Re-sectioning after hearing
The new database structure introduced in 2019 is more useful than this Category page: see Special:Drilldown/Cases.
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. Asterisks mark those cases which have been added to the new database structure.
|Case and summary||Date added||Categories|
|South Staffordshire and Shropshire Healthcare NHSFT v Hospital Managers of St George's Hospital  EWHC 1196 (Admin),  MHLO 17 — "This is an application for judicial review of a decision by an independent panel on 12 April 2016 to discharge the Interested Party, AU, from detention under the Mental Health Act 1983. It is brought by South Staffordshire and Shropshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust and Dr Whitworth (previously AU's responsible clinician). ... To put the case in general terms the claimants are concerned about the Panel's decision to discharge AU in the light of the views of the clinical team and also a decision of the First Tier Tribunal ... which decided on 10 March 2016 not to discharge him from detention. ... The judicial review raises an important point of principle as to the capacity of a body to seek judicial review of a decision which it could have made itself. In broad terms the Trust appointed the Panel and under the 1983 Act it exercised delegated powers. Because AU raised this point in his grounds, Warby J joined Dr Whitworth as a second claimant to the action on 4 May 2016 on the basis that, if the Trust could not seek judicial review, she could. If the Trust and Dr Whitworth can seek judicial review, the grounds they advance against the Panel's decision are, first, that it failed to treat the Tribunal's decision as a relevant consideration and, secondly, that the Panel's decision is irrational in light of the evidence available and the reasons it has given."||2016‑05‑22 22:45:03||2016 cases, Hospital managers hearings, ICLR summary, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Re-sectioning after hearing, Transcript
|R (Von Brandenburg) v Tower Hamlets Health Care NHS Trust  EWHC Admin 362 — Resectioning after Tribunal hearing.||2009‑04‑12 00:01:16||2000 cases, No summary, Re-sectioning after hearing, Transcript
|McGee, Re Judicial Review  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 00:56:58||2007 cases, Brief summary, Northern Irish cases, Re-sectioning after hearing, Transcript
|R (Care Principles Ltd) v MHRT; R (AL) v Care Principles Ltd  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 21:11:17||2006 cases, Detailed summary, Re-sectioning after hearing, Transcript
|R (Wey) v Pathfinder NHS Trust  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 18:36:17||1999 cases, Brief summary, MHLR summary, Other classification cases, Re-sectioning after hearing, Transcript
|R (Ashworth) v MHRT; R (H) v Ashworth  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 18:23:22||2002 cases, Brief summary, Re-sectioning after hearing, Transcript
|R (Ashworth) v MHRT; R (H) v Ashworth  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 18:22:26||2001 cases, Brief summary, Re-sectioning after hearing, Transcript
|R (von Brandenburg) v East London and City MH NHS Trust  EWCA Civ 239 — Resectioning after hearing.||2006‑04‑16 12:01:07||2001 cases, No summary, Re-sectioning after hearing, Transcript
|R (von Brandenburg) v East London and City MH NHS Trust  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 11:27:28||2003 cases, Brief summary, Re-sectioning after hearing, Transcript
The following 9 pages are in this category.
- R (Ashworth) v MHRT; R (H) v Ashworth (2001) EWHC Admin 901
- R (Ashworth) v MHRT; R (H) v Ashworth (2002) EWCA Civ 923
- R (Care Principles Ltd) v MHRT; R (AL) v Care Principles Ltd (2006) EWHC 3194 (Admin)
- R (von Brandenburg) v East London and City MH NHS Trust (2001) EWCA Civ 239
- R (von Brandenburg) v East London and City MH NHS Trust (2003) UKHL 58
- R (Von Brandenburg) v Tower Hamlets Health Care NHS Trust (2000) EWHC Admin 362
- R (Wey) v Pathfinder NHS Trust (1999) EWHC Admin 672