COP 16/11/11 — The donor appointed attorneys to act jointly in some matters and jointly and severally in others, and directed as follows: "Jointly - decisions on sale of house. Decisions on type of care received if no longer able to stay in own home. Severally - financial matters regarding bank accounts and general cash flow." On the application of the Public Guardian the words "decisions on sale of house" and "Severally - financial matters regarding bank accounts and general cash flow" were severed because they purported to give Health and Welfare attorneys authority to make decisions regarding the donor's property and financial affairs. (The result would be that, by implication, the attorneys would be able to decide jointly and severally all matters other than the type of care the donor would receive if no longer able to stay in his own home.) [OPG summary - LPA case.]	2011-11-30	2011 cases, Brief summary, LPA cases - all, LPA cases - severance of restrictions incompatible with a Health and Welfare LPA, No transcript
Hossack v Legal Services Commission (2011) EWHC 2700 (Admin) — Unsuccessful judicial review of a decision of the LSC rejecting the claimant's tender for the provision of legal services in the field of community care following a competitive tendering exercise in 2010.	2011-11-26	2011 cases, Brief summary, Miscellaneous, Transcript
Hadzic and Suljic v Bosnia Herzegovina 39446/06 (2011) ECHR 911 — The applicants had been detained for several years in a prison 'Psychiatric Annex' which was an inappropriate institution for the detention of mental health patients, in breach of Article 5(1); the applicants were awarded compensation of €15,000 and €25,000 respectively.	2011-11-26	2011 cases, Brief summary, Deprivation of liberty, ECHR, Transcript
R v Shah (2011) EWCA Crim 2333 — Following a special verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity, a restricted hospital order was imposed; an appeal, relying on post-sentence medical evidence, was made against the restriction order. (1) In exceptional cases the court can consider good progress after sentencing, but in this case the task was to decide whether, on the material before him on the date of sentence, the judge's sentence was wrong in principle or manifestly excessive: it was not. (2) The sentence provides a mechanism for release by a Tribunal from the restriction order and the full rigour therefore of the hospital order [this is incorrect], so the appeal court should not taken over the function of that body.	2011-11-21	2011 cases, Brief summary, Restriction order cases, Transcript
Re RB (Adult); A London Borough v RB (Adult) (No 4) (2011) EWHC 3017 (Fam) — There is no statutory provision regulating the publication or reporting of judgments given or handed down in the Family Division in proceedings under the inherent jurisdiction in respect of adults, so it is not a contempt of court to publish or report a judgment (whether in whole or in part) merely because it was given or handed down in private (in chambers) and not in open court.	2011-11-21	2011 cases, Brief summary, Other capacity cases, Transcript
Cheshire West and Chester Council v P (2011) EWCA Civ 1333 — The council sought a costs order against P in relation to the Court of Appeal proceedings. (1) The general rule on appeals from the COP to the Court of Appeal is, in accordance with CPR 44.3(2)(a), that the unsuccessful party will be ordered to pay the costs (subject, where relevant, to costs protection under s11 Access to Justice Act 1999). (2) The general rule in COP welfare cases (that there be no order as to costs) was irrelevant, as was the council's discreditable conduct at first instance. (2) Other factors were taken into account and the court made no order as to costs: 'Among the primary reasons for making no order is that the reason for and the importance of the appeal was not really at all about how P will be dealt with. The point of major importance for the local authority, and indeed local authorities generally, was how often they have to come back to court in this and other like cases.'	2011-11-21	2011 cases, Brief summary, COP costs cases, Transcript
R v Goucher (2011) EWCA Crim 2473 — On appeal, the restriction order was quashed: the judge had applied the correct test (whether it was necessary to protect the public from serious harm) but, as confirmed by a psychiatric report prepared for the appeal, he had got the answer wrong. [Summary based on All ER (D) report.]	2011-11-21	2011 cases, Brief summary, Restriction order cases, Transcript
R v Heaney (2011) EWCA Crim 2682 — The appellant had been convicted of two offences under MCA 2005 s44 and sentenced to consecutive 3- and 6-month sentences of imprisonment; on appeal, these were ordered to be served concurrently. The court took into account that 'neither of the victims in fact sustained any distress or injury and they were very short incidents', that the consequences for the appellant had been grave because she had lost her career, that she was a middle-aged woman with two young daughters, and that she was of previous good character.	2011-11-21	2011 cases, Brief summary, Criminal law capacity cases, Other capacity cases, Transcript
De Louville De Toucy v Bonhams 1793 Ltd (2011) All ER (D) 32 (Nov) — (1) There was no inconsistency between the Insolvency Rules (defining an 'incapacitated person') and the CPR (defining a 'protected party'). (2) The registrar should not have declared the claimant bankrupt: he ought to have (a) been aware that the claimant was incapable, (b) adjourned the case for a representative or litigation friend to be appointed, and (c) heard representations from such a person. (3) On the evidence, the financial situation was complex and, without proper investigation, it was impossible to be sure that it was appropriate to make a bankruptcy order, so the order was set aside and the matter referred to the registrar to be heard again. [Summary based on All ER (D) report.]	2011-11-14	2011 cases, Brief summary, No transcript, Other capacity cases
R v Lavender (2011) EWCA Crim 2420 — (1) On the material before the sentencing judge, there was nothing wrong in principle with an extended sentence. (2) However, given the recent psychiatric evidence, it was now arguable that the option of a hospital order with or without a restriction order needed to be considered, so leave to appeal was given and a representation order was granted.	2011-11-14	2011 cases, Brief summary, Sentence appeal cases, Transcript
R (Smith) v LB Camden (2011) EWCA Civ 1207 — Unsuccessful application for permission for second appeal against strike-out of claim for want of compliance with s139. (The claim was for damages of £100 billion for wrongful removal from his flat and for being forced to live in various mental health institutions where he claimed to have been assaulted many times.)	2011-11-14	2011 cases, Brief summary, Transcript, Unimportant cases
R v Clark (2011) EWCA Crim 2516 — The defendant appealed against a sentence of 56 months' imprisonment for GBH (financial worries had led him to decide to kill his wife and himself). The sentencing guidelines could never have been intended to apply to such an exceptional case; the sentence was replaced with a community rehabilitation order with a mental health treatment requirement.	2011-11-14	2011 cases, Brief summary, Sentence appeal cases, Transcript
Re Hurren (2011) COP 28/9/11 — The Public Guardian refused to register the instrument as an LPA because the Part B certificate had been signed before the donor signed Part A, in contravention of Regulation 9 of the Lasting Powers of Attorney, Enduring Powers of Attorney and Public Guardian Regulations 2007. (The donor had subsequently lost capacity.) On the attorney's application, the court declared in the exercise of its discretion under paragraph 3(2) of Schedule 1 of the MCA 2005 that the instrument was to be treated as if it were in the prescribed form and directed registration. The Public Guardian applied to set aside the order on the ground that paragraph 3(2) did not apply in the case of defective execution. The court set aside the order, and confirmed that the discretion given to the court under paragraph 3(2) applies only to an instrument which is not in the prescribed form and does not apply to any prescribed requirements in connection with its execution. [OPG summary - LPA case.]	2011-11-14	2011 cases, Brief summary, LPA cases - all, LPA cases - whether the instrument has been correctly executed, No transcript
Re Steiner (2011) COP 17/10/11 — The donor appointed two attorneys to act jointly. She then gave the following guidance: "Should the need arise relating to the management of my financial affairs and my business interests, whoever at the time is acting for me personally as my accountant or solicitor shall adjudicate over my personal financial interests and whoever is acting professionally for me in respect of my business interests either my accountant or solicitor shall adjudicate over my business interests." On the application of the Public Guardian the court severed the provision from the LPA on the ground that it could potentially oust the jurisdiction of the court. [OPG summary - LPA case.]	2011-11-14	2011 cases, Brief summary, LPA cases - all, LPA cases - severance of restrictions fettering authority of an attorney, No transcript
Re Wormsley (2011) COP 24/10/11 — The donor appointed two primary attorneys and two replacement attorneys, and directed them to act jointly and severally. He further directed as follows: "If a replacement attorney is required to replace an original attorney, the two replacement attorneys shall decide which one of them shall serve as attorney." On the application of the Public Guardian the court severed the provision as being inconsistent with the joint and several appointment of the replacement attorneys. [OPG summary - LPA case.]	2011-11-14	2011 cases, Brief summary, LPA cases - all, LPA cases - severance of restrictions incompatible with a joint and several appointment, No transcript
Re Clarke (2011) COP 19/9/11 — The donor made an LPA for property and financial affairs, appointing her husband and daughter as attorneys and her other two daughters as replacement attorneys. She also made an LPA for health and welfare, appointing her husband and three daughters as attorneys. When an application was made to register the instruments, the husband objected on the ground that the instruments had not been properly witnessed. He alleged that the witness had not been in the house when the donor signed, but had added his signature later. The court preferred the evidence of the witness and one daughter, to the effect that the donor had signed at the dining room table and that the witness was in an adjacent room and could see her sign through glass doors separating the two rooms. Applying the old case Casson v Dade (1781), the court held that the instruments had been properly witnessed. (The husband also objected on the ground that the donor lacked capacity to make an LPA, but this was also dismissed. The ..→	2011-11-14	2011 cases, Brief summary, LPA cases - all, LPA cases - whether the instrument has been correctly executed, Transcript
Re GM; FP v GM and A Health Board (2011) EWHC 2778 (COP) — This was an application for a DOLS standard authorisation to be discharged, thus permitting GM, on discharge from hospital, to return to his home rather than be sent to an EMI home. (1) For there to be an order preventing GM from returning home (in practice, permanently) it would have to be 'so contrary to his interests to return that the court must not even contemplate seriously a placement' at home. (2) Factors in favour of a return home included: the 'emotional dimension'; GM's short life expectancy, and the fact that a move to EMI accommodation would be permanent; and Article 8 considerations. (3) Factors against were: the probability of a lesser quality of physical care at home; the risk of risk of breakdown and conflict; and the risk of deterioration, for instance in sleep pattern. (4) The DOLS authorisation was discharged. (5) As GM was ready for discharge from hospital, and the decision would have permanent effect, Hedley J decided the issue in one day in January instead ..→	2011-10-26	2011 cases, Best interests, Brief summary, Transcript
AG's ref (no 54 of 2011) (2011) EWCA Crim 2276 — (1) The restricted hospital order was quashed and a six-year IPP imposed. The judge had failed to take into account the differences between the two regimes: (a) release on licence from IPP depends on lack of danger for any reason, whereas release from hospital order depends on lack of danger for medical reasons only; (b) an IPP licence can be revoked for danger resulting from crime, whereas a conditional discharge can only be revoked if the medical condition relapses. It was essential in this case that the power to recall upon criminal relapse was available. (2) The s45A hybrid order regime would have been perfect in this case, but it is only available to those subject to imprisonment; however, the defendant was under 21 and imprisonment is only available to those 21 or over (the court recommended that this be reconsidered). (3) The notional determinate term of 12 years was not unduly lenient. (4) The hearing was adjourned in order to allow for an immediate s47 transfer ..→	2011-10-24	2011 cases, Brief summary, Life sentence cases, Transcript
R v Morris (1997) EWCA Crim 2564 — The judge erred in law in that he left the jury to decide whether the assault occasioned pyschiatric injury in the absence of appropriate expert evidence; he should have followed the decision in Chan-Fook.	2011-10-24	1997 cases, Brief summary, Other criminal law cases, Transcript
Re S; D v R (the deputy of S) (2010) EWHC 3748 (COP) — Costs judgment in Court of Protection: (1) up to the December 2009 hearing, because the proceedings had been necessary, the normal rule that costs were to be paid by S's estate was to apply, but (2) from that point onwards, because of her conduct of proceedings, Mrs D was to bear her own costs, plus 75% of the Deputy's costs on the standard (not indemnity) basis.	2011-10-16	2010 cases, Brief summary, COP costs cases, Transcript
R v Abdi (2011) EWCA Crim 2179 — Unsuccessful appeal against s41 restriction order.	2011-10-13	2011 cases, Brief summary, Restriction order cases, Transcript
Sharma v Hunters (2011) EWHC 2546 (COP) — Unsuccessful application by Hunters Solicitors against wasted costs order in the Court of Protection.	2011-10-13	2011 cases, Brief summary, Other capacity cases, Transcript
Quigley v Masterson (2011) EWHC 2529 (Ch) — The defendant's application to the Court of Protection qualified as a notice of severance served under section 36(2) of the Law of Property Act 1925.	2011-10-13	2011 cases, Brief summary, Other capacity cases, Transcript
R (Sessay) v South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust (2011) EWHC 2617 (QB) — The police entered the claimant's private accommodation, unaccompanied and without a s135 warrant, purporting to be acting under ss5-6 MCA 2005 in her best interests; she was taken to hospital and, after a 13-hour delay in the s136 suite, detained under s2 MHA 1983. (1) Sections 135 and 136 MHA 1983 are the exclusive powers available to police officers to remove persons who appear to be mentally disordered to a place of safety. Sections 5 and 6 MCA 2005 do not confer on police officers authority to remove persons to hospital or other places of safety for the purposes set out in sections 135 and 136. (2) The MHA provides a complete statutory code for compulsory admission to hospital for non-compliant incapacitated patients, so the common law doctrine of necessity does not apply during the period in which a patient is being assessed for detention under the Act. If there is urgent necessity to detain then the s4 procedure should be followed; ..→	2011-10-13	2011 cases, Brief summary, Transcript, Unlawful detention cases
S v Estonia 17779/08 (2011) ECHR 1511 — Under domestic law S should have been heard 'promptly' after the county court ruled on her compulsory admission to hospital, but was not heard for 15 days; no adequate justification was given; this was a considerable portion of the three-month admission period; the domestic supreme court noted the procedural violation but offered no redress: overall, there had been a breach of Article 5(1), in that she was not detained in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law. Compensation of €5000 was awarded.	2011-10-06	2011 cases, Brief summary, Deprivation of liberty, ECHR, Transcript
Re Jarman (2011) COP 8/8/11 — The donor made an EPA appointing attorneys to act jointly and severally. He included the following restriction: "While both of my Attorneys are alive and of capacity they are to act jointly and a certificate from a practising doctor will be sufficient evidence of capacity of either of my Attorneys." On the application of the attorneys the court severed the restriction as being incompatible with a joint and several appointment. [OPG summary - EPA case.]	2011-10-01	2010 cases, Brief summary, EPA cases - all, EPA cases - severance of restrictions incompatible with a joint and several appointment, No transcript
Re Gee (2011) COP 22/8/11 — The donor of a property and affairs LPA included the following guidance: "Although I authorise my Attorneys to make gifts of money to either grandchild in cases of extreme need (for which I rely on my Attorneys' discretion) no benefit directly or indirectly should go to my daughter. If my house has to be sold I authorise my Attorneys to distribute any furniture, household and personal effects to X, Y and my grandchildren as if I had died." In making the application the Public Guardian referred the court to the view expressed by the Law Commission in its report on Mental Capacity (Law Com. No. 231) to the effect that an LPA attorney could provide for the needs of others as part of his duty to act in the donor's best interests, even in the absence of an express provision such as is conferred on EPA attorneys. The Public Guardian asked the court to consider whether the view of the Law Commission could be relied on in cases where the donor contemplated that the attorneys could provide ..→	2011-09-30	2011 cases, Brief summary, LPA cases - all, LPA cases - severance of invalid restrictions relating to gifts, No transcript
Re Temple (2011) COP 10/8/11 — The donor of a property and affairs LPA included the following guidance: "My attorney is authorised to grant gifts of up to £5,000 for family and also to provide interest free loans of up to £10,000 for extreme need. Where possible loans to be repaid within one year with flexibility of terms allowed at my attorney's discretion." On the application of the Public Guardian the guidance was severed because it contravened section 12 of the MCA 2005. [OPG summary - LPA case.]	2011-09-30	2011 cases, Brief summary, LPA cases - all, LPA cases - severance of invalid restrictions relating to gifts, No transcript
Re Jackson (2011) COP 17/8/11 — The donor of a property and affairs LPA included the following guidance: "If my attorneys believe I lack mental capacity or am becoming mentally incapable of managing and administering my property and financial affairs then I wish them to realise all my stocks, shares and other investments and transfer the proceeds and the balances from all bank and other accounts in my sole name into a joint account in the names of myself and my wife to ensure that my wife has full access to all funds." On the application of the Public Guardian the guidance was severed because it contravened section 12 of the MCA 2005. [OPG summary - LPA case.]	2011-09-30	2011 cases, Brief summary, LPA cases - all, LPA cases - severance of invalid restrictions relating to gifts, No transcript
Re Fisher (2011) COP 28/7/11 — The donor included the following provision in his LPA: "I direct that if I lack mental capacity or for any other reason am unable to deal with my day to day financial affairs then my Attorney is to pay from my business the sum of £4,000 per calendar month into the bank account of my wife." On the application of the Public Guardian the provision was severed on the ground it contravened section 12 of the MCA 2005. [OPG summary - LPA case.]	2011-09-30	2011 cases, Brief summary, LPA cases - all, LPA cases - severance of invalid restrictions relating to gifts, No transcript
Re Walker (2011) COP 20/7/11 — The donor of a property and affairs LPA included the following provision in the guidance section: "To help my son X financially from my funds as and when he requires." On the application of the Public Guardian the provision was severed on the ground that it contravened section 12 of the MCA 2005. [OPG summary - LPA case.]	2011-09-30	2011 cases, Brief summary, LPA cases - all, LPA cases - severance of invalid restrictions relating to gifts, No transcript
Re Salter (2011) COP 18/8/11 — The donor appointed primary attorneys to act jointly in some matters and jointly and severally in others, and also appointed replacement attorneys. She then directed as follows: "For decisions where my attorneys must act jointly, replacement attorney 1 should replace attorney 1, when he is unable to act and replacement attorney 2 should replace attorney 2 when he is unable to act." On the application of the Public Guardian this provision was severed because the effect of one primary attorney ceasing to act would be that the other primary attorney could no longer act in the matters to be decided jointly, but the direction contemplated that the first replacement would act with the surviving primary attorney. [OPG summary - LPA case.]	2011-09-30	2011 cases, Brief summary, LPA cases - all, LPA cases - survivor of original joint appointment cannot act with replacement, No transcript
Re Druce (2011) COP 31/5/11 — The donor made LPAs appointing A and B as her attorneys, to act jointly, and C and D to be her replacement attorneys. She then imposed the following restriction: "Both C and D should jointly replace the first attorney who needs replacing so that on the first replacement there will be 3 acting attorneys. No further replacements will be needed." On the application of the Public Guardian the court severed the restriction. There is nothing in section 10(8)(b) of the MCA, which deals with the appointment of replacement attorneys, to displace the fundamental principle that the survivor of joint attorneys cannot act. Where one of the original joint attorneys can no longer act, the replacement(s) will step in and act alone, to the exclusion of the surviving original attorney. This ruling reflects what is stated to be the "better view" in paragraph 4.44 of Cretney and Lush on Lasting and Enduring Powers of Attorney (6th edition). [OPG summary - LPA case.]	2011-09-30	2011 cases, Brief summary, LPA cases - all, LPA cases - survivor of original joint appointment cannot act with replacement, No transcript
Re Brindley (2011) COP 11/5/11 — The donor appointed three attorneys, A, B and C, to act jointly and severally. She then imposed the following restriction: "C does not attain the age of 18 until 21.12.2012 upon which date along with A and B she will act jointly and severally as attorney." On the application of the Public Guardian the appointment of C was severed as invalid on the basis that it contravened section 10(1)(a) of the MCA. [OPG summary - LPA case.]	2011-09-30	2011 cases, Brief summary, LPA cases - all, LPA cases - attorney or replacement attorney under 18, No transcript
Re Ingham (2011) COP 15/8/11 — The donor appointed four attorneys to act jointly for some decisions and jointly and severally for others. She then directed as follows: "A. While all attorneys are acting: 1. All may complete any transaction with a value not exceeding £2,500. 2. All must complete any transaction with a value exceeding £2,500. B. In the event that only two or three Attorneys remain capable of acting those Attorneys are bound by A1 and 2 above. C. In the event that only one Attorney remains capable of acting that Attorney has full powers to complete transactions of any value." On the application of the Public Guardian directions B and C were severed on the ground that they were incompatible with the joint aspect of the appointment: if one attorney ceased to act, the matters to be decided jointly would not be able to be decided by the continuing attorneys. [OPG summary - LPA case.]	2011-09-30	2011 cases, Brief summary, LPA cases - all, LPA cases - severence of restrictions incompatible with an appointment to act jointly in some matters and jointly and severally in others, No transcript
Re Freeman (2011) COP 17/8/11 — The donor appointed A and B as attorneys to act jointly in some matters and jointly and severally in others. He specified that they were to act as follows: "Major capital expenses jointly. Day to day expenses A." In his application the Public Guardian submitted that the donor had not specified any decisions to be made jointly and severally and so the words "Day to day expenses A" should be severed, with the effect that decisions not specified to be taken jointly should by implication be taken jointly and severally. The court was also asked to sever the word "Major" on the ground of uncertainty. The court accordingly severed these words so that the attorneys were appointed to act jointly for "capital expenses" and (by implication) jointly and severally for everything else. [OPG summary - LPA case.]	2011-09-30	2011 cases, Brief summary, LPA cases - all, LPA cases - severence of restrictions incompatible with an appointment to act jointly in some matters and jointly and severally in others, No transcript
Re Pugh (2011) COP 13/7/11 — The donor appointed three replacement attorneys to act jointly. She then completed the box on page 5 of the form (which should be completed only if the attorneys are to act jointly in some matters and jointly and severally in others) and directed as follows: "Where by this power I have appointed three replacement attorneys to act jointly on all occasions then I direct that if there is a dispute it is the majority decision of my three replacement attorneys that is to be followed and in the event that by reason of death or incapacity or other reason I only have two of my three replacement attorneys who are capable of acting then in the event of a dispute between my two continuing replacement attorneys it is the decision of the eldest that is to be followed." On the application of the Public Guardian the court severed the restriction as being incompatible with a joint appointment. [OPG summary - LPA case.]	2011-09-30	2011 cases, Brief summary, LPA cases - all, LPA cases - severance of restrictions incompatible with a joint appointment, No transcript
Re Wheeler (2011) COP 25/7/11 — The Public Guardian applied for the severance of an invalid clause in the LPA. The Senior Judge considered that another clause was also invalid, which was severed on the court's own initiative. The donor had provided the following guidance: "My attorneys may act on the contents of my will." The court's reason for severing the guidance was as follows: "The court considers that the meaning of this guidance is unclear and that it is probably void for uncertainty. Potentially it authorises the attorneys to distribute the donor's estate during his lifetime as if he were dead, which would be not only contrary to public policy but also contrary to the provisions of section 12 of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. A will speaks from death, and it is not a function of an attorney to act as the executor of the donor's will." [OPG summary - LPA case.]	2011-09-30	2011 cases, Brief summary, LPA cases - all, LPA cases - severance of restrictions incompatible with a Property and Financial Affairs LPA, No transcript
Re Hodgkiss (2011) COP 25/8/11 — The donor of a Health and Welfare LPA selected Option B, which states that the attorneys have no authority to give or refuse life-sustaining treatment. He then directed as follows: "Attorneys must consent to any life sustaining treatment if I am in a persistent vegetative state." On the application of the Public Guardian this provision was severed as being incompatible with his selection of Option B. The court added that, if the donor had wished to give his attorneys authority to consent to life-sustaining treatment if he were in a persistent vegetative state, he should have selected Option A. [OPG summary - LPA case.]	2011-09-30	2011 cases, Brief summary, LPA cases - all, LPA cases - severance of restrictions relating to life-sustaining treatment, No transcript
Re Gardner (2011) COP 6/7/11 — The donor included the following statement in the guidance section of the instrument: "If I am suffering from a terminal illness I would ask that my attorneys assist me in travelling to a country where it is legal for me to take my own life should I choose to do so." On the application of the Public Guardian the court severed the guidance for the following reasons: (i) section 62 of the MCA 2005 provides that nothing in the Act is to be taken to affect the law relating to murder or manslaughter or the operation of section 2 of the Suicide Act 1961 (assisting suicide); (ii) the donor was purporting to authorise the attorneys to commit the criminal offence of assisting suicide, and the fact that a person who assists a suicide is not always prosecuted in England and Wales does not detract from the fact that it remains a criminal offence; (iii) although the statement appeared in the guidance section, it is not open to a donor to provide guidance to the attorneys relating to the ..→	2011-09-30	2011 cases, Brief summary, LPA cases - all, LPA cases - severance of restrictions incompatible with a Health and Welfare LPA, No transcript
Re M; W v M (2011) EWHC 2443 (COP) — M is in a minimally-conscious state (the three categories of disorders of consciousness being coma, vegetative state and minimally-conscious state); family members applied to court to argue that the withdrawal of artificial nutrition and hydration was in M's best interests. (1) The Official Solicitor's argument that withdrawal can never be in the best interests of a clinically-stable MCS patient was rejected in favour of the usual 'balance sheet' approach to best interests, although clinical stability is an important factor. (2) In analysing best interests, the judge considered (a) preservation of life, (b) M's past wishes and feelings, (c) pain, (d) enjoyment of life, (e) prospects of recovery, (f) dignity, and (g) wishes and feelings of family members and carers. (3) It was not in M's best interests for ANH to be withdrawn: the preservation of life was the decisive factor in this case. (4) The judge made the following observations for future cases: (a) a decision to withhold or ..→	2011-09-28	2011 cases, Best interests, Brief summary, Transcript
R (Sunderland City Council) v South Tyneside Council (2011) EWHC 2355 (Admin) — SF moved from a residential college in Sunderland (ESPA) to a hospital in South Tyneside (Rose Lodge), initially informally then under section 3; the placement in Sunderland was terminated because of the hospital stay. The judge drew 10 propositions from the law, and concluded that Sunderland remained the authority with aftercare responsiblity under s117. Relevant considerations were that (a) the informal admission was close to being involuntary (through force of circumstances) and was in what was intended to be short-term accommodation, (b) the termination of the Sunderland placement was not voluntary, and (c) the Tyneside placement was not part of SF's regular order of life or for a settled purpose.	2011-09-27	2011 cases, After-care, Brief summary, Transcript
DN v Northumberland Tyne and Wear NHS Foundation Trust (2011) UKUT 327 (AAC) — It was argued before the FTT that DN should be discharged, deferred until arrangements under the MCA DOLS could be put in place in relation to residence and control of his alcohol consumption. (1) When the MHA applies, it has primacy over the MCA; however, if the MCA were applied in anticipation of discharge from detention then DN would NOT then be 'within the scope' of the MHA and therefore not ineligible for MCA DOLS. (2) The FTT erred in law by failing, when deciding not to discharge, to address the possibility of supervision under the MCA. (3) The Trust had not participated in the appeal so the UT erred on the side of caution by setting aside and directing a rehearing.	2011-09-27	2011 cases, Brief summary, Reasons, Transcript, Upper Tribunal decisions
G v MHTS (2011) CSIH 55 — This appeal relates to the circumstances in which it may be appropriate for the Mental Health Tribunal for Scotland to make no order for arrangements to be made for transfer from the State Hospital to conditions of lesser security following a finding that the patient is being detained in conditions of excessive security. The appellant unsuccessfully challenged the decision to make no order.	2011-08-23	2011 cases, Brief summary, Scottish cases, Transcript
