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 M (2011) EWHC 3590 (COP) — Under MCA 2005 s63 and schedule 3, which incorporates the Hague Convention on the International Protection of Adults 2000 into domestic law, the High Court recognised and gave effect to an order of the Southern Irish High Court which required M's transfer to and treatment at an English psychiatric hospital.	2012-02-04	2011 cases, Brief summary, Other capacity cases, Transcript
Wychavon District Council v EM (HB) (2012) UKUT 12 (AAC), (2012) MHLO 5 — The UT judge reviewed his previous decision because he had overlooked a legislative provision which could have had a material effect on the decision: in this case MCA 2005 s7, which provides that 'If necessary goods or services are supplied to a person who lacks capacity to contract for the supply, he must pay a reasonable price for them.' (1) Although the purported tenancy agreement between P and her father was void because the lack of capacity was known, under s7 P was still 'liable to make payments in respect of the dwelling which she occupies as her home' so she was entitled to benefits under the Housing Benefits Regulations 2006. (2) Even if 'services' in s7 is not wide enough to cover the provision of accommodation, the common law rules as to necessaries survive and the provision of accommodation is an obvious necessary.	2012-02-04	2012 cases, Brief summary, Other capacity cases, Transcript
Re JDS; Kevin Smyth v JDS (2012) COP 19334473 19/1/12, (2012) MHLO 4 — "This is an application for a gift to be made to the parents of a young man who has been awarded damages for clinical negligence. The purpose of the gift is to reduce the amount of Inheritance Tax that they may have to pay on his death." [Summary to follow.]	2012-01-27	2012 cases, Best interests, No summary, Transcript
Re H; A Local Authority v H (2012) EWHC 49 (COP), (2012) MHLO 3 — "On 15 December 2011 I made an order declaring H’s incapacity in many respects and making best interests declarations as to her future care. In particular I made an order declaring that H lacked capacity to consent to sexual relations and a consequential order to protect her best interests which was very restrictive and undoubtedly amounts to the deprivation of liberty. In those circumstances I reserved my reasons for making these orders with a view to handing them down without the need for attendance of any party. This I now do." [Summary to follow.]	2012-01-27	2012 cases, Capacity to consent to sexual relations, No summary, Other capacity cases, Transcript
DM v Doncaster MBC (2011) EWHC 3652 (Admin) — DM sought to avoid the care home fees for her husband FM who was subject to the deprivation of liberty safeguards: the main argument was that the s22 National Assistance Act 1948 charging provision did not apply because the DOLS created a duty to accommodate within the meaning of s21(8). The court held that: (1) the MCA 2005 did not create either a duty or power to accommodate FM; (2) FM fell within the terms of s21 NAA and was not excluded from its scope by the operation of s21(8); (3) s3 HRA 1998 gave no reason to read down s21(8) to reach any other conclusion; (4) FM's accommodation had thus to be paid for by him or on his behalf, in accordance with s22 and regulations made under it; (5) this is not discriminatory upon an application of Article 14 read with Article 1 of Protocol 1 (FM was not materially in the same position as those who receive after-care under s117 MHA and the State would in any event have offered sufficient justification for the result); (6) ..→	2012-01-22	2011 cases, Brief summary, Other capacity cases, Transcript
The People (at the suit of the Director of Public Prosecutions) v McMahon (2011) IECCA 94 — The Southern Irish DPP appealed an 11.5-year sentence and invited the Criminal Court of Appeal to impose a life sentence as a form of preventive detention (akin to the English IPP sentence). The court held: 'The protection of the public is an appropriate factor in the exercise of the sentencing function, but it cannot be extracted from that function to create a self-standing judicially created jurisdiction to impose a form of preventive detention. Whether sentencing courts should have the power to order the detention of individuals deemed to posed an immediate threat to the public, over and beyond any appropriate sentence for the crime committed, is a matter which should be addressed in the first place by detailed legislation by the Oireachtas after appropriate research and debate, and subject to Constitutional and Convention review if appropriate.'	2012-01-20	2011 cases, Brief summary, Southern Irish cases, Transcript
R v Clinton (2012) EWCA Crim 2, (2012) MHLO 2 — In the new 'loss of control' partial defence to murder, which replaces the provocation defence, when determining whether a loss of self-control had a 'qualifying trigger' (as set out in s55(3) and (4) Coroners and Justice Act 2009) 'the fact that a thing done or said constituted sexual infidelity is to be disregarded' (s55(6)(c)). The Court of Appeal held that where sexual infidelity is integral to and forms an essential part of the context in which to make a just evaluation whether a qualifying trigger properly falls within the ambit of subsections 55(3) and (4), the prohibition in section 55(6)(c) does not operate to exclude it.	2012-01-17	2012 cases, Brief summary, Other criminal law cases, Transcript
Stanev v Bulgaria 36760/06 (2012) ECHR 46, (2012) MHLO 1 — (1) The applicant's placement in a social care home for people with mental disorders and his inability to obtain permission to leave the home led to breaches of Article 5(1), (4) and (5). (2) The living conditions in the home led to breaches of Article 3, and of Article 13 in conjunction with Article 3. (3) The lack of access to a court to seek release from partial guardianship breached Article 6(1). (4) No separate issue arose under Article 8 so it was unnecessary to examine that complaint. (5) Compensation of €15,000 was awarded.	2012-01-17	2012 cases, Brief summary, ECHR, ECHR deprivation of liberty cases, Other capacity cases, Transcript
Re AH (Costs); AH v Hertfordshire Partnership NHS Foundation Trust (2011) EWHC 3524 (COP) — The relevant respondents were ordered to pay the costs of the nine applicants in this welfare case: (1) half the costs between issue of proceedings and settlement or final hearing, and (2) full costs of the costs application. The judge concluded: 'The conclusion I have reached in this case represents a partial departure from the general rule that there should be no order for costs. It is a case where there has been no bad faith or flagrant misconduct, but there has been substandard practice and a failure by the public bodies to recognise the weakness of their own cases and the strength of the cases against them. In such circumstances they cannot invoke Rule 157 at the expense of others.'	2012-01-12	2011 cases, Brief summary, COP costs cases, Transcript
Re C; C v Blackburn and Darwen Borough Council (2011) EWHC 3321 (COP) — C was subject both to guardianship and the DOLS regime at a care home: (1) he was not ineligible for DOLS; (2) he was not deprived of his liberty, so the authorisation was set aside; (3) the authorisation had been lawful albeit perfunctory; (4) the restrictions were necessary; (5) the COP cannot decide on residence when a guardianship residence requirement remains in effect; (6) even if it could, it would only do so in exceptional circumstances; (7) the local authority was invited to reconsider the appropriateness of guardianship.	2012-01-05	2011 cases, Detailed summary, Other capacity cases, Transcript
Ms B v An NHS Hospital Trust (2002) EWHC 429 (Fam) — "The Claimant, whom I shall call Ms B, seeks declarations from the High Court in its exercise of the inherent jurisdiction. She claims that the invasive treatment which is currently being given by the respondent by way of artificial ventilation is an unlawful trespass. The respondent is the NHS Hospital Trust (the Trust) responsible for the hospital which is currently caring for Ms B, (the Hospital). At the request of the court the Official Solicitor instructed Mr Peter Jackson QC to act as Advocate to the Court. The main issue is whether Ms B has the capacity to make her own decision about her treatment in hospital. Underlying this important issue is the tragic story of an able and talented woman of 43 who has suffered a devastating illness which has caused her to become tetraplegic and whose expressed wish is not to be kept artificially alive by the use of a ventilator." [Paras 1 and 2 of judgment.]	2012-01-05	2002 cases, No summary, Other capacity cases, Transcript
Re Steven Neary; LB Hillingdon v Steven Neary (2011) EWHC 3522 (COP) — (1) Each application for costs must be considered on its own merit: the previous cases were illustrative only and provided no guidance on the Rules. (2) The judge departed from the general rule in welfare cases (that each party bears his own costs) as this was not a typical case: Hillingdon's actions were significantly unreasonable in relation to the illegality of its actions, its disorganised decision-making, the lack of a proper best interests assessment, its uncooperative attitude to Stephen's father, its delay in referring the matter to the court (thereby increasing costs), and its attempt to defend its actions to the end, both in court and in the media. (3) Hillingdon were ordered to pay the OS's costs from the date of issue to the conclusion of the main hearing in May 2011 but not (a) costs in relation to the press issue, which raised issues of general public importance, or (b) costs following the main hearing, during which Hilingdon adopted a cooperative stance. (4) The ..→	2012-01-04	2011 cases, Brief summary, COP costs cases, Transcript
