Category

Powers

The pages below are initially ordered according to the dates on which they were added to the site (most recent first). The order can be changed by clicking on the symbol beside a column heading: click on the symbol beside "Page and summary" for alphabetical order; click beside "Categories" for the order in which the cases were reported. Click on the arrow symbol again to reverse the order. Click on a page name to view the relevant page.
Page and summaryDate added to siteCategories
R (OK) v FTT [2017] UKUT 22 (AAC), [2017] MHLO 3 — The First-tier Tribunal's decision to strike out a case for want of jurisdiction (on the basis that the patient had lacked capacity to make the application) was upheld in these judicial review proceedings. (1) The solicitor had applied to the Tribunal under s66 in relation to a patient detained under s3. She then sought to be appointed under Tribunal rule 11(7)(b) as the client lacked capacity to represent himself. The tribunal panel found that "[i]t does not appear that the patient has the capacity to authorise anyone to make an application on his behalf and has not done so" and adjourned the hearing to allow the patient’s solicitors "to consider whether they agree that the application is invalid or provide reasons why they consider that it is valid." (2) The tribunal had not mentioned Tribunal rule 8 (Striking out a party’s case), but was in effect making a decision under it: the rule required the Tribunal to strike out proceedings where it "does not have ..→2017-01-272017 cases, Brief summary, Powers, Transcript
MM v WL Clinic [2015] UKUT 644 (AAC), [2015] MHLO 103 — (1) For the purposes of Article 5, a restricted patient with the capacity to do so can give a valid and effective consent to conditions of a conditional discharge that when implemented will, on an objective assessment, create a deprivation of liberty. (2) In determining whether to discharge conditionally, the tribunal has to consider whether the consent is freely given and (as raised in KC at [134-139]) consider any practical problems arising from the ability to withdraw consent. (3) MM's case was remitted to the First-tier Tribunal with a direction that it apply the decisions in KC and this case. 2015-11-262015 cases, Brief summary, Deprivation of liberty, MHLR summary, Powers, Transcript, Upper Tribunal decisions
NL v Hampshire CC [2014] UKUT 475 (AAC), [2014] MHLO 107 — The patient was deprived of his liberty and appealed against the tribunal's refusal to exercise its discretion to discharge him from guardianship. (1) Upper Tribunal Judge Jacobs stated that the cause of deprivation of liberty was the care plan, not the guardianship, adding in relation to guardianship powers generally: "I find it difficult to imagine a case that could realistically arise in which those basic powers could be used in a way that would satisfy the conditions for deprivation of liberty." (2) He dismissed the appeal on the ground that the guardianship did not give rise to a deprivation of liberty and the tribunal was not obliged to exercise its discretion to discharge the patient. (3) The approach to discretionary discharge in the GA case (relating to CTOs) was equally relevant to guardianship or detention: "it is difficult to imagine a case in which the tribunal could properly exercise its discretion to discharge without there being appropriate safeguards to ensure the ..→2014-11-042014 cases, Deprivation of liberty, Detailed summary, Powers, Transcript, Upper Tribunal decisions
AM v West London MH NHS Trust [2013] EWCA Civ 1010, [2013] MHLO 73 — The tribunal twice refused to adjourn in circumstances where there was relatively little in the social circumstances report about aftercare on discharge, the author of the report did not attend the hearing, and the social worker who did attend could not provide any further relevant information. The Upper Tribunal decided that this 'did not affect the tribunal’s ability to give Mr M a fair hearing and to deal with his case fairly and justly' and that the patient 'had not yet progressed to the point where the issue of aftercare that was actually available would arise'. The Court of Appeal refused permission to appeal. 2013-08-102013 cases, Brief summary, Missing from Bailii, Powers, Transcript
GA v Betsi Cadwaladr University Local Health Board [2013] UKUT 280 (AAC), [2013] MHLO 50 — (1) Although the patient argued that he was not giving true consent to depot medication on a CTO, the tribunal decided that he was in fact consenting (this finding was not addressed on appeal). (2) If the tribunal have found that the statutory criteria are met (in CTO cases, effectively that the patient requires treatment and should be subject to recall), then, before granting a discretionary discharge, the tribunal must be satisfied that the identified needs for treatment and protection can be properly catered for, as otherwise the decision would be self-contradictory and perverse. [A more detailed summary is available on the case page.] 2013-07-042013 cases, Detailed summary, MHLR summary, Powers, Transcript, Upper Tribunal decisions
