Category:Publicity
From Mental Health Law Online
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 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 | 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 | 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 | 2011 cases, First-tier Tribunal decisions, No summary, Publicity, 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 |
| 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 |
| 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 |
| R (T) v MHRT (2002) EWHC Admin 247 — Discretion to give MHRT decision/reasons to victim should have been considered. | 2007-02-06 | 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 | 2004 cases, Brief summary, Publicity, Transcript |
Article titles
The following 8 pages are in this category.