DP v Hywel DDA Health Board (2011) UKUT 381 (AAC) — WP's order for his son DP's discharge was barred by the Responsible Clinician; WP was then advised by the responsible authority that he was not the nearest relative, and that therefore his order and the barring report were of no effect; on this basis the Tribunal rejected WP's subsequent application. DP appealed. (1) The judge treated the barring report as having been withdrawn (rather than never having been valid): because there was no report, the Tribunal had no jurisdiction, so it had been correct to reject the application. (2) If the barring report had not been withdrawn, the question would have been whether a nearest-relative application made by a non-nearest-relative can be rejected: this was left undecided (despite the clear wording of s66).	2012-01-03	2011 cases, Brief summary, Other NR cases, Transcript, Upper Tribunal decisions
Re VW; NK v VW (2011) COP 27/10/10 11744555 — NK sought (a) to have his mother VW removed from a care home (where she was detained under a DOLS authorisation) and placed in one more local to him, and consequently (b) to have more frequent contact than permitted by the current DOLS authorisation and (c) to be appointed welfare and financial deputy. He was refused permission to make his applications, because of medical evidence that to move VW would be detrimental to her welfare.	2012-01-02	2010 cases, Best interests, Brief summary, Transcript
SSJ v RB (2011) EWCA Civ 1608 — The Mental Health Tribunal may not grant a conditional discharge in circumstances where the conditions would inevitably lead to an Article 5 deprivation of liberty.	2011-12-31	2011 cases, Brief summary, Deprivation of liberty, Discharge conditions, Transcript
R v Weekes (1999) EWCA Crim 1225 — Restricted hospital order given on appeal, instead of life imprisonment.	2011-12-18	1999 cases, Brief summary, Life sentence cases, Transcript
Cardiff Council v Peggy Ross (2011) COP 28/10/11 12063905 — Cardiff Council used the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards to prevent an elderly couple going on holiday cruise; the court decided that it was in the respondent's best interests to go on the cruise, and gave permission for ITV Wales to report that decision and broadcast interviews; later the court decided that the respondent herself had capacity to decide whether or not to go.	2011-12-10	2011 cases, Best interests, Brief summary, Transcript
Black v MHTS (2011) CSIH 83 — 'What remedy, if any, is available to a curator ad litem appointed to represent the interests of a patient in proceedings before the Mental Health Tribunal for Scotland, in the event that the Tribunal acts unlawfully or unfairly or exercises its discretion in an unreasonable manner? That is the question which lies at the heart of the present appeal, which was remitted to this court by the Sheriff Principal of Grampian, Highlands and Islands.' [Summary required.]	2011-12-10	2011 cases, No summary, Scottish cases, Transcript
SSWP v Slavin (2011) EWCA Civ 1515 — 'The respondent is resident in a specialist care home for people with autistic spectrum disorders and similar conditions. The cost of his accommodation is paid for by the National Health Service. The home is registered as a care home, not a nursing home. Its staff are trained to meet the needs of residents but do not have any medical or nursing qualifications. The specific issue in the appeal is whether the respondent is "maintained free of charge while undergoing medical or other treatment as an in-patient … in a hospital or similar institution under [the National Health Service Act 2006]", within the meaning of reg. 12A of the Social Security (Disability Living Allowance) Regulations 1991, so as to be disentitled to receipt of the mobility component of disability living allowance for which he was a claimant.' [Summary required.]	2011-12-10	2011 cases, No summary, Transcript, Welfare benefits cases
Re S (Adult Patient) (Inherent Jurisdiction: Family Life); Sheffield City Council v S (2002) EWHC 2278 (Fam) — Dispute between a local authority and S‘s father, DS, as to where S should live: prior to the events which precipitated the proceedings, S had always lived at home with DS. [Summary required.]	2011-12-10	2002 cases, Best interests, No summary, Transcript
Scottish Ministers v MHTS (2011) CSIH 76 — The Scottish Ministers challenged revocation by a Mental Health Tribunal of a restriction order affecting a patient suffering from paranoid schizophrenia and living in the community, and successfully argued that the compulsion order and restriction order should remain in force until the final hearing.	2011-12-10	2011 cases, Brief summary, Scottish cases, Transcript
R (AK) v SSHD (2011) EWHC 3188 (Admin) — Immigration case with mental health element. [Summary required.]	2011-12-10	2011 cases, No summary, Repatriation cases, 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
Re RK; RK v BCC (2011) EWCA Civ 1305 — (1) An adult in the exercise of parental responsibility may impose, or may authorise others to impose, restrictions on the liberty of the child. However restrictions so imposed must not in their totality amount to detention. Detention engages the Article 5 rights of the child and a parent may not lawfully detain or authorise the detention of a child. (2) The restrictions authorised by RK's parents did not amount to deprivation of liberty: they were no more than what was reasonably required to protect RK from harming herself or others within her range.	2011-12-08	2011 cases, Deprivation of liberty, Detailed summary, Transcript
Re AB; AB v LCC (A Local Authority) (2011) EWHC 3151 (COP) — There is no impediment to a RPR acting as a litigation friend to P in a s21A application provided that: (i) the RPR is not already a party to the proceedings; (ii) the RPR fulfils the COP rule 140 conditions (that he can fairly and competently conduct proceedings on behalf of P, and has no interests adverse to P's); (iii) the RPR can and is willing to act as litigation friend in P's best interests; and (iv) the procedure as set out in COP rule 143 is complied with. The judge set out the pros and cons of this course of action; in this case, he appointed the RPR to as P's litigation friend.	2011-12-08	2011 cases, Brief summary, Other capacity cases, Transcript
R (Baisden) v Leicester City Council (2011) EWHC 3219 (Admin) — Section 117 and accommodation. [Summary required.]	2011-12-08	2011 cases, After-care, No summary, Transcript
Re RB (Adult); A London Borough v RB (Adult) (No 1) (2010) EWHC 2423 (Fam) — This case under the inherent jurisdiction concerned RB's best interests in relation to residence and contact. Of the 16 issues considered by the judge, he found for RB's partner MF in relation to one sub-issue (which was a 'saddening example of the institutional inability of some bureaucracies ever to admit that something has gone wrong') but against him in relation to all others (most of which were MF's unfounded criticisms of almost everybody involved in the case: the judge's own criticisms of Dr Kahtan and the MP are worth reading). Had she not died during the hearing, it would have been, given MF's inability to cooperate with any community care package, in RB's best interests to continue residing at the care home.	2011-12-03	2011 cases, Brief summary, Other capacity cases, Transcript
Re RB (Adult); A London Borough v RB (Adult) (No 2) (2011) EWHC 112 (Fam) — MF's applications for permission to appeal and for a re-trial were refused as being devoid of merit.	2011-12-03	2011 cases, Brief summary, Other capacity cases, Transcript
Re RB (Adult); A London Borough v RB (Adult) (No 3) (2011) EWHC 2576 (Fam) — (1) MF's claim for compensation was dismissed as it had no factual foundation; it also had no legal basis. (2) MF sought costs from the local authority; the Official Solicitor sought costs against MF (from a certain date) and the local authority (to the extent that costs were increased by their stance): there was no order for costs, except that MF was to pay 20% of the Official Solicitor's costs between certain dates, to reflect the time spent on the peripheral issues which MF had raised and the 'extravagant, strident and on occasions vicious way in which he chose to pursue them'.	2011-12-03	2011 cases, Brief summary, COP costs cases, Other capacity cases, Transcript
Hossack v Legal Services Commission (2011) EWHC 2700 (Admin) — Unsuccessful judicial review of a decision of the LSC rejecting the claimant's tender for the provision of legal services in the field of community care following a competitive tendering exercise in 2010.	2011-11-26	2011 cases, Brief summary, Miscellaneous, Transcript
Hadzic and Suljic v Bosnia Herzegovina 39446/06 (2011) ECHR 911 — The applicants had been detained for several years in a prison 'Psychiatric Annex' which was an inappropriate institution for the detention of mental health patients, in breach of Article 5(1); the applicants were awarded compensation of €15,000 and €25,000 respectively.	2011-11-26	2011 cases, Brief summary, Deprivation of liberty, ECHR, Transcript
Re DC (Judicial Review) (2011) CSOH 193 — Various questions of Scots law arose in this judicial review claim for damages for unlawful detention. [Summary required.]	2011-11-26	2011 cases, No summary, Scottish cases, Transcript
AB v MHTS (2011) ScotSC B694/11 — Unsuccessful challenge to MHTS decision. [Summary required.]	2011-11-26	2011 cases, No summary, Scottish cases, Transcript