EC v Birmingham and Solihull Mental Health NHS Trust [2013] EWCA Civ 701, [2013] MHLO 47 — The appellant restricted patients had sought extra-statutory recommendations, in relation to leave and transfer, but the First-tier Tribunal had refused, without hearing evidence, to make recommendations. (1) The parliamentary answer in relation to extra-statutory recommendations given by a Home Office minister on 28/10/87, and the fact that recommendations had been made and considered in the past, did not give rise to a legitimate expectation that the tribunal would entertain submissions that a recommendation should be made. (2) If the FTT had been faced with the contention that leave or transfer were necessary or available parts of the patient's treatment (in relation to the test in s72(1)(b)(iia)) it would have had to consider it, but in these cases it had not been. [Summary based on Lawtel and All ER (D) reports.] 2013-05-122013 cases, Brief summary, MHLR summary, No transcript, Powers
AC v Partnerships in Care Ltd [2012] UKUT 450 (AAC), [2012] MHLO 163 — AC appealed against the tribunal's rejection of his application for a notification under s74 that, if subject to a s37/41 hospital order rather than a s47/49 prison transfer direction, he would be entitled to a conditional discharge. (1) The tribunal failed to explain why it rejected Dr Kahtan's independent evidence which supported discharge: (a) although it stated that the RC had more experience of the patient, this is not of itself a reason for preferring evidence but rather is the background to almost every case, and it does not always follow that greater knowledge means greater insight; (b) the tribunal's criticisms of Dr Kahtan's evidence on the link between the index offences and AC's mental state did not necessarily undermine his views on discharge. (2) The tribunal was right not to consider the conditions which might be imposed by the Parole Board (and any consequent diminution of risk on release) and only to consider conditions possible with a conditional discharge: (a) the ..→2013-01-232012 cases, Brief summary, Powers, Transcript, Upper Tribunal decisions
AM v West London MH NHS Trust [2012] UKUT 382 (AAC), [2012] MHLO 139 — The tribunal twice refused to adjourn in circumstances where there was relatively little in the social circumstances report about aftercare on discharge, the author of the report did not attend the hearing, and the social worker who did attend could not provide any further relevant information. The Upper Tribunal decided that this 'did not affect the tribunal’s ability to give Mr M a fair hearing and to deal with his case fairly and justly' and that the patient 'had not yet progressed to the point where the issue of aftercare that was actually available would arise'. 2012-12-192012 cases, Brief summary, Powers, Transcript, Upper Tribunal decisions
CNWL NHS Foundation Trust v HJ-H [2012] UKUT 210 (AAC), [2012] MHLO 88 — The tribunal granted discharge from a CTO, deferred for 3 months, expressing the hope that in the meantime the RC would consider reducing the level of the patient's medication. The Trust appealed. (1) The challenge to the decision to discharge was essentially an attempt to re-argue the tribunal’s assessment of the evidence, and was therefore unsuccessful. In deciding on whether there is an error of law, the UT must respect the FTT's assessment of the evidence and fact-finding role (provided this was carried out rationally and explained): (a) the UT's statutory jurisdiction is limited to points of law; (b) the expert composition of the FTT means its fact-finding is worthy of such respect. (2) The challenge to the deferral also failed, as there was no evidence that the tribunal had misdirected itself by granting the deferral with the intention that that the patient's medication could be reduced in order to make her ready for discharge on a future date. (3) If the FTT's reasons for ..→2012-09-242012 cases, Brief summary, Powers, Transcript, Upper Tribunal decisions
DC v Nottinghamshire Healthcare NHS Trust [2012] UKUT 92 (AAC), [2012] MHLO 53 — (1) The tribunal cannot grant a deferred conditional discharge until (a) it has found, on the balance of probabilities, that the patient should not be detained but should be subject to recall, and (b) it has drafted the conditions for the discharge. (2) A deferred conditional discharge is not a device for gathering information on whether a conditional discharge would be possible or what conditions might be appropriate. (3) On the facts (where the tribunal had decided that 'with the exception of the availability of suitable after-care for the Patient, none of the criteria for his detention in hospital for treatment are met' but had not drafted conditions) the decision to adjourn was correct. 2012-05-202012 cases, Brief summary, Powers, Transcript, Upper Tribunal decisions
R v Nottingham MHRT, ex p Secretary of State for the Home Department (Thomas) [1988] MHLO 1 — The Tribunal has no power to adjourn to give an opportunity for the patient's condition to improve or to see if an improvement already made is sustained. 2012-02-091988 cases, Brief summary, No transcript, Powers
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. 2011-04-302011 cases, Brief summary, Powers, Transcript, Upper Tribunal decisions
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 simultaneously 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 ..→2011-03-302011 cases, Brief summary, Powers, Transcript, Upper Tribunal decisions
Grant v MHRT (1986) The Times 28/4/86 — The Tribunal has no power to make statutory recommendations under s72(3) in restricted cases. 2010-10-111986 cases, Brief summary, No transcript, Powers
