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
|R (Von Brandenburg) v Tower Hamlets Health Care NHS Trust (2000) EWHC Admin 362 — Resectioning after Tribunal hearing.
||2009-04-12||2000 cases, No summary, Re-sectioning after hearing, Transcript|
|McGee, Re Judicial Review (2007) NICA 38 — The detention of the claimant under Article 7 of the Mental Health (NI) Order 1986 (similar to s5(2) MHA 1983) following a MHRT decision to discharge was lawful: (1) the authorities had formed the bona fide opinion that his mental state had since deteriorated; (2) Article 7 applied since the claimant had not divested himself of his in-patient status.
||2008-02-23||2007 cases, Brief summary, Northern Irish cases, Re-sectioning after hearing, Transcript|
|R (Care Principles Ltd) v MHRT; R (AL) v Care Principles Ltd (2006) EWHC 3194 (Admin) — The MHRT's decision to discharge from s2 was not flawed; the subsequent decision to re-detain under s3 was unjustified and unlawful.
||2008-02-22||2006 cases, Detailed summary, Re-sectioning after hearing, Transcript|
|R (Wey) v Pathfinder NHS Trust (1999) EWHC Admin 672 — When the Tribunal has decided on classification, the RMO cannot subsequently reclassify unless there is some change in circumstance of a significant kind which would enable a tribunal to take a different view if the matter were referred to them again. The remedy to the doctor and to the Trust would instead be to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Tribunal
||2007-02-06||1999 cases, Brief summary, Other classification cases, Re-sectioning after hearing, Transcript|
|R (Ashworth) v MHRT; R (H) v Ashworth (2002) EWCA Civ 923 — Appeal on MHRT decision dismissed; appeal on re-sectioning allowed. In a case where the availability of suitable after-care services is a pre-requisite for the discharge criteria to be met, but the Tribunal is in any doubt as to its availability, the Tribunal should adjourn rather than defer discharge to a future date.
||2007-02-06||2002 cases, Brief summary, Re-sectioning after hearing, Transcript|
|R (Ashworth) v MHRT; R (H) v Ashworth (2001) EWHC Admin 901 — JR of MHRT discharge: immediate discharge when no aftercare available; decision irrational; reasons inadequate. JR of subsequent re-sectioning: lawful, considering Brandenburg CA decision; legal advice on lawfulness of MHRT decision relevant; stay ineffective when discharge was immediate.
||2007-02-06||2001 cases, Brief summary, Re-sectioning after hearing, Transcript|
|R (von Brandenburg) v East London and City MH NHS Trust (2001) EWCA Civ 239 — Resectioning after hearing.
||2006-04-16||2001 cases, No summary, Re-sectioning after hearing, Transcript|
|R (von Brandenburg) v East London and City MH NHS Trust (2003) UKHL 58 — An ASW may not lawfully apply for the admission of a patient whose discharge has been ordered by the decision of a mental health review tribunal of which the ASW is aware unless the ASW has formed the reasonable and bona fide opinion that he has information not known to the tribunal which puts a significantly different complexion on the case as compared with that which was before the tribunal.
||2006-04-16||2003 cases, Brief summary, Re-sectioning after hearing, Transcript|
The following 8 pages are in this category.