R (Modaresi) v SSH (2011) EWCA Civ 1359 — The claimant's s2 Tribunal application was faxed to the MHA Administrator's office on New Year's Eve, within the 14-day eligibility period, but was not faxed from there to the Tribunal office until after the bank holiday weekend, by which time the 14-day period had expired; the Tribunal therefore rejected the application; the claimant was then placed under s3; the Secretary of State refused to make a s67 reference. (1) Where the Tribunal office is closed on the 14th day of the eligibility period, the period is extended to include the next day that it is open (this is the case even though a fax application can be made when the office is closed). (2) Since the application was made on time, the claim against the Trust (that their inadequate system breached Article 5(4)) was academic. (3) The Secretary of State's decision was not vitiated by being based on the mistaken belief that the application was out of time (as the position was unclear then); requiring the ..→	2011-11-25	2011 cases, Detailed summary, Other Tribunal cases, Transcript
R v Shah (2011) EWCA Crim 2333 — Following a special verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity, a restricted hospital order was imposed; an appeal, relying on post-sentence medical evidence, was made against the restriction order. (1) In exceptional cases the court can consider good progress after sentencing, but in this case the task was to decide whether, on the material before him on the date of sentence, the judge's sentence was wrong in principle or manifestly excessive: it was not. (2) The sentence provides a mechanism for release by a Tribunal from the restriction order and the full rigour therefore of the hospital order [this is incorrect], so the appeal court should not taken over the function of that body.	2011-11-21	2011 cases, Brief summary, Restriction order cases, Transcript
Re RB (Adult); A London Borough v RB (Adult) (No 4) (2011) EWHC 3017 (Fam) — There is no statutory provision regulating the publication or reporting of judgments given or handed down in the Family Division in proceedings under the inherent jurisdiction in respect of adults, so it is not a contempt of court to publish or report a judgment (whether in whole or in part) merely because it was given or handed down in private (in chambers) and not in open court.	2011-11-21	2011 cases, Brief summary, Other capacity cases, Transcript
Cheshire West and Chester Council v P (2011) EWCA Civ 1333 — The council sought a costs order against P in relation to the Court of Appeal proceedings. (1) The general rule on appeals from the COP to the Court of Appeal is, in accordance with CPR 44.3(2)(a), that the unsuccessful party will be ordered to pay the costs (subject, where relevant, to costs protection under s11 Access to Justice Act 1999). (2) The general rule in COP welfare cases (that there be no order as to costs) was irrelevant, as was the council's discreditable conduct at first instance. (2) Other factors were taken into account and the court made no order as to costs: 'Among the primary reasons for making no order is that the reason for and the importance of the appeal was not really at all about how P will be dealt with. The point of major importance for the local authority, and indeed local authorities generally, was how often they have to come back to court in this and other like cases.'	2011-11-21	2011 cases, Brief summary, COP costs cases, Transcript
R v Goucher (2011) EWCA Crim 2473 — On appeal, the restriction order was quashed: the judge had applied the correct test (whether it was necessary to protect the public from serious harm) but, as confirmed by a psychiatric report prepared for the appeal, he had got the answer wrong. [Summary based on All ER (D) report.]	2011-11-21	2011 cases, Brief summary, Restriction order cases, Transcript
R v Heaney (2011) EWCA Crim 2682 — The appellant had been convicted of two offences under MCA 2005 s44 and sentenced to consecutive 3- and 6-month sentences of imprisonment; on appeal, these were ordered to be served concurrently. The court took into account that 'neither of the victims in fact sustained any distress or injury and they were very short incidents', that the consequences for the appellant had been grave because she had lost her career, that she was a middle-aged woman with two young daughters, and that she was of previous good character.	2011-11-21	2011 cases, Brief summary, Criminal law capacity cases, Other capacity cases, Transcript
R (BA) v SSHD (2011) EWHC 2748 (Admin) — Judicial review of detention pending deportation (psychiatric background). [Summary required.]	2011-11-14	2011 cases, No summary, Repatriation cases, Transcript
R v Lavender (2011) EWCA Crim 2420 — (1) On the material before the sentencing judge, there was nothing wrong in principle with an extended sentence. (2) However, given the recent psychiatric evidence, it was now arguable that the option of a hospital order with or without a restriction order needed to be considered, so leave to appeal was given and a representation order was granted.	2011-11-14	2011 cases, Brief summary, Sentence appeal cases, Transcript
R (Smith) v LB Camden (2011) EWCA Civ 1207 — Unsuccessful application for permission for second appeal against strike-out of claim for want of compliance with s139. (The claim was for damages of £100 billion for wrongful removal from his flat and for being forced to live in various mental health institutions where he claimed to have been assaulted many times.)	2011-11-14	2011 cases, Brief summary, Transcript, Unimportant cases
R v Clark (2011) EWCA Crim 2516 — The defendant appealed against a sentence of 56 months' imprisonment for GBH (financial worries had led him to decide to kill his wife and himself). The sentencing guidelines could never have been intended to apply to such an exceptional case; the sentence was replaced with a community rehabilitation order with a mental health treatment requirement.	2011-11-14	2011 cases, Brief summary, Sentence appeal cases, Transcript
Re P; A Local Authority v PB (2011) EWHC 2675 (COP) — Case concerning residence, contact, and deprivation of liberty. [Summary required.]	2011-11-14	2011 cases, Best interests, No summary, Transcript
Re Clarke (2011) COP 19/9/11 — The donor made an LPA for property and financial affairs, appointing her husband and daughter as attorneys and her other two daughters as replacement attorneys. She also made an LPA for health and welfare, appointing her husband and three daughters as attorneys. When an application was made to register the instruments, the husband objected on the ground that the instruments had not been properly witnessed. He alleged that the witness had not been in the house when the donor signed, but had added his signature later. The court preferred the evidence of the witness and one daughter, to the effect that the donor had signed at the dining room table and that the witness was in an adjacent room and could see her sign through glass doors separating the two rooms. Applying the old case Casson v Dade (1781), the court held that the instruments had been properly witnessed. (The husband also objected on the ground that the donor lacked capacity to make an LPA, but this was also dismissed. The ..→	2011-11-14	2011 cases, Brief summary, LPA cases - all, LPA cases - whether the instrument has been correctly executed, Transcript
Re FL; HN v FL and Hampshire CC (2011) EWHC 2894 (COP) — 'The primary issues requiring determination by the court were as follows: (1) FL’s capacity to make personal welfare decisions; (2) FL’s mental health needs; (3) FL’s medication; (4) The Z Home’s ability to meet FL’s physical and mental health needs; (5) Whether HN had conducted herself inappropriately or whether such conduct was justified; (6) Whether HCC and or The Z Home conducted themselves inappropriately or whether such conduct was justified; (7) Depending on the outcome of (5) and (6) whether restrictive orders should be made.' 'IPL were permitted to publish details about the case subject to the restrictions in that order.' [Summary required.]	2011-11-09	2011 cases, Best interests, No summary, Transcript
Re HM; SM v HM (2011) COP 11875043 4/11/11 — 'The issue is whether it is ever, and if so in what circumstances, appropriate for the Court (ie the Court of Protection) to authorise the creation of a trust – in particular a personal injury trust - of P’s assets as the means of administering those assets for him, rather than appointing a deputy for him under s 16 of the 2005 Act.' [Summary required.]	2011-11-09	2011 cases, No summary, Other capacity cases, Transcript
Cheshire West and Chester Council v P (2011) EWCA Civ 1257 — P's care plan at Z House did not amount to a deprivation of liberty: "At Z House and outside it P is living a life which is as normal as it can be for someone in his situation."	2011-11-09	2011 cases, Deprivation of liberty, Detailed summary, Transcript
LB Tower Hamlets v BB (2011) EWHC 2853 (Fam) — 'There are two sets of proceedings which concern BB. In the first, her litigation friend, sought guidance from the court under sections 16 and 18(k) of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 about the conduct of proceedings concerning BB and declarations that she a) lacks capacity to conduct those proceedings and b) it is in her best interests that, in the event that her marriage to MA is a valid marriage, it be annulled or that there be a declaration that it is not recognised by the law of England and Wales. In the second, the local authority as substituted applicant seeks declarations that BB a) lacks the capacity to litigate, b) lacks capacity to decide where she should live, with whom she should have contact, who should provide her with care, what care should be provided to her and the medical treatment she should receive for her mental disorder. The court is asked to make decisions on her behalf as respects those questions which the court determines she is incapacitated to answer.' ..→	2011-11-09	2011 cases, Best interests, Deprivation of liberty, No summary, Transcript