MB v BEH MH NHS Trust (2011) UKUT 328 (AAC) — Following the RC's evidence, without hearing other witnesses or submissions on the law and evidence, the Tribunal judge stated that the patient could not obtain a conditional discharge and invited the patient to withdraw his application; the patient withdrew and appealed against the Tribunal's consent to the withdrawal. (1) Consent to withdrawal is a judicial act and is appealable. (2) The judge's expression of a preconceived concluded opinion (as opposed to a provisional view) amounted to a breach of the rules of natural justice and fair procedure in that the appellant was effectively denied a proper opportunity to put his case. (3) The UT's concerns about remedy (that there had been no application to reinstate the case and no re-application by the patient during the relevant eligibility period) were outweighed by the practical benefit of a fresh hearing and the patient, if unsuccessful, retaining his right to apply during the current eligibility period; therefore, the matter was ..→	2011-08-23	2011 cases, Brief summary, Transcript, Upper Tribunal decisions
Selwood v Durham CC (2011) Newcastle-upon-Tyne county court 25/2/11 — The claimant social worker was not informed of a patient's threats to kill her and was subsequently stabbed by him; she sued the local authority and relevant NHS Trusts in negligence or breach of statutory duty and alternatively alleged a breach of Article 2. The Trusts' application for strike out was successful. [Note: permission to appeal this decision was later given.]	2011-08-22	2011 cases, Brief summary, Miscellaneous, Transcript
Magritz v Public Prosecutors Office Bremen (2011) EWHC 1861 (Admin) — In relation to the claimant's extradition, where the sentence was for him to be 'placed in a psychiatric hospital for an indefinite period of time': (1) section 25 of the Extradition Act 2003 (the purpose of which is to protect a requested person whose physical or mental health is so poor that the act of extradition would be oppressive or unjust) was not engaged; and (2) there would be no breach of Article 3, Article 5 or Article 8.	2011-08-22	2011 cases, Brief summary, Repatriation cases, Transcript
M v F (2011) EWCA Civ 273 — Unsuccessful appeal by the mother against a judgment refusing her a wide ranging series of declarations, the object of which was to deny the father (who suffered from mental illness) all knowledge of the birth and subsequent development of his legitimate child.	2011-08-22	2011 cases, Brief summary, Miscellaneous, Transcript
WCC v GS (2011) EWHC 2244 (COP) — (1) GS lacked capacity to conduct litigation, to make decisions in respect of her care requirements, to decide where she wants to live and to decide issues relating to contact with her family. (2) It was in GS's best interest to remain at a care home. (3) Having set out an general guidance in relation to conditions imposed on contact, the court approved an agreed contact schedule between GS and her son.	2011-08-22	2011 cases, Best interests, Brief summary, Transcript
DP v South Tyneside DC (2011) Admin Court 14/7/11 — It was not practicable to consult the nearest relative because (1) DP was perceived to be potentially at risk from him (forced marriage/death) and (2) consultation was not possible without disclosing DP's location (the duty of consultation not being one of mere notification): therefore the application for habeas corpus was refused.	2011-08-22	2011 cases, Brief summary, Consulting NR, No transcript
Ross v SSWP (2011) UKFTT 8/8/11 (SEC) — Unsuccessful application by BBC journalist to record and broadcast proceedings of First-tier Tribunal (Social Entitlement Chamber).	2011-08-16	2011 cases, Brief summary, Miscellaneous, Transcript
R (S) v SSHD (2011) EWHC 2120 (Admin) — Detention of mentally-ill immigrant was unlawful under common law and Article 5, and breached Articles 3 and 8.	2011-08-16	2011 cases, Brief summary, Repatriation cases, Transcript
McKie v Swindon College (2011) EWHC 469 (QB) — An email sent by Swindon College, a past employer, to the claimant's then current employer, raising safeguarding issues, caused him to lose his job, for which Swindon were liable in negligence. (Full legal summary required.) (A forthright judgment: '[18] ... Even if there were any substance in that complaint at all, which as I say seems to me to be bordering on the ludicrous... [26] ... We are into the realms of hearsay upon hearsay. ... [27] ... I think when we actually look at the circumstances, we can see that the procedure adopted at Swindon College giving rise to the sending of the email, can be described as slapdash, sloppy, failing to comply with any sort of minimum standards of fairness, certainly any such standards as would be recognised by any judicial body taking decisions and disseminating information about another individual, because Mr Rowe agreed he had no personal knowledge of things at all. ... [29] So not only do I take the view that the contents of the email are ..→	2011-08-04	2011 cases, Brief summary, Miscellaneous, Transcript
Manchester City Council v G (2011) EWCA Civ 939 — Manchester's appeal against the costs order against it in the G v E case was unsuccessful.	2011-08-02	2011 cases, Brief summary, COP costs cases, Transcript
Re DU; A NHS Trust v DU (2009) EWHC 3504 (Fam) — It was in DU’s best interests to be permitted to return to Nigeria subject to the making of practicable arrangements. [Official summary available.]	2011-07-31	2009 cases, Best interests, Brief summary, Transcript
Re PH; PH v A Local Authority (2011) EWHC 1704 (COP) — The following declarations were made: (1) PH lacks capacity in relation to the question on whether or not he should be accommodated at Y Court for the purposes of being given care and treatment; and (2) PH lacks capacity to make a decision as to his residence and care (the second declaration to remain in force for six months).	2011-07-23	2011 cases, Brief summary, Other capacity cases, Transcript
CX v A Local Authority (2011) EWHC 1918 (Admin) — A writ of habeas corpus was granted: (1) there had not been sufficiently informed consultation with the nearest relative before the s3 application was made; (2) the withdrawal of the nearest relative's objection was not full and effective, since it was the result of the incorrect and misleading advice that she could not maintain the objection without legal representation. [Judgment originally published under a different name.]	2011-07-21	2011 cases, Brief summary, Consulting NR, Transcript
Wychavon District Council v EM (HB) (2011) UKUT 144 (AAC) — (1) The tenant lacked capacity so the tenancy contract was not valid, which meant that there was no liability to pay rent and therefore no entitlement to Housing Benefit. (2) The contract was void, not voidable, because the landlord knew the tenant lacked sufficient mental capacity to reach such an agreement. [Caution.]	2011-06-22	2011 cases, Brief summary, Other capacity cases, Transcript
R (KM) v Cambridgeshire CC (2011) EWCA Civ 682 — (1) The assessment of needs was adequate. (2) There has to be a rational link between the needs and the assessed direct payments, but there does not need to be a finite absolute mathematical link, so the use of the Resource Allocation System (RAS) was lawful. (3) The explanation of the personal budget figure was rational.	2011-06-22	2011 cases, Brief summary, Community care, Transcript
R v Goucher (2011) EWCA Crim 1456 — The hearing of an application for an extension of time and for permission to appeal against a restricted hospital order was adjourned in order to obtain evidence from the new Responsible Clinician.	2011-06-22	2011 cases, Brief summary, Restriction order cases, Transcript
Cheshire West and Chester Council v P (2011) EWHC 1330 (COP) — (1) The new care plan was in P's best interests (paras 35, 39). (2) There was a deprivation of liberty (reasons given in paras 58-60). [Caution.] (3) A costs order was made against the local authority as the serious misconduct of its employees (including misleading the court under oath, failure to disclose documents and falsifying records) rendered the proceedings more costly (para 76). (4) The public interest in holding public authorities accountable amounts to a 'good reason' for naming the local authority; the scale of the possible identification of P was minor enough not to prevent this (paras 89-90). [Detailed summary to follow.]	2011-06-19	2011 cases, Best interests, Brief summary, Deprivation of liberty, Transcript
Re Steven Neary; LB Hillingdon v Steven Neary (2011) EWHC 1377 (COP) — (1) By keeping Stephen away from his home, Hillingdon breached Article 8 and Article 5(1) (notwithstanding DOLS authorisations granted during later stages). (2) By (a) failing sooner to refer the case to the COP, (b) failing sooner to appoint an IMCA, and (c) failing to conduct an effective review of the best interests assessments, Hillingdon breached Article 5(4).	2011-06-09	2011 cases, Best interests, Brief summary, Deprivation of liberty, Transcript
B v Croydon Health Authority (1995) Fam 133 — (1) Medical treatment for mental disorder under s63 includes treatment of the symptoms of the disorder (as well as the disorder itself) and includes a range of acts ancillary to the core treatment; (2) on the facts, nasogastric feeding was treatment ancillary to treatment for psychopathic disorder.	2011-05-29	1995 cases, Brief summary, Challenges to compulsory treatment, Transcript
C v D (2011) EWCA Civ 646 — (1) A settlement offer which is time-limited is not capable of being a Part 36 offer; (2) in the context of the intention to comply with Part 36, the statement that the offer be 'open for 21 days' did not mean that it was a time-limited offer (rather, it was indicating that it could be withdrawn after 21 days); (3) on the facts, the Part 36 offer had not expired and was capable of acceptance.	2011-05-28	2011 cases, Brief summary, Miscellaneous, Transcript
LBN v Borland (Mental Health Officer) (2011) ScotSC 9/5/11 — The failure to submit the required medical evidence within the time limit did not vitiate the application.	2011-05-26	2011 cases, Brief summary, Scottish cases, Transcript
R (Nassery) v LB Brent (2011) EWCA Civ 539 — The judge was not in error in refusing to set aside the decision of the respondent local authority that the appellant was not entitled to support under section 21(1) of the National Assistance Act 1948.	2011-05-26	2011 cases, Brief summary, Community care, Transcript
Re JR49 (Application for Judicial Review) (2011) NIQB 41 — The order authorising removal from a hospital in NI to a hospital in England pursuant to MHA 1983 s82 was quashed.	2011-05-26	2011 cases, Brief summary, Northern Irish cases, Transcript
A Council v X (2010) EWHC B10 (COP) — Direct contact between X, a 94 year old lady who lacked capacity due to advanced dementia, and her daughter Y was no longer in X's best interests.	2011-05-26	2011 cases, Best interests, Brief summary, Transcript
Re Parsonage (2011) COP 1/4/11 — The donor of an LPA inserted the following restriction: "My replacement attorneys under this lasting power shall not have authority to do any act, or take any decision, under this lasting power except in those circumstances where I lack capacity or where the replacement attorneys reasonably believe that I lack capacity or when I have signed that I wish the lasting power to come into effect by signing the lasting power again." On the application of the Public Guardian the words "or when I have signed that I wish the lasting power to come into effect by signing the lasting power again" were severed on the ground that re-execution of the LPA by the donor after completion and registration would contravene the execution requirements for an LPA. [OPG summary - LPA case.]	2011-05-26	2010 cases, Brief summary, LPA cases - all, LPA cases - severance of restrictions incompatible with an LPA, No transcript
Re Putt (2011) COP 22/3/11 — (1) Two LLP partners were appointed attorneys; the certificate provider, as an associate at the same firm, was ineligible to act; (2) A direction that 'My attorneys (or any of them) may delegate in writing any of his, her or their functions to any person and shall not be responsible for the default of that person (even if the delegation was not strictly necessary or expedient) provided that he, she or they took reasonable care in his, her or their selection and supervision' was 'not simply contrary but almost repugnant to the special relationship of personal obligation and faith that one might reasonably expect to exist between a donor and the attorney of an LPA'.	2011-05-26	2011 cases, Brief summary, LPA cases - all, LPA cases - appointment of substitute by an attorney, LPA cases - eligibility of certificate provider, Transcript
R (W) v Birmingham City Council (2011) EWHC 1147 (Admin) — Of the four bands (low, moderate, severe, critical), the council decided to cease adult social care funding for needs which were assessed to be severe; the decision only to fund critical needs was unlawful.	2011-05-23	2011 cases, Brief summary, Community care, Transcript
RN v Curo Care (2011) UKUT 263 (AAC) — (1) If the representative was right that the judge stated at the outset that the Tribunal would refuse to make a CTO recommendation, then reaching that firm conclusion (as opposed to an provisional opinion), and preventing the patient from arguing to the contrary, was a breach of natural justice and the ECHR right to a fair hearing. (2) In any event, the lack of reasons for not making the requested recommendation amounted to an error of law. (3) There would be no point in setting aside the decision if a recommendation were impossible or not a realistic possibility, but this was not a case where a CTO would never become a realistic option in the foreseeable future: the Tribunal can make a CTO recommendation not only if it considers that the criteria are satisfied (here it did not) but also in order to trigger consideration of future steps that could be taken to move the patient towards eventual release. (4) The decision was set aside and remitted to a differently-constituted panel ..→	2011-05-04	2011 cases, Brief summary, Reasons, Transcript, Upper Tribunal decisions
R (WG) v Leicester City Council (2011) EWHC 189 (Admin) — This JR claim had been issued to challenge a failure to carry out an assessment under s47 NHSCCA 1990, but an assessment had subsequently been carried out and not identified any community care needs: (1) permission was therefore refused; (2) it was ordered that unless the claimant was prepared to identify herself she would not be able to bring any further legal actions.	2011-04-30	2011 cases, Brief summary, Transcript, Unimportant cases
R (Monday) v SSHD (2010) EWHC 3079 (Admin) — There was no prospect (for psychiatric reasons) of deportation of the claimant within a reasonable period, so ongoing detention would be unlawful.	2011-04-30	2010 cases, Brief summary, Repatriation cases, Transcript
R (Sturnham) v SSJ (2011) EWHC 938 (Admin) — Damages of £300 were awarded under Article 5 for anxiety and distress caused by six-month delay in Parole Board hearing.	2011-04-30	2011 cases, Brief summary, Prison law cases, Transcript
Lumba (WL) v SSHD (2011) UKSC 12 — (1) It was unlawful in public law for the SSHD to operate an unpublished policy on the detention of foreign national prisoners which differed from the published policy and which amounted to a near-blanket ban on release. (2) The detention of the appellants was unlawful, even though they would have been detained even on the published policy. (3) As they suffered no loss, the appellants were entitled to nominal damages of one pound (and not 'vindicatory' or exemplary damages).	2011-04-30	2011 cases, Brief summary, Transcript, Unlawful detention cases
Clift v Slough BC (2010) EWCA Civ 1484 — An email from a local authority stating that Clift was on its violent persons register was published too widely: (1) the disproportionate publication was an unjustified breach of Article 8; (2) the Article 8 breach prevented the local authority from using the qualified privilege defence to defamation.	2011-04-30	2010 cases, Brief summary, Miscellaneous, Transcript
Buckinghamshire CC v RB of Kingston upon Thames (2011) EWCA Civ 457 — Where a person is accommodated under s21 NAA 1948 by authority A in area B, the person is deemed still to be ordinarily resident in area A only until he moves out of s21 accommodation (in this case, into supported housing). When assessing under s47 NHSCCA 1990, authority A owes no duty of fairness to area B and there is no duty to consult: the duty is to the person concerned; the role of authority B, as payers for the service, is essentially incidental.	2011-04-30	2011 cases, Brief summary, Community care, Transcript
R v Chowdhury (2011) EWCA Crim 936 — The judge imposed a restriction order (contrary to the medical recommendations) because of the serious nature of the offence and his concerns about previous non-compliance. The Court of Appeal were willing to quash the restriction order if the appellant made the following undertakings: to surrender his Bangladeshi passport; not to apply for another Bangladeshi passport; to surrender his UK passport; not to apply for another UK passport; not to apply for any other travel documents; and to give irrevocable instructions that such documents are not to be returned to him without the written consent of his treating psychiatrist.	2011-04-30	2011 cases, Brief summary, Restriction order cases, Transcript
All About Rights Law Practice v LSC (2011) EWHC 964 (Admin) — The applicant law firm failed properly to complete the online documentation for the 2010 mental health tendering exercise and unsuccessfully challenged the LSC's decision not to award it a contract.	2011-04-30	2011 cases, Brief summary, Miscellaneous, Transcript
CM v Derbyshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust (2011) UKUT 129 (AAC) — (1) The Tribunal's decision not to discharge was made in error of law, and was set aside, (a) because there was no real evidence to support its view that non-compliance with medication and the risk of consequent relapse in the near future would probably occur, (b) because it did not establish that in these circumstances it had complied with the 'least restriction principle', (c) because of the irrationality in paragraph 21 of its decision (in that as the risk was of what might eventually happen it was hard to see how the envisaged leave regime could test that risk), and (d) because continued detention for the purposes of avoiding a chaotic lifestyle or drug taking or the absence of drug counselling is not permitted by law on the facts of this case. (2) The judgment contains a discussion of the 'nature' and 'degree' tests.	2011-04-30	2011 cases, Brief summary, Reasons, Transcript, Upper Tribunal decisions
RB v Nottinghamshire Healthcare NHS Trust (2011) UKUT 135 (AAC) — (1) The Upper Tribunal has power to award costs only where the First-tier Tribunal could do so; (2) in a mental health case, the FTT only has power to make a wasted costs order (and not a costs order 'if the Tribunal considers that a party or its representative has acted unreasonably in bringing, defending or conducting the proceedings'); (3) a wasted costs order may only be made against a legal or other representative; (4) it follows that there is no statutory authority to make an order for costs against the FTT, and the patient's solicitors' application to the UT was refused.	2011-04-30	2011 cases, Brief summary, Powers, Transcript, Upper Tribunal decisions
TR v Ludlow Street Healthcare Ltd (2011) UKUT 152 (AAC) — (1) The appeal against an interlocutory decision not to order disclosure of medical records was unsuccessful. (2) The judgment also contains guidance on appealing case management decisions, in particular from the MHRT for Wales.	2011-04-30	2011 cases, Brief summary, Transcript, Upper Tribunal decisions
PS v Camden and Islington NHS Foundation Trust (2011) UKUT 143 (AAC) — The Tribunal's policy is that a reference made under s68(7) (triggered by the revocation of a CTO) will be treated as having lapsed if the patient subsequently is placed on a new CTO (see Guidance: References made under section 68(7) Mental Health Act 1983 (as amended)). When the patient's representative argued that the case should be heard, the Tribunal treated that letter as the patient's own application. (1) The policy is unlawful: (a) whether the reference has lapsed depends on the nature of the reference, which is a matter of statutory interpretation, so neither the overriding objective nor the policy is relevant; (b) the subject matter of a reference under s68(7) (the duty to consider the s72 criteria) is not related to the circumstances that trigger it (the revocation of the CTO) so survives the change in circumstances; (c) the policy is inconsistent with s68(3)(c) (no six-month reference if revocation reference has been made) which would not be necessary if the ..→	2011-04-16	2011 cases, Brief summary, Transcript, Upper Tribunal decisions
R (G) v South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust (2011) EWHC 747 (Admin) — The claimant sought judicial review of the NHS Trust and the Met police in relation to a proposed visit to his home. (1) A civil restraint order had been made after the JR application was made: so he did not need leave of the High Court to have the claim considered on the papers; however, he did need leave for this renewed application for permission. (2) On the merits, permission would have been refused because (a) it is not the function of the court to review operational decisions such as this, and (b) the claimant had not been detained so the points regarding the MHA were academic. (3) In any event, the civil restraint order was thoroughly appropriate and would not be discharged.	2011-04-10	2011 cases, Brief summary, Transcript, Unimportant cases
R (Tagoe-Thompson) v The Hospital Managers of the Park Royal Centre (2002) EWHC 2803 (Admin) — Panel of three hospital managers must be unanimous in order to discharge patient.	2011-04-10	2002 cases, Brief summary, Hospital managers hearings, Transcript
R v Henz (2010) EWCA Crim 3121 — The appellant appealed against a sentence of 18 months' imprisonment as being excessive; then, following her transfer to hospital she instead sought a community order with a mental health requirement. Her mental condition, and lack of insight, led to the conclusion that a hospital order was required to ensure that she continued to receive treatment.	2011-04-09	2011 cases, Brief summary, Transcript
R v O (2011) EWCA Crim 376 — Life sentence quashed and s37/41 restricted hospital order substituted. The life sentence had been passed in the context of confusion about bed availability, and the lack of a second s37 recommendation. There was utility in making the Appellant a patient rather than a prisoner because: (1) it was manifestly the right order to make on all the evidence; (2) there were advantages in terms of treatment; (3) it had advantages to the Appellant in terms of benefits; (4) it would best ensure the protection of the public.	2011-04-09	2011 cases, Brief summary, Life sentence cases, Transcript
V v R (2011) EWHC 822 (QB) — Litigation capacity. The experts agreed that, as a result of her impulsive nature, V lacked capacity to manage her financial affairs; however, they disagreed on whether she had litigation capacity. The critical future decisions would be in connection with settlement offers (including the global value of the claim, provisional damages and periodical payments) albeit in the conext of the common understanding that she would not have unfettered access to the money. V would have difficulties in weighing the evidence and making decisions, but they could be ameliorated, if not entirely overcome, by the careful and structured support that the statute contemplates: the decisions would be made in the presence of her mother and lawyers; there was no suggestion that V would be left to make decisions on her own. On balance she did not lack capacity to ligitate.	2011-04-09	2011 cases, Brief summary, Other capacity cases, Transcript
Jones v Kaney (2011) UKSC 13 — (1) The immunity from suit for breach of duty that expert witnesses have enjoyed in relation to their participation in legal proceedings is abolished. (2) This does not affect the absolute privilege that all witnesses enjoy in respect of claims in defamation.	2011-03-30	2011 cases, Brief summary, Miscellaneous, Transcript
R (Faulkner) v SSJ (2011) EWCA Civ 349 — The claimant's Parole Board hearing should have been in March 2008 but was delayed in breach of Article 5(4) until January 2009 when he was released; he had shown on balance that he would have been released in March 2008. Having considered the case law on quantum, the court concluded that: 'a figure of £10,000 is appropriate and necessary to reflect the loss of some 10 months' conditional liberty by reason of the state's breach of the claimant's right not to continue to be detained in the absence of a speedy decision by a judicial body. We have not arrived at it by applying a multiplier to a monthly sum, although it can no doubt be disaggregated in that way.'	2011-03-30	2011 cases, Brief summary, Prison law cases, Transcript
MP v Mersey Care NHS Trust (2011) UKUT 107 (AAC) — The Tribunal panel discharged a s47 patient, deferred for six weeks for after-care arrangements, and stated in para 9 that it 'would also invite Mr P's care team to consider whether to implement a community treatment order'; a CTO was then made; however, the panel's decision by discharging the section simulaneously discharged the CTO. On the responsible authority's application under Tribunal rule 45, a FTT judge reviewed and set aside the decision (because the panel had frustrated its intention that there be a CTO); she then reviewed her own decision, upheld it, and remitted the case to a fresh panel. (1) The patient appealed, but both review decisions are excluded from the appeal jurisdiction (and not from the JR jurisdiction) so the appeal was treated as a JR application. (2) The panel's decision that the first two statutory criteria were not met was not simply an oversight: it had specifically stated that the third criterion was met. (3) Para 9 was not expressed as a ..→	2011-03-30	2011 cases, Brief summary, Powers, Transcript, Upper Tribunal decisions
Re Hunt (2008) (Preston county court, 12/6/08) — Mr Hunt suffered from Huntington's disease and had shut himself off from the world, in his home; he had ignored demands for payment of council tax; the court (not knowing his condition) made a bankruptcy order, then an order that he be arrested and brought before the court for failure to attend for public examination. (1) Under rules 7.43-7.44 Insolvency Rules 1986 (since amended to reflect the MCA) an 'incapacitated person' was one who is incapable of managing and administering his property and affairs either (a) by reason of mental disorder within the meaning of the Mental Health Act 1983, or (b) due to physical affliction or disability; the court may appoint a representative for such a person. (2) A bankruptcy order may be annulled if the order 'ought not to have been made' at the time. (3) The onus cannot lie on the debtor to establish lack of capacity because lack of capacity would itself render the debtor unable to do so: courts should investigate capacity where there is ..→	2011-03-29	2008 cases, Brief summary, Other capacity cases, Transcript
R (W) v LB Croydon (2011) EWHC 696 (Admin) — The local authority decided, in order to reduce costs and promote independence, to transfer W from his residential placement to supported living. (1) In principle, the council would be entitled to terminate W's residential placement on grounds of costs, or needs, subject to consultation. (2) On the facts, the consultation with W's parents and the professional carers (as required by MCA 2005 s4) had been inadequate, so the decision was quashed.	2011-03-29	2011 cases, Brief summary, Other capacity cases, Transcript
Dunhill v Burgin (2011) EWHC 464 (QB) — The claimant had settled a PI claim on unfavourable terms and now sought to have the consent order declared void for want of capacity; this judgment involves a consideration of litigation capacity. (1) In considering the issue of capacity historically, rather than prospectively, the court should confine itself to examining the decisions actually required of the claimant and should not expand its consideration to hypothetical circumstances (i.e. had she been advised differently). (2) On the facts, the presumption that she had capacity to enter into the agreement had not been rebutted.	2011-03-29	2011 cases, Brief summary, Other capacity cases, Transcript
Re A; A v A Local Authority (2011) EWHC 727 (COP) — A, represented by the OS, appealed under MCA 2005 s21 against a DOLS standard authorisation; the other parties, including A's son, argued that A lacked capacity and that his current placement was in his best interests. The OS wanted an up-to-date assessment of capacity and a report on best interests, suggesting a COP Visitor report as being the proportionate method: the report would determine whether to dispose of the case by consent or seek further directions. Given the clear evidence, had it been a child best interests case there would have been summary judgment; however, the MCA laid down stringent conditions for deprivation of liberty, so the court cannot act as a rubber stamp and the OS must be allowed to carry out his duty of representing A as he thought fit. Having regard to the overriding objective, the COP Visitor method, and likely disposal without a further hearing, was the best way forward.	2011-03-29	2011 cases, Best interests, Brief summary, Deprivation of liberty, Transcript
Re P; A Local Authority v PB (2011) EWHC 502 (COP) — (1) The judge's view was that in exercising a welfare or best interests jurisdiction (whether under the Children Act, under the inherent jurisdiction, or under the MCA) the court is choosing between available options; a point then arises whether the COP can add to the available options (by application of public law and HRA tests in the private law proceedings) or whether judicial review is necessary; these jurisdictional issues should be addressed well before a case comes on for final hearing, so that the relevant authority does not refuse to provide the services after the court has decided that they are in P's best interests; in this case there may be a further hearing to decide the issue. (2) At an appropriate stage in most COP welfare cases, a direction along the following lines should be given (paraphrased) - Each party shall serve a document on the other setting out (a) the facts he asks the court to find, the disputed facts he asserts the court need not determine, and the ..→	2011-03-29	2011 cases, Best interests, Brief summary, Transcript
Re AH; AH v Hertfordshire Partnership NHS Foundation Trust (2011) EWHC 276 (COP) — (1) The case concerned the proposal to move 12 adults from a specialist residential service (SRS) to alternative homes, and this judgment is a 'firm provisional decision' on one case in the hope of assisting resolution of all cases. (2) It was clearly not in AH's best interests to be moved: only the closure of SRS could justify the turmoil of a move. (3) This case illustrates the point that guideline policies (here, the campus closure programme) cannot be treated as universal solutions.	2011-03-29	2011 cases, Best interests, Brief summary, Transcript
Re AM; B (A Local Authority) v RM (2010) EWHC 3802 (Fam) — (1) When considering whether to transfer an application for a care order (under the Children Act 1989) to the Court of Protection (to be dealt with under the MCA) the essential thrust is whether the young person's welfare will be better safeguarded within the Court of Protection. The court will take into account matters such as whether: (a) the child is over 16 (otherwise there is no power); (b) the child manifestly lacks capacity in respect of the principal Children Act decisions; (c) the incapacity is lifelong or at least long-term; (d) all decisions and issues about welfare can be resolved during minority; (e) the COP powers are more appropriate to resolve the issues; and (f) the welfare needs can be fully met using COP powers. (2) AM's welfare would be better protected within the COP because: (a) there should be a court determination about the placement; (b) the court door should remain open during planning the placement; (c) the judge was far from satisfied that the issues ..→	2011-03-29	2010 cases, Best interests, Brief summary, Transcript
R (PA) v Governor of Lewes Prison (2011) EWHC 704 (Admin) — The claimant's social phobia did not make him 'infirm by nature of disability' (within the meaning of PSI 31/2006) for the purpose of deciding whether or not to release on Home Detention Curfew.	2011-03-25	2011 cases, Brief summary, Miscellaneous, Transcript