R (Moyle) v London South and South West Region MHRT (1999) MHLR 195 — A Tribunal is not acting in an appellate or review jurisdiction, but exercising an original jurisdiction in which it forms an evaluative judgment as to whether the criteria for discharge are made out; as such, it may disagree with the evidence in front of it. When the illness is one that will relapse in the absence of medication, the appropriateness of liability to detention depends on an assessment of the probability of relapse in the near future. (At the time, the test for discharge placed the burden of proof on the patient and so the patient had to show that there was no probability of relapse to demonstrate that the nature of the illness did not justify detention; it was also held that the admission criteria had to be considered, but in the context of the burden of proof being reversed. Its conclusion that the admission criteria were not relevant meant that there was an error of law that led to the decision being quashed.) [MHLR.] 2010-02-261999 cases, Brief summary, MHLR summary, No transcript, Powers
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. 2009-06-142009 cases, Brief summary, Powers, Scottish cases, Transcript
R (Epsom and St Helier NHS Trust) v MHRT [2001] EWHC Admin 101 — While the matter has to be looked at in the round, including the prospect of future in-patient treatment, there will come a time when, even though it is certain that treatment will be required at some stage in the future, the timing of that treatment is so uncertain that it is no longer "appropriate" for the patient to continue to be liable to detention. The application for judicial review against the MHRT's decision to discharge from s3 failed. 2009-04-192001 cases, Brief summary, Powers, Transcript
R (Abu-Rideh) v MHRT [2004] EWHC 1999 (Admin) — The claimant was a foreign national detained under the Immigration Act 1971 as a suspected terrorist, then transferred to hospital under s48/49 MHA 1983; the MHRT proceeded on the basis that the only realistic alternative was return to prison, where he would relapse; he argued that the MHRT ought to have considered the question of discharge by reference to discharge into the community, even though this was an impossibility; the Tribunal had been correct in their approach. 2009-04-122004 cases, Brief summary, Powers, Transcript
R (SSHD) v MHRT, re MW [2000] EWHC 638 (Admin) — S78 allows Tribunal rules to be made to give the Tribunal such powers as are necessary for the purposes of the exercise of their statutory functions; the old MHRT rules were made under this section; the MHA does not give the Tribunal any power to make recommendations in the case of a restricted patient; therefore, the Tribunal could not lawfully adjourn for information relating solely to the making of an extra-statutory recommendation. 2009-04-112000 cases, Brief summary, Powers, Transcript
X v UK 7215/75 [1981] ECHR 6 — (1) Under Article 5(1), the recall to hospital without the usual Winterwerp guarantees was lawful as it was an emergency; the further detention followed examination by the RMO so was also lawful; (2) Habeas corpus proceedings were inadequate for Article 5(4) purposes; the other legal machinery did not remedy this breach, in particular because the MHRT could not order discharge of restricted patients. 2009-04-101981 cases, Brief summary, ECHR, Powers, Transcript
Dorset Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust v MH [2009] UKUT 4 (AAC) — The responsible authority appealed against the Tribunal's interlocutory decision to direct disclosure of medical records, including third-party information, to the patient's solicitor; having agreed it had jurisdiction, the Upper Tribunal made no order on the appeal, as the patient had by that time been placed on a CTO; however, detailed guidance was given as to the proper approach where either the responsible authority resists disclosure of confidential third-party information or the solicitor wishes to disclose such information to his client. Guidance was also given on the status of a decision by a three-judge panel of the Administrative Appeals Chamber. 2009-01-152009 cases, Brief summary, Powers, Transcript, Upper Tribunal decisions
X, Re Judicial Review (2009) NIQB 2 — Based on the general legislative purpose underlying Article 77(2) Mental Health (NI) Order 1986 and the constitutional principle in favour of liberty, the MHRT in Northern Ireland does not have the power to direct the discharge of an unrestricted patient at a future date where there is a mandatory duty to discharge the patient; a deferred discharge is only lawful for a discretionary discharge 2009-01-112009 cases, Brief summary, Northern Irish cases, Powers, Transcript
R (X) v MHRT [2003] EWHC 1272 (Admin) — Adjournment. 2008-09-122003 cases, No summary, Powers, Transcript
R (MP) v Nottingham Healthcare NHS Trust [2003] EWHC 1782 (Admin) — Tribunal powers with respect to restricted patients. 2008-09-122003 cases, No summary, Powers, Transcript
R (B) v MHRT [2003] EWHC 815 (Admin) — It is lawful to defer discharge in dangerous criterion cases where the deferral is relevant to considerations of dangerousness 2007-09-162003 cases, Detailed summary, Powers, Transcript
R (O) v MHRT [2006] EWHC 2659 (Admin) — Patient can withdraw application between unfulfilled s72(3) recommendation and reconvened hearing. [Caution.] 2006-10-252006 cases, Detailed summary, Powers, Transcript
R (Hempstock) v MHRT [1997] EWHC Admin 664 — Tribunal have same powers when reconvening after unfulfilled recommendations as at original hearing. 2006-04-161997 cases, Brief summary, Powers, Transcript

Article titles

The following 27 pages are in this category.