Re GM; FP v GM and A Health Board (2011) EWHC 2778 (COP) — This was an application for a DOLS standard authorisation to be discharged, thus permitting GM, on discharge from hospital, to return to his home rather than be sent to an EMI home. (1) For there to be an order preventing GM from returning home (in practice, permanently) it would have to be 'so contrary to his interests to return that the court must not even contemplate seriously a placement' at home. (2) Factors in favour of a return home included: the 'emotional dimension'; GM's short life expectancy, and the fact that a move to EMI accommodation would be permanent; and Article 8 considerations. (3) Factors against were: the probability of a lesser quality of physical care at home; the risk of risk of breakdown and conflict; and the risk of deterioration, for instance in sleep pattern. (4) The DOLS authorisation was discharged. (5) As GM was ready for discharge from hospital, and the decision would have permanent effect, Hedley J decided the issue in one day in January instead ..→	2011-10-26	2011 cases, Best interests, Brief summary, Transcript
AG's ref (no 54 of 2011) (2011) EWCA Crim 2276 — (1) The restricted hospital order was quashed and a six-year IPP imposed. The judge had failed to take into account the differences between the two regimes: (a) release on licence from IPP depends on lack of danger for any reason, whereas release from hospital order depends on lack of danger for medical reasons only; (b) an IPP licence can be revoked for danger resulting from crime, whereas a conditional discharge can only be revoked if the medical condition relapses. It was essential in this case that the power to recall upon criminal relapse was available. (2) The s45A hybrid order regime would have been perfect in this case, but it is only available to those subject to imprisonment; however, the defendant was under 21 and imprisonment is only available to those 21 or over (the court recommended that this be reconsidered). (3) The notional determinate term of 12 years was not unduly lenient. (4) The hearing was adjourned in order to allow for an immediate s47 transfer ..→	2011-10-24	2011 cases, Brief summary, Life sentence cases, Transcript
R v Morris (1997) EWCA Crim 2564 — The judge erred in law in that he left the jury to decide whether the assault occasioned pyschiatric injury in the absence of appropriate expert evidence; he should have followed the decision in Chan-Fook.	2011-10-24	1997 cases, Brief summary, Other criminal law cases, Transcript
Re S; D v R (the deputy of S) (2010) EWHC 3748 (COP) — Costs judgment in Court of Protection: (1) up to the December 2009 hearing, because the proceedings had been necessary, the normal rule that costs were to be paid by S's estate was to apply, but (2) from that point onwards, because of her conduct of proceedings, Mrs D was to bear her own costs, plus 75% of the Deputy's costs on the standard (not indemnity) basis.	2011-10-16	2010 cases, Brief summary, COP costs cases, Transcript
R v Abdi (2011) EWCA Crim 2179 — Unsuccessful appeal against s41 restriction order.	2011-10-13	2011 cases, Brief summary, Restriction order cases, Transcript
Sharma v Hunters (2011) EWHC 2546 (COP) — Unsuccessful application by Hunters Solicitors against wasted costs order in the Court of Protection.	2011-10-13	2011 cases, Brief summary, Other capacity cases, Transcript
Quigley v Masterson (2011) EWHC 2529 (Ch) — The defendant's application to the Court of Protection qualified as a notice of severance served under section 36(2) of the Law of Property Act 1925.	2011-10-13	2011 cases, Brief summary, Other capacity cases, Transcript
R (Sessay) v South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust (2011) EWHC 2617 (QB) — The police entered the claimant's private accommodation, unaccompanied and without a s135 warrant, purporting to be acting under ss5-6 MCA 2005 in her best interests; she was taken to hospital and, after a 13-hour delay in the s136 suite, detained under s2 MHA 1983. (1) Sections 135 and 136 MHA 1983 are the exclusive powers available to police officers to remove persons who appear to be mentally disordered to a place of safety. Sections 5 and 6 MCA 2005 do not confer on police officers authority to remove persons to hospital or other places of safety for the purposes set out in sections 135 and 136. (2) The MHA provides a complete statutory code for compulsory admission to hospital for non-compliant incapacitated patients, so the common law doctrine of necessity does not apply during the period in which a patient is being assessed for detention under the Act. If there is urgent necessity to detain then the s4 procedure should be followed; ..→	2011-10-13	2011 cases, Brief summary, Transcript, Unlawful detention cases
S v Estonia 17779/08 (2011) ECHR 1511 — Under domestic law S should have been heard 'promptly' after the county court ruled on her compulsory admission to hospital, but was not heard for 15 days; no adequate justification was given; this was a considerable portion of the three-month admission period; the domestic supreme court noted the procedural violation but offered no redress: overall, there had been a breach of Article 5(1), in that she was not detained in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law. Compensation of €5000 was awarded.	2011-10-06	2011 cases, Brief summary, Deprivation of liberty, ECHR, Transcript
A London Local Authority v JH (2011) EWHC 2420 (COP) — It was, in the interim, in JH's best interests to return home with a package of care (rather than go to a care home). [Summary to follow.]	2011-10-05	2011 cases, Best interests, No summary, Transcript
LG v DK (2011) EWHC 2453 (COP) — Application to Court of Protection to decide whether it is in DK's best interests to provide DNA sample for paternity test. [Summary to follow.]	2011-10-05	2011 cases, Best interests, No summary, Transcript
R (O) v LB Hammersmith and Fulham (2011) EWCA Civ 925 — Dispute over accommodation for child in need.	2011-09-29	2011 cases, Detailed summary, Miscellaneous, Transcript
Surrey County Council v MB (2007) EWHC 3085 (Fam) — MCA, MHA, deprivation of liberty. [Summary required.]	2011-09-29	2007 cases, Best interests, No summary, Transcript
Re M; W v M (2011) EWHC 2443 (COP) — M is in a minimally-conscious state (the three categories of disorders of consciousness being coma, vegetative state and minimally-conscious state); family members applied to court to argue that the withdrawal of artificial nutrition and hydration was in M's best interests. (1) The Official Solicitor's argument that withdrawal can never be in the best interests of a clinically-stable MCS patient was rejected in favour of the usual 'balance sheet' approach to best interests, although clinical stability is an important factor. (2) In analysing best interests, the judge considered (a) preservation of life, (b) M's past wishes and feelings, (c) pain, (d) enjoyment of life, (e) prospects of recovery, (f) dignity, and (g) wishes and feelings of family members and carers. (3) It was not in M's best interests for ANH to be withdrawn: the preservation of life was the decisive factor in this case. (4) The judge made the following observations for future cases: (a) a decision to withhold or ..→	2011-09-28	2011 cases, Best interests, Brief summary, Transcript
R (Sunderland City Council) v South Tyneside Council (2011) EWHC 2355 (Admin) — SF moved from a residential college in Sunderland (ESPA) to a hospital in South Tyneside (Rose Lodge), initially informally then under section 3; the placement in Sunderland was terminated because of the hospital stay. The judge drew 10 propositions from the law, and concluded that Sunderland remained the authority with aftercare responsiblity under s117. Relevant considerations were that (a) the informal admission was close to being involuntary (through force of circumstances) and was in what was intended to be short-term accommodation, (b) the termination of the Sunderland placement was not voluntary, and (c) the Tyneside placement was not part of SF's regular order of life or for a settled purpose.	2011-09-27	2011 cases, After-care, Brief summary, Transcript
DN v Northumberland Tyne and Wear NHS Foundation Trust (2011) UKUT 327 (AAC) — It was argued before the FTT that DN should be discharged, deferred until arrangements under the MCA DOLS could be put in place in relation to residence and control of his alcohol consumption. (1) When the MHA applies, it has primacy over the MCA; however, if the MCA were applied in anticipation of discharge from detention then DN would NOT then be 'within the scope' of the MHA and therefore not ineligible for MCA DOLS. (2) The FTT erred in law by failing, when deciding not to discharge, to address the possibility of supervision under the MCA. (3) The Trust had not participated in the appeal so the UT erred on the side of caution by setting aside and directing a rehearing.	2011-09-27	2011 cases, Brief summary, Reasons, Transcript, Upper Tribunal decisions
G v MHTS (2011) CSIH 55 — This appeal relates to the circumstances in which it may be appropriate for the Mental Health Tribunal for Scotland to make no order for arrangements to be made for transfer from the State Hospital to conditions of lesser security following a finding that the patient is being detained in conditions of excessive security. The appellant unsuccessfully challenged the decision to make no order.	2011-08-23	2011 cases, Brief summary, Scottish cases, Transcript
MB v BEH MH NHS Trust (2011) UKUT 328 (AAC) — Following the RC's evidence, without hearing other witnesses or submissions on the law and evidence, the Tribunal judge stated that the patient could not obtain a conditional discharge and invited the patient to withdraw his application; the patient withdrew and appealed against the Tribunal's consent to the withdrawal. (1) Consent to withdrawal is a judicial act and is appealable. (2) The judge's expression of a preconceived concluded opinion (as opposed to a provisional view) amounted to a breach of the rules of natural justice and fair procedure in that the appellant was effectively denied a proper opportunity to put his case. (3) The UT's concerns about remedy (that there had been no application to reinstate the case and no re-application by the patient during the relevant eligibility period) were outweighed by the practical benefit of a fresh hearing and the patient, if unsuccessful, retaining his right to apply during the current eligibility period; therefore, the matter was ..→	2011-08-23	2011 cases, Brief summary, Transcript, Upper Tribunal decisions