Re T (A child: murdered parent) (2011) EWHC B4 (Fam) — B killed his girlfriend, then spent four years as a restricted hospital order patient and a year as a conditionally-discharged patient (with exclusion-zone and no-contact conditions); he now applied for a contact order in respect of their daughter T. (1) There is no presumption that a parent who has murdered the other parent should have no contact with their child; however, having regard to the welfare checklist and other factors, there should be no contact of any kind between B and T. (2) An order under s91(14) Children Act 1989 (preventing further applications by B without leave) was made until T reaches 16 years of age. (3) The family court has no power to vary the conditions of a conditional discharge; however, the court is not constrained by the conditions when making orders; if the order would put the patient in breach of conditions then it should invite the Secretary of State to indicate to what extent he is prepared to vary them. (4) Since the only sanction for breach of ..→	2011-03-21	2011 cases, Brief summary, Discharge conditions, Transcript
R (AC) v Berkshire West PCT (2011) EWCA Civ 247 — The claimant, who suffered from gender identity disorder, unsuccessfully challenged the decisions to refuse funding for breast augmentation surgery and the underlying policies.	2011-03-18	2011 cases, Brief summary, Miscellaneous, Transcript
Re Cretney (2011) COP 24/2/11 — The donor made an LPA on the "new" form prescribed in 2009 but omitted the attorney's date of birth in Part A. The Public Guardian refused to register on the ground that the instrument differed materially from the prescribed form. On the application of the attorney (who was over 18) the court declared in the exercise of its discretion under paragraph 3(2) of Schedule 1 of the MCA that the instrument was to be treated as if it were in the prescribed form. [OPG summary - LPA case.]	2011-03-18	2011 cases, Brief summary, LPA cases - all, LPA cases - date of birth of attorney missing, No transcript
Re Dadd (2010) COP 17/10/10 — The donor made an LPA using the "new" form presribed in 2009. She appointed two attorneys but provided no date of birth for either. The Public Guardian was willing to register in favour of one attorney because her title was given as "Mrs", so that it could reasonably be inferred that she was at least 18. It was overlooked that the other attorney was described in the instrument as the donor's husband. On the attorney's application the court directed registration. As it could be inferred from the instrument that both attorneys were at least 18, the instrument differed from the prescribed form in an immaterial respect within paragraph 3(1) of Schedule 1 of the MCA 2005. [OPG summary - LPA case.]	2011-03-18	2010 cases, Brief summary, LPA cases - all, LPA cases - date of birth of attorney missing, No transcript
Re Parker (2011) COP 18/2/11 — The donor of a Health and Welfare LPA appointed X and Y as attorneys to act jointly in some matters and jointly and severally in others. He then directed as follows: "I wish the prime responsibility for decisions in respect of my health to vest in X. My attorneys need only act jointly in the event of serious and/or life threatening conditions. In this case X should endeavour to contact Y but if she is, for whatever reason, unable to do so she may act on her own (severally) despite the serious and/or life threatening condition." On the application of the Public Guardian the last sentence of this direction was severed as being incompatible with the appointment to act jointly in some matters. [OPG summary - LPA case.]	2011-03-18	2011 cases, Brief summary, LPA cases - all, LPA cases - severence of restrictions incompatible with an appointment to act jointly in some matters and jointly and severally in others, No transcript
Re Noel (2011) COP 31/1/11 — The donor appointed two attorneys to act jointly in some matters and jointly and severally in others. He then appointed X as replacement attorney. He directed that a decision to sell a named property " must be made jointly by all surviving attorneys including X". On the application of the Public Guardian the words "including X" were severed, as being incompatible with the manner in which the attorneys and replacement attorneys had been appointed. The court added that, to have acheived the desired objective, the donor should have appointed all three as attorneys (rather than two attorneys and a replacement) and directed them to act jointly in some matters and jointly and severally in others. [OPG summary - LPA case.]	2011-03-18	2011 cases, Brief summary, LPA cases - all, LPA cases - severance of invalid restrictions as to when a replacement attorney may act, No transcript
Re Scragg (2011) COP 1/2/11 — The donor of a property and affairs LPA (who lived abroad) gave detailed instructions to his attorney relating to all of his assets in the event of a return to England, and added that these instructions were "subject to the written consent of my daughter" (who was the replacement attorney and also the attorney under his Health and Welfare LPA). On the application of the Public Guardian the words "subject to the written consent of my daughter" were severed because the requirement that the attorney should obtain the consent of a third party before exercising his powers imposed an unjustifiable fetter on his authority. [OPG summary - LPA case.]	2011-03-18	2011 cases, Brief summary, LPA cases - all, LPA cases - severance of restrictions fettering authority of an attorney, No transcript
Re Knight (2011) COP 18/2/11 — The donor of a property and affairs LPA included the following provision in the guidance section; "I wish my attorneys, if they think fit, to pay my sister by way of gift the sum of £3,000 annually and to pay by way of gift the sum of £250 annually to my brother in law, my nephew, his spouse and all my nieces including spouses (other than to X), my great nephew and great niece, all of whom are listed on page A2 being the amounts of gifts exempt from inheritance tax under the current inheritance tax laws or such other annual sums by way of gift as shall for the time being be exempt from inheritance tax or other tax payable on death." On the application of the Public Guardian the provision was severed on the ground it contravened section 12 of the MCA 2005. Although the provision was expressed as guidance, it was not open to the donor to give guidance about gift making in terms going beyond the statutory power, and although it might be possible for the attorneys to make the desired ..→	2011-03-18	2011 cases, Brief summary, LPA cases - all, LPA cases - severance of invalid restrictions relating to gifts, No transcript
Re Careford (2011) COP 16/2/11 — The donor of a property and affairs LPA included the following provision in the guidance section; "While my husband is my attorney, he may use my own money and property for his benefit in any way he wishes. My replacement attorneys may use my money and property for the benefit of my husband in any way they think fit. All of my attorneys may make gifts to my husband from my estate." On the application of the Public Guardian the provision was severed on the ground that it contravened section 12 of the MCA 2005. Although the provision was expressed as guidance, it was not open to the donor to give guidance about gift making in terms going beyond the statutory power. [OPG summary - LPA case.]	2011-03-18	2011 cases, Brief summary, LPA cases - all, LPA cases - severance of invalid restrictions relating to gifts, No transcript
Re Wheatley (2011) COP 31/1/11 — The donor of a property and affairs LPA included the following provision in the guidance section; "My attorneys will continue to make contributions to my grandchildrens' Child Trust Funds and any other saving/pension plans that I fund for their benefit." On the application of the Public Guardian the provision was severed on the ground that it contravened section 12 of the MCA 2005. ALthough expressed as guidance, it was more in the nature of a direction. [OPG summary - LPA case.]	2011-03-18	2011 cases, Brief summary, LPA cases - all, LPA cases - severance of invalid restrictions relating to gifts, No transcript
Re Munn (2011) COP 28/1/11 — The donor of a property and affairs LPA included the follwoing provision in the guidance section; "My finances should be managed so that X can continue to live at [a named property] for as long as she wishes and receives income from all investments and holiday lettings." On the application of the Public Guardian the provision was severed on the ground that it contravened section 12 of the MCA 2005. Although expressed as guidance, it was more in the nature of a direction. [OPG summary - LPA case.]	2011-03-18	2011 cases, Brief summary, LPA cases - all, LPA cases - severance of invalid restrictions relating to gifts, No transcript
Re Baker (2011) COP 4/2/11 — In Part A of the instrument the donor put his middle name in the box for "Last Name" and omitted his surname completely. As his middle name could have passed for a surname, this error was not noticed by anybody and the instrument was registered. The attorney applied for a declaration that the LPA was to be treated as valid under paragraph 3(2) of Schedule 1 of the MCA 2005, under which the court may declare that an instrument is to be treated as if it had been made in the prescribed form even though it differs in a material respect from the prescribed form. The court exercised its discretion under paragraph 3(2) because, although the error was material, it was satisfied that the instrument was intended to be an LPA. The Public Guardian was directed to amend the register and attach a note to the instrument to this effect. (Note: for a similar case concerning an EPA, see Re Orriss (2010) COP 20/10/10, under the "Rectification" heading.) [OPG summary - LPA case.]	2011-03-18	2011 cases, Brief summary, LPA cases - all, LPA cases - donor surname missing, No transcript
Re McKenna (2011) COP 1/2/11 — The donor purported to appoint a replacement attorney who, at the date the donor signed the instrument, was 16 years old. The donor added the following restriction; "My replacement attorney shall only act if she is over the age of 18." On the application of the Public Guardian the appointment of the replacement attorney was severed as it contravened section 10(1)(a) of the MCA 2005, which provided that an attorney must have reached 18. [OPG summary - LPA case.]	2011-03-18	2011 cases, Brief summary, LPA cases - all, LPA cases - attorney or replacement attorney under 18, No transcript
Re Cranston (2011) COP 18/2/11 — The donor appointed attorneys to act jointly in some matters and jointly and severally in others. He included in the list of matters which should be decided jointly "changing my will". On the application of the Public Guardian these words were severed on the ground that an attorney has no authority to change a donor's will. An attorney may apply to the court for an order authorising the execution of a statutory will if a donor lacks testamentary capacity. [OPG summary - LPA case.]	2011-03-18	2011 cases, Brief summary, LPA cases - all, LPA cases - severance of restrictions incompatible with a Property and Financial Affairs LPA, No transcript
JLG v Managers of Llanarth Court (2011) UKUT 62 (AAC) — (1) An appeal to the Upper Tribunal can only succeed if 'the making of the decision concerned involved the making of an error on a point of law'. The issue is whether the Tribunal did its job properly: whether (i) the tribunal asked itself the correct legal questions; (ii) it made findings of fact that were rationally based in the evidence; (iii) it answered the legal questions appropriately given its findings of fact; (iv) it gave the parties a fair hearing; and (v) it provided adequate reasons. (2) The UT is entitled to assume that the members of the Tribunal understand the basic legal concepts which they must apply, particuarly with a specialist tribunal applying the same limited range of criteria repeatedly; the claimant's argument was essentially that the Tribunal failed to mention these matters, but there was nothing in the reasons to show that they did not understand them. (3) The reasons, albeit discursively, had soundly and rationally addressed the statutory criteria. (4) ..→	2011-03-07	2011 cases, Brief summary, Reasons, Transcript, Upper Tribunal decisions
RB v Nottinghamshire Healthcare NHS Trust (2011) UKUT 73 (AAC) — (1) The Tribunal's reasons for not reconvening following non-implementation of its statutory recommendation were inadequate. (2) A decision had clearly been made not to transfer so there would be no point in requiring the Tribunal to reconvene or reconsider whether or not to do so; the decision was therefore not set aside.	2011-03-07	2011 cases, Brief summary, Reasons, Transcript, Upper Tribunal decisions
AH v West London MH NHS Trust (2011) UKUT 74 (AAC) — (1) Once the threshold tests for establishing a right to a public hearing have been satisfied, Article 6 ECHR (reinforced by Article 13 CRPD) requires that a patient should have the same or substantially equivalent right of access to a public hearing as a non-disabled person who has been deprived of his liberty; such a right can only be denied a patient if enabling that right imposes a truly disproportionate burden on the state. (2) The threshold tests are: (a) is it consistent with the subjective and informed wishes of the applicant (assuming he is competent to make an informed choice)? (b) will it have an adverse effect on his mental health in the short or long term, taking account of the views of those treating him and any other expert views? (c) are there any other special factors for or against a public hearing? (d) can practical arrangements be made for an open hearing without disproportionate burden on the authority? (3) How the right to a public hearing can be ..→	2011-03-07	2011 cases, Brief summary, Publicity, Transcript, Upper Tribunal decisions
Re CW; A Primary Care Trust v CW (2010) EWHC 3448 (COP) — (1) Medical treatment is of no benefit to a person in a persistent vegetative state because he is not sentient and has no prospect of recovery; whether the withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment measures is in P's best interests depends on whether the diagnosis of PVS is correct; if it is correct then the provision of any treatment is futile and cannot be in his best interests. (2) CW was in a persistent vegetative state with no prospect of recovery; it was in his best interests for artificial nutrition and hydration to be withheld, which could be done lawfully; it was in his best interests to receive treatment and nursing care to ensure that he retains the greatest dignity possible until death.	2011-03-02	2011 cases, Best interests, Brief summary, Transcript
Re Steven Neary; LB Hillingdon v Steven Neary (2011) EWHC 413 (COP) — (1) The judge directed that: (a) the named media organisations could send designated representatives to court, subject to further directions; (b) the media could identify the parties by name, rather than initials; (c) the media could report any information already in the public domain when reporting the proceedings; (d) any application to report information during the course of any private hearing is to be determined by the court at the conclusion of the relevant hearing. (2) The reasons given were that: (a) the circumstances are already in the public domain to a significant extent; (b) there is no evidence of a real possibility of detriment or distress to Stephen of anything other than a trivial nature; (c) it would be impossible to prevent the media from reporting parties' names at the end of proceedings. (3) In relation to future care, directions had been given for a mediated solution to be attempted. (4) In relation to lawfulness of the past deprivation of liberty, a hearing was ..→	2011-03-02	2011 cases, Best interests, Brief summary, Transcript
NMC Conduct and Competence Committee decision: Josiah Foeka Amara 18/2/11 — Nurse was struck off for misconduct. The following charges were proved: 'That you, on or around 19 December 2005, whilst working as a Staff Nurse on Vincent Ward at the Gordon Hospital, Bloomberg Street, London SW1V 2RH: (1) Purchased crack cocaine in the company of Patient A, a patient on the ward; (2) Took crack cocaine with Patient A; (3) Had sexual intercourse with an unknown female when Patient A was also present in your flat; AND in light of the above, your fitness to practise is impaired by reason of your misconduct.'	2011-02-24	2011 cases, Brief summary, Miscellaneous, Transcript
Massie v H (2011) EWCA Civ 115 — The general rule is that an appeal shall lie from a decision of a county court to the High Court. One exception is for final decisions in Part 7 CPR multi-track cases, which go to the Court of Appeal. (1) This exception does not apply in nearest relative displacement cases under s29 MHA as the application is made under Part 8 CPR; no other exception applied. (2) The court declared that it lacked jurisdiction and that a previous consent order was therefore a nullity. (3) Because of the passage of time and costs involved, rather than abandon the matter or simply transfer it to the High Court, the case was transferred to the High Court for one of the Court of Appeal judges to consider it as a High Court judge there and then.	2011-02-17	2011 cases, Brief summary, Displacement, Transcript
R (Hertfordshire CC) v LB Hammersmith and Fulham (2011) EWCA Civ 77 — The appellant sought: 'A declaration that "is resident" in s117(3) Mental Health Act 1983 has the same (or substantially the same) meaning as "is ordinarily resident" under s24 National Assistance Act 1948, so that a person placed by a local authority under s21 NAA in the area of another local authority remains ordinarily resident in the area of the placing authority for the purposes of Part 3 NAA and s117(3) MHA.' The court refused to grant the declaration as: (1) Parliament must have deliberately chosen a different formula for s117; (2) s117 was intended to be a free-standing provision, not dependent on the 1948 Act; (3) there was no legitimate way to interpret 'resident' as excluding a placement under s21. The court noted that the decision is in line with recent government guidance, and that the Law Commission's current project provides a much better forum for considering and remedying any defects in the present law.	2011-02-17	2011 cases, After-care, Brief summary, Transcript
R v Welsh (2011) EWCA Crim 73 — Welsh appealed against a discretionary life sentence for diminished responsibility manslaughter, but was unsuccessful because (1) his propensity for violence, even before he suffered from paranoid schizophrenia, and the gravity of the offence, meant that public confidence would not be maintained by making a restricted hospital order, and (2) there was ample justification for the conclusion that he bore substantial responsibility and that there was a risk he would remain a source of danger even if his condition substantially improved once he received treatment and medication.	2011-02-02	2011 cases, Brief summary, Life sentence cases, Transcript
Re Scott (2011) COP 11/1/11 — The donor made an LPA for property and financial affairs, appointing A and B to act jointly and severally. She then imposed the following restriction: "In the event of there being any disagreement between A and B (as the attorneys for property and financial affairs) and C (as the attorney for health and welfare) over expenditure on my health or welfare then C's decision is to prevail." The Public Guardian applied for this restriction to be severed on the basis that Re Reading (above) showed that a donor could not require that a person who was not an attorney under the instrument should join in the making of decisions by the attorneys. The court dismissed the Public Guardian's application, considering that there was no reason in law why the donor of two seperate LPAs should not be able to provide that, in the event of a disagreement between the attorneys for property and financial affairs and the attorney for health and welfare, the decision of the attorney for health and ..→	2011-01-30	2011 cases, Brief summary, LPA cases - all, LPA cases - severance of restrictions fettering authority of an attorney, No transcript
Re Stevens (2011) COP 11/1/11 — The donor made an EPA including the following provision: "The word "seasonal" in section 3(5) of the Enduring Powers of Attorney Act 1985 includes the end of one tax year and the beginning of another." On the application of the attorneys the court severed the provision as being ineffective as part of an EPA. [OPG summary - EPA case.]	2011-01-30	2011 cases, Brief summary, EPA cases - all, EPA cases - severance of restrictions incompatible with an EPA, No transcript
Re Harris (2011) COP 6/1/11 — The donor made an EPA purporting to authorise the Attorneys to do the following: "Making a choice on my behalf for any nursing/residential care needed for me in the future." On the application of the Attorneys the court severed the provision on the ground that it would be ineffective as part of an EPA, because it sought to authorise Personal Welfare decision making. [OPG summary - EPA case.]	2011-01-30	2011 cases, Brief summary, EPA cases - all, EPA cases - severance of restrictions incompatible with an EPA, No transcript
Re Donegan (2011) COP 6/1/11 — The donor made an EPA including the following provision: "All the while that I am practically and financially able to remain in my own home my Attorneys should ensure that I remain there. My Attorneys do not have power to sell my home." On the application of the Attorneys the court severed the restriction on the ground that it was ineffective as part of an EPA because it sought to confer Personal Welfare decision making powers on the Attorneys. [OPG summary - EPA case.]	2011-01-30	2011 cases, Brief summary, EPA cases - all, EPA cases - severance of restrictions incompatible with an EPA, No transcript
Re Berg (2010) COP 31/12/10 — The donor made an EPA appointing A and B to act jointly. He then added: "so long as neither Attorney dies or is incapacitated in which eventuality the other Attorney is empowered to act on his own". On the application of the attorneys the court severed the restriction as being incompatible with a joint appointment. [OPG summary - EPA case.]	2011-01-30	2010 cases, Brief summary, EPA cases - all, EPA cases - severance of restrictions incompatible with a joint appointment, No transcript
Re Haworth (2010) COP 20/12/10 — The donor made an EPA appointing A and B to act jointly and severally. He then imposed the following restriction: "B shall not, while A is alive and mentally capable, without A's consent (a) sell, mortgage, charge, lease, or otherwise dispose of any asset of mine or (b) enter into any transaction with a value of more than £2,000." On the attorneys' application the court severed the restriction as being incompatible with a joint and several appointment. [OPG summary - EPA case.]	2011-01-30	2010 cases, Brief summary, EPA cases - all, EPA cases - severance of restrictions incompatible with a joint and several appointment, No transcript
Re KM; NCC v KM (2009) COP 1145479102 — Consideration of the legal aid position in relation to deprivation of liberty reviews following final hearing.	2011-01-24	2009 cases, Brief summary, Deprivation of liberty, Transcript
TW v A City Council (2011) EWCA Civ 17 — The Court of Appeal issued a reminder of the following: (a) that the bundle of authorities should be agreed; (b) that it should be filed at least seven days before the hearing; (c) that it should not contain more than ten authorities unless the scale of the appeal warrants more extensive citation; (d) that the relevant authorities should be copied from the official law reports, and only if not should reports from the All England Law Reports (All ER) or a specialist law report series be included. In addition, if a case is reported in volume 1 of the Weekly Law Reports that report should be used in preference to the report in the All ER. BAILII judgments (with neutral citation numbers) should only be used if no other recognised reports were available and the case really needs to be cited; and (e) that the passages in the authorities which were relevant and on which counsel sought to rely must be marked.	2011-01-24	2011 cases, Brief summary, Miscellaneous, No transcript
Re JP; DP v JCP (2010) COP 11692737 — DP's application to be appointed financial deputy for her father JP was opposed by her siblings, who also disputed DP's claim to the ownership of their mother's ashes. Guidance was given as to the ownership of the ashes. DP was capable of acting as deputy but did not have the necessary independence so a panel deputy was appointed. [Summary based on Eld LJ case report.]	2011-01-23	2010 cases, Brief summary, Other capacity cases, Transcript
Re P (2010) COP 23/12/10 (Mostyn J) — There was effectively a presumption against deprivation of liberty (pursuant to MCA 2005 s1(6)) and, on the facts, the balance tilted in favour of P returning home pending a final hearing at which full evidence could be considered. [Summary based on counsel's case report.]	2011-01-23	2010 cases, Brief summary, Deprivation of liberty, No transcript
R v Inglis (2010) EWCA Crim 2269 — Appeal allowed and retrial ordered on the basis of fresh evidence which showed that the appellant suffered at the time of the killing from bipolar affective disorder and supported a defence of diminished responsibility.	2011-01-22	2010 cases, Brief summary, Diminished responsibility cases, Transcript
CB v Sussex County Council (2010) UKUT 413 (AAC) — (1) Under s25 TCEA 2007 the Upper Tribunal issued a fine of £500, payable within 28 days, for failure to comply with a witness summons issued by the HESC chamber (education jurisdiction). (2) Under s16(3) Contempt of Court Act 1981 the Upper Tribunal specified a term of imprisonment of 7 days if payment was not made within the specified period.	2011-01-22	2010 cases, Brief summary, Transcript, Upper Tribunal decisions
Re J (2010) COP 6/12/10 — Under MCA 2005 s22(3) ('Powers of court in relation to validity of lasting powers of attorney') the court can consider any past behaviour or apparent prospective behaviour by the attorney (not just behaviour as P's attorney); depending on the circumstances and gravity of any offending behaviour found, it can then take whatever steps it regards as appropriate in P’s best interests (this only arising if P lacks capacity) whether by revoking the power or by taking some other course.	2011-01-22	2010 cases, Brief summary, LPA cases - all, LPA cases - other, Transcript
Francis v GSCC (2010) UKFTT 434 (HESC) — The GSCC had refused to register Francis as a social worker under s58 Care Standards Act 2000 because (a) he had from 2005 to 2006 failed to register as a social worker but continued to act as such, (b) during the same period he had continued to act as an AMHP; (c) he had failed to inform his employer of his personal difficulties, (d) there was no adequate endorsement of his application. His appeal under s68 was dismissed.	2011-01-22	2010 cases, Brief summary, Miscellaneous, Transcript
GSCC conduct committee decision: Philip Julian Davies 10/12/10 — Social worker suspended for misconduct for 12 months. Two of the proven allegations were: '(4) Without authority, on or around 18th July 2008, you requested service user Mrs Z to sign financial papers after she had been diagnosed by a consultant psychiatrist as having a lack of mental capacity. (5) Between 20th May 2008 and 30th October 2009, you failed to ensure that an application for a Court of Protection order in respect of a service user Mr Z, was made expeditiously, or at all.'	2011-01-22	2010 cases, Brief summary, Miscellaneous, Transcript
Salisu v SSH (2011) UKFTT 1 (HESC) — The Applicant was guilty of misconduct within the meaning of Section 86(7)(a) Care Standards Act 2000 (convicted of ill-treatment under s127 MHA 1983) but was not unsuitable to work with vulnerable adults and children under s86(7)(b).	2011-01-22	2011 cases, Brief summary, Miscellaneous, Transcript
Re AVS; AVS v A NHS Foundation Trust (2011) EWCA Civ 7 — Court of Appeal refuse permission to appeal from Court of Protection decision in medical treatment case. [Official summary available.]	2011-01-17	2011 cases, Best interests, Brief summary, Transcript
DL v South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust (2010) UKUT 455 (AAC) — The Tribunal failed to explain why it rejected medical and social reports which recommended absolute discharge. Their decision was set aside and the case remitted to the First-tier Tribunal for a rehearing.	2011-01-13	2010 cases, Brief summary, Reasons, Transcript, Upper Tribunal decisions
Re Williams (2010) COP 1/12/10 — The donor appointed three attorneys to act jointly. She then added: "The attorneys are only to make decisions jointly and should any of the attorneys die within my lifetime I wish for their personal representative to take over as my attorney in their place." On the application of the Public Guardian the court severed this provision on the ground that section 10(8)(a) of the MCA provided that an LPA instrument could not give the attorney power to appoint a substitute or successor. [Note: The provision could also be viewed as incompatible with the nature of a joint appointment.] [OPG summary - LPA case.]	2011-01-07	2010 cases, Brief summary, LPA cases - all, LPA cases - appointment of substitute by an attorney, No transcript
Re Warren (2010) COP 10/12/10 — The donor appointed four attorneys, A, B , C and D, to act jointly for some decisions and jointly and severally for others. She imposed the following restriction: "All decisions will be made by my first attorney A unless and until such time that he no longer has the mental capacity to do so. Should A no longer have the mental capacity to make decisions the remaining attorneys will jointly make decisions regarding the house and property and jointly and severally make decisions concerning finance." On the application of the Public Guardian the words preceding "attorneys will jointly" were severed on the ground that, where attorneys were appointed to act jointly in some matters and jointly and severally in others, it was not open to the donor to provide that one attorney should act alone for so long as he was able to do so. The Senior Judge added that, to have achieved the desired objective, the donor should have appointed A as the sole attorney and the three others as replacement ..→	2011-01-07	2010 cases, Brief summary, LPA cases - all, LPA cases - severence of restrictions incompatible with an appointment to act jointly in some matters and jointly and severally in others, No transcript
Re Weyell (2010) COP 2/12/10 — The donor appointed three attorneys, A, B and C, to act jointly for some decisions and jointly and severally for others. He then imposed the following restrictions: (1) "Two out of three of my attorneys must act jointly in relation to any transaction with a value in excess of £5,000 and my attorneys may act jointly and severally in relation to everything else." (2) "I direct that when acting jointly and severally where possible my attorneys are to act in the following order of priority: firstly A, then B and then C." On the application of the Public Guardian the first restriction was severed as being incompatible with the joint aspect of the appointment. In the application the Public Guardian submitted that, while a direction that attorneys appointed to act jointly and severally must act in an order of priority would normally be regarded as incompatible with a joint and several appointment, the addition of the words "where possible" made the direction in effect a statement of ..→	2011-01-07	2010 cases, Brief summary, LPA cases - all, LPA cases - severence of restrictions incompatible with an appointment to act jointly in some matters and jointly and severally in others, No transcript
Re RK; YB v BCC (2010) EWHC 3355 (COP) — (1) Given the terms of s20(8) Children Act 1989 (that any person with parental responsibility may at any time remove the child) the provision of accommodation to a child under s20(1), (3), (4) or (5) will not ever give rise to a deprivation of liberty within the terms of Article 5. If the child is being accommodated under the auspices of a care order, interim or full, or if the child has been placed in secure accommodation under s25, then the position might be different. (2) In any event: (a) the objective element of deprivation of liberty was not remotely close to being met on the facts; (b) the subjective element was not met, as the parents had consented on RK's behalf; (c) RK's placement was at the behest of her parents and could not be imputed to the state. [Detailed summary to follow.]	2011-01-04	2010 cases, Brief summary, Deprivation of liberty, Transcript
R (Khela) v Brandon MH Unit (2010) EWHC 3313 (Admin) — This renewed application for permission to judicially review a Tribunal decision and to quash the RC's previous diagnosis was dismissed and the claim found to be totally without merit.	2010-12-19	2010 cases, Brief summary, Transcript, Unimportant cases
