Category

Publicity

Case and summary Date added Categories
Re Jared Britton [2013] MHLO 146 (FTT)Extract from decision: "In a decision given on 26 September 2011, the application by Mr Jared Britton that his application dated 4th September 2009 should be held in public was granted. The fact of this decision should be published. The reasons for the decision must not to be made public. An open hearing is now listed at Liverpool Crown Court on Wednesday 3rd April 2013 for an all day hearing starting at 10.30am." 2014‑07‑17 22:11:11 2013 cases, Brief summary, First-tier Tribunal decisions, Publicity, Transcript


Re Ian Brady [2013] MHLO 89 (FTT)After a public hearing the tribunal issued a notice on 28/6/13 that: 'Mr Ian Stewart Brady continues to suffer from a mental disorder which is of a nature and degree which makes it appropriate for him to continue to receive medical treatment and that it is necessary for his health and safety and for the protection of other persons that he should receive such treatment in hospital and that appropriate medical treatment is available for him.' The full reasons, dated 11/12/13, were published on 24/1/14: (1) When deciding to hold a public hearing the tribunal had concluded that it was not satisfied that Ian Brady suffered from schizophrenia but, in reaching the opposite conclusion when considering the detention criteria, it did not consider itself bound by its previous finding of fact. (2) The tribunal set out at length the reasons for concluding that the detention criteria were met in this case. 2013‑09‑14 20:43:40 2013 cases, Brief summary, First-tier Tribunal decisions, No transcript, Publicity


Re Ian Brady [2012] MHLO 145 (FTT)The tribunal's decision is as follows: "The hearing in public of the application by Mr Ian Brady has been re-listed for Monday 17/6/13. The arrangements for the hearing will be the same as those made for the hearing which had to be adjourned last July namely that the Tribunal will hear the case at Ashworth Hospital and it will be relayed to the Civil Justice Centre Manchester for members of the public and press to watch the proceedings. The precise details of those arrangements will be published as soon as possible." 2012‑12‑20 02:04:25 2012 cases, Detailed summary, First-tier Tribunal decisions, Publicity, Transcript


Re Ian Brady [2012] MHLO 76 (FTT)The tribunal hearing was adjourned from 9/7/12, to a date to be fixed, because of the patient's (physical) medical condition. 2012‑08‑17 14:13:00 2012 cases, Brief summary, First-tier Tribunal decisions, Publicity, Transcript


Re Ian Brady [2012] MHLO 75 (FTT)The media's request for one or more representatives to be present in the tribunal room at Ashworth was refused. 2012‑08‑17 14:05:31 2012 cases, Brief summary, First-tier Tribunal decisions, Publicity, Transcript


Re Ian Brady [2012] MHLO 19 (FTT)(1) Ian Brady's Mental Health Tribunal hearing will be held on 9/7/12 with a time estimate of 8 days; (2) the hearing at Ashworth will be broadcast at the Civil Justice Centre Manchester where the public and media can observe; (3) in relation to the hearing itself, the public will not be allowed to attend, and the position of the media will be the subject of further directions. 2012‑03‑12 23:08:05 2012 cases, Brief summary, First-tier Tribunal decisions, Publicity, Transcript


Re Albert Haines (2011) First-tier Tribunal 18/10/11 — These are the First-tier Tribunal's reasons for directing that the reasons for its decision not to discharge Albert Haines should be published. [Summary required.] 2011‑12‑10 11:04:33 2011 cases, First-tier Tribunal decisions, No summary, Publicity, Transcript


Re Albert Haines (2011) First-tier Tribunal 30/9/11 — These are the First-tier Tribunal's reasons for not discharging Albert Haines from liability to be detained. [Summary required.] 2011‑12‑10 11:01:50 2011 cases, First-tier Tribunal decisions, No summary, Publicity, Transcript


Re Ian Brady (2011) First-tier Tribunal 7/12/11In 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 10:47:51 2011 cases, Brief summary, First-tier Tribunal decisions, Publicity, Transcript


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 practically and proportionately be achieved will depend on the facts of each individual case, including the hospital's facilities. (4) The Tribunal directed that AH was to have a public hearing, not within Broadmoor hospital, with the press, public, AH and his representatives enabled to attend in person in the same hearing room. (5) It was likely that in future cases, if detailed evidence of how video-link and public-notification arrangements would work in practice is provided, that a video-link to off-site premises would suffice. 2011‑03‑07 20:41:21 2011 cases, Brief summary, Publicity, Transcript, Upper Tribunal decisions


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 (including by use of video facilities); (b) how often public hearings have been applied for in the last five years, the number of occasions on which they have been granted and in practice been held, and how they have been managed; (c) (so far as readily available) practices elsewhere in the United Kingdom, in Europe, and in other common law countries. 2010‑08‑16 22:00:40 2010 cases, Brief summary, Publicity, Transcript, Upper Tribunal decisions


R (T) v MHRT [2002] EWHC Admin 247Discretion to give MHRT decision/reasons to victim should have been considered. 2007‑02‑06 18:19:21 2002 cases, Brief summary, Publicity, Transcript


R (Mersey Care NHS Trust) v MHRT, re Brady [2004] EWHC 1749 (Admin)Tribunal decision to allow public hearing was flawed. 2006‑04‑15 20:08:03 2004 cases, Brief summary, Publicity, Transcript