Selwood v Durham CC (2011) Newcastle-upon-Tyne county court 25/2/11 — The claimant social worker was not informed of a patient's threats to kill her and was subsequently stabbed by him; she sued the local authority and relevant NHS Trusts in negligence or breach of statutory duty and alternatively alleged a breach of Article 2. The Trusts' application for strike out was successful. [Note: permission to appeal this decision was later given.]	2011-08-22	2011 cases, Brief summary, Miscellaneous, Transcript
Magritz v Public Prosecutors Office Bremen (2011) EWHC 1861 (Admin) — In relation to the claimant's extradition, where the sentence was for him to be 'placed in a psychiatric hospital for an indefinite period of time': (1) section 25 of the Extradition Act 2003 (the purpose of which is to protect a requested person whose physical or mental health is so poor that the act of extradition would be oppressive or unjust) was not engaged; and (2) there would be no breach of Article 3, Article 5 or Article 8.	2011-08-22	2011 cases, Brief summary, Repatriation cases, Transcript
M v F (2011) EWCA Civ 273 — Unsuccessful appeal by the mother against a judgment refusing her a wide ranging series of declarations, the object of which was to deny the father (who suffered from mental illness) all knowledge of the birth and subsequent development of his legitimate child.	2011-08-22	2011 cases, Brief summary, Miscellaneous, Transcript
WCC v GS (2011) EWHC 2244 (COP) — (1) GS lacked capacity to conduct litigation, to make decisions in respect of her care requirements, to decide where she wants to live and to decide issues relating to contact with her family. (2) It was in GS's best interest to remain at a care home. (3) Having set out an general guidance in relation to conditions imposed on contact, the court approved an agreed contact schedule between GS and her son.	2011-08-22	2011 cases, Best interests, Brief summary, Transcript
R (FB) v SSHD (2011) EWHC 2044 (Admin) — Unlawful detention case involving mentally-ill immigrant. [Summary required.]	2011-08-22	2011 cases, No summary, Repatriation cases, Transcript
Ross v SSWP (2011) UKFTT 8/8/11 (SEC) — Unsuccessful application by BBC journalist to record and broadcast proceedings of First-tier Tribunal (Social Entitlement Chamber).	2011-08-16	2011 cases, Brief summary, Miscellaneous, Transcript
R (S) v SSHD (2011) EWHC 2120 (Admin) — Detention of mentally-ill immigrant was unlawful under common law and Article 5, and breached Articles 3 and 8.	2011-08-16	2011 cases, Brief summary, Repatriation cases, Transcript
SL v Westminster City Council (2011) EWCA Civ 954 — On the true meaning of section 21(1)(a) of the National Assistance Act 1948, as amended, an asylum seeker suffering from depression and mental health difficulties who had been granted indefinite leave to remain was entitled to residential accommodation if the local authority had provided a programme of assistance and support to him through a care co-ordinator, since such provision of assistance would be otiose without the additional provision of housing. [Summary from WLR (D).]	2011-08-13	2011 cases, Community care, Detailed summary, Transcript
Aylott v Stockton-on-Tees BC (2010) EWCA Civ 910 — DDA/employment. [Summary required.]	2011-08-09	2010 cases, Disability discrimination, No summary, Transcript
DB v SSWP (2010) UKUT 144 (AAC) — Tribunal reasons and conflict of experts (industrial accidents case). [Summary required.]	2011-08-09	2010 cases, No summary, Transcript, Upper Tribunal decisions
R v Louka (2010) EWCA Crim 2015 — Appeal against sentence. [Summary required.]	2011-08-09	2010 cases, No summary, Sentence appeal cases, Transcript
R v Walton (aka Wright) (2010) EWCA Crim 2255 — Criminal appeal (fitness to plead). [Summary required.]	2011-08-09	2010 cases, No summary, Transcript, Unfitness and insanity cases
R (AA) v SSHD (2010) EWHC 2265 (Admin) — Case involving immigrant with mental illness. [Summary required.]	2011-08-09	2010 cases, No summary, Repatriation cases, Transcript
R (Francis) v West Midlands Probation Board (2010) EWCA Civ 955 — Permission to appeal in relation to two issues granted: (1) 'The first concerns the relationship between the Parole Board, the Probation Service acting through one or more of its regional boards, MAPPA, and the prisoner who is serving a life sentence, when it comes to considering his life after release'; (2) 'The second issue concerns the rights of the appellant and Ms Kemp under Article 8'. [Summary required.]	2011-08-09	2010 cases, No summary, Prison law cases, Transcript
R (MK) v SSHD (2010) EWCA Civ 115 — Case involving immigrant with mental illness. [Summary required.]	2011-08-09	2010 cases, No summary, Repatriation cases, Transcript
R (OM (Nigeria)) v SSHD (2010) EWHC 2147 (Admin) — Case involving immigrant with mental illness. [Summary required.]	2011-08-09	2010 cases, No summary, Repatriation cases, Transcript
McKie v Swindon College (2011) EWHC 469 (QB) — An email sent by Swindon College, a past employer, to the claimant's then current employer, raising safeguarding issues, caused him to lose his job, for which Swindon were liable in negligence. (Full legal summary required.) (A forthright judgment: '[18] ... Even if there were any substance in that complaint at all, which as I say seems to me to be bordering on the ludicrous... [26] ... We are into the realms of hearsay upon hearsay. ... [27] ... I think when we actually look at the circumstances, we can see that the procedure adopted at Swindon College giving rise to the sending of the email, can be described as slapdash, sloppy, failing to comply with any sort of minimum standards of fairness, certainly any such standards as would be recognised by any judicial body taking decisions and disseminating information about another individual, because Mr Rowe agreed he had no personal knowledge of things at all. ... [29] So not only do I take the view that the contents of the email are ..→	2011-08-04	2011 cases, Brief summary, Miscellaneous, Transcript
Re JM (Variation and renewal of orders for guardianship made under provisions with minute to vary) (2011) ScotSC 8/6/11 — Judgment including guidance on Scots guardianship orders. [Summary required.]	2011-08-03	2011 cases, No summary, Scottish cases, Transcript
LA v MHTS (2011) ScotSC 20/7/11 — Unsuccessful appeal against Mental Health Tribunal for Scotland. [Summary required.]	2011-08-02	2011 cases, No summary, Scottish cases, Transcript
Manchester City Council v G (2011) EWCA Civ 939 — Manchester's appeal against the costs order against it in the G v E case was unsuccessful.	2011-08-02	2011 cases, Brief summary, COP costs cases, Transcript
Re DU; A NHS Trust v DU (2009) EWHC 3504 (Fam) — It was in DU’s best interests to be permitted to return to Nigeria subject to the making of practicable arrangements. [Official summary available.]	2011-07-31	2009 cases, Best interests, Brief summary, Transcript
JP v Birmingham and Solihull MH NHS Trust (2010) Upper Tribunal 30/7/10 (HM/535/2010) — Unsuccessful appeal in which it was argued that the Tribunal's reasons for preferring the RC's and responsible authority's evidence to the evidence of independent experts were inadequate.	2011-07-25	2010 cases, No summary, Transcript, Upper Tribunal decisions
Re PH; PH v A Local Authority (2011) EWHC 1704 (COP) — The following declarations were made: (1) PH lacks capacity in relation to the question on whether or not he should be accommodated at Y Court for the purposes of being given care and treatment; and (2) PH lacks capacity to make a decision as to his residence and care (the second declaration to remain in force for six months).	2011-07-23	2011 cases, Brief summary, Other capacity cases, Transcript
CX v A Local Authority (2011) EWHC 1918 (Admin) — A writ of habeas corpus was granted: (1) there had not been sufficiently informed consultation with the nearest relative before the s3 application was made; (2) the withdrawal of the nearest relative's objection was not full and effective, since it was the result of the incorrect and misleading advice that she could not maintain the objection without legal representation. [Judgment originally published under a different name.]	2011-07-21	2011 cases, Brief summary, Consulting NR, Transcript
Eba v Advocate General for Scotland (2011) UKSC 29 — Scope of judicial review of Upper Tribunal in Scotland.	2011-07-20	2011 cases, Detailed summary, Other Tribunal cases, Transcript
JG v MHTS (2011) ScotSC 17/6/11 — Unsuccessful appeal against Tribunal decision. [Summary required.]	2011-07-20	2011 cases, No summary, Scottish cases, Transcript
R (McDonald) v Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (2011) UKSC 33 — 'This appeal concerns the question of whether the Respondent Royal Borough acted unlawfully in seeking to amend the Appellant’s care package by substituting her nighttime carer with provision of incontinence pads or absorbent sheets when the Appellant is not in fact incontinent.' (from Supreme Court press summary)	2011-07-20	2011 cases, Community care, No summary, Transcript
KL v Somerset Partnership NHS Foundation Trust (2011) UKUT 233 (AAC) — Treatment in hospital and 'long leash' s17 leave. [Summary required.]	2011-07-20	2011 cases, No summary, Transcript, Upper Tribunal decisions
Hossack v Legal Services Commission (2011) EWCA Civ 788 — Judicial review of rejection of tenders for community care law. [Summary required.]	2011-07-20	2011 cases, Miscellaneous, No summary, Transcript