Re P (Scope of Schedule A1) (2010) COP 30/6/10 — Given that a standard authorisation extends to restraining P from leaving the accommodation, it must also extend to compelling him to return.	2010-12-16	2010 cases, Brief summary, Deprivation of liberty, Transcript
AG's ref (nos 37, 38 and 65 of 2010) sub nom R v Khan (2010) EWCA Crim 2880 — Sentencing case which includes an illustration of the principle that there is no presumption that a hospital order will be made as a consequence of the satisfaction of the conditions in s37(2). The court noted that 'there were recognised symptoms of a depressive illness which in Mrs Khan's case were absent or equivocal. She was sleeping well; she could concentrate; she had been fit to give evidence but declined to do so; she was selective in her submission to treatment. These features of Mrs Khan's illness were relevant to her ability to serve a sentence of imprisonment which, as the judge found, was richly deserved. This was not a case in respect of which it could be argued that Mrs Khan's mental condition had any causative influence upon her offending.'	2010-12-11	2010 cases, Brief summary, Other criminal law cases, Transcript
R v Maynard (2010) EWCA Crim 2854 — On appeal the conviction for murder had been reduced to diminished responsibility manslaughter, and a restricted hospital order was imposed. The appellant remained in prison 18 months later, largely because he had refused to cooperate in the belief that he would be released sooner if given a prison sentence. Based on his dangerousness, the gravity of the offence and the level of culpability, the court imposed a life sentence with a 10-year tariff.	2010-12-09	2010 cases, Brief summary, Other criminal law cases, Transcript
R v AN (2004) EWCA Crim 3238 — (1) Although the medical evidence recommended a hospital order, the judge had been entitled to exercise his discretion not to impose a hospital order, particularly since there was no causal connection between the mental illness and the offending. (2) The 12-year sentence was not excessive.	2010-12-09	2004 cases, Brief summary, Sentence appeal cases, Transcript
Seal v UK 50330/07 (2010) ECHR 1976 — The claimant issued his claim on the eve of the limitation period without seeking leave under s139; the House of Lords had found that his claim was therefore a nullity. (1) No breach of Article 6 was found because (a) the six-year limitation period pursued a legitimate aim, (b) s139 was to restrict access to the court only where the claim was manifestly unmeritorious, and its general aim of protecting those who exercise powers under that Act, including the police, pursued a legitimate aim, (c) the decision to strike out did not impair the very essence of the applicant's right of access to court and was not disproportionate: he had not explained his delay or failure to seek leave, and should bear the consequences of his own decisions, and in any event could continue his non-MHA claims (2) No breach of Article 6 taken with Article 14 was found because he did not argue it in any substance and, by not having argued it previously, had failed to exhaust domestic remedies.	2010-12-09	2010 cases, Brief summary, ECHR, Miscellaneous, Transcript
SSWP v SS (DLA) (2010) UKUT 384 (AAC) — The decision under challenge was stated to have been made unanimously when in fact it was made by majority. (1) There is no obligation on the First-tier Tribunal (Social Entitlement Chamber) to state whether a decision is made by a majority or is unanimous; however, any statement given must be accurate. (2) If the decision notice accurately records that the decision was by a majority then any statement of reasons must contain at least a brief statement of the reasons for the dissent of the minority member. (3) An inaccurate statement that a decision is unanimous amounts to an error of law. (4) The decision was therefore set aside and remitted to a freshly constituted Tribunal for reconsideration.	2010-12-02	2010 cases, Brief summary, Transcript, Upper Tribunal decisions
Re Freeman (2010) COP 7/9/10 — The donor signed Part B of the EPA instrument on 14 April 2006, but the attorney did not sign Part C until 3 October 2008. The Public Guardian refused to register on the ground that an instrument could not be a valid EPA unless the attorney had signed before 1 October 2007. Section 66(2) of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 provides that an EPA cannot be "created" after commencement. On the attorney's application the court declared that the instrument was not a valid EPA. (The attorney applied for a reconsideration but the Judge confirmed his earlier decision by an order made at a hearing on 28 February 2011.) (Note: The Public Guardian will register an EPA appointing joint and several attorneys if at least one attorney signed before 1 October 2007 even though other(s) did not, in which case registration will be limited to the attorney(s) who signed before that date.) [OPG summary - EPA case.]	2010-12-01	2010 cases, Brief summary, EPA cases - all, EPA cases - whether the instrument was validly executed, No transcript
R (SP) v SSJ (2010) EWCA Civ 1590 — The Secretary of State for Justice was entitled to rely on a medical recommendation under s47 which did not explicitly address the new 'appropriate treatment' test: (1) his case workers are not concerned to pursue medical reasoning, but only to see whether the expert had given some reasons which they considered adequate and did not conflict with the facts known or the statutory requirements; (2) he was entitled to give the reports a sensible meaning, and to satisfy himself that the 'appropriate treatment' test was met by reference to matters which had been in the report by necessary implication. [Summary based on All ER (D) report of ex tempore judgment]	2010-12-01	2010 cases, Brief summary, Transcript, Unlawful detention cases
Re Baker (2010) COP 12/11/10 — The donor of a property and affairs LPA included the following provision: "I authorise my Attorneys to make gifts from my assets on such terms and conditions as they think fit, for the purposes of inheritance tax planning, including but not restricted to the making of gifts in line with the annual lifetime gift allowance." On the application of the Public Guardian the provision was severed on the grounds that it contravened section 12 of the MCA 2005. [OPG summary - LPA case.]	2010-11-28	2010 cases, Brief summary, LPA cases - all, LPA cases - severance of invalid restrictions relating to gifts, No transcript
Re Jass (2010) COP 26/10/10 — The donor of a property and affairs LPA included the following provision: "I hereby authorise my attorneys to give gifts on my behalf at my attorneys' discretion up to the exempt amount permitted by sections 19 (Annual Exemption), 20 (Small Gifts) and 22 (Marriage/Civil Partnership Gifts) of the Inheritance Act 1984 (or such other legislation or provision as may supersede these sections) for the time being in force." On the application of the Public Guardian the provision was severed on the ground that it contravened section 12 of the MCA 2005. [OPG summary - LPA case.]	2010-11-28	2010 cases, Brief summary, LPA cases - all, LPA cases - severance of invalid restrictions relating to gifts, No transcript
Re Moore (2010) COP 26/10/10 — The donor appointed three attorneys to act jointly. She then imposed the following restriction: "At least two attorneys to act on any transactions". On the application of the Public Guardian the court severed the restriction as being incompatible with a joint appointment. [OPG summary - LPA case.]	2010-11-28	2010 cases, Brief summary, LPA cases - all, LPA cases - severance of restrictions incompatible with a joint appointment, No transcript
Re Hartup (2010) COP 28/10/10 — (1) The donor appointed two attorneys, A and B, to act jointly and severally, and two replacement attorneys. He then imposed the following restriction: "My wife A is to take the lead in all decisions." On the application of the Public Guardian the restriction was severed as being incompatible with a joint and several appointment. (2) The donor made two LPAs, one for property and financial affairs and the other for health and welfare. In both instruments he appointed A (his wife) and B as primary attorneys, to act jointly and severally, and C and D as replacement attorneys. In the property and financial affairs instrument he imposed the following restriction: "Should my wife be unable to continue to act severally as my attorney, then B and my two replacement attorneys are to act on my behalf. They must act jointly in relation to decisions about selling my house or they may act jointly and severally in everything else." In the health and welfare instrument he imposed the following ..→	2010-11-28	2010 cases, Brief summary, LPA cases - all, LPA cases - severance of invalid restrictions as to how a replacement attorney may act, LPA cases - severance of restrictions incompatible with a joint and several appointment, No transcript
Re Ferguson (2010) COP 26/10/10 — The donor appointed three attorneys, A, B and C, to act jointly and severally. She then imposed the following restrictions: "I wish my attorneys to act as follows: A to act independently. B and C to act only in the event that A is deceased or unable to act. In these circumstances B and C may act independently." "I wish my attorneys to act only when I lack capacity to act. A may judge for himself when I lack capacity to act. B and C must agree together that I lack capacity to act. Alternatively, should either of them wish, then at my expense they may seek medical and, if necessary, legal advice as to whether or not I have capacity to act." On the application of the Public Guardian both restrictions were severed as being incompatible with a joint and several appointment. [OPG summary - LPA case.]	2010-11-28	2010 cases, Brief summary, LPA cases - all, LPA cases - severance of restrictions incompatible with a joint and several appointment, No transcript
Re Orriss (2010) COP 20/10/10 — By mistake the donor's surname was omitted from the instrument, which included only his first and second names. The EPA was registered without the mistake being discovered. On the application of the attorney the court directed the Public Guardian to attach a note to the EPA stating that the donor's surname had been omitted in error from Part B. [OPG summary - EPA case.]	2010-11-28	2010 cases, Brief summary, EPA cases - all, EPA cases - rectification, No transcript
Re Williamson (2010) COP 25/10/10 — The donor appointed A, B and C to act jointly. He then imposed the following restriction: "The said B and C shall not exercise their authority under this Power whilst my wife is alive and able to act as my attorney." On the application of the attorneys the court severed the restriction as being incompatible with a joint appointment. [OPG summary - EPA case.]	2010-11-28	2010 cases, Brief summary, EPA cases - all, EPA cases - severance of restrictions incompatible with a joint appointment, No transcript
Re Dickenson (2010) COP 12/11/10 — The donor appointed two attorneys to act jointly and severally and imposed the following restriction: "My professional Attorneys may at any time appoint a substitute to act as my attorney and may revoke the appointment without giving reason. Every appointment is to be in writing signed by my Attorney. Every substitute has full powers as my attorney, as if appointed by this Deed, except the power to appoint a substitute." On the application of an attorney the court severed the restriction. Paragraph 2(6) of Schedule 4 of the MCA 2005 provides that "A power of attorney which gives the attorney a right to appoint a substitute or successor cannot be an enduring power." [OPG summary - EPA case.]	2010-11-28	2010 cases, Brief summary, EPA cases - all, EPA cases - appointment of substitute by an attorney, No transcript
LBL v RYJ (2010) EWHC 2665 (COP) — RYJ had capacity in relation to care, contact, residential education and residence, and was not vulnerable as a result of external factors so as to invoke the inherent jurisdiction; discussion of mother's status as appointee and her application to SENDIST. [Summary required.]	2010-11-25	2010 cases, Brief summary, Other capacity cases, Transcript
R v Dunn (2010) EWCA Crim 2935 — Dunn had been convicted of four counts of ill-treating a person without capacity contrary to MCA 2005 s44 against three victims at the residential care home of which she was manageress. The judge had directed that 'a person without capacity' meant a person unable to make decisions for himself because of a disturbance or impairment of function of the mind or brain, that a diagnosis of dementia was not enough, that 'impairment' could be permanent or temporary, that capacity was presumed unless disproved on the balance of probabilities, and that this direction applied to all three victims. The defendant appealed on the basis that the direction on 'a person without capacity' was inadequate, failed to focus on the capacity of each victim to make a decision at the relevant time, and failed to identify the questions required by s3. Appeal dismissed. (1) The legislation, including s2, was convoluted and did not appropriately define the elements of the ..→	2010-11-25	2010 cases, Brief summary, Criminal law capacity cases, Transcript
Re G (TJ) (2010) EWHC 3005 (COP) — The court considered the meaning of 'best interests' when deciding whether or not to direct a deputy to make maintenance payments from P's funds to her daughter. (1) The balance sheet of facts which P would draw up if he had capacity to make the decision (taking into account actual wishes, beliefs and values, and other factors) is a relevant factor for the court's decision: thus a substituted judgment can be subsumed into the consideration of best interests. (2) 'Best interests' does not only include the self-interest of P: it includes wishes (or those he would have formed had he capacity) even if altruistic and not self-interested, and even if P has no awareness of the fact that such wishes are being respected. (3) On the facts: (a) no weight would be given to the possibility that P might be thought to have done the 'right thing', principally because she could not participate in the decision in any way, and partly because the family disagreed about what was the right thing; (b) ..→	2010-11-22	2010 cases, Best interests, Brief summary, Transcript
Singellos v Singellos (2010) EWHC 2353 (Ch) — (1) The approach in Parker v Felgate (1883) 8 PD 171 (that if a testator gives instructions when he has capacity, the will stands good even though at the time of execution he only understands that he is executing the will which he has instructed) applies also to dispositions inter vivos. (2) Mrs Singellos had the necessary capacity when she gave instructions to her accountant, but when she signed the multiple documents involved she only understood that she was giving effect to her instructions: the documents were declared to be validly executed.	2010-11-18	2010 cases, Brief summary, Other capacity cases, Transcript
Re P and OM (2008) COP 26/11/08 — The Court: (1) granted a worldwide freezing injunction over the assets of a son alleged to have to wrongfully obtained the proceeds of the sale of a house belonging to his incapacitated mother; and (2) made a declaration requiring the son to return his mother, a British citizen now in Guyana, to the United Kingdom for the purposes of assessment of her capacity, inter alia, to make decisions concerning her health and welfare. The Court determined (it appears for the first time) that it had the jurisdiction under paragraph 7 of Schedule 3 to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 to make decisions regarding the health and welfare of an incapacitated adult in a foreign country on the basis that they were habitually resident in England and Wales. [Summary from 39 Essex Street website.]	2010-11-16	2008 cases, Brief summary, No transcript, Other capacity cases
RH v South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust (2010) EWCA Civ 1273 — (1) The SC case stated that one of the key questions that the Tribunal will wish to ask itself when considering how to exercise its powers under section 75(3) is whether it is - as section 73(1)(b) puts it - 'satisfied that it is not appropriate for the patient to remain liable to be recalled to hospital for further treatment'. The putting of the burden of proof on the patient is not in breach of the ECHR: Article 5 does not apply; conditions imposed may engage Article 8, but it is justified to require a patient made subject to a restriction order following a criminal trial/conviction to satisfy the FTT that the order should cease to have effect. (2) The FTT's reasons were undoubtedly adequate. (3) The FTT had not said that RH's restriction order 'should remain in place essentially for life' (it had said that in some cases this would be the case) so this ground of appeal failed. (4) The FTT's comparison between conditional discharge and life licence was not an equation but merely to ..→	2010-11-13	2010 cases, Brief summary, Reasons, Transcript, Upper Tribunal decisions
Re Collis (2010) COP 27/10/10 — An application was made to the court to direct the Public Guardian to cancel the registration of an LPA on the grounds that the instrument was not a valid LPA because the Donor lacked capacity to create an LPA at the date of execution. In the course of his judgment the Senior Judge set out the law relating to capacity to create an LPA. [OPG summary - LPA case.]	2010-11-06	2010 cases, Brief summary, LPA cases - all, LPA cases - capacity to make an LPA, Transcript
YA(F) v A Local Authority (2010) EWHC 2770 (COP) — P and his mother brought claims under s7 HRA in the Court of Protection; the other parties asserted that only declaratory relief was possible as the CoP had no jurisdiction to hear and deal with (a) any of the mother's HRA claim or (b) the son's HRA damages claim, and that the claim should have been in the Queen's Bench Division. (1) The common ground that the CoP has jurisdiction to deal with P's HRA claim and grant declaratory relief was correct. (2) The CoP has jurisdiction (a) to hear argument on behalf of the mother that acts done in relation to P constitute breaches of her Convention rights and (b) to make declarations as to the lawfulness of such acts. (3) The CoP is a 'court which has power to award damages... in civil proceedings' under s8(1) HRA 1998 when exercising its HRA jurisdiction either because (a) in exercising its jurisdiction the CoP has the same powers as the High Court, which can award damages in such cases, or because (b) the CoP has power to award damages ..→	2010-11-03	2010 cases, Brief summary, Other capacity cases, Transcript
Hirst v UK (No 2) 74025/01 (2005) ECHR 681 — The blanket restriction on voting, which applies to all convicted prisoners in prison irrespective of the length of their sentence, the nature or gravity of their offence, or their individual circumstances, is unlawful.	2010-11-02	2005 cases, Brief summary, Miscellaneous, Transcript
Re AVS; CS v A NHS Foundation Trust (2010) EWHC 2746 (COP) — (1) AVS suffered from CJD and at a previous hearing it had been declared that he lacked capacity to instruct solicitors or make medical decisions. (2) The critical question was: 'is it in AVS's bests interests that PPS treatment continues to be administered to him?' The applicant wanted it to recommence; the Trust did not. (3) The applicant brother was not an appropriate next friend as the relationship between him and the clinicians had broken down completely and he lacked the necessary objectivity: the Official Solicitor would be invited to act. (4) The court's 'best interests' analysis embraces all the circumstances of the case, and clinical opinion is not necessarily determinative, but it is unlikely in the extreme that the court would order a clinician to undertake a medical intervention which the clinician did not believe to be in the best interests of the patient. (5) These proceedings would therefore be doomed to failure without a clinical opinion on the applicant's side. A ..→	2010-11-02	2010 cases, Best interests, Brief summary, Transcript
Re HP (Remuneration of a Financial Guardian under Section 68 of the Adults with Incapacity (Scotland) Act 2000) (2010) ScotSC 21/7/10 — This appeal concerns a decision of the Public Guardian regarding the question of the remuneration payable to a financial guardian in respect of the work undertaken by him in connection with the applications he submitted for renewal of the guardianship. Following an application to the Public Guardian for remuneration in connection with the renewal process, it was decided that additional remuneration was appropriate, but the proposed payment was at a level the guardian did not regard as adequate. The court held that this case was an exceptional circumstance in which the Public Guardian should authorise payment on a time and trouble basis.	2010-10-30	2010 cases, Brief summary, Scottish cases, Transcript
Re FB (Incapacity Application) (2005) ScotSC 26 — An application for guardianship was sought and granted. The court held that the first question it was to consider was whether the respondent was incapable in relation to decisions about, or of acting to safeguard his interests in, his personal welfare, as a consequence of the mental disorder, and whether this was likely to continue to be so. It was held that this meant much more than just being incapable of making decisions but also being incapable of understanding decisions in relation to his interests in his personal welfare or of acting to safeguard or promote those interests. The next question to consider was whether there was any other means provided by or under the Act which would be sufficient to enable the respondent's interests in his personal welfare to be safeguarded. Finally, the court held that the next question to be considered was whether the interests could be safeguarded otherwise than by guardianship order.	2010-10-29	2005 cases, Brief summary, Scottish cases, Transcript
Re DC (Dispensing with Service of Applications under the Adults with Incapacity (Scotland) Act 2000 on the Adult) (2010) ScotSC 6 — An application for Financial and Welfare Guardianship was accompanied by a form purporting to justify dispensing with intimation of the application on the adult. The Sheriff referred to his earlier decision in Re LC (2005) ScotSC 19/5/05 and held that the words in the application that "He is too disturbed and mentally ill" were insufficient to demonstrate that intimation of the application itself would be likely to pose a serious risk to the health of the adult.	2010-10-27	2010 cases, Brief summary, Scottish cases, Transcript
Anam v SSHD (2010) EWCA Civ 1140 — This appeal concerns the Secretary of State for the Home Department's powers of detention under paragraph 2(3) of Schedule 3 to the Immigration Act 1971 and the implications of his failure to have regard, when exercising those powers to detain the Appellant, to his own policy as set out in a document entitled "Enforcement Instructions and Guidance". [Summary required.]	2010-10-27	2010 cases, Brief summary, Repatriation cases, Transcript
Re John (2010) COP 14/10/10 — The donor made an LPA using the "old" form prescribed in 2007. She appointed an original attorney and a replacement attorney, but the replacement attorney's Part C omitted his date of birth, and it could not be inferred from the instrument that he was at least 18. The usual practice of the Public Guardian in such a case is to request a fresh Part C, but this could not be done because the donor had lost capacity (see Re Sporne (2009) COP 13/10/09). The instrument was registered, with registration being limited to the original attorney, but the attorney then applied to court to have the defective Part C "reinstated". The Public Guardian was joined as a party. The court ruled that the LPA was not in the prescribed form because of the failure to include the replacement attorney's date of birth. As the court was satisfied on the evidence that the replacement attorney was in fact at least 18, it exercised its discretion under paragraph 3(2) of Schedule 1 of the MCA (which is set out ..→	2010-10-27	2010 cases, Brief summary, LPA cases - all, LPA cases - date of birth of attorney missing, No transcript
Re Thrussell (2010) COP 12/10/10 — The donor directed her attorneys to consult with X "in respect of any major decision". On the application of the Public Guardian the court severed this provision on the grounds that it was so uncertain as to be unworkable. [OPG summary - LPA case.]	2010-10-27	2010 cases, Brief summary, LPA cases - all, LPA cases - severance of unreasonable, impractical or uncertain conditions, No transcript
Re Warner (2010) COP 31/8/10 — The donor made an LPA appointing A as the original attorney and B and C as replacement attorneys, the latter to act jointly. She imposed the following restriction in relation to the replacement attorneys: "If for any reason one of my replacement attorneys is unable or unwilling to act, the remaining replacement attorney is then permitted to act solely under my LPA". On the application of the Public Guardian the restriction was severed as being incompatible with the joint appointment of the replacement attorneys. [OPG summary - LPA case.]	2010-10-27	2010 cases, Brief summary, LPA cases - all, LPA cases - severance of restrictions incompatible with a joint appointment, No transcript
Re Devine (2010) COP 13/10/10 — The attorney's signature in Part C was witnessed but the witness did not sign his name. On the application of the attorney the court declared that the instrument was defective in a material respect and did not take effect as an EPA. [OPG summary - EPA case.]	2010-10-25	2010 cases, Brief summary, EPA cases - all, EPA cases - whether the instrument was validly executed, No transcript
Re SB (2010) COP 19/10/10 — (1) SB lacked capacity to consent to potentially life-saving treatment for aplastic anaemia. (2) It was lawful for the clinicians to administer the treatment and restrain her for that purpose; also, if the they decided that it was too distressing, they could decide to stop. [Summary based on press report.]	2010-10-20	2010 cases, Best interests, Brief summary, No transcript
City of Edinburgh Council v D (2010) ScotSC 30/9/10 — An Intervention Order was sought, and granted, to allow the applicant to instruct solicitors, on the adult's behalf, to negotiate for settlement with respect to an outstanding compensation claim, to receive funds and invest same for the benefit of the adult, and to instruct solicitors to apply to have the applicant confirmed as executor to the adult's father's estate, in order that his estate could then be wound up and disbursed.	2010-10-18	2010 cases, Brief summary, Scottish cases, Transcript
Grant v MHRT (1986) The Times 28/4/86 — The Tribunal has no power to make statutory recommendations under s72(3) in restricted cases.	2010-10-11	1986 cases, Brief summary, No transcript, Powers
F v Clinical Director of Our Lady's Hospital (2010) IEHC 243 — The discharge of the patient from voluntary status (despite his desire to remain as a voluntary patient) and the subsequent admission order making him an involuntary patient, in order to be transferred to the Central Mental Hospital in Dublin, and the CMH policy only to accept involuntary patients, were lawful.	2010-10-06	2010 cases, Brief summary, Southern Irish cases, Transcript
An NHS Foundation Trust v D (2010) EWHC 2535 (COP) — (1) D lacked the capacity to decide on medical treatment for her prolapsed uterus, as she held the delusional belief that her condition was normal and did not require treatment. (2) It was in D's best interests to receive surgery, as if untreated her condition could be life-threatening. (3) The proposed restraint and deprivation of liberty (including a general aesthetic six days before the surgery) was authorised, if absolutely necessary, as being in her best interests. (Summary based on press articles.)	2010-10-05	2010 cases, Best interests, Brief summary, Transcript
Re S (statutory will); D v R (the deputy of S) (2010) EWHC 2405 (COP) — S's financial deputy started an action in S's name seeking a declaration that gifts of money totalling over £500,000 made by S to D were procured by undue influence; S wanted the Chancery proceedings to be discontinued, so D sought a declaration that S had the capacity to do so. (1) Detailed consideration was given to the law (including that whether a decision is unwise or foolish is a relevant consideration in deciding on capacity, in particular where there is a marked contrast between the unwise nature of the decision and the former attitude when capacity was not in question) and to the conflicting medical evidence. (2) In order to have capacity: S must be able to understand, as a minimum, the nature and extent of the relationship of trust and confidence which he arguably reposed in Mrs D, the extent to which it may be said that his gifts to her cannot readily be accounted for by ordinary motives, and the general nature of the evidential burden resting on her to rebut any ..→	2010-10-05	2010 cases, Brief summary, Other capacity cases, Transcript
EG v RS (2010) EWHC 3073 (COP) — EG had to pay the costs of her application for permission to apply to be appointed RS's health and welfare deputy: she ought to have known that her application was doomed to fail because her role as RS's brother-in-law's solicitor, in an acrimonious family dispute, conflicted with the duty to act in RS's best interests.	2010-10-04	2010 cases, Brief summary, Other capacity cases, Transcript
R (Martins) v Cannons Park MHRT (1995) 26 BMLR 134 — The eligibility of an un-recalled conditionally discharged patient to apply to the Tribunal under s75(2) is calculated, not from the date of a deferred conditional discharge decision, but from the date of actual release from detention in hospital under conditional discharge.	2010-09-27	1995 cases, Brief summary, Deferred conditional discharge, No transcript
J v DLA Piper UK LLP (2010) UKEAT 0263/09/1506 — (1) In holding that at the material time (June 2008) the claimant was not suffering from 'clinical depression' amounting to a disability within the meaning of the DDA 1995, the Tribunal had (a) wrongly declined to give weight to the evidence of Claimant's GP, on the issues both of impairment and of 'deduced effect', because she was not a specialist; and (b) made a perverse finding as to whether the claimant's past depression had amounted to an impairment having a substantial adverse effect on her ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities, which was material both to the question of whether she had an impairment in June 2008 and to the potential application of para 2(2) of Schedule 1. (2) The appeal was allowed and the issue remitted. (3) Discussion of: (a) correct approach to issue of 'impairment' in cases involving a mental disability following the repeal of para 1(1) of Schedule 1; (b) distinction between 'clinical depression' and reactions to stress or other adverse ..→	2010-09-23	2010 cases, Brief summary, Disability discrimination, Transcript
R (Nassery) v LB Brent (2010) EWHC 2326 (Admin) — The claimant unsuccessfully challenged decisions that he did not have a need for care and attention pursuant to s1 NAA 1948 and s47 NHSCCA 1990; the challenge was on the basis that the decisions failed to have regard to, or give good reasons for rejecting, evidence that he needed looking after because of the continued risk of self‑harm or violence arising out of mental health problems (a subsidiary issue was raised about his ability to cook).	2010-09-23	2010 cases, Brief summary, Community care, Transcript
Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform v Murphy (2010) IESC 17 — (1) A 'sentence of detention' under (Irish) European Arrest Warrant Act 2003 s10(d), read with the aid of the relevant Framework Decision, is any order involving deprivation of liberty which has been made by a criminal court in addition to or instead of a prison sentence. (2) This therefore includes a restricted hospital order made under s37/41 MHA 1983. (3) The appellant, who had escaped having been convicted of extraditable offences, was surrendered to the UK.	2010-09-23	2010 cases, Brief summary, Southern Irish cases, Transcript
LC v DHIH (2010) UKUT 319 (AAC) — (1) The MHRT for Wales's decision not to discharge the patient, following a deferred conditional discharge, was inadequately reasoned because: (a) it took into account matters to which it had not referred in its original decision; (b) in relation to the newly-identified risk factors, either they must have been risk factors at the time of the original decision, or something unidentified must have happened to make them risk factors; (c) the tribunal could have deferred its decision for a report from the RC at the proposed accommodation, given that all staff agreed with the transfer; (d) the transfer was recommended despite the above; (e) given the liability to recall inherent in a conditional discharge, no reason was given as to why it was necessary to retain the "support of the MHA for the time being" during the accommodation move. (2) The second decision was set aside, so the original deferred conditional discharge decision remained effective, and the matter was referred to the ..→	2010-09-23	2010 cases, Brief summary, Reasons, Transcript, Upper Tribunal decisions