P v Independent Print Ltd (2011) EWCA Civ 756 — Whether the Independent Newspaper should be authorised to attend the substantive hearing which would determine the living arrangements to be made for a young man who lacks capacity. [Summary required.]	2011-07-20	2011 cases, No summary, Other capacity cases, Transcript
R v Hopkins; R v Priest (2011) EWCA Crim 1513 — Prosecution under MCA 2005 s44. [Summary required.]	2011-07-18	2011 cases, Criminal law capacity cases, No summary, Other capacity cases, Transcript
KY v DD (2011) EWHC 1277 (Fam) — Guidance on without notice applications. [Summary required.]	2011-07-18	2011 cases, No summary, Other capacity cases, Transcript
Wychavon District Council v EM (HB) (2011) UKUT 144 (AAC) — (1) The tenant lacked capacity so the tenancy contract was not valid, which meant that there was no liability to pay rent and therefore no entitlement to Housing Benefit. (2) The contract was void, not voidable, because the landlord knew the tenant lacked sufficient mental capacity to reach such an agreement. [Caution.]	2011-06-22	2011 cases, Brief summary, Other capacity cases, Transcript
Hackett v CPS (2011) EWHC 1170 (Admin) — Undue influence. [Summary required.]	2011-06-22	2011 cases, Miscellaneous, No summary, Transcript
R (KM) v Cambridgeshire CC (2011) EWCA Civ 682 — (1) The assessment of needs was adequate. (2) There has to be a rational link between the needs and the assessed direct payments, but there does not need to be a finite absolute mathematical link, so the use of the Resource Allocation System (RAS) was lawful. (3) The explanation of the personal budget figure was rational.	2011-06-22	2011 cases, Brief summary, Community care, Transcript
R v Goucher (2011) EWCA Crim 1456 — The hearing of an application for an extension of time and for permission to appeal against a restricted hospital order was adjourned in order to obtain evidence from the new Responsible Clinician.	2011-06-22	2011 cases, Brief summary, Restriction order cases, Transcript
R (Cart) v Upper Tribunal (2011) UKSC 28 — Judicial review of an UT decision which is unappealable (here, the UT's refusal of permission to appeal to itself) is available where the second-tier appeal criteria apply (whether the case raises an important point of principle or practice or there is some other compelling reason for the court to hear it).	2011-06-22	2011 cases, Detailed summary, Other Tribunal cases, Transcript
Cheshire West and Chester Council v P (2011) EWHC 1330 (COP) — (1) The new care plan was in P's best interests (paras 35, 39). (2) There was a deprivation of liberty (reasons given in paras 58-60). [Caution.] (3) A costs order was made against the local authority as the serious misconduct of its employees (including misleading the court under oath, failure to disclose documents and falsifying records) rendered the proceedings more costly (para 76). (4) The public interest in holding public authorities accountable amounts to a 'good reason' for naming the local authority; the scale of the possible identification of P was minor enough not to prevent this (paras 89-90). [Detailed summary to follow.]	2011-06-19	2011 cases, Best interests, Brief summary, Deprivation of liberty, Transcript
SMBC v WMP (2011) EWHC B13 (COP) — HSG's application to be discharged as a party in a forced marriage protection order case was refused because there was good cause to believe that he may lack capacity (the test for interim orders). The judge set out a list of lessons learnt for future cases. [Summary required.]	2011-06-19	2011 cases, No summary, Other capacity cases, Transcript
Re C; C v A Local Authority (2011) EWHC 1539 (Admin) — Judgment in related COP and Admin Court proceedings relating to an 18-year old with severe autism and severe learning disabilities living at a residential special school. Issues considered include deprivation of liberty and seclusion. [Summary required.]	2011-06-16	2011 cases, Deprivation of liberty, No summary, Transcript
Re Steven Neary; LB Hillingdon v Steven Neary (2011) EWHC 1377 (COP) — (1) By keeping Stephen away from his home, Hillingdon breached Article 8 and Article 5(1) (notwithstanding DOLS authorisations granted during later stages). (2) By (a) failing sooner to refer the case to the COP, (b) failing sooner to appoint an IMCA, and (c) failing to conduct an effective review of the best interests assessments, Hillingdon breached Article 5(4).	2011-06-09	2011 cases, Best interests, Brief summary, Deprivation of liberty, Transcript
B v Croydon Health Authority (1995) Fam 133 — (1) Medical treatment for mental disorder under s63 includes treatment of the symptoms of the disorder (as well as the disorder itself) and includes a range of acts ancillary to the core treatment; (2) on the facts, nasogastric feeding was treatment ancillary to treatment for psychopathic disorder.	2011-05-29	1995 cases, Brief summary, Challenges to compulsory treatment, Transcript
C v D (2011) EWCA Civ 646 — (1) A settlement offer which is time-limited is not capable of being a Part 36 offer; (2) in the context of the intention to comply with Part 36, the statement that the offer be 'open for 21 days' did not mean that it was a time-limited offer (rather, it was indicating that it could be withdrawn after 21 days); (3) on the facts, the Part 36 offer had not expired and was capable of acceptance.	2011-05-28	2011 cases, Brief summary, Miscellaneous, Transcript
LBN v Borland (Mental Health Officer) (2011) ScotSC 9/5/11 — The failure to submit the required medical evidence within the time limit did not vitiate the application.	2011-05-26	2011 cases, Brief summary, Scottish cases, Transcript
R (Nassery) v LB Brent (2011) EWCA Civ 539 — The judge was not in error in refusing to set aside the decision of the respondent local authority that the appellant was not entitled to support under section 21(1) of the National Assistance Act 1948.	2011-05-26	2011 cases, Brief summary, Community care, Transcript
Re JR49 (Application for Judicial Review) (2011) NIQB 41 — The order authorising removal from a hospital in NI to a hospital in England pursuant to MHA 1983 s82 was quashed.	2011-05-26	2011 cases, Brief summary, Northern Irish cases, Transcript
A Council v X (2010) EWHC B10 (COP) — Direct contact between X, a 94 year old lady who lacked capacity due to advanced dementia, and her daughter Y was no longer in X's best interests.	2011-05-26	2011 cases, Best interests, Brief summary, Transcript
Re Putt (2011) COP 22/3/11 — (1) Two LLP partners were appointed attorneys; the certificate provider, as an associate at the same firm, was ineligible to act; (2) A direction that 'My attorneys (or any of them) may delegate in writing any of his, her or their functions to any person and shall not be responsible for the default of that person (even if the delegation was not strictly necessary or expedient) provided that he, she or they took reasonable care in his, her or their selection and supervision' was 'not simply contrary but almost repugnant to the special relationship of personal obligation and faith that one might reasonably expect to exist between a donor and the attorney of an LPA'.	2011-05-26	2011 cases, Brief summary, LPA cases - all, LPA cases - appointment of substitute by an attorney, LPA cases - eligibility of certificate provider, Transcript
Re M; W v M (2011) EWHC 1197 (COP) — Reporting-restriction orders and non-contact injunctions.	2011-05-26	2011 cases, Detailed summary, Other capacity cases, Transcript
Re S-C (Mental Patient: Habeas Corpus) (1995) EWCA Civ 60 — Habeas corpus. [Summary required.]	2011-05-26	1995 cases, No summary, Transcript, Unlawful detention cases
R (W) v Birmingham City Council (2011) EWHC 1147 (Admin) — Of the four bands (low, moderate, severe, critical), the council decided to cease adult social care funding for needs which were assessed to be severe; the decision only to fund critical needs was unlawful.	2011-05-23	2011 cases, Brief summary, Community care, Transcript
RN v Curo Care (2011) UKUT 263 (AAC) — (1) If the representative was right that the judge stated at the outset that the Tribunal would refuse to make a CTO recommendation, then reaching that firm conclusion (as opposed to an provisional opinion), and preventing the patient from arguing to the contrary, was a breach of natural justice and the ECHR right to a fair hearing. (2) In any event, the lack of reasons for not making the requested recommendation amounted to an error of law. (3) There would be no point in setting aside the decision if a recommendation were impossible or not a realistic possibility, but this was not a case where a CTO would never become a realistic option in the foreseeable future: the Tribunal can make a CTO recommendation not only if it considers that the criteria are satisfied (here it did not) but also in order to trigger consideration of future steps that could be taken to move the patient towards eventual release. (4) The decision was set aside and remitted to a differently-constituted panel ..→	2011-05-04	2011 cases, Brief summary, Reasons, Transcript, Upper Tribunal decisions
R (WG) v Leicester City Council (2011) EWHC 189 (Admin) — This JR claim had been issued to challenge a failure to carry out an assessment under s47 NHSCCA 1990, but an assessment had subsequently been carried out and not identified any community care needs: (1) permission was therefore refused; (2) it was ordered that unless the claimant was prepared to identify herself she would not be able to bring any further legal actions.	2011-04-30	2011 cases, Brief summary, Transcript, Unimportant cases
R (Monday) v SSHD (2010) EWHC 3079 (Admin) — There was no prospect (for psychiatric reasons) of deportation of the claimant within a reasonable period, so ongoing detention would be unlawful.	2011-04-30	2010 cases, Brief summary, Repatriation cases, Transcript
R (Sturnham) v SSJ (2011) EWHC 938 (Admin) — Damages of £300 were awarded under Article 5 for anxiety and distress caused by six-month delay in Parole Board hearing.	2011-04-30	2011 cases, Brief summary, Prison law cases, Transcript