A Primary Care Trust v P (2009) EW Misc 10 (EWCOP) — (1) P lacked capacity to decide where and with whom he should reside. (2) The removal of P from AH's care at home, as a manifest breach of Article 8, could only be proportionate if the best interests of P compellingly required it. (3) It was in P's best interests to be moved to independent living accommodation. (4) There would be a deprivation of liberty due to (a) the degree of control to be exercised by staff, (b) the constraint on P leaving if he intends to return to AH, (c) the power to refuse a request from AH for P's return, (d) the restraints on contact, (e) the fairly high degree of supervision and control. (5) Directions were given in relation to the conduct of further court reviews. (6) Contact would be dealt with separately in an Order.	2010-09-13	2009 cases, Best interests, Brief summary, Deprivation of liberty, Transcript
Smith v MHTS (2006) CSOH 44 — A Mental Health Officer sought Judicial Review of the Mental Health Tribunal for Scotland's decision not to convene a Tribunal before the end of the 5-day STDC extension period. The Tribunal had cited the limited availability of venues and the lateness of the compulsory treatment order application as reasons; these were irrelevant as the obligation is straightforward and clear and not qualified by reference to reasonable practicability. An order was pronounced requiring the Tribunal administration to schedule a hearing within 5 days of the judicial review hearing.	2010-09-09	2006 cases, Brief summary, Scottish cases, Transcript
Laurie v MHTS (2007) GWD 32-555 — An application was made for revocation/variation of a Compulsory Treatment Order by the patient's Named Person. Two competing arguments were before the Mental Health Tribunal - one regarding a community option, the other a move to a specialist unit. A report prepared on behalf of the specialist unit was before the Tribunal. The Sheriff concluded that there will be many cases where proceeding on the basis of a report, without requiring the author to speak to it, was entirely proper and satisfactory but that it was not adequate in the circumstances of this case given the importance attached to that report. Whilst no party had requested an opportunity to cross-examine the author of the report, the Sheriff held that the Tribunal is not purely adversarial but there is an inquisitorial element in the approach required to be adopted by the Tribunal in its reaching decisions. The failure to consider whether to require the author to give evidence and the failure to consider the weight ..→	2010-09-09	2007 cases, Brief summary, Scottish cases, Transcript
Di Mascio v MHTS (2008) GWD 37-559 — The Mental Health Officer appealed against the decision by the Mental Health Tribunal for Scotland to vary the conditions of a Compulsory Treatment Order from a hospital based order to a community based one. The variation provided that the patient should reside with his mother. The appeal was refused. It was held that he Tribunal should have regard to the principles set out in section 1 of the Mental Health (Care & Treatment) (Scotland) Act 2003 when determining what compulsory measures should be authorised; and that a significant risk to the safety of others did not determine that detention in hospital must be authorised.	2010-09-09	2008 cases, Brief summary, Scottish cases, Transcript
AB v MHTS (2008) GWD 36-543 — During the course of a Mental Health Tribunal the Convenor curtailed the appellant's solicitor's repetitive cross-examination. An interim Compulsory Treatment Order (CTO) was granted. A subsequent Tribunal granted a CTO. This decision was subject to appeal. The Sheriff concluded there had been no procedural impropriety in the conduct of the hearing, nor was there a requirement for the Responsible Medical Officer to formally adopt their mental health report; the Tribunal could consider the evidence read as a whole in conjunction with the earlier mental health reports.	2010-09-09	2008 cases, Brief summary, Scottish cases, Transcript
LM v MHTS (2010) ScotSC x — The appellant had been subject to a Short-Term Detention Certificate (STDC), which was followed by an (unlawful) Extension Certificate, which was then followed by a subsequent STDC. Section 44(2) Mental Health (Care and Treatment) (Scotland) Act 2003 prohibits the granting of a STDC when the patient is subject to an Extension Certificate. An application under s50 was made to revoke the second STDC; the MHTS considered the detention criteria and refused the application. This decision was subject to an appeal to the Sheriff Principal who held that as the appellant had not been "subject to" the Extension Certificate (it being unlawful) the second STDC was valid. The Sheriff noted that the appellant could have made an application in terms of section 291 to challenge the lawfulness of his detention; this option met Article 5 requirements and would have been more appropriate as the detaining party would have been the respondent.	2010-09-04	2010 cases, Brief summary, Scottish cases, Transcript
Re M Crook (2010) COP 16/7/10 — The donor's Health and Welfare LPA included an invalid restriction. A further defect was that she had not entered the date on which she executed Part A of the instrument in section 10, nor had she dated section 5 when selecting Option A. The Public Guardian does not regard a failure to execute the Options section as invalidating the instrument, but a failure to date Part A will normally do so. However, in this case the Public Guardian was prepared to infer that both sections had been executed on 13 October 2009, as Continuation Sheet A1 had been signed on that date, and so was the Part B certificate. In addition, the certificate provider had witnessed the Part A signatures. When applying for severance of the invalid restriction, the Public Guardian requested the court to direct that Part A was to be treated as having been signed on 13 October 2009, to avoid any challenges by third parties. The court accordingly included a provision in the order to the effect that sections 5 and 10 ..→	2010-09-02	2010 cases, Brief summary, LPA cases - all, LPA cases - whether the instrument has been correctly executed, No transcript
Re Lan (2010) COP 10/8/10 — The donor appointed two attorneys to act jointly and severally. She then imposed the following restriction: "Any major decisions should be discussed between my attorneys so that a joint agreement to the matter can be achieved." On the application of the Public Guardian this restriction was severed as being incompatible with a joint and several appointment. [OPG summary - LPA case.]	2010-09-02	2010 cases, Brief summary, LPA cases - all, LPA cases - severance of restrictions incompatible with a joint and several appointment, No transcript
Re Farrow (2010) COP 18/8/10 — The donor appointed A to be her attorney and then appointed B to act in the event that A should be unable or unwilling to act or died. The donor then stated that A and B should act jointly and severally. On the application of the attorneys the court severed the words "jointly and severally", so that the instrument could be registered as an EPA appointing A as primary attorney and B as substitute attorney. [OPG summary - EPA case.]	2010-09-02	2010 cases, Brief summary, EPA cases - all, EPA cases - appointment by donor of substitute attorneys, No transcript
WS v MHTS (2010) CSIH 74 — WS had been transferred from an English medium secure unit to the state hospital at Carstairs in Scotland under s80 MHA 1983. (1) His appeal to the MHTS under s220 Mental Health (Care and Treatment) (Scotland) Act 2003 ("Appeal to Tribunal against transfer under section 218 to state hospital") was misconceived because he had not been transferred under s218. (2) The appropriate remedies would have been (a) a judicial review in England of the English s80 decision or (b) an appeal under the Scottish s264 ("Detention in conditions of excessive security: state hospitals"). (3) An order under s264 would oblige the Health Board to search for suitable accommodation in England if necessary.	2010-08-22	2010 cases, Brief summary, Scottish cases, Transcript
Re LD; London Borough of Havering v LD and KD (2010) EWHC 3876 (COP) — (1) The practice of the Court to appoint personal wefare deputies only relatively rarely, in the most extreme cases, is the correct approach, considering the intention of s16(4). Specific decisions of the court are to be preferred to the ongoing appointment of a deputy and when a deputy must be appointed it is to be for the narrowest scope and the shortest time reasonably practicable in the circumstances. (2) The local authority's application to be appointed as LD's personal welfare deputy until further order was rejected: the case was not especially unusual or difficult; residence had recently been resolved by the court, and the other issues were either routine (and thus subject to s5) or very major (requiring court scrutiny); the absence of a deputy would not cause problematic delay in decision-making, as as court orders can be obtained very swiftly, and was not preventing care or services being provided; mere convenience to a local authority in ..→	2010-08-21	2010 cases, Best interests, Brief summary, Transcript
Re D (Statutory Will); VAC v JAD (2010) EWHC 2159 (Ch) — (1) There is no presumption that the Court of Protection should not direct the execution of a statutory will in any case where the validity of an earlier will is in dispute. Such an approach would tend to elevate one factor (a previous written statement) over all others, contrary to the structured decision-making process required by the MCA 2005. (2) On the facts, the doubts about the validity of the previous wills were sufficient to conclude that D's best interests would be served by the execution of a statutory will to prevent her estate being eroded, and her memory being tainted, by a bitter contested probate dispute.	2010-08-17	2010 cases, Brief summary, Other capacity cases, Transcript
Re Cotterell (2010) COP 3/8/10 — The donor appointed two attorneys to act jointly and severally, and imposed the following restriction: "My second named attorney may only act as my attorney if a general medical practitioner certifies that I am mentally incapable of managing my affairs and in this instance, if my first attorney is alive and mentally capable, may only act on my behalf in relation to a sale of the property which at that time is deemed to be my principal place of residence. If however my said first named attorney has passed away or is deemed by a general medical practitioner as incapable then my second named attorney may act generally on my behalf subject to no restrictions." On the application of the Public Guardian the restriction was severed as being incompatible with a joint and several appointment. [OPG summary - LPA case.]	2010-08-16	2010 cases, Brief summary, LPA cases - all, LPA cases - severance of restrictions incompatible with a joint and several appointment, No transcript
Re Porter (2010) COP 26/7/10 — The donor appointed his wife and two children as attorneys, to act jointly and severally. He added the following restriction: "My wife may act alone during her lifetime and whilst she is mentally capable. My children shall act jointly." On the application of an attorney the court severed the restriction as being incompatible with a joint and several appointment. [OPG summary - EPA case.]	2010-08-16	2010 cases, Brief summary, EPA cases - all, EPA cases - severance of restrictions incompatible with a joint and several appointment, No transcript
Re Lodge (2010) COP 6/8/10 — Unfortunately by mistake the donor signed Part C and the attorney signed Part B of the EPA instrument. On the attorney's application the Court held that the donor's failure to execute the instrument correctly was a material defect and it was not a valid EPA. The attorney applied for a reconsideration of this order. By an order of the Senior Judge made on 14/3/11 the previous order was affirmed. [OPG summary - EPA case - transcript available.]	2010-08-16	2010 cases, Brief summary, EPA cases - all, EPA cases - whether the instrument was validly executed, Transcript
AH v West London MH NHS Trust (2010) UKUT 264 (AAC) — (1) The normal practice that Tribunal hearings are held in private is justified; and the relevant factors in deciding whether to direct a hearing in public are: (a) is it consistent with the subjective and informed wishes of the applicant (assuming he is competent to make an informed choice)? (b) will it have an adverse effect on his mental health in the short or long term, taking account of the views of those treating him and any other expert views? (c) are there any other special factors for or against a public hearing? (d) can practical arrangements be made for an open hearing without disproportionate burden on the authority? (2) The First-tier Tribunal decision not to grant a public hearing was set aside. (3) The question will be determined by the Upper Tribunal following a further hearing (at which the Department of Health is invited to appear) for the purpose of considering further evidence as to: (a) the practicalities and potential cost of providing a public hearing ..→	2010-08-16	2010 cases, Brief summary, Publicity, Transcript, Upper Tribunal decisions
D County Council v LS (2010) EWHC 1544 (Fam) — The original decision in this case, that LS had capacity to consent to sexual relations and marriage, was revisited in light of the House of Lords decision in R v C. (1) The MCA statutory scheme should be applied in preference to the previous civil case law; the approach in R v C clearly applied to both the civil and criminal arenas, and was consistent with s3 MCA, so would be followed. (2) Capacity requires not only an understanding of the relevant information but also the ability to retain and weigh it in the balance: therefore capacity to consent to sexual relations is person- and situation-specific, and there may be factors (such as irrational fear) impeding or undermining a person's capacity to make a choice. (3) This approach applies equally to marriage. (4) On the facts, the conclusion about capacity was the same. [Caution.]	2010-08-09	2010 cases, Brief summary, Capacity to consent to sexual relations, Transcript
Re Mark Reeves (2010) COP 5/1/10 — The Council, relying on a recent Court of Appeal judgment in relation to double recovery, compelled P's deputy to make an application to the Court of Protection for authorisation to apply for public funding. (1) The application was misconceived in seeking to apply the recent CA decision to this case which had been determined six years previously; (2) the Court of Protection is not an appropriate forum to adjudicate on double recovery in personal injury proceedings.	2010-08-08	2010 cases, Brief summary, No transcript, Other capacity cases
Saulle v Nouvet (2007) EWHC 2902 (QB) — (1) The claimant had capacity to conduct litigation and manage his own property and affairs. (2) The definition of and approach to capacity to be adopted by the Queen's Bench Division of the High Court in deciding whether a person is a protected party, or a protected beneficiary, is the MCA 2005 statutory definition.	2010-08-08	2007 cases, Brief summary, Other capacity cases, Transcript
Gale v Gale (2010) EWHC 1575 (Ch) — The 2002 and 2004 codicils to a will were forgeries; also, the testatrix did not have testamentary capacity at the time of the 2004 codicil; in any event, neither was signed on the date it purported to be signed but was backdated from a time when the testatrix did not retain testamentary capacity.	2010-08-07	2010 cases, Brief summary, No transcript, Other capacity cases
R v Matthews (2010) EWCA Crim 1936 — The trial judge had wanted to impose a hospital order under s37 and restriction order under s41 but could not as no hospital bed was available, despite several adjournments; given the risk to the public, the judge had no alternative but to pass a sentence of imprisonment for public protection. The extension of time sought exceeded two years nine months. There was no merit in the application and accordingly the application for leave and the application to extend permission to apply out of time were refused.	2010-08-05	2010 cases, Brief summary, Life sentence cases, Transcript
Henderson v MHTS (2010) ScotSC x — A Curator ad litem appointed by the Mental Health Tribunal for Scotland is appointed to protect and safeguard the interests of the patient during particular proceedings before the Tribunal and has no standing to appeal that Tribunal's decision to the Sheriff Principal.	2010-08-01	2010 cases, Brief summary, Scottish cases, Transcript
R (Cart) v Upper Tribunal (2010) EWCA Civ 859 — Judicial review of Upper Tribunal decisions is restricted to cases of outright excess of jurisdiction or fundamental denials of procedural justice. [Caution.]	2010-07-29	2010 cases, Brief summary, Other Tribunal cases, Transcript
Gorjat v Gorjat (2010) EWHC 1537 (Ch) — Adult children unsuccessfully challenged the deceased's transfer of funds, to a joint account with his second wife, on the grounds of mental incapacity and undue influence.	2010-07-27	2010 cases, Brief summary, No transcript, Other capacity cases
RT v LT (2010) EWHC 1910 (Fam) — (1) Applying the MCA 2005 provisions, LT lacked capacity in relation to residence and what contact she should have with her family. (2) Wherever possible, the plain words of the Act should be directly applied to the facts of the case in hand, but there will be cases in which it may be necessary to look at pre- or even post-Act authority on the question of capacity.	2010-07-27	2010 cases, Best interests, Brief summary, Transcript
R (Davison) v SSJ (2010) All ER (D) 258 (Jul) — The first order was a s37/41 restricted hospital order. The second order was an unrestricted s37 hospital order, but an administrative error by the court clerk led to the belief that it was also a s37/41 order. The Tribunal conditionally discharged the patient; the SSJ absolutely discharged the first order as being unnecessary, but subsequently discovered the administrative error. The SSJ judicially reviewed himself. The administrative error constituted a mistake of fact that amounted to an error of law: the absolute discharge decision was unlawful and was quashed, making the patient again subject to the conditional discharge regime.	2010-07-27	2010 cases, Brief summary, Ministry of Justice, No transcript
R v MB (2010) EWCA Crim 1684 — (1) It was unfair to try the appellant, who was unfit to plead, with a co-defendant who made allegations against him in an attempt to exculpate herself, so the finding that he had committed the acts charged against him was unsafe. (2) This successful appeal meant that he had to be acquitted and that, because of a lacuna in the law, the Secretary of State now had no power to remit him for trial on the basis that he had become fit to plead.	2010-07-22	2010 cases, Brief summary, Transcript, Unfitness and insanity cases
SH v NB (Marriage: Consent) (2009) EWHC 3274 (Fam) — The marriage between a 27-year-old Pakistani man and a 16-year-old English girl would be valid only if both of the parties had, according to the law of their respective ante-nuptial domiciles, validly consented to marry the other: (1) under Pakistani law the marriage was invalid; (2) under English law, the court declared that the marriage was invalid because the girl's free will had been overborne as a result of the pressure exerted upon her; it was voidable but now too late to issue a decree of nullity.	2010-07-22	2009 cases, Brief summary, No transcript, Other capacity cases
HBCC v LG (2010) EWHC 1527 (Fam) — It was in the best interests of an elderly lady suffering from dementia to remain at a residential home, rather than be returned home to live with her daughter (who was assisted by a McKenzie Friend, whose role was the subject of consideration by the Court)	2010-07-21	2010 cases, Best interests, Brief summary, Transcript
Re P (2010) EWHC 1592 (Fam) — Derek Paravicini's parents and sister (rather than any independent person) were made joint and several financial and welfare deputies, subject to (1) a condition under s16(5) to consult fully with the RNIB and the county council when considering a move of accommodation; and (2) a requirement under s19(9) to give notice to the public guardian in the event that his earnings exceed £150,000 a year, as at this point he could begin to contribute to the costs of his care while making a profit from a musical career.	2010-07-17	2010 cases, Best interests, Brief summary, Transcript
R (Bary) v SSJ (2010) EWHC 587 (Admin) — The living and working regime for the inmates of the Detainee Unit at HMP Long Lartin (who are being held indefinitely pending extradition or deportation) was changed so that they were confined to the Unit, because of concerns that a new inmate might radicalise Muslims or plan/incite terrorism if allowed access to the main prison. The decision was challenged on the grounds that (1) it was irrational, unreasonable, disproportionate or made for illegitimate aims; (2) in breach of Article 3, it caused inhuman or degrading treatment for the two inmates with pre-existing mental illnesses; (3) in breach of Article 8, it unjustifiably removed them all from normal association and was an unjustifiable infringement of their right to the preservation of their mental stability in the broadest sense. The claim failed on all grounds.	2010-07-17	2010 cases, Brief summary, Prison law cases, Transcript
Re HM; PM v KH (2010) EWHC 1579 (Fam) — In this case PM had removed HM (an incapacitated adult) out of the jurisdiction following a best interests judgment with which he disagreed. This judgment discusses various orders which were made at a subsequent hearing. For orders, including in relation to anonymity/publicity, to be enforceable they must be drafted as injunctions and be clearly worded. The text of the orders is set out in an annex.	2010-07-12	2010 cases, Best interests, Brief summary, Transcript
R v Patsalosavvis (2010) EWCA Crim 1383 — The appellant had received a restricted hospital order for making bomb hoax calls; the restriction order was quashed.	2010-07-10	2010 cases, Brief summary, No transcript, Restriction order cases
R v Hutchinson (2010) EWCA Crim 1364 — IPP quashed and, based on new evidence, replaced with restricted hospital order.	2010-07-10	2010 cases, Brief summary, No transcript, Sentence appeal cases
R v Orchard (2010) EWCA Crim 1538 — The concurrent sentences of two years' imprisonment were appealed on the basis that (i) they were at the top end of the sentencing guidelines bracket and (2) the learned judge did not take sufficient account of the circumstances of the offence, namely that the appellant was at the material time a psychiatric patient. The sentences were reduced to 18 months' imprisonment.	2010-07-10	2010 cases, Brief summary, No transcript, Sentence appeal cases
Re Davies (2010) COP 5/7/10 — The donor appointed two attorneys, A and B, to act jointly and severally. He then imposed the following restriction: "If in the unlikely event of A and B not being wholly in agreement, B is to defer to the wishes of A." On the application of the Public Guardian the court severed the restriction as being incompatible with a joint and several appointment. [OPG summary - LPA case.]	2010-07-09	2010 cases, Brief summary, LPA cases - all, LPA cases - severance of restrictions incompatible with a joint and several appointment, No transcript
Re P Crook (2010) COP 2/7/10 — The donor appointed one primary attorney and three replacement attorneys, the latter to act jointly and severally. He then imposed the following restriction: "Provided I have more than two attorneys capable of acting under this power then any decision as to the exercise of any power or discretion reached by the majority of such attorneys (acting in their capacity as attorneys) shall bind all my attorneys to the extent that no attorney of mine can take issue with the decision reached by that majority." On the application of the Public Guardian the court severed the restriction as being incompatible with a joint and several appointment. [OPG summary - LPA case.]	2010-07-09	2010 cases, Brief summary, LPA cases - all, LPA cases - severance of restrictions incompatible with a joint and several appointment, No transcript
Re D'Argenio (2010) COP 9/6/10 — The donor made a property and financial affairs LPA and a health and welfare LPA. In both she appointed six attorneys to act jointly and severally. In the property and affairs LPA she imposed the following restriction: "My atorneys must act jointly in relation to decisions about selling my house. They may act jointly and severally in everything else." In the health and welfare LPA she imposed the following restriction: "My attorneys must act jointly in relation to decisions I have authorised them to make about life-sustaining treatment and where I live. They may act jointly and severally for everything else." On the application of the Public Guardian the court severed both restrictions as being incompatible with a joint and several appointment. [OPG summary - LPA case.]	2010-07-09	2010 cases, Brief summary, LPA cases - all, LPA cases - severance of restrictions incompatible with a joint and several appointment, No transcript
Re Pattison (2010) COP 11/5/10 — The donor appointed three attorneys, A, B and C, to act jointly and severally. A and B were her daughters. She then imposed the following restriction: "I direct that not less than two of my attorneys shall act whilst there are two alive and capable of acting and that initially those two shall be my two daughters." On the application of the attorneys the court directed severance of the restriction as being incompatible with a joint and several appointment. [OPG summary - EPA case.]	2010-07-09	2010 cases, Brief summary, EPA cases - all, EPA cases - severance of restrictions incompatible with a joint and several appointment, No transcript
Hossack v Legal Services Commission (2010) EWHC 1457 (Admin) — (1) The function being discharged by the LSC in attempting to obtain files for peer review in accordance with contractual obligations did not have any public law dimension, so the decisions were not amenable to judicial review. (2) In any event: there were alternative contractual remedies; there was no realistic prospect of showing that the LSC acted unlawfully; there was no longer any live issue between the parties as the files had been delivered up. (3) Consideration would be given to the making of a civil restraint order.	2010-07-08	2010 cases, Brief summary, Miscellaneous, Transcript
A Local Authority v Mrs A and Mr A (2010) EWHC 1549 (Fam) — (1) The test for capacity to make decisions as to contraceptive treatment should be applied so as to ascertain the woman's ability to understand and weigh up the immediate medical issues surrounding contraceptive treatment ("the proximate medical issues"), including: (i) the reason for contraception and what it does (which includes the likelihood of pregnancy if it is not in use during sexual intercourse); (ii) the types available and how each is used; (iii) the advantages and disadvantages of each type; (iv) the possible side-effects of each and how they can be dealt with; (v) how easily each type can be changed; and (vi) the generally accepted effectiveness of each. (2) Questions do not need be asked as to the woman's understanding of what bringing up a child would be like in practice; nor any opinion attempted as to how she would be likely to get on; nor whether any child would be likely to be removed from her care. (3) Mrs A did understand the proximate medical issues. (4) ..→	2010-07-08	2010 cases, Best interests, Brief summary, Transcript
G v E (2010) EWCA Civ 548 — Successful renewed application for permission to appeal: it was arguable that the judge was wrong in deciding that the court may entertain an application for an order under s16 MCA 2005 that would have the effect of depriving a person of his liberty without being satisfied that his condition warrants compulsory confinement. Permission was given on other grounds also.	2010-07-08	2010 cases, Brief summary, Deprivation of liberty, Transcript
R (ZN) v South West London and St George's Mental Health NHS Trust (2009) CO/9457/2009 — The de facto detention of an informal incapacitous patient, and the series of detentions under s5(2), was unlawful. (Claim settled by consent.)	2010-06-28	2010 cases, Brief summary, Deprivation of liberty, No transcript, Unlawful detention cases
R (Mwanza) v LB of Greenwich (2010) EWHC 1462 (Admin) — The claimant was an illegal overstayer who tried to use a s3 admission eight years earlier to obtain free accommodation. (1) An after-care service under s117 must be a service that is necessary to meet a need arising from a person's mental disorder. It does not cover any and all services simply because those services do or may prevent deterioration of relapse of a mental condition. Employment and ordinary accommodation are common needs which do not arise from mental disorder, although mental disorder may give rise to a need for assistance in finding them. However, as a matter of law, ordinary accommodation could fall within s117, although it is difficult readily to envisage any practical examples. (2) On the facts, there could be no duty under s117 to provide what was sought. (3) In any event, eight years earlier a lawful decision had been made to discharge the s117 responsibilities of the local authority and the Trust, so no s117 duty arose. (4) Furthermore, it would be ..→	2010-06-18	2010 cases, After-care, Brief summary, Transcript
Watts v UK 53586/09 (2010) — The challenge to a care home closure, based on Articles 2, 3, 8 and 14, was declared inadmissible.	2010-06-03	2010 cases, Brief summary, Community care, Transcript
R (AC) v Berkshire West PCT (2010) EWHC 1162 (Admin) — The claimant, who suffered from gender identity disorder, unsuccessfully challenged the decisions to refuse funding for breast augmentation surgery and the underlying policies.	2010-05-26	2010 cases, Brief summary, Miscellaneous, Transcript
DH NHS Foundation Trust v PS (2010) EWHC 1217 (Fam) — (1) It was in PS's best interests to undergo a hysterectomy, and removal of the fallopian tubes and ovaries, in order to treat her endometrial cancer. (2) If, given her hospital and needle phobia, sedation or force were necessary to convey her to hospital, then that would be in her best interests. (3) It would be necessary to detain her in hospital for post-operative recovery; as it was in her best interests to have the operation, it was in her best interests to recover appropriately from it. In the circumstances, the court authorised the deprivation of liberty and it was unnecessary to invoke the DOL Safeguards.	2010-05-26	2010 cases, Best interests, Brief summary, Transcript
R v Shulman (2010) EWCA Crim 1034 — (1) For the convictions the court substituted findings that the appellant was under a disability at the time of trial, namely he was unfit to plead, and that he did the acts charged against him. (2) In respect of each count a restricted hospital order was imposed, in place of the prison sentences.	2010-05-22	2010 cases, Brief summary, No transcript, Unfitness and insanity cases
R v Hardy (2010) EWHC 1064 (QB) — A whole life order is the normal starting point for the murder of two or more persons where each murder involves sexual or sadistic conduct. That was such a case, of the utmost gravity, in which exceptionally Hardy's early acceptance of responsibility for his victims' death, his personality disorder at the time, his eventual pleas of guilty and such remorse as he expressed through his counsel carry little weight. A lengthy finite term would not suffice and a whole life order was made.	2010-05-22	2010 cases, Brief summary, Other criminal law cases, Transcript
R v Kluxen (2010) EWCA Crim 1081 — (1) Where the UK Borders Act 2007 requires (subject to exceptions, including certain detained psychiatric patients) the Secretary of State to make a deportation order in respect of a foreign criminal who has received a custodial sentence in relation to a single offence of at least 12 months, it is not appropriate for the court to recommend deportation. (2) Where because of the sentence imposed the UK Borders Act 2007 does not apply, deportation orders are appropriate only in exceptional cases. (3) As the Act applied, the recommendations for deportation were quashed.	2010-05-22	2010 cases, Brief summary, Other criminal law cases, Transcript