Lumba (WL) v SSHD (2011) UKSC 12 — (1) It was unlawful in public law for the SSHD to operate an unpublished policy on the detention of foreign national prisoners which differed from the published policy and which amounted to a near-blanket ban on release. (2) The detention of the appellants was unlawful, even though they would have been detained even on the published policy. (3) As they suffered no loss, the appellants were entitled to nominal damages of one pound (and not 'vindicatory' or exemplary damages).	2011-04-30	2011 cases, Brief summary, Transcript, Unlawful detention cases
Clift v Slough BC (2010) EWCA Civ 1484 — An email from a local authority stating that Clift was on its violent persons register was published too widely: (1) the disproportionate publication was an unjustified breach of Article 8; (2) the Article 8 breach prevented the local authority from using the qualified privilege defence to defamation.	2011-04-30	2010 cases, Brief summary, Miscellaneous, Transcript
Buckinghamshire CC v RB of Kingston upon Thames (2011) EWCA Civ 457 — Where a person is accommodated under s21 NAA 1948 by authority A in area B, the person is deemed still to be ordinarily resident in area A only until he moves out of s21 accommodation (in this case, into supported housing). When assessing under s47 NHSCCA 1990, authority A owes no duty of fairness to area B and there is no duty to consult: the duty is to the person concerned; the role of authority B, as payers for the service, is essentially incidental.	2011-04-30	2011 cases, Brief summary, Community care, Transcript
R v Chowdhury (2011) EWCA Crim 936 — The judge imposed a restriction order (contrary to the medical recommendations) because of the serious nature of the offence and his concerns about previous non-compliance. The Court of Appeal were willing to quash the restriction order if the appellant made the following undertakings: to surrender his Bangladeshi passport; not to apply for another Bangladeshi passport; to surrender his UK passport; not to apply for another UK passport; not to apply for any other travel documents; and to give irrevocable instructions that such documents are not to be returned to him without the written consent of his treating psychiatrist.	2011-04-30	2011 cases, Brief summary, Restriction order cases, Transcript
All About Rights Law Practice v LSC (2011) EWHC 964 (Admin) — The applicant law firm failed properly to complete the online documentation for the 2010 mental health tendering exercise and unsuccessfully challenged the LSC's decision not to award it a contract.	2011-04-30	2011 cases, Brief summary, Miscellaneous, Transcript
CM v Derbyshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust (2011) UKUT 129 (AAC) — (1) The Tribunal's decision not to discharge was made in error of law, and was set aside, (a) because there was no real evidence to support its view that non-compliance with medication and the risk of consequent relapse in the near future would probably occur, (b) because it did not establish that in these circumstances it had complied with the 'least restriction principle', (c) because of the irrationality in paragraph 21 of its decision (in that as the risk was of what might eventually happen it was hard to see how the envisaged leave regime could test that risk), and (d) because continued detention for the purposes of avoiding a chaotic lifestyle or drug taking or the absence of drug counselling is not permitted by law on the facts of this case. (2) The judgment contains a discussion of the 'nature' and 'degree' tests.	2011-04-30	2011 cases, Brief summary, Reasons, Transcript, Upper Tribunal decisions
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.	2011-04-30	2011 cases, Brief summary, Powers, Transcript, Upper Tribunal decisions
TR v Ludlow Street Healthcare Ltd (2011) UKUT 152 (AAC) — (1) The appeal against an interlocutory decision not to order disclosure of medical records was unsuccessful. (2) The judgment also contains guidance on appealing case management decisions, in particular from the MHRT for Wales.	2011-04-30	2011 cases, Brief summary, Transcript, Upper Tribunal decisions
A Local Authority v DL (2011) EWHC 1022 (Fam) — The inherent jurisdiction survives the Mental Capacity Act 2005.	2011-04-30	2011 cases, Detailed summary, Other capacity cases, Transcript
PS v Camden and Islington NHS Foundation Trust (2011) UKUT 143 (AAC) — The Tribunal's policy is that a reference made under s68(7) (triggered by the revocation of a CTO) will be treated as having lapsed if the patient subsequently is placed on a new CTO (see Guidance: References made under section 68(7) Mental Health Act 1983 (as amended)). When the patient's representative argued that the case should be heard, the Tribunal treated that letter as the patient's own application. (1) The policy is unlawful: (a) whether the reference has lapsed depends on the nature of the reference, which is a matter of statutory interpretation, so neither the overriding objective nor the policy is relevant; (b) the subject matter of a reference under s68(7) (the duty to consider the s72 criteria) is not related to the circumstances that trigger it (the revocation of the CTO) so survives the change in circumstances; (c) the policy is inconsistent with s68(3)(c) (no six-month reference if revocation reference has been made) which would not be necessary if the ..→	2011-04-16	2011 cases, Brief summary, Transcript, Upper Tribunal decisions
R (G) v South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust (2011) EWHC 747 (Admin) — The claimant sought judicial review of the NHS Trust and the Met police in relation to a proposed visit to his home. (1) A civil restraint order had been made after the JR application was made: so he did not need leave of the High Court to have the claim considered on the papers; however, he did need leave for this renewed application for permission. (2) On the merits, permission would have been refused because (a) it is not the function of the court to review operational decisions such as this, and (b) the claimant had not been detained so the points regarding the MHA were academic. (3) In any event, the civil restraint order was thoroughly appropriate and would not be discharged.	2011-04-10	2011 cases, Brief summary, Transcript, Unimportant cases
R (Tagoe-Thompson) v The Hospital Managers of the Park Royal Centre (2002) EWHC 2803 (Admin) — Panel of three hospital managers must be unanimous in order to discharge patient.	2011-04-10	2002 cases, Brief summary, Hospital managers hearings, Transcript
R v Henz (2010) EWCA Crim 3121 — The appellant appealed against a sentence of 18 months' imprisonment as being excessive; then, following her transfer to hospital she instead sought a community order with a mental health requirement. Her mental condition, and lack of insight, led to the conclusion that a hospital order was required to ensure that she continued to receive treatment.	2011-04-09	2011 cases, Brief summary, Transcript
R v O (2011) EWCA Crim 376 — Life sentence quashed and s37/41 restricted hospital order substituted. The life sentence had been passed in the context of confusion about bed availability, and the lack of a second s37 recommendation. There was utility in making the Appellant a patient rather than a prisoner because: (1) it was manifestly the right order to make on all the evidence; (2) there were advantages in terms of treatment; (3) it had advantages to the Appellant in terms of benefits; (4) it would best ensure the protection of the public.	2011-04-09	2011 cases, Brief summary, Life sentence cases, Transcript
V v R (2011) EWHC 822 (QB) — Litigation capacity. The experts agreed that, as a result of her impulsive nature, V lacked capacity to manage her financial affairs; however, they disagreed on whether she had litigation capacity. The critical future decisions would be in connection with settlement offers (including the global value of the claim, provisional damages and periodical payments) albeit in the conext of the common understanding that she would not have unfettered access to the money. V would have difficulties in weighing the evidence and making decisions, but they could be ameliorated, if not entirely overcome, by the careful and structured support that the statute contemplates: the decisions would be made in the presence of her mother and lawyers; there was no suggestion that V would be left to make decisions on her own. On balance she did not lack capacity to ligitate.	2011-04-09	2011 cases, Brief summary, Other capacity cases, Transcript
R (Woods) v Rochdale MBC (2009) EWHC 323 (Admin) — Unsuccessful JR of alleged failure to comply with obligations under the NHS and Community Care Act 1990 to assess the claimant's needs and to provide the resources to meet those needs. [Summary required.]	2011-03-30	2009 cases, Community care, No summary, Transcript
Jones v Kaney (2011) UKSC 13 — (1) The immunity from suit for breach of duty that expert witnesses have enjoyed in relation to their participation in legal proceedings is abolished. (2) This does not affect the absolute privilege that all witnesses enjoy in respect of claims in defamation.	2011-03-30	2011 cases, Brief summary, Miscellaneous, Transcript
R (Faulkner) v SSJ (2011) EWCA Civ 349 — The claimant's Parole Board hearing should have been in March 2008 but was delayed in breach of Article 5(4) until January 2009 when he was released; he had shown on balance that he would have been released in March 2008. Having considered the case law on quantum, the court concluded that: 'a figure of £10,000 is appropriate and necessary to reflect the loss of some 10 months' conditional liberty by reason of the state's breach of the claimant's right not to continue to be detained in the absence of a speedy decision by a judicial body. We have not arrived at it by applying a multiplier to a monthly sum, although it can no doubt be disaggregated in that way.'	2011-03-30	2011 cases, Brief summary, Prison law cases, Transcript