R (SP) v SSJ (2010) EWHC 1124 (Admin) — (1) In considering the lawfulness of a s47 transfer the two questions are (a) whether the decision-maker applied his mind to the statutory criteria and (b) whether the material before the decision-maker was sufficient to sustain the eventual conclusion. The court will review the decision with anxious scrutiny, as transfer at the end of a prison sentence extends detention. (2) It was clear that the decision-maker did apply her mind to the criteria. (3) One of the two medical recommendations was on the old form so did not explicitly address the new "appropriate treatment available" test. However, the medical report provided a sound foundation for the conclusion that the test was met: it was implicit in her report; there is an overlap with the "appropriate to be detained" test, which was addressed; and it was further confirmed in a letter.	2010-05-22	2010 cases, Brief summary, Transcript, Unlawful detention cases
R v Hughes (2010) EWCA Crim 1026 — Life sentence quashed and substituted with hospital order and restriction order.	2010-05-13	2010 cases, Brief summary, Life sentence cases, Transcript
City of Westminster v FS (2009) COP 11685959 — Successful appeal by Official Solicitor against rejection of application to instruct independent social worker.	2010-05-11	2010 cases, Best interests, Brief summary, Transcript
DL-H v Devon Partnership NHS Trust (2010) UKUT 102 (AAC) — (1) The Tribunal gave inadequate reasons for its decision not to discharge the patient; this decision was set aside and a re-hearing directed. (2) In principle, and in this case, it would not be fair and just to restrict the scope of an appeal to the grounds in the application. (3) Discussion of the meaning of mental disorder and its classification for the purposes of the Mental Health Act. (4) Detention is authorised by reference to the twin requirements of treatment and protection, moderated by the word “necessary”; that demanding test provides ample protection without the need for any additional consideration of proportionality. (5) Discussion of "appropriate treatment available" test in context of personality disorder and refusal of treatment.	2010-05-06	2010 cases, Brief summary, Reasons, Transcript, Upper Tribunal decisions
RM v St Andrew's Healthcare (2010) UKUT 119 (AAC) — (1) When considering the "interests of justice" limb of rule 14(2), the key test to be applied is whether or not non-disclosure of the document or information would allow the patient to make an effective challenge to his detention. (2) On the facts, without knowing that he was being covertly medicated the patient would be unable effectively to challenge his detention; the non-disclosure decision was set aside and re-made. (3) Non-disclosure orders should not only be drafted in terms of documents, but also should deal, in a precise, clear and exhaustive way, with the information which should not be disclosed.	2010-05-06	2010 cases, Brief summary, Reasons, Transcript, Upper Tribunal decisions
Eba, Petitioner (2010) CSOH 45 — The petitioner sought judicial review of the Upper Tribunal's refusal of permission to appeal against a decision of the Social Security Appeal Tribunal. (1) The UT decision in the present case is subject to review only in exceptional circumstances, i.e. on pre-Anisminic grounds (excess of jurisdiction in the narrow sense) or because there has been a breakdown of fair procedure. (2) This case was not within that restricted right of review so the petition was dismissed.	2010-05-02	2010 cases, Brief summary, Other Tribunal cases, Scottish cases, Transcript
Savage v South Essex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust (2010) EWHC 865 (QB) — (1) The Trust had breached Article 2 as (a) they had the requisite knowledge, actual or constructive, of a real and immediate risk to the patient's life from self harm, and (b) failed to do all that could reasonably have been expected of it to avoid or prevent that risk. (2) The patient's daugher was eligible to bring the claim as a victim under s7 HRA 1998. (3) Compensation of £10,000 was awarded.	2010-05-01	2010 cases, Brief summary, Miscellaneous, Transcript
R (F and Thompson) v SSHD (2010) UKSC 17 — The notification requirements in Part 2 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (the Sex Offenders Register) constitute a disproportionate interference with Article 8 rights because they make no provision for individual review of the requirements.	2010-04-22	2010 cases, Brief summary, Other criminal law cases, Transcript
LB Enfield v SA (2010) EWHC 196 (Admin) — (1) Hearsay evidence is admissible in the Court of Protection. (2) This includes hearsay from a witness who is incompetent by reason of mental disability; however, this lack of competence is an important factor when evaluating the weight to be attached to the evidence. (3) Where P has been interviewed by police in an ABE interview, the DVD should be disclosed to the parties: in general, it would be justified for the Court of Protection to make a "specific disclosure" order under r133(3) requiring "full and frank disclosure" of all relevant material. (4) Where there are extant COP proceedings then, in the absence of an absolutely pressing emergency, any question of interviewing P must be subject to a direction of the judge; initially it may be raised without notice to a party about whom allegations relate, but P's litigation friend should always be given notice. (5) Once findings of fact have been made the case is part heard and the trial should not resume before a different judge.	2010-04-15	2010 cases, Best interests, Brief summary, Transcript
Pitt v Holt (2010) EWHC 45 (Ch) — The principle in Hastings-Bass, originally applied only to trustees, applies equally to receivers under the MHA 1983. Therefore Mrs Pitt, who as a receiver had put her husband's money into a settlement without considering the inheritance tax position, could have the settlement set aside as an ineffective transaction. (The principle in Hastings-Bass has been summarised as: "Where trustees act under a discretion given to them by the terms of the trust, in circumstances in which they are free to decide whether or not to exercise that discretion, but the effect of the exercise is different from that which they intended, the court will interfere with their action if it is clear that they would not have acted as they did had they not failed to take into account considerations which they ought to have taken into account, or taken into account considerations which they ought not to have taken into account.")	2010-04-11	2010 cases, Brief summary, Other capacity cases, Transcript
R (Boyejo) v Barnet LBC (2009) EWHC 3261 (Admin) — The council's decision to change the way it provided support services to those living in sheltered accommodation in its area by terminating contracts for on-site warden based services and developing a peripatetic support service with the retention of an alarm service to all residents in such accommodation breached the Disability Discrimination Act 1995.	2010-04-11	2009 cases, Brief summary, Disability discrimination, Transcript
Re Candy (2010) COP 18/3/10 — The donor appointed two attorneys to act jointly and severally. She then imposed the following restriction: "neither of my attorneys will act without the approval of the other". On the application of the attorneys the court severed the restriction as being inconsistent with a joint and several appointment. [OPG summary - EPA case.]	2010-04-11	2010 cases, Brief summary, EPA cases - all, EPA cases - severance of restrictions incompatible with a joint and several appointment, No transcript
Re Swift (2010) COP 30/3/10 — The donor had been appointed to act as attorney under LPAs made by his wife. In his own LPA for property and financial affairs he stated as follows: "In the event that I become incapacitated and am unable to take decisions in my role as Attorney to my wife, I appoint both my Attorneys as Guardians of my wife in order that they may, together, take decisions about her property and affairs." He included an equivalent provision in his LPA for health and welfare. On the application of the Public Guardian the court severed these provisions as being ineffective because the MCA does not permit an attorney to appoint a substitute or successor to himself. (OPG summary - LPA case.)	2010-04-07	2010 cases, Brief summary, LPA cases - all, LPA cases - appointment of substitute by an attorney, No transcript
Re McAdam (2010) COP 29/3/10 — The donor had named X, one of two original attorneys (who had been appointed to act jointly and severally), as the only named person. On the application of the Public Guardian the court severed the appointment of X as attorney on the ground that the MCA does not permit an attorney to be a named person. The instrument was directed to be registered as an LPA appointing only the other attorney. (OPG summary - LPA case.)	2010-04-07	2010 cases, Brief summary, LPA cases - all, LPA cases - attorney or replacement attorney as a named person, No transcript
Re Saunders (2010) COP 30/3/10 — The donor appointed two attorneys and a replacement attorney. He stated that the replacement should act only if the power given to the original attorneys "is revoked by me" or terminated by death, disclaimer or incapacity. He further stated that the power of his attorneys "shall only come into force only if and when my attorneys have presented medical evidence to the Court and the Court are satisfied that I am or am becoming incapable by reason of mental disorder of managing and administering my property and affairs". On the application of the Public Guardian the condition requiring the attorneys to present medical evidence to the court was severed because, although it was not invalid, it imposed an unreasonable and impractical fetter on the attorneys. The words "is revoked by me" were also severed as being incompatible with section 10(8)(b) of the MCA (revocation of an attorney's appointment is not an event upon which a replacement attorney may act). (OPG summary - LPA case.)	2010-04-07	2010 cases, Brief summary, LPA cases - all, LPA cases - severance of unreasonable, impractical or uncertain conditions, No transcript
Mezey v South West London and St George's Mental Health NHS Trust (2010) EWCA Civ 293 — Dr Mezey had admitted a conditionally-discharged patient informally to a secure ward without informing the Home Office, and granted him unescorted leave that day without personally assessing him; the patient went AWOL and killed a stranger. The Trust's formal investigation, although it found her conduct inappropriate and not in accordance with the standards of good practice, did not call into account her capability to practise. The Trust were therefore not entitled to convene a capability panel under the Maintaining High Professional Standards in the modern NHS (MHPS) framework.	2010-03-30	2010 cases, Brief summary, Miscellaneous, Transcript
Dorset CC v EH (2009) EWHC 784 (Fam) — The Official Solicitor's view and independent expert's opinion was that EH, an elderly lady with dementia, should be assisted to continue to live at home; notwithstanding this, the judge agreed with the local authority that it was in EH's best interests to be deprived of her liberty in residential accommodation for her own safety.	2010-03-28	2009 cases, Brief summary, Deprivation of liberty, Transcript
KH (Afghanistan) v SSHD (2009) EWCA Civ 1354 — Save in very exceptional cases, withdrawal of medical treatment as a result of ordering return of a failed asylum-seeker would not constitute a violation of Article 3. In order for a case to be "very exceptional" it would have to be exceptional inside the class of person with mental illness without family support: perhaps a very old or very young person would qualify but hardly an ordinary adult. The appellant's was not such a case.	2010-03-26	2009 cases, Brief summary, Repatriation cases, Transcript
Thomas-Ashley v Drum Housing Association Ltd (2010) EWCA Civ 265 — The appellant argued that a possession order should be set aside as, on the grounds of her bi-polar affective disorder, the maintanence of the "no animals" provision made it impossible for her to enjoy the premises under s24A Disability Discrimination Act 1995. (1) The prohibition against keeping animals in the premises did not make it impossible or unreasonably difficult for her to enjoy the premises. (2) In any event: (a) the "no animals" term would have had the same effect if the appellant did not have the disability of bipolar disorder; and (b) no reasonable steps the respondents should have taken but failed to take were identified, particularly as variation of the term would have lead to forfeiture by the head lessor.	2010-03-26	2010 cases, Brief summary, Disability discrimination, Transcript
R v Osborne (2010) EWCA Crim 547 — It was neither necessary nor expedient in the interests of justice to admit fresh evidence that the claimant suffered from ADHD: it would not afford any ground for allowing the appeal against conviction on the basis of diminished responsibility.	2010-03-26	2010 cases, Brief summary, Diminished responsibility cases, Transcript
Maga v Trustees of the Birmingham Archdiocese of the Roman Catholic Church (2010) EWCA Civ 256 — The claimant brought proceedings, by the Official Solicitor as his litigation friend, against the Archdiocese for damages for sexual abuse in 1975/6 by Father Clonan: (1) the priest's sexual abuse of the claimant was so closely connected with his employment that it would be fair and just to hold the Archdiocese vicariously liable; (2) obiter, the Archdiocese owed a duty of care to the claimant and was negligent.	2010-03-26	2010 cases, Brief summary, Miscellaneous, Transcript
Re Akpabio (2010) COP 15/3/10 — The donor made an EPA appointing two attorneys to act jointly and severally. He included the following restriction: "I want them to act jointly on important matters concerning my welfare including any future living arrangements and on any large financial decisions such as selling my property." On the application of the attorneys the court severed the restriction as being incompatible with a joint and several appointment. [OPG summary.]	2010-03-24	2010 cases, Brief summary, EPA cases - all, EPA cases - severance of restrictions incompatible with a joint and several appointment, No transcript
MD v Nottinghamshire Health Care NHS Trust (2010) UKUT 59 (AAC) — The Tribunal decided that appropriate treatment was available at Rampton, or alternatively that MD was benefiting from the ward milieu; their reasons were adequate. (1) The detention was not mere containment: (a) treatment could be appropriate even without the possibility of risk reduction; (b) although if there was no prospect of the patient progressing beyond milieu therapy (to engage in psychotherapeutic work) there might come a point at which treatment was no longer appropriate, MD was not at that stage. (2) There was no practical distinction in this case between s72(1)(b)(i) and (iia) so if the tribunal dealt properly with head (iia), its reasoning covered head (ii). (3) The Tribunal was entitled to rely on the evidence, and make the findings of fact, which it did. (4) Although treatment is not defined by reference to its likely effect, as a practical matter, that will have been taken into account in deciding whether the treatment could be given for a permitted purpose. (5) ..→	2010-03-15	2010 cases, Brief summary, Reasons, Transcript, Upper Tribunal decisions
R (Gill) v SSJ (2010) EWHC 364 (Admin) — The Defendant's failure to offer the Claimant, who was a short-tariff lifer with learning disability, sufficient suitable offending behaviour work to give him the opportunity to demonstrate safety for release, unlawfully breached the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 and breached his public law duties.	2010-03-02	2010 cases, Brief summary, Disability discrimination, Prison law 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.]	2010-02-26	1999 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.]	2010-02-26	1999 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.]	2010-02-26	1999 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.]	2010-02-26	1999 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.]	2010-02-26	1999 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.]	2010-02-26	1999 cases, Brief summary, No transcript, Other criminal law cases
Barber v LB Croydon (2010) EWCA Civ 51 — (1) The council's decision to seek an immediate order for possession, following an assault which was almost certainly linked with the claimant's learning difficulties and a personality disorder, without applying the Council's policy on vulnerable people, was Wednesbury unreasonable. (2) The DDA aspect of the appeal was unsuccessful: the question was not whether he was treated less favourably than a person without his disabilities but whether he should have been treated differently precisely because he has such disabilities and because they were a significant contributory factor to his behaviour that day.	2010-02-18	2010 cases, Brief summary, Disability discrimination, Transcript
RH v South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust (2010) UKUT 32 (AAC) — (1) The Tribunal's reasons for refusing to grant the absolute discharge of a conditionally-discharged patient, against the unanimous evidence of the treating team and an independent psychiatrist, were adequate. (2) The Tribunal disagreed not with the witness's assessments but with their conclusions as to whether the restriction order should cease to have effect: that was the kind of judgment for which it is difficult to give reasons beyond those required to show that the tribunal has directed itself correctly as to the law and to show to what matters the tribunal has had regard. (3) The extensive references to the SC case were enough to show that the Tribunal had the correct legal test in mind. (4) The restrictions can continue in the absence of any mental disorder, and risk from possible future disorder is relevant, so the criteria here are very different from those for discharge of a CTO: in the latter a focus on the short-term position might be appropriate, whereas the Tribunal ..→	2010-02-18	2010 cases, Brief summary, Reasons, Transcript, Upper Tribunal decisions
R (Munday) v SSJ (2009) EWHC 3638 (Admin) — The MoJ's decision to recall the claimant, although contrary to the RMO's advice, was not Wednesbury unreasonable or otherwise flawed on conventional public law grounds: the disagreement was not on medical grounds but on whether, given the history of arson and recent disengagement, a mere allegation of and arrest for arson was sufficient justification for recall.	2010-02-07	2009 cases, Brief summary, Ministry of Justice, No transcript
R (DK) v SSJ (2010) EWHC 82 (Admin) — DK's s47 transfer was based on the report of a doctor and a psychologist which dealt with the treatability of his psychopathic disorder, and three proforma reports from doctors which did not deal with treatability. As treatability was not addressed, with reasons, by two medical practitioners, the transfer decision was quashed. [Caution: decided before 2007 Act amendments.]	2010-01-20	2010 cases, Brief summary, Transcript, Unlawful detention cases
Re Bax (2009) COP 22/10/09 — The donor appointed A and B to act jointly, and then provided that "In the event A is unable or unwilling to act as my attorney then I appoint C." On the attorneys' application the court severed the appointment of C. Although a donor may appoint a substitute attorney, the appointment must not be incompatible with a joint appointment of the original attorneys. [OPG summary - EPA cases.]	2010-01-20	2009 cases, Brief summary, EPA cases - all, EPA cases - appointment by donor of substitute attorneys, No transcript
SSNI, Re Judicial Review (Oswald Brown) (2006) NIQB 94 — It was lawful for the hunger-striking prisoner, who lacked capacity, to be given nutrition.	2010-01-12	2006 cases, Best interests, Brief summary, Northern Irish cases, Transcript
Re Bullock (2009) COP 15/12/09 — The certificate providers did not tick the box to confirm that they had discussed the LPA with the donor and that the attorney was not present. The donor was in hospital and the certificate providers had discussed the LPA with the donor at his bedside, the attorney being present throughout. The Public Guardian refused registration on the ground that the instrument was not in prescribed form. The court, in the exercise of its discretion, declared under paragraph 3(2) of Schedule 1 of the MCA 2005 that the instrument, which was not in the prescribed form, should be treated as if it were. Registration was directed accordingly. [OPG summary.]	2010-01-12	2009 cases, Brief summary, LPA cases - all, LPA cases - where attorney present when certificate provider interviews the donor, No transcript
Re Helmsley (2009) COP 30/11/09 — The donor executed two instruments intended to be LPAs. In Part A of both instruments she omitted to tick the box to confirm that she gave her attorneys authority to act on her behalf in circumstances when she lacked capacity. The Public Guardian refused registration on the ground that the instruments were not in prescribed form. On the attorneys' application, the court exercised its discretion under paragraph 3(2) of Schedule 1 of the MCA 2005 and declared that the instruments, although not in prescribed form, were to be treated as if they were. Registration was directed accordingly. [OPG summary.]	2010-01-12	2009 cases, Brief summary, LPA cases - all, LPA cases - whether the instrument is in prescribed form - unticked boxes, No transcript
Re Smith (2009) COP 7/12/09 — In Part C of the EPA the attorney had deleted the words "I also understand my limited power to use the donor's property to benefit persons other than the donor". On the attorney's application, the court was satisfied that the deletion was made in error, and directed that the instrument should be read as if the wording had not been deleted. [OPG summary - EPA case.]	2010-01-12	2009 cases, Brief summary, EPA cases - all, EPA cases - rectification, No transcript
R (Southall) v Dudley PCT (2009) EWHC 1780 (Admin) — The defendant elected to go to a more expensive home for a continuing care package than the one that the PCT offered. The PCT entered into a contract with the care home operator at the lower rate, which would have been appropriate for the other care home on the same overall site, and the patient funded the difference. The patient then challenged the legality of this top up. The Court found that the PCT's refusal to pay in full for the claimant's continuing care package at the more expensive home was reasonable, and that the arrangement was lawful. There was no breach of article 8 in the patient having to choose between making a payment of top-up fees or having to move to the less expensive care home. The claim for Judicial Review was therefore dismissed.	2009-12-23	2009 cases, Brief summary, Community care, Transcript
R (Johnson) v SSJ (2009) EWHC 3336 (Admin) — The Secretary of State's decision that the next Parole Board review would occur 14-15 months after the last review was unsupported by any reason and, on the facts, inconsistent with Article 5(4).	2009-12-23	2009 cases, Brief summary, Prison law cases, Transcript
R (P) v HM Coroner for the District of Avon (2009) EWCA Civ 1367 — In this inquest to which Article 2 applied (suicide in prison) the Deputy Coroner misdirected the jury because she did not properly explain to them that, if they returned a verdict of suicide or accident, they could also append a narrative about the circumstances of the accident. However, in the circumstances, the verdict was not quashed.	2009-12-23	2009 cases, Brief summary, Inquests, Transcript
R (Manchester City Council) v St Helens Borough Council (2009) EWCA Civ 1348 — PE had voluntarily moved from St Helens to Manchester and, following the Secretary of State's decision that she was now ordinarily resident there, St Helens decided to stop funding her community care services. (1) Under s29 National Assistance Act 1948 a local authority is under a duty to provide services to those ordinarily resident in its area. (2) St Helens had a power to pay but the exercise of this power did not give rise to a duty or negate Manchester's duty, or give rise to any legitimate expectation.	2009-12-23	2009 cases, Brief summary, Community care, Transcript
R (Lewis) v HM Coroner for the Mid and North Division of the County of Shropshire (2009) EWCA Civ 1403 — A coroner is not obliged to leave to the jury a fact or circumstance which could have caused or contributed to the death but cannot be shown probably to have done so.	2009-12-23	2009 cases, Brief summary, Inquests, Transcript
R (Stojak) v Sheffield City Council (2009) EWHC 3412 (Admin) — Extension of time refused for JR application relating to charging for residential after-care services.	2009-12-23	2009 cases, After-care, Brief summary, Transcript
Salford City Council v BJ (2009) EWHC 3310 (Fam) — Following a final hearing concerning deprivation of liberty the previous year, the judge now had to determine: (a) the nature and timing of future reviews by the court, (b) the nature and timing of future internal reviews by the local authority, and (c) whether the proceedings should now be transferred to the Court of Protection.	2009-12-17	2009 cases, Brief summary, Other capacity cases, Transcript
Re Clarke (2009) COP 18/11/09 — The donor appointed three attorneys, A (his wife), B, and C, to be his attorneys. They were appointed to act jointly in some matters and jointly and severally in others. He then stated that the attorneys were to act together for transactions not exceeding £5,000 "but together in respect of all other decisions subject to my wife A's opinion prevailing in the event that my attorneys are not unanimous in any decision involving property or expenditure exceeding £5,000". On the application of the Public Guardian, the words "subject to my wife A's opinion" onwards were severed on the ground that they purported to facilitate one of the three attorneys being able to act independently in relation to matters that had been specified as subject to the joint decision of the attorneys. [OPG summary.]	2009-12-15	2009 cases, Brief summary, LPA cases - all, LPA cases - severance of restrictions incompatible with a joint appointment, Transcript
Re Kittle (2009) COP 1/12/09 — Regulation 8(3) of the LPA, EPA and PG Regulations 2007 sets out categories of persons who cannot act as certificate provider. Included in the list is "a family member" of the donor or of the attorney (or of the owner, director, manager or employee of any care home in which the donor is living when the instrument is executed). In this case the certificate provider was the donor's first cousin. The Public Guardian declined to register the instrument on the ground that a first cousin was a family member of the donor. The court ruled that a first cousin is not a family member, and so the LPA was valid. [OPG summary.]	2009-12-15	2009 cases, Brief summary, LPA cases - all, LPA cases - eligibility of certificate provider, Transcript
R (Domb) v London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham (2009) EWCA Civ 941 — The council's decision to make charges for non-residential home care services provided pursuant to the Health and Social Services and Social Security Adjudications Act 1983 was challenged (unsuccessfully) on the basis that the council did not have "due regard" to its general equality duties.	2009-12-14	2009 cases, Brief summary, Disability discrimination, Transcript
Chief Constable of Lincolnshire Police v Caston (2009) EWCA Civ 1298 — The employment judge had permitted an out-of-time DDA claim to proceed; he was entitled to exercise his discretion (on whether, in all the circumstances of the case, he considered that it was just and equitable to do so) as he did.	2009-12-14	2009 cases, Brief summary, Disability discrimination, Transcript
AB v Nugent Care Society (2009) EWCA Civ 827 — In these appeals, arising from allegations of historic sexual abuse at children's homes, guidance was given on the correct approach to the application of s33 Limitation Act 1980 in the light of A v Hoare [2008] UKHL 6.	2009-12-07	2009 cases, Brief summary, Miscellaneous, Transcript
R (Cart) v Upper Tribunal (2009) EWHC 3052 (Admin) — (1) Decisions of inferior courts are subject to judicial review for exceeding their jurisdiction. Excess of jurisdiction can mean either the court (a) embarks on a case beyond its statutory remit, or (b) makes a legal mistake. (2) Judicial review of the Upper Tribunal is not ousted by s3 TCEA 2007. (3) The UT is, for the relevant purposes, an alter ego of the High Court, and it would never be right to exercise the JR jurisdiction on the ground that it had made a legal mistake. (4) Decisions of the UT are only amenable to JR for excess of jurisdiction or where there is a wholly exceptional collapse of fair procedure (something as gross as actual bias). (5) Consideration was also given to the status of SIAC decisions. [Caution.]	2009-12-07	2009 cases, Brief summary, Other Tribunal cases, Transcript
Seal v UK 50330/07 (2009) ECHR 806 — Statement of facts and question lodged with court. Case concerns the procedure under s139 MHA 1983.	2009-12-04	2009 cases, Brief summary, ECHR, Miscellaneous, Transcript
Anam v SSHD (2009) EWHC 2496 (Admin) — It is the Secretary of State's policy not to detain mentally ill persons pending deportation, save in "very exceptional circumstances". The claimant was entitled to a declaration that the SoS had unlawfully failed to consider the implications of his policy; however, the detention was not in breach of the policy, and continued detention was lawful.	2009-12-04	2009 cases, Brief summary, Repatriation cases, Transcript
MS v UK 24527/08 (2009) ECHR 1762 — Statement of facts and question lodged with the court. The case relates to detention under s136 beyond the permitted 72-hour period and a subsequent civil claim against the Trust for negligence, for breaches of Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention, and for misfeasance in public office.	2009-12-04	2009 cases, Brief summary, Miscellaneous, Transcript
Hurst v UK 42577/07 (2009) ECHR 1988 — Statement of facts and questions lodged with the court (case relates to Article 2-compliant inquests).	2009-12-04	2009 cases, Brief summary, ECHR, Inquests, Transcript
R (Hurst) v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis (2007) UKHL 13 — No need to hold Article 2-compliant inquest when death occurred before implementation of Human Rights Act 1998.	2009-12-04	2007 cases, Brief summary, Inquests, Transcript
West v General Social Care Council (2009) UKFTT 330 (HESC) — The applicant mental health social worker successfully appealed against a decision made by the respondent's Preliminary Proceedings Committee to impose an six-month Interim Suspension Order.	2009-12-04	2009 cases, Brief summary, Miscellaneous, Transcript
Halilovic v Bosnia and Herzegovina 23968/05 (2009) ECHR 1933 — (1) The appellant's detention for 4 years 5 months was pursuant to an administrative decision, as opposed to a decision of the competent civil court as required by the amended domestic legislation, and so breached Article 5(1); compensation of €22,500 was awarded. (2) The Article 3 claim relating to conditions of detention failed.	2009-12-04	2009 cases, Brief summary, ECHR, ECHR deprivation of liberty cases, Transcript
C v Sevenoaks Youth Court (2009) EWHC 3088 (Admin) — (1) When trying a young child, and most particularly a child such as C who is only 12 with learning and behavioural difficulties, notwithstanding the absence of any express statutory power, the Youth Court has a duty under its inherent powers and under the Criminal Procedure Rules to take such steps as are necessary to ensure that he has a fair trial, not just during the proceedings, but beforehand as he and his lawyers prepare for trial; in this case, C required an intermediary. (2) As the MoJ had voluntarily accepted responsibility for the payment of intermediaries, the LSC decision not to provide funding was lawful. (3) The CPS decision to continue with the trial was lawful.	2009-11-30	2009 cases, Brief summary, Other criminal law cases, Transcript, Unfitness and insanity cases
Re Cloutt (2008) COP 7/11/08 — The donor made an EPA in October 2000 appointing NatWest Bank as attorney. This was registered in March 2008. In April 2008 the donor executed an instrument intended to be a Lasting Power of Attorney, appointing a different attorney, and executed a deed revoking the EPA. In the LPA the Part B certificate was provided by a medical practitioner, who had confirmed that he was satisfied that the donor was able to make an LPA. In June 2008 the LPA attorney applied to court for an order confirming the revocation of the EPA (as required by paragraph 15 of Schedule 4 of the MCA). The Senior Judge made a directions order in August 2008 requiring the submission of further evidence on the ground that the revocation of an EPA is a different transaction from the creation of an LPA, and capacity to create an LPA is not necessarily the same as capacity to revoke an EPA. Thus a doctor’s certification of an LPA is not of itself sufficient proof of capacity to revoke an EPA. On considering the ..→	2009-11-29	2008 cases, Brief summary, EPA cases - all, EPA cases - capacity to revoke EPA - test is not the same as for creation of LPA, No transcript
Re Portues (2009) COP 6/1/09 — In Part B of the instrument the donor appointed attorneys to act jointly and severally and struck out the words “with general authority to act”, leaving in place the words “with authority to do the following”. She did not include any instructions under those words to indicate the scope of the attorneys’ powers. On the application of the attorney for rectification of the instrument, the court was satisfied that it was the donor’s intention to confer general authority on the attorneys and that the deletion of those words was a clerical error. The court declared that the EPA was to be read and construed as if the donor granted general authority to the attorneys and directed the Public Guardian to reconsider the registration of the EPA in the light of the declaration. [OPG summary - EPA case.]	2009-11-29	2009 cases, Brief summary, EPA cases - all, EPA cases - rectification, No transcript
Re Sawyer (2009) COP 31/3/09 — In Part B of the EPA the donor appointed four attorneys, but omitted to strike out either option "jointly" or "jointly and severally" in relation to how they should act. On the application of the attorneys, the court was satisfied that the donor had intended to appoint them to act jointly and severally, and directed that the EPA should be construed as if they had been appointed jointly and severally and the alternative option "jointly" had been deleted. The Public Guardian was directed to attach a note to that effect to the registered EPA. [OPG summary - EPA case.]	2009-11-29	2009 cases, Brief summary, EPA cases - all, EPA cases - rectification, No transcript
Re Corbett (2008) COP 4/12/08 — A restriction in an EPA which had been registered in 2006 contained the following restriction: “No transaction with a value greater than £500 to be actioned without the written permission of my son SC.” The attorney applied for an order removing the restriction on the grounds that SC’s whereabouts were unknown and had not been heard from for 12 months. The attorney wished to sell the donor’s house to pay for care home fees. The court determined that, having regard to all the circumstances, the restriction was an unreasonable fetter on the scope of the attorney’s authority, and was having an adverse impact on the management and administration of the donor’s property and affairs. The restriction was accordingly severed and the Public Guardian was directed to register a note to that effect. [OPG summary - EPA case.]	2009-11-29	2008 cases, Brief summary, EPA cases - all, EPA cases - severance of restriction fettering authority of attorney, No transcript
Re Shepherd (2009) COP 13/3/09 — The donor appointed three attorneys to act jointly, adding the words "Any two out of the three attorneys shall have power to sign jointly on my behalf". The court severed these words as being incompatible with a joint appointment. [OPG summary - EPA case.]	2009-11-29	2009 cases, Brief summary, EPA cases - all, EPA cases - severance of restrictions incompatible with a joint appointment, No transcript
Re Bainbridge (2009) COP 10/3/09 — The donor appointed her three children to act jointly, adding the restriction "PROVIDED THAT in the event that any one or more of my said children shall die or shall for any other reason be unable to act as my Attorneys then I appoint my remaining children to be my Attorneys for the purpose of the Enduring Powers of Attorney Act 1985 and in the event that only one of my said children shall be able to act as my Attorney then I appoint him/her as my sole Attorney for the purposes of the Enduring Powers of Attorney Act 1985." On the application of the attorneys under paragraph 4(5) of Schedule 4 of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 to determine whether the power was valid, the court severed the restriction as being incompatible with a joint appointment. (OPG summary.)	2009-11-29	2009 cases, Brief summary, EPA cases - all, EPA cases - severance of restrictions incompatible with a joint appointment, No transcript
Re Rayner (2009) COP 9/6/09 — The donor appointed A and B as attorneys to act jointly and severally with general authority to act in relation to all her property and affairs. She then imposed a restriction, stating that A and B should not act in relation to properties jointly owned with the donor, and that C was appointed as attorney in relation to these properties. On the application of the attorney the restriction was severed, with the result that A and B could act in relation to all the donor's property and affairs and C could not act. [OPG summary - EPA case.]	2009-11-29	2009 cases, Brief summary, EPA cases - all, EPA cases - severance of restrictions incompatible with a joint and several appointment, No transcript
Re Meaker (2009) COP 16/6/09 — The donor appointed two attorneys to act jointly and severally. She added the following restriction: "My attorneys shall act jointly at all times unless the death, incapacity or bankruptcy of either one of them shall preclude her from acting, in which case the other Attorney shall continue to act alone". On the application of the attorney the restriction was severed as being ineffective as part of an EPA. (OPG summary.)	2009-11-29	2009 cases, Brief summary, EPA cases - all, EPA cases - severance of restrictions incompatible with a joint and several appointment, No transcript
Re Dunningham (2009) COP 15/9/09 — The donor appointed two attorneys, A and B, to act jointly and severally. She then imposed the following restriction: "and the said B shall have no authority to act on my behalf unless the said A has died or is incapable of acting as my Attorney". On the application of the attorneys for severance, the court severed the restriction as being inconsistent with a joint and several appointment. [OPG summary - EPA case.]	2009-11-29	2009 cases, Brief summary, EPA cases - all, EPA cases - severance of restrictions incompatible with a joint and several appointment, No transcript
Re Bridge (2009) COP 25/9/09 — The donor appointed three attorneys to act jointly and severally. He imposed the following restriction: "2 of the 3 can deal with any household or every day expenses, but for any other issues I would like all 3 attorneys to be signatories. In particular I would not like my house to be sold or money to be invested without agreement and signatory from all 3. My money and assets are to be used to cover my care and living expenses in old age and ill health." On the application of an attorney the court directed severance of the restriction as being ineffective as part of an EPA. (OPG summary.)	2009-11-29	2009 cases, Brief summary, EPA cases - all, EPA cases - severance of restrictions incompatible with a joint and several appointment, No transcript
Re Wills (2008) COP 20/11/08 — The donor appointed three attorneys to act jointly and severally. She then imposed the following restriction: “Although I have appointed my Attorneys to act jointly and severally, I require that at least two of them shall sign any cheque on my behalf for a sum in excess of £500 or act in any transaction worth over £500.” On the application of the attorneys to determine whether the power was valid, the court severed the restriction. (OPG summary.)	2009-11-29	2008 cases, Brief summary, EPA cases - all, EPA cases - severance of restrictions incompatible with a joint and several appointment, No transcript
Re Blair (2008) COP 1/10/08 — The donor appointed two attorneys to act jointly and severally, and contained the following restriction: “For single transactions of a value in excess of £500 (five hundred pounds) then I declare my attorneys shall act jointly as against jointly and severally.” On the application of the attorneys under paragraph 4(5) of Schedule 4 of the MCA to determine whether the power was valid, the court severed the restriction. (OPG summary.)	2009-11-29	2008 cases, Brief summary, EPA cases - all, EPA cases - severance of restrictions incompatible with a joint and several appointment, No transcript
Re Robinson (2009) COP 18/9/09 — An EPA provided that "My Attorneys shall have power to deal with my affairs from time to time as may be necessary to reduce the incidence of Inheritance Tax at the date of my death provided that lump sum payments shall only be made to or on behalf of such persons who would otherwise receive the benefit of my estate as residuary beneficiaries (either original or substituted) of my Will." On the application of the attorneys the court severed this restriction on the ground that it would be ineffective as part of an EPA (because it exceeded the statutory power to make gifts under Sched 4 paragraph 3 of the MCA). [OPG summary - EPA case.]	2009-11-29	2009 cases, Brief summary, EPA cases - all, EPA cases - severance of restrictions incompatible with an EPA, No transcript
Re Hollins (2009) COP 10/6/09 — In Part B of the instrument, under the heading "subject to the following restrictions and conditions", the donor wrote "See attached supplement". The attached supplement listed extended powers, including: (1) Extended powers to deal with my affairs, (2) Power to consent to medical treatment, and (3) Extended power to make gifts. The Public Guardian refused registration on the ground that the first two of the above provisions did not relate to the donor's property and affairs, and that the third was inconsistent with Schedule 4, para 3(3) of the Mental Capacity Act. On the attorney's application, the court directed severance of the attached supplement and the reference to it in Part B of the instrument. [Full details of supplement available on case page.]	2009-11-29	2009 cases, Brief summary, EPA cases - all, EPA cases - severance of restrictions incompatible with an EPA, No transcript
Re Viveash (2009) COP 21/9/09 — An EPA provided that "I grant to my attorneys the power to deal with all matters concerning my welfare health and matters of a personal nature to me and all other matters affecting me or my possessions." On the application of the attorneys the court severed the restriction on the ground that it would be ineffective as part of an EPA. [OPG summary - EPA case.]	2009-11-29	2009 cases, Brief summary, EPA cases - all, EPA cases - severance of restrictions incompatible with an EPA, No transcript
Re King (2009) COP 14/7/09 — An EPA provided that "In case that I am unable to take part in decisions about my medical care then I appoint my Attorney to represent my views about them if I am unable to do so". On the application of the attorney the court severed this provision on the ground that it would be ineffective as part of an EPA. (OPG summary.)	2009-11-29	2009 cases, Brief summary, EPA cases - all, EPA cases - severance of restrictions incompatible with an EPA, No transcript
Re Ditcham (2009) COP 12/5/09 — An EPA provided that "my attorney(s) may take decisions on where I shall live provided that these decisions are made in my best interests and may negotiate with Social Services and any other relevant authorities to secure the best treatment and accommodation on my behalf that can be provided". On the application of the attorneys the court severed this provision on the ground that it would be ineffective as part of an EPA. (OPG summary.)	2009-11-29	2009 cases, Brief summary, EPA cases - all, EPA cases - severance of restrictions incompatible with an EPA, No transcript
Re Heartfield (2008) COP 17/6/08 — The donor stated in the EPA: “I delegate all my trustee functions and powers whether conferred by statute, general law or a trust instrument to my attorneys”. On the application of the attorney the court determined that the provision was ineffective as part of an EPA and severed it. [OPG summary - EPA case.]	2009-11-29	2008 cases, Brief summary, EPA cases - all, EPA cases - delegation of trustee functions, No transcript
Re Vallet (2009) COP 27/1/09 — The original EPA could not be produced, nor was there a certified copy in existence. Regulation 24(2) of the Lasting Powers of Attorney, Enduring Powers of Attorney and Public Guardian Regulations 2007 provides that, in such a case, the Public Guardian must not register without an order of the court. On the application of the attorney the court declared that it was satisfied that the copy was a copy of the original EPA, which had been lost but not revoked, and directed registration. [OPG summary - EPA case.]	2009-11-29	2009 cases, Brief summary, EPA cases - all, EPA cases - registration of uncertified copy, No transcript
Re Parker (2008) COP 22/12/08 — This application concerned an EPA which had already been registered in 2007. The attorneys had signed the EPA on 25 December 1993 and the donor had signed later, on 13 January 1994. The court held that the EPA was valid, applying the unreported decision of Knox J in Re R dated 23 February 1988. (OPG summary.)	2009-11-29	2008 cases, Brief summary, EPA cases - all, EPA cases - whether the instrument was validly executed, No transcript
Re Wealleans (2008) COP 8/5/08 — The witness had not stated her address in the instrument, as required by Regulation 3(1) of the Enduring Powers of Attorney (Prescribed Form) Regulations 1990. On the application of the attorney the court declared pursuant to MCA Schedule 4 paragraph 2(4) that the EPA was “procedurally valid”. [Paragraph 2(4) provides that, if an instrument differs in an immaterial respect in form or mode of expression from the prescribed form it is to be treated as sufficient in point of form and expression]. [OPG summary - EPA case.]	2009-11-29	2008 cases, Brief summary, EPA cases - all, EPA cases - whether the instrument was validly executed, No transcript
Re Gibbs (2008) COP 9/9/08 — The certificate provider ticked the box to confirm that he had discussed the LPA with the donor and that the attorneys were not present, and also ticked the box to say that the LPA had been discussed with the donor in the presence of other persons, identified as the attorneys. The court directed that the LPA was valid (the certificate provider having confirmed by letter that he had interviewed the donor on her own as well as with the attorneys present). (OPG summary.)	2009-11-29	2008 cases, Brief summary, LPA cases - all, LPA cases - where attorney present when certificate provider interviews the donor, No transcript
Re Baldwin (2009) COP 14/5/09 — The donor appointed X as original attorney, Y as the replacement for X, and Z as the replacement for Y if Y was unable or unwilling to act. On the application of the Public Guardian the court directed the severance of the appointment of Z on the ground that the MCA does not permit a donor to appoint a person to take over as a second replacement attorney if the first replacement attorney starts to act and then becomes unable to act. (OPG summary.)	2009-11-29	2009 cases, Brief summary, LPA cases - all, LPA cases - replacement for replacement attorney, No transcript
Re Howarth (2008) COP 28/7/08 — The donor had named the replacement attorney as the only person to be notified of an application to register. MCA Schedule 1 paragraph 2(3) provides that a person who is “appointed as donee under the instrument” may not be a named person. If there was no effective named person, the instrument could only be valid if it contained two Part B certificates, but it contained only one. On the application of the Public Guardian the court directed the severance of the appointment of the replacement attorney on the ground that a replacement attorney was a person “appointed as donee under the instrument” who could not, therefore, be a named person. As the appointment of the replacement attorney was severed, the named person was not an attorney and so the instrument could be registered. (OPG summary.)	2009-11-29	2008 cases, Brief summary, LPA cases - all, LPA cases - attorney or replacement attorney as a named person, No transcript
Re Sporne (2009) COP 13/10/09 — The instrument had two defects: (i) the certificate provider had failed to tick the first two mandatory boxes in Part B, and (ii) the attorney had executed Part C before the certificate provider had signed Part B, contrary to Regulation 9 of the LPA, EPA and PG Regulations 2007. The Public Guardian's normal practice in such a case is to request fresh Parts B and C, but the donor had lost capacity. The attorney applied to court for the determination of the validity of the instrument. The court order recorded that, while the court could have exercised its discretion under paragraph 3(2) of Schedule 1 of the MCA in respect of the defect in Part B of the instrument, it could not exercise any discretion to validate a significant procedural error in respect of the requirements for the completion and execution of Parts A, B and C. It further recorded that the errors could not now be rectified as the donor had lost capacity. The court, therefore, refused to direct registration of the ..→	2009-11-29	2009 cases, Brief summary, LPA cases - all, LPA cases - whether the instrument has been correctly executed, No transcript
Re Ker (2009) COP 21/9/09 — The donor in Part A of the LPA form omitted to tick the box to confirm that he had chosen his certificate provider himself. The Public Guardian refused registration on the ground that the instrument was not in prescribed form. On the attorney's application, the court exercised its discretion under paragraph 3(2) of Schedule 1 to the MCA 2005 and declared that the instrument, although not in the prescribed form, was to be treated as if it were a lasting power of attorney. Registration was directed accordingly. (OPG summary.)	2009-11-29	2009 cases, Brief summary, LPA cases - all, LPA cases - whether the instrument is in prescribed form - unticked boxes, No transcript
Re Nazran (2008) 27/6/08 — The certificate provider had not completed the first two boxes in Part B of the instrument to confirm that he was acting independently of the donor, was not ineligible to provide a certificate, and was aged 18 or over. The attorneys applied to court for a declaration that the instrument was a valid LPA or, alternatively, that the instrument was to be treated as valid under MCA Schedule 1 paragraph 3(2). [Paragraph 3(2) provides that the court may declare that an instrument which is not in the prescribed form may be treated as if it were, if it is satisfied that the persons executing the instrument intended it to create a lasting power of attorney]. The court, in the exercise of its discretion under Schedule 1 paragraph 3(2), declared that the instrument was to be treated as if it were an LPA and registered accordingly. The Public Guardian does not have this discretion. (OPG summary.)	2009-11-29	2008 cases, Brief summary, LPA cases - all, LPA cases - whether the instrument is in prescribed form - unticked boxes, No transcript
Re Sykes (2009) 9/7/09 — The donor of a property and affairs LPA imposed a restriction stating that no gifts of any of her assets should be made other than "annual or monthly gifts already being made by me at the date of my signing this LPA by regular bank standing orders or direct debits". On the application of the Public Guardian the court severed this restriction on the ground that the gifts envisaged by the donor exceeded the attorney's authority to make gifts as set out in section 12 of the MCA 2005. (OPG summary.)	2009-11-29	2009 cases, Brief summary, LPA cases - all, LPA cases - severance of invalid restrictions relating to gifts, No transcript
Re Reading (2009) COP 25/6/09 — The donor appointed her husband and two of her children as original attorneys and a third child as replacement attorney. She added a restriction to the effect that, if her husband should predecease her, any decisions "must be agreed by all four of my children". The fourth child had not been appointed as attorney or replacement attorney. On the application of the Public Guardian the restriction was severed as being ineffective as part of an LPA, because it was not open to the donor to require that a person who was not an attorney should join in the making of decisions by the attorneys. (OPG summary.)	2009-11-29	2009 cases, Brief summary, LPA cases - all, LPA cases - severance of restrictions fettering authority of an attorney, No transcript
Re Bratt (2009) COP 14/4/09 — The donor appointed two attorneys, A and B, to act jointly and severally, and directed that "B is only to act as attorney in the event of A being physically or mentally incapable of acting in this capacity". On the application of the Public Guardian this provision was severed as being inconsistent with a joint and several appointment. The Senior Judge added that, to have achieved the desired objective, the donor should instead have appointed B to be a replacement attorney. (OPG summary.)	2009-11-29	2009 cases, Brief summary, LPA cases - all, LPA cases - severance of restrictions incompatible with a joint and several appointment, No transcript
Re P (2009) COP 9/6/09 — The donor appointed three attorneys to act jointly and severally, and imposed the following restriction: "I require that two attorneys must act at any one time so that no attorney may act alone." On the application of the Public Guardian the court severed the restriction on the ground that it was ineffective as part of an LPA. (OPG summary.)	2009-11-29	2009 cases, Brief summary, LPA cases - all, LPA cases - severance of restrictions incompatible with a joint and several appointment, No transcript
Re Azancot (2009) 27/5/09 — The donor of a personal welfare LPA inserted a restriction that her replacement attorneys "may only act under this power in the event that the donor is physically or mentally incapacitated and there is written medical evidence to that effect". The words "physically or" were severed on the application of the Public Guardian, as the effect of section 11(7) of the MCA is that a personal welfare attorney may not make a decision unless the donor lacks mental capacity to make it. (OPG summary.)	2009-11-29	2009 cases, Brief summary, LPA cases - all, LPA cases - severance of restrictions incompatible with a Health and Welfare LPA, No transcript
Re Bates (2008) COP 3/12/09 — The donor appointed two original attorneys and a replacement attorney, who would assume office in the following circumstances: “She may act at any time at the election of either attorney”. These words were severed on the application of the Public Guardian on the ground that a replacement attorney may only act on the occurrence of an event mentioned in section 13(6)(a) to (d) of the MCA, for example where an original attorney disclaims, dies or loses mental capacity. (OPG summary.)	2009-11-29	2008 cases, Brief summary, LPA cases - all, LPA cases - severance of invalid restrictions as to when a replacement attorney may act, No transcript
Re Patel (2008) COP 1/12/08 — The donor appointed a replacement attorney to act if the original attorney should be “mentally or physically incapable” or if the original attorney “is not in England at any time that my personal or financial affairs require attention”. The words in bold were severed on the application of the Public Guardian on the ground that a replacement attorney may only act on the occurrence of an event mentioned in section 13(6)(a) to (d) of the MCA, for example where an original attorney disclaims, dies or loses mental capacity. (OPG summary.)	2009-11-29	2008 cases, Brief summary, LPA cases - all, LPA cases - severance of invalid restrictions as to when a replacement attorney may act, No transcript
Re Jenkins (2008) COP 2/9/08 — The donor had appointed the attorneys of a property and affairs LPA to act “together and independently”. She then directed that they must act together in relation to any bills, payments or costs exceeding £2,000 in any one calendar month and in relation to any single payment greater than £1,000 in any calendar month. The donor had also appointed a replacement attorney, and directed that she should act if the original attorneys were “not available through travel or living abroad or any other circumstances that may prevent or restrict their capacity to act on my behalf as attorneys”. The court ordered the severance of both clauses, on the application of the Public Guardian. The directions in the first clause were incompatible with an appointment to act “together and independently”. The directions in the second clause were invalid because a replacement attorney may only act on the occurrence of an event mentioned in section 13(6)(a) to (d) of the MCA, for example where an ..→	2009-11-29	2008 cases, Brief summary, LPA cases - all, LPA cases - severance of invalid restrictions as to when a replacement attorney may act, LPA cases - severance of restrictions incompatible with a joint and several appointment, No transcript
Re Begum (2008) COP 24/4/08 — On the application of the Public Guardian, the court directed the severance from a Property and Affairs LPA instrument of the following clauses, on the ground that they were ineffective as part of an LPA: (1) All decisions about the use or disposal of my property and financial resources must be driven by what my Personal Welfare Lasting Power of Attorney(s) believe will support my long term interests. (2) Any decisions affecting assets (individually or together) worth more than £5,000 at any one time must be discussed and agreed with Dr X. (3) In the event of there being any disagreement between my Personal Welfare Lasting Power of Attorney(s) and/or Dr X this should be resolved by these parties appointing an independent advocate to adjudicate. (OPG summary.)	2009-11-29	2008 cases, Brief summary, LPA cases - all, LPA cases - severance of restrictions fettering authority of an attorney, No transcript
R (Turner) v Southampton City Council (2009) EWCA Civ 1290 — Unsuccessful challenge to the closure of care homes on Article 2 grounds: the test of a "real and immediate risk" is one that is not readily satisfied, in other words the threshold is high; the evidence in this case fell far short of the threshold. Interesting post-script to judgment, critical of solicitor and her repeated similar claims.	2009-11-27	2009 cases, Brief summary, Community care, Transcript
Re Furlow (2009) COP 1/10/09 — The donor appointed X and Y to act jointly and severally. He included the following provision: "X shall act with general authority on my behalf in relation to all my property and affairs. Y shall act with authority to do the following on my behalf: To deal with my bank accounts and savings and investments in relation to my bank accounts, savings accounts and investments." He then added: "Y may deal with my bank investments subject to my prior approval." On the attorney's application, both provisions were severed. The first was incompatible with a joint and several appointment (as one attorney had more limited powers than the other), and the second was unworkable after the donor's loss of capacity. [OPG summary.)	2009-11-25	2009 cases, Brief summary, EPA cases - all, EPA cases - severance of restrictions incompatible with a joint and several appointment, No transcript
Re Ellis (2009) COP 17/11/09 — The donor appointed his wife as the original attorney and then appointed his two children as substitute attorneys to act in the event that the original attorney should be unable to act. However, the donor failed to specify whether the substitute attorneys should act jointly or jointly and severally. On the application of the attorneys, the appointment of the substitute attorneys was severed. Although the decision in Re J confirmed that substitute attorneys may be appointed in an EPA, the appointment of two or more substitutes is invalid if the donor has not specified that they are to act either jointly or jointly and severally. [OPG summary - EPA case.]	2009-11-25	2009 cases, Brief summary, EPA cases - all, EPA cases - appointment by donor of substitute attorneys, No transcript
R v Hurst (2007) EWCA Crim 3436 — The restriction order was set aside as: (1) there was insufficient evidence that it was necessary for the protection of the public from serious harm; (2) the judge did not explain why he had rejected the medical evidence, which was against the imposition of a restriction order.	2009-11-24	2007 cases, Brief summary, Restriction order cases, Transcript
R v Charisma (2009) EWCA Crim 2345 — The appellant argued that his mental condition had made it undesirable for him to have given evidence, so no direction under s35 Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 (adverse inference from failure to give evidence) should have been given; he was unsuccessful.	2009-11-20	2009 cases, Brief summary, Other criminal law cases, Transcript
Johnston v Chief Constable of Merseyside Police (2009) EWHC 2969 (QB) — (1) A court faced with an application for permission under s139(2) must (a) balance the applicant's interest to be allowed to seek the adjudication of the courts upon any claim which is not frivolous, vexatious or an abuse of process, and the equally legitimate interest of the respondent not to be subjected to the risk of being harassed by baseless claims, and (b) consider whether the proposed claim has a real prospect of success. (2) On the facts, permission was granted. (3) Under the relevant test under the Limitation Act 1980 (which was explained) the 3-year limitation period on the assault claim was dis-applied.	2009-11-20	2009 cases, Brief summary, Miscellaneous, Transcript
R v Evans (2009) EWCA Crim 2243 — Unsuccessful appeal, which had been on the basis that (1) his guilty plea was based on wrong advice, and (2) memories recovered since his plea would have provided a defence based on (a) provocation or (b) diminished responsibility.	2009-11-16	2009 cases, Brief summary, Diminished responsibility cases, Transcript
Re RB (A Child) (2009) EWHC 3269 (Fam) — Transcript of judge's sentencing remarks, endorsing the parties' agreement that administration of a large dose of sedative, the removal of the ventilation tube and consequent death (rather than discharge from hospital on home ventilation after a tracheostomy) were in the baby's best interests.	2009-11-16	2009 cases, Best interests, Brief summary, Transcript
Independent News and Media Ltd v A (2009) EWHC 2858 (Fam) — The media sought, not that the CoP hearing be public, but that they be authorised to attend the hearing and be subject to reporting restrictions. CoP proceedings are excluded from the general 'open justice principle' so the media's Article 10 rights are not automatically engaged, and the court must rather adopt a two-stage approach: (1) Whether a 'good reason' (a gatekeeping test from the Rules, the standard for which is not high) for making the order can be established; (2) If there is a 'good reason', a balancing test must be applied to P's Article 8 rights and the media's Article 10 rights. On the facts: (1) There was a 'good reason' as (a) the issues were already in the public domain, (b) the court's powers can preserve privacy, and (c) it is the public interest to understand how the court operates; (2) The media would be allowed to attend, as the concerns for privacy and publicity could both be met by permitting some reporting but requiring the media to demonstrate what ..→	2009-11-12	2009 cases, Brief summary, Other capacity cases, Transcript
DCC v KH (2009) COP 11729380 — (1) A DOLS standard authorisation was sufficient to return P on the long journey from contact sessions to the residential accommodation: the Code of Practice paragraphs saying that conveyance may require a court order only apply where no SA is in place. (2) It was inappropriate to seek an anticipatory declaration for the use of force, as MCA 2005 s5 and s6 permitted restraint. (3) The interim residence order should be enough to persuade the police to facilitate P's return.	2009-11-11	2009 cases, Brief summary, Deprivation of liberty, Transcript
Baker v H (2009) EWHC B31 (Fam) — (1) The judgment sets out a structured general approach to considering the setting of security and its interplay with the terms of appointment of a deputy; (2) On the facts, the level of security was reduced from £750k to £175k.	2009-11-09	2009 cases, Brief summary, Other capacity cases, Transcript
Re Murdoch (2009) COP 30/10/09 — The donor executed an instrument intended to be a personal welfare LPA. It contained the following defects: (i) the certificate provider had failed to tick the first two mandatory boxes in Part B, (ii) the attorney had failed to tick any of the boxes in Part C, although he had dated and executed it, and (iii) the replacement attorney had ticked the appropriate boxes in his Part C but had not dated or executed it. The Public Guardian refused to register the instrument, and the donor subsequently lost capacity. On the attorney's application, the court directed the Public Guardian not to register the instrument, because "the errors in its execution are too fundamental".	2009-11-09	2009 cases, Brief summary, LPA cases - all, LPA cases - whether the instrument is in prescribed form - unticked boxes, No transcript
R v Singleton (2008) EWCA Crim 468 — Sentence of 5 years' imprisonment replaced by 3-year community order with residence, supervision and mental health treatment requirements.	2009-11-03	2008 cases, Brief summary, Sentence appeal cases, Transcript
R (Nottingham Healthcare NHS Trust) v MHRT (Northern Region), Re GK (2008) EWHC 2445 (Admin) — The Tribunal's decision that GK did not suffer from any mental illness and should be discharged from Rampton, which was contrary to all the medical evidence including the independent psychiatrist's, was inadequately reasoned.	2009-11-03	2008 cases, Brief summary, Reasons, Transcript
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.]	2009-11-01	1999 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.]	2009-11-01	1999 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.]	2009-11-01	1999 cases, Brief summary, Other Tribunal cases, Scottish cases, Transcript
R (LH) v MHRT (2002) EWHC 1522 (Admin) — (1) There is no need for reasons for not making a recommendation where, as here, there is no contention (or any evidence in support of a contention) justifying a recommendation or the consideration of it. (2) In any event, an extra-statutory recommendation, outside the scope of s72(3), has no legal effect and is not susceptible to judicial review. (3) That s72 does not allow consideration of a hospital's suitability in terms of security or family proximity does not disclose a Convention incompatibility: a lacuna in an Act or a failure to provide an effective remedy for a Convention violation does not mean that the Act is incompatible.	2009-10-31	2002 cases, Brief summary, Reasons, Transcript
R (B) v Ashworth Hospital Authority (2002) EWHC 1442 (Admin) — A patient could be treated for any form of mental disorder, not just a disorder within the classification under which he was detained.	2009-10-30	2002 cases, Brief summary, Other classification cases, Transcript
R (RH) v Ashworth Hospital Authority (2001) EWHC 872 (Admin) — Unsuccessful challenge to Ashworth policy not to issue condoms.	2009-10-30	2001 cases, Brief summary, Miscellaneous, Transcript
R (Pickering) v Ashworth Hospital Authority (2001) EWCA Civ 883 — Challenge to ward move and restriction of communication arguable so permission granted.	2009-10-30	2001 cases, Brief summary, Permission hearings, Transcript
R (P) v Surrey Oakland NHS Trust (2001) EWHC Admin 461 — Judicial review was an inappropriate means of challenging the closure of the psychiatric hospital.	2009-10-30	2001 cases, Brief summary, Miscellaneous, Transcript
NHS Hospital Trust v A (a child) (2007) EWHC 1696 (Fam) — Bone marrow transplant on baby lawful despite parents' refusal to consent.	2009-10-29	2007 cases, Best interests, Brief summary, Transcript
R (C) v SSJ (2009) EWHC x (Admin) — The decision to make C subject to polygraph testing as a condition of his licence did not breach the his Article 8 rights given the seriousness of his offences and his attitude to them; that the scheme was a pilot in his geographical area did not amount to discrimination under Article 14.	2009-10-24	2009 cases, Brief summary, Miscellaneous, No transcript
R v Grant (2008) EWCA Crim 1870 — Based on recently-obtained medical evidence that the appellant's significant learning disability and unfitness to plead was masked by his external demeanour and physical appearance, his conviction (and 3-year community order) was quashed and substituted with a verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity (and a 2-year supervision order).	2009-10-24	2008 cases, Brief summary, Transcript, Unfitness and insanity cases
Re M; ITW v Z (2009) EWHC 2525 (Fam) — Statutory will case. [Summary required.]	2009-10-19	2009 cases, Best interests, Brief summary, Transcript
AA v Cheshire and Wirral Partnership NHS Foundation Trust (2009) UKUT 195 (AAC) — An application made while a patient is detained under section 2 or 3 does not lapse when the patient is made subject to a CTO, as s72(1) (powers of tribunals) should be given a literal construction. Preliminary points: (1) Discussion on Law Society guidance and cases where client lacks full capacity. The Upper Tribunal has no power to appoint a litigation friend or equivalent, and the OS's powers and duties apply to court proceedings not tribunals; in any event, justice did not require a litigation friend as the potential "best interests" argument was argued by other parties. (2) It was not unlawful for a First-tier Tribunal judge to consider an application for permission to appeal from, or a review of, his own decision.	2009-10-13	2009 cases, Brief summary, Change of status after application made, Transcript, Upper Tribunal decisions
R (X) v SSJ (2009) EWHC 2465 (Admin) — The Secretary of State had rejected an application for escorted community leave because of the nature of the index offence and the perspective of the victim's family. (1) The decision was quashed because neither the question of risk to others nor the positive benefits to the patient had been considered (irrationality, failure to take into account relevant considerations and considering irrelevant ones). (2) The reasons presented in the summary grounds of defence were patently not the reasons for the decision.	2009-10-12	2009 cases, Brief summary, Ministry of Justice, Transcript
R (PP) v SSJ (2009) 2464 (Admin) — The Secretary of State's decision to reject an application for a restricted patient to be granted trial leave to a medium secure unit was lawful; he was not bound to seek alternative evidence even where the evidence before him was unanimously in favour or leave being granted.	2009-10-12	2009 cases, Brief summary, Ministry of Justice, Transcript
R (AB) v SSJ (2009) EWHC 2220 (Admin) — Continued detention of pre-operative male-to-female transsexual in male prison breached Article 8 and was Wednesbury unreasonable.	2009-10-09	2009 cases, Brief summary, Prison law cases, Transcript
R (McKinnon) v SSHA (2009) EWHC 2449 (Admin) — Asperger's Syndrome hacker extradition case: no permission to apply for JR on Article 8 grounds; no certificate on points of law of general public importance on the Article 3 grounds; no permission to appeal.	2009-10-09	2009 cases, Brief summary, Repatriation cases, Transcript
Stockton On Tees Borough Council v Aylott (2009) UKEAT 0401/08/1103 — The decision in Malcolm on the correct comparator in disability-related discrimination cases also applies to employment cases.	2009-10-08	2009 cases, Brief summary, Disability discrimination, Transcript
SCA Packaging Ltd v Boyle (2009) UKHL 37 — Under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 an impairment which is treated or corrected is counted (in law) as causing disability if it (in fact) would be likely to cause disability if untreated or uncorrected: "likely" here does not mean "probable" but means "could well happen". The employee was therefore disabled and the employer was under a duty to make reasonable adjustments.	2009-10-08	2009 cases, Brief summary, Disability discrimination, Transcript
R v Pedley, Martin and Hamadi (2009) EWCA Crim 840 — (1) Guidance on the proper construction of the 'significant risk' test created by section 225 Criminal Justice Act 2003 for passing sentences of imprisonment for public protection (IPP) or other indeterminate sentences. (2) Such sentences are Convention compliant.	2009-10-08	2009 cases, Brief summary, Other criminal law cases, Transcript
Jansons v Latvia (2009) EWHC 1845 (Admin) — It would be oppressive under s25 Extradition Act 2003, and contrary to his Article 8 rights, for the Latvian criminal to be extradited, because there was a substantial risk that he would commit suicide.	2009-10-08	2009 cases, Brief summary, Repatriation cases, Transcript
Dzikowski v GMC (2009) EWHC 1090 (Admin) — The GMC's decision that it was necessary for the protection of patients and in the public interest for the appellant consultant psychiatrist's name to be erased from the Medical Register was lawful.	2009-10-08	2009 cases, Brief summary, Miscellaneous, Transcript
Cheltenham Borough Council v Laird (2009) EWHC 1253 (QB) — The council unsuccessfully sued its former employee for damages for making, by failing to disclose her full psychiatric history, fraudulent or negligent misrepresentations in a job application.	2009-10-08	2009 cases, Brief summary, Disability discrimination, Transcript
Re Harries (2009) COP 22/6/09 11613871 — The witnesses to an EPA had handwritten their names but not separately signed the form, so the OPG had refused to register the EPA. The court held that the difference between a handwritten name (as opposed to a typed one) and a signature is immaterial, and ordered that the EPA be registered.	2009-09-27	2009 cases, Brief summary, EPA cases - all, EPA cases - whether the instrument was validly executed, Transcript
R (Pennington) v Parole Board (2009) EWHC 2296 (Admin) — Delays by the Parole Board, both in issuing ICM directions (which caused a 2-month delay in listing the hearing) and in communicating the decision a month late, breached Article 5(4). Claims for "pure delay" - that is where a Parole Board hearing has been delayed because of a lack of resources available to or errors or omissions on the part of the Parole Board - survive the House of Lords decsion in James. Damages to be assessed at a later date.	2009-09-27	2009 cases, Brief summary, Prison law cases, Transcript
BB v South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust (2009) UKUT 157 (AAC) — (1) The Tribunal panel failed to state with clarity how and why it disagreed with the reasoning of the independent psychiatrist who had recommended conditional discharge; therefore, the making of the decision involved the making of an error on a point of law. (2) The decision was not set aside: to do so would provide no practical benefit as the patient had recently re-applied to the Tribunal.	2009-09-04	2009 cases, Brief summary, Reasons, Transcript, Upper Tribunal decisions
KM v MHTS (2009) case B186/09 — (1) In granting a Community Treatment Order, the Mental Health Tribunal for Scotland misdirected itself in law, so its decision was set aside: in considering Regulation 5 (permitted conflicts of interest between the two recommending doctors) the Tribunal applied a subjective test of what was in the RMO's mind, rather than objectively considering whether "failure to carry out the [independent second] medical examination would result in delay which would involve serious risk to the health, safety or welfare of the patient or to the safety of other persons" (Reg 5(1)(b)). (2) No facts were found by the Tribunal which could have justified a CTO so, rather than remitting the case to the Tribunal, the application for a CTO was refused.	2009-08-31	2009 cases, Brief summary, Reasons, Scottish cases, Transcript
Re F (2009) EWHC B30 (Fam) — The "gateway" test for the engagement of the court’s powers under s48 (Interim orders and directions) is lower than that of evidence sufficient, in itself, to rebut the presumption of capacity. The proper test in the first instance is whether there is evidence giving good cause for concern that P may lack capacity in some relevant regard. Once that is raised as a serious possibility, the court then moves on to the second stage to decide what action, if any, it is in P's best interests to take before a final determination of his capacity can be made.	2009-08-16	2009 cases, Brief summary, Other capacity cases, Transcript
Re GC (2008) EWHC 3402 (Fam) — (1) The principle governing State intervention under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 is the same as under the Children Act 1989, namely that the State does not interfere in the private family life of an individual unless the continuance of that private family life is clearly inconsistent with the welfare of the person whose best interests the court is required to determine. (2) The closer the person is to having capacity the more weight his views are to be given. (3) Contrary to the professional evidence, it was in GC's best interests to return home as an interim measure: this decision was reached having regard to (a) the concept of least intervention, (b) GC's consistently-expressed wishes and feelings, (c) a finding that a trial at home was necessary and now was the best time, and (d) the importance of the emotional, as opposed to physical, component of best interests to very elderly (or young) people.	2009-08-15	2008 cases, Best interests, Brief summary, Transcript
R (McKinnon) v SSHA (2009) EWHC 2021 (Admin) — Because of the claimant's Asperger's Syndrome, extradition to the US would cause his mental health to suffer and would create risks including suicide; however, his case did not approach Article 3 severity: the SSHA's decision to order extradition, and the DPP's decision not to prosecute in the UK (although he had admitted certain offences), were lawful.	2009-08-10	2009 cases, Brief summary, Repatriation cases, Transcript
R (Krishnapillai) v SSHD (2008) EWHC 2737 (Admin) — Mental health problems can engage Article 8 and render it disproportionate to separate a failed asylum seeker from the support of his family (in this case the mental health element involved PTSD, depression and the threat of suicide); however, deportation in this case was lawful.	2009-08-09	2009 cases, Brief summary, Repatriation cases, Transcript
R (Chahboub) v SSHD (2009) EWHC 1989 (Admin) — Failed asylum seeker's challenge to detention in prison rather than immigration centre. (1) The first of the two periods of detention was outside the 3-month JR time limit so permission was refused in respect of that period. (2) The policy with respect to whether mentally ill people should be detained did not apply to the claimant, who had a personality disorder rather than mental illness. (3) The detention was justified under common law (intention to deport, detention for reasonable period, deportation possible in reasonable period, reasonable diligence to deport). (4) His transfer from the immigration centre to prison, because he had proved unmanageable, was in accordance with policy. (5) The manner of his detention in prison (required to share cell with convicted prisoner, dietary requirements ignored, 23-hour lock-up, limited access to telephone and visitors) was contrary to policy and breached his Article 5 rights.	2009-08-09	2009 cases, Brief summary, Repatriation cases, Transcript
R (Axon) v SSH (2006) EWHC 37 (Admin) — The 2004 guidance "Best Practice Guidance for Doctors and other Health Professionals on the provision of Advice and Treatment to Young People under 16 on Contraception, Sexual and Reproductive Health" was not unlawful. A medical professional can provide such advice and treatment if: (1) the young person understands all aspects of the advice; (2) the young person cannot be persuaded to have his parents informed; (3) (re contraception/STIs) the young person is very likely to have sexual intercourse; (4) without advice/treatment his physical/mental health is likely to suffer; (5) it is in the young person's best interests.	2009-08-01	2006 cases, Brief summary, Miscellaneous, Transcript
Rabone v Pennine Care NHS Trust (2009) EWHC 1827 (QB) — The Article 2 "Osman" operational obligation to protect life applied to detained patients, but not to the claimant who was an informal patient on leave from the hospital at the time she committed suicide.	2009-08-01	2009 cases, Brief summary, Inquests, Transcript
R v C (2009) UKHL 42 — For the purposes of s30 Sexual Offences Act 2003: (1) lack of capacity to choose can be person or situation specific; (2) an irrational fear arising from mental disorder that prevents the exercise of choice could amount to a lack of capacity to choose; (3) inability to communicate could be as a result of a mental or physical disorder.	2009-08-01	2009 cases, Brief summary, Capacity to consent to sexual relations, Criminal law capacity cases, Transcript
Perrins v Holland (2009) EWHC 1945 (Ch) — The testator had testamentary capacity at the time that he gave instructions for the will, but not when he executed it; however, when he executed the will he believed that it gave effect to his previous instructions, it did in fact do so, and the instructions remained his testamentary wishes. Therefore the court pronounced in favour of the will.	2009-08-01	2009 cases, Brief summary, Other capacity cases, Transcript
R (TF and Thompson) v SSHD (2009) EWCA Civ 792 — (1) The indefinite nature of the notification requirements of Part 2 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (the Sex Offenders Register) is a disproportionate breach of Article 8: there is no opportunity for review of the necessity of the requirements, and the case is stronger in the case of young offenders. (2) The scheme where it related to foreign travel did not breach article 4 ("right of exit") of EC Council Directive 2004/38.	2009-07-29	2009 cases, Brief summary, Other criminal law cases, Transcript
R v Khan (2009) EWCA Crim 1569 — (1) The judge had been right to refuse to withdraw the charge of murder from the jury at the close of the evidence: to do otherwise he would have to be satisfied that the evidence, both medical and factual, was such that no reasonable jury, properly directed, could conclude that the defendant had failed to prove, on a balance of probabilities, the diminished responsibility defence. (2) Although the medical evidence in favour of diminished responsibility was unchallenged, there was ample factual evidence on which the jury could conclude that it was not satisfied, on a balance of probabilities, that the defence was made out.	2009-07-29	2009 cases, Brief summary, Diminished responsibility cases, Transcript
Scottish Ministers v MHTS, re MM (2009) CSIH 66 — (1) Tribunal decision set aside for want of adequate reasons. (2) Discussion on interpretation of s193 Mental Health (Care and Treatment) (Scotland) Act 2003, the convoluted Tribunal discharge procedure and criteria which differ from the admission criteria.	2009-07-29	2009 cases, Brief summary, Scottish cases, Transcript
R v G; R v J (2009) UKHL 13 — Detailed explanation of elements of, and defences to, s57 and s58 Terrorism Act 2000. It was not a "reasonable excuse" for G to possess terrorist material to wind up prison guards; he was responsible for his actions (applying M'Naghten's Case) and his schizophrenia could not make reasonable what was unreasonable.	2009-07-29	2009 cases, Brief summary, Other criminal law cases, Transcript
R (N) v SSH; R (E) v Nottinghamshire Healthcare NHS Trust (2009) EWCA Civ 795 — The right or freedom to smoke does not engage Article 8(1); Article 14 could not therefore be relied upon either. In any event, the SSH's smoke-free regulations and the Trust's smoke-free policy would be justified under Article 8(2), and the different treatment under the regulations for mental health units compared with prisons, care homes and hospices would be justified under Article 14.	2009-07-26	2009 cases, Brief summary, Miscellaneous, Smoking, Transcript
MJ (Angola) v SSHD (2009) EWCA Civ 741 — The SSJ should be served with the appeal proceedings as the court would be assisted by information from him as to the policy and objects as he sees them of s42 MHA (discharge power) in the context of a deportation case.	2009-07-23	2009 cases, Brief summary, Repatriation cases, Transcript
R (Faulkner) v SSJ (2009) EWHC 1507 (Admin) — 13 months after referral, the claimant was released by the Parole Board and subsequently absconded. (1) The question of whether to dismiss the claim purely on the grounds that the claimant was a fugitive was left open. (2) The Article 5(4) claim was inconsistent with R (James) v SSJ (2009) UKHL 22: there was no Article 5(4) breach as the system had not broken down entirely (by the PB being denied the information that it needed for such a long period as to make continued detention arbitrary). (3) If that analysis is wrong, there still was no breach as, looking at the totality of the matter, there had been a review within a reasonable period. (4) Even if there had been a breach, it could not be shown that the claimant would have been released earlier. (5) Damages, if appropriate, would have been in the region of £1,000-£2,000, or perhaps £4,000; but, seeing as he had absconded, no damages would have been awarded. [Caution.]	2009-07-20	2009 cases, Brief summary, Prison law cases, Transcript
R v Erskine; R v Williams (2009) EWCA Crim 1425 — The appellants argued that, although they had not advanced the defence at trial, their convictions for murder should be quashed and substituted with diminished responsibility manslaughter. (1) The question in each case was whether, in examining the mental state at the time of the killing in accordance with s2 Homicide Act 1957, evidence which was not adduced at trial should be received under s23 Criminal Appeal Act 1968. (2) The question was a simple one and citation of numerous, merely illustrative, authorities was unhelpful. (3) In Erskine there was overwhelming contemporaneous evidence for diminished responsibility, and that his decision not to advance the defence was irremediably flawed because of his illness: appeal allowed and restricted hospital order imposed. (4) In Williams, the decision not to advance the defence was tactical, and the subsequent medical evidence unconvincing: appeal dismissed.	2009-07-20	2009 cases, Brief summary, Diminished responsibility cases, Transcript
R (GC) v Managers of the Kingswood Centre of Central and North West London NHS Foundation Trust (2008) EWHC x (Admin) (CO/7784/2008) — The patient's compulsion to pick up litter, even if that litter was in the road, amounted to seriously irresponsible conduct in the context of the definition of mental impairment; the patient was likely to act in a dangerous manner so the hospital managers were right not to discharge.	2009-07-20	2008 cases, Brief summary, Hospital managers hearings, No transcript
R (P) v Barking Youth Court (2002) EWHC 734 (Admin) — The Youth Court, in considering fitness to plead, had wrongly adopted the procedure laid down for the Crown Court; s11(1) Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 and s37(3) Mental Health Act 1983 provide a complete statutory framework for the determination by the Magistrates' Court, itself a creature of statute, of all the issues that arise in cases of defendants who are or may be mentally ill or suffering from severe mental impairment in the context of offences which are triable summarily only; the procedure is first to determine whether P did the acts alleged against him, and if so, then to consider, in the light of such reports as they may think necessary, whether the case is one for an order under s37(3)); for these purposes a youth court is a magistrates' court.	2009-07-10	2009 cases, Brief summary, Other criminal law cases, Transcript
R (P) v SSJ (2009) EWCA Civ 701 — The refusal of the SSJ to hold an inquiry into P's detention in YOI Feltham was lawful: (1) Article 2 is only engaged where there is a "real and immediate" risk to life; the risk from P's self harming, while real, was not immediate. (2) There was no arguable breach of Article 3 in the delay in transfer to hospital. Had there been an arguable Article 3 breach: in general, an inquiry would not have been mandatory; in this particular case, it would not have been necessary as the relevant facts were known.	2009-07-09	2009 cases, Brief summary, Inquests, Transcript
R v Holderness (2009) EWCA Crim 1326 — The appellant argued that, due to a mental illness which she had previously concealed, she ought to have been convicted of diminished responsibility manslaughter rather than murder. This argument was rejected as (1) her appeal depended on her credibility, which had been damaged by her series of lies; (2) her excuse for concealment even up to trial - that she hoped to be let go by appearing well - was not credible; (3) she had ample opportunity to observe other patients' illnesses; (4) it was not probable that she could have concealed the delusions from the psychiatrist who saw her on the day of arrest. No jury might reasonably have found, on the balance of probabilities, that the s2 Homicide Act 1957 criteria were met. Appeal dismissed.	2009-07-09	2009 cases, Brief summary, Diminished responsibility cases, Transcript
R (Farah) v HM Coroner for the Southampton and New Forest District of Hampshire (2009) EWHC 1605 (Admin) — (a) A coroner sitting without a jury is entitled to give a verdict and a judgment dealing with the stipulated issues which are (i) who the deceased was; (ii) how, when, by what means and in what circumstances and where the deceased came by is death; and (iii) the particulars for the time being required by the Registration Act to be registered concerning the death; (b) A coroner is entitled to give a judgment on matters which arise during the inquest and which are relevant to the determination of the stipulated issues; (c) The Court has jurisdiction which should be sparingly exercised to declare comments made by a coroner as being unlawful. Such a declaration may be made if the comments (i) do not relate to any of the stipulated issues in any way; (ii) are matters of opinion; and (iii) are sufficiently unfairly critical and offensive of any party; (d) Declarations should be made that comments made by the defendant coroner in his judgment in respect of ..→	2009-07-05	2009 cases, Brief summary, Inquests, Transcript
R (Compton) v GMC (2008) EWHC 2868 (Admin) — The GMC fitness to practise panel in suspending Dr Compton for a year had exercised a fair procedure (in light of the doctor's decision not to attend) and were justified in their conclusion (that he had been dishonest in not disclosing previous unsuccessful applications for s12 approval).	2009-06-15	2008 cases, Brief summary, Miscellaneous, Transcript
RA (Sri Lanka) v SSHD (2008) EWCA Civ 1210 — Unsuccessful human rights appeal against deportation made by suspected terrorist: the article 3 claim being based on (1) a fear of being ill-treated in Sri Lanka on account of actual or suspected involvement with the Tamil Tigers; (2) mental health and in particular the risk of suicide if returned; the article 8 claim being based on the risk of suicide and interference with the private life established in the UK.	2009-06-15	2008 cases, Brief summary, Repatriation cases, Transcript
Roach v Home Office (2009) EWHC 312 (QB) — The costs of attending an inquest can in principle be recovered by way of costs in subsequent civil proceedings; the fact that the inquest work was covered by a public funding certificate had no bearing on the recoverability of the costs.	2009-06-15	2009 cases, Brief summary, Inquests, Transcript
Scottish Ministers v MHTS, re NG and PF (2009) CSIH 33 — The Mental Health Tribunal for Scotland has no power to vary the conditions of a patient who had been conditionally discharged, as the power to set conditions only arises at the time of discharge.	2009-06-14	2009 cases, Brief summary, Powers, Scottish cases, Transcript
R (Mehmet) v SSJ (2009) EWHC 1202 (Admin) — The failure, without good cause, to provide to the Parole Board for nearly a year a report on how the Claimant’s performance on the ABLB course impacts on the assessment of risk in his case (SARN report) was a breach of the Secretary of State’s public law obligations and accordingly unlawful.	2009-06-03	2009 cases, Brief summary, Prison law cases, Transcript
Re OT (2009) EWHC 633 (Fam) — OT, a nine-month-old baby, required continuous ventilation to live, and sometimes required further intensive medical treatment; the trust wanted to discontinue ventilation and treatment on the basis of the distressing and futile nature of the treatment; the parents wanted all steps to be taken to sustain life. (1) Although the application itself was made in an emergency as a result of a sudden deterioration in the child's condition, the parents had a fair opportunity to prepare their case both before and during the hearing; there was therefore no flaw in the process breaching Convention rights. (2) The provision or withdrawal of treatment for a child without parental consent, save in exceptional cases, is unlawful without a court declaration.* (3) Declarations were made permitting the clinicians to treat OT according to their clinical discretion (including not escalating treatment) and to cease ventilation immediately.	2009-05-21	2009 cases, Best interests, Brief summary, Transcript
Re OT (A Child) (2009) EWCA Civ 409 — The judge's refusal of the parents' adjournment application, and the decision to proceed with a determination of best interests of their child, was not appealable.	2009-05-18	2009 cases, Best interests, Brief summary, Transcript
R (Smith) v Secretary of State for Defence (2009) EWCA Civ 441 — (1) A British soldier who is on military service in Iraq is subject to the jurisdiction of the UK within the meaning of Article 1 of the Convention, so as to benefit from the rights guaranteed by the HRA while operating in Iraq, and not only when he is on a British military base or in a British hospital. (2) The inquest into the claimant's death must confirm with Article 2 standards in the scope of the investigation and nature of the verdict.	2009-05-18	2009 cases, Brief summary, Inquests, Transcript
R v Hughes (2009) EWCA Crim 841 — The court's power to entertain an appeal against sentence is not, as a matter purely of jurisdiction, removed by the fact that there has been an earlier reference of the sentence by the Attorney-General; however, in all but the wholly exceptional case, the applications for extension of time and for leave to appeal would be refused.	2009-05-15	2009 cases, Brief summary, Life sentence cases, Transcript
R (P) v Mersey Care NHS Trust (2003) EWHC 994 (Admin) — A Tribunal recommendation for transfer from high to medium security is an important input but is not determinative; the decision whether to use the s17 (leave) and s19 (transfer) powers is for the RC and hospital managers, subject to the consent of the Secretary of State; on the facts, the Article 8 interference was justified and a decision not to transfer was properly open to them.	2009-05-11	2003 cases, Brief summary, Ministry of Justice, Transcript
R (IR) v Dr Shetty (2003) EWHC 3022 (Admin) — Unsuccessful challenge, on Article 3 and 5 grounds, to RC's decision to recommend s47/49 patient's transfer back to prison and MoJ's decision to order it.	2009-05-11	2003 cases, Brief summary, Transcript
R (James) v SSJ (2009) UKHL 22 — (1) Following the introduction of IPP sentences, the Secretary of State was in breach of his public law duty to make reasonable provision to enable IPP prisoners (if necessary by completing treatment courses) to demonstrate to the Parole Board their safety for release. The appropriate remedy was declaratory relief condemning the Secretary of State's failures and indicating that he is obliged to do more. The systemic failure has ended (following amendments including making the IPP sentence generally available only when the notional minimum term is at least 2 years) so no further relief is appropriate. (2) In relation to post-tariff detention, the systemic failure did not: (a) make the detention unlawful (detention remains lawful under statute until Parole Board release); (b) breach Article 5(1) (causal link with objective of detention remained until Parole Board decision); or (c) breach Article 5(4) (which is concerned with procedure not substance) although cases with prior ..→	2009-05-06	2009 cases, Brief summary, Prison law cases, Transcript
Y (Sri Lanka) v SSHD (2009) EWCA Civ 362 — The appellants, who had been tortured as suspected terrorists or terrorist sympathisers before travelling from Sri Lanka to the UK, successfully resisted deportation on Article 3 grounds by claiming that they would commit suicide if returned (even though there was no objective foundation for any fear of ill-treatment).	2009-05-04	2009 cases, Brief summary, Repatriation cases, Transcript
Eastern and Coastal Kent PCT v Grey (2009) UKEAT 0454/08 — The Employment Tribunal erred as it ought to have considered (but did not consider properly) the requirements of section 4A(3)(b) of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 which means that an employer is exempt from the duty to make adjustments if each of four matters can be satisfied and they are that the employer: (a) does not know that the disabled person has a disability; (b) does not know that the disabled person is likely to be at a substantial disadvantage compared with persons who are not disabled; (c) could not reasonably be expected to know that the disabled person had a disability; and (d) could not reasonably be expected to know that the disabled person is likely to be placed at a substantial disadvantage in comparison with pers