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 simulaneously 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 ..→	2011-03-30	2011 cases, Brief summary, Powers, Transcript, Upper Tribunal decisions
Re Hunt (2008) (Preston county court, 12/6/08) — Mr Hunt suffered from Huntington's disease and had shut himself off from the world, in his home; he had ignored demands for payment of council tax; the court (not knowing his condition) made a bankruptcy order, then an order that he be arrested and brought before the court for failure to attend for public examination. (1) Under rules 7.43-7.44 Insolvency Rules 1986 (since amended to reflect the MCA) an 'incapacitated person' was one who is incapable of managing and administering his property and affairs either (a) by reason of mental disorder within the meaning of the Mental Health Act 1983, or (b) due to physical affliction or disability; the court may appoint a representative for such a person. (2) A bankruptcy order may be annulled if the order 'ought not to have been made' at the time. (3) The onus cannot lie on the debtor to establish lack of capacity because lack of capacity would itself render the debtor unable to do so: courts should investigate capacity where there is ..→	2011-03-29	2008 cases, Brief summary, Other capacity cases, Transcript
R (W) v LB Croydon (2011) EWHC 696 (Admin) — The local authority decided, in order to reduce costs and promote independence, to transfer W from his residential placement to supported living. (1) In principle, the council would be entitled to terminate W's residential placement on grounds of costs, or needs, subject to consultation. (2) On the facts, the consultation with W's parents and the professional carers (as required by MCA 2005 s4) had been inadequate, so the decision was quashed.	2011-03-29	2011 cases, Brief summary, Other capacity cases, Transcript
Dunhill v Burgin (2011) EWHC 464 (QB) — The claimant had settled a PI claim on unfavourable terms and now sought to have the consent order declared void for want of capacity; this judgment involves a consideration of litigation capacity. (1) In considering the issue of capacity historically, rather than prospectively, the court should confine itself to examining the decisions actually required of the claimant and should not expand its consideration to hypothetical circumstances (i.e. had she been advised differently). (2) On the facts, the presumption that she had capacity to enter into the agreement had not been rebutted.	2011-03-29	2011 cases, Brief summary, Other capacity cases, Transcript
Re A; A v A Local Authority (2011) EWHC 727 (COP) — A, represented by the OS, appealed under MCA 2005 s21 against a DOLS standard authorisation; the other parties, including A's son, argued that A lacked capacity and that his current placement was in his best interests. The OS wanted an up-to-date assessment of capacity and a report on best interests, suggesting a COP Visitor report as being the proportionate method: the report would determine whether to dispose of the case by consent or seek further directions. Given the clear evidence, had it been a child best interests case there would have been summary judgment; however, the MCA laid down stringent conditions for deprivation of liberty, so the court cannot act as a rubber stamp and the OS must be allowed to carry out his duty of representing A as he thought fit. Having regard to the overriding objective, the COP Visitor method, and likely disposal without a further hearing, was the best way forward.	2011-03-29	2011 cases, Best interests, Brief summary, Deprivation of liberty, Transcript
Re P; A Local Authority v PB (2011) EWHC 502 (COP) — (1) The judge's view was that in exercising a welfare or best interests jurisdiction (whether under the Children Act, under the inherent jurisdiction, or under the MCA) the court is choosing between available options; a point then arises whether the COP can add to the available options (by application of public law and HRA tests in the private law proceedings) or whether judicial review is necessary; these jurisdictional issues should be addressed well before a case comes on for final hearing, so that the relevant authority does not refuse to provide the services after the court has decided that they are in P's best interests; in this case there may be a further hearing to decide the issue. (2) At an appropriate stage in most COP welfare cases, a direction along the following lines should be given (paraphrased) - Each party shall serve a document on the other setting out (a) the facts he asks the court to find, the disputed facts he asserts the court need not determine, and the ..→	2011-03-29	2011 cases, Best interests, Brief summary, Transcript
Re AH; AH v Hertfordshire Partnership NHS Foundation Trust (2011) EWHC 276 (COP) — (1) The case concerned the proposal to move 12 adults from a specialist residential service (SRS) to alternative homes, and this judgment is a 'firm provisional decision' on one case in the hope of assisting resolution of all cases. (2) It was clearly not in AH's best interests to be moved: only the closure of SRS could justify the turmoil of a move. (3) This case illustrates the point that guideline policies (here, the campus closure programme) cannot be treated as universal solutions.	2011-03-29	2011 cases, Best interests, Brief summary, Transcript
Re AM; B (A Local Authority) v RM (2010) EWHC 3802 (Fam) — (1) When considering whether to transfer an application for a care order (under the Children Act 1989) to the Court of Protection (to be dealt with under the MCA) the essential thrust is whether the young person's welfare will be better safeguarded within the Court of Protection. The court will take into account matters such as whether: (a) the child is over 16 (otherwise there is no power); (b) the child manifestly lacks capacity in respect of the principal Children Act decisions; (c) the incapacity is lifelong or at least long-term; (d) all decisions and issues about welfare can be resolved during minority; (e) the COP powers are more appropriate to resolve the issues; and (f) the welfare needs can be fully met using COP powers. (2) AM's welfare would be better protected within the COP because: (a) there should be a court determination about the placement; (b) the court door should remain open during planning the placement; (c) the judge was far from satisfied that the issues ..→	2011-03-29	2010 cases, Best interests, Brief summary, Transcript
R (PA) v Governor of Lewes Prison (2011) EWHC 704 (Admin) — The claimant's social phobia did not make him 'infirm by nature of disability' (within the meaning of PSI 31/2006) for the purpose of deciding whether or not to release on Home Detention Curfew.	2011-03-25	2011 cases, Brief summary, Miscellaneous, Transcript
Re T (A child: murdered parent) (2011) EWHC B4 (Fam) — B killed his girlfriend, then spent four years as a restricted hospital order patient and a year as a conditionally-discharged patient (with exclusion-zone and no-contact conditions); he now applied for a contact order in respect of their daughter T. (1) There is no presumption that a parent who has murdered the other parent should have no contact with their child; however, having regard to the welfare checklist and other factors, there should be no contact of any kind between B and T. (2) An order under s91(14) Children Act 1989 (preventing further applications by B without leave) was made until T reaches 16 years of age. (3) The family court has no power to vary the conditions of a conditional discharge; however, the court is not constrained by the conditions when making orders; if the order would put the patient in breach of conditions then it should invite the Secretary of State to indicate to what extent he is prepared to vary them. (4) Since the only sanction for breach of ..→	2011-03-21	2011 cases, Brief summary, Discharge conditions, Transcript
Pitt v Holt (2011) EWCA Civ 197 — Successful appeal by HMRC.	2011-03-18	2011 cases, Detailed summary, Other capacity cases, Transcript
R (AC) v Berkshire West PCT (2011) EWCA Civ 247 — The claimant, who suffered from gender identity disorder, unsuccessfully challenged the decisions to refuse funding for breast augmentation surgery and the underlying policies.	2011-03-18	2011 cases, Brief summary, Miscellaneous, Transcript
LS v LB Lambeth (HB) (2010) UKUT 461 (AAC) — Tribunals Service's notes: 'Scope of right of appeal to Upper Tribunal. Required contents of notification of a decision applying a non- dependent deduction.' [Summary required.]	2011-03-18	2010 cases, No summary, Transcript, Upper Tribunal decisions
JLG v Managers of Llanarth Court (2011) UKUT 62 (AAC) — (1) An appeal to the Upper Tribunal can only succeed if 'the making of the decision concerned involved the making of an error on a point of law'. The issue is whether the Tribunal did its job properly: whether (i) the tribunal asked itself the correct legal questions; (ii) it made findings of fact that were rationally based in the evidence; (iii) it answered the legal questions appropriately given its findings of fact; (iv) it gave the parties a fair hearing; and (v) it provided adequate reasons. (2) The UT is entitled to assume that the members of the Tribunal understand the basic legal concepts which they must apply, particuarly with a specialist tribunal applying the same limited range of criteria repeatedly; the claimant's argument was essentially that the Tribunal failed to mention these matters, but there was nothing in the reasons to show that they did not understand them. (3) The reasons, albeit discursively, had soundly and rationally addressed the statutory criteria. (4) ..→	2011-03-07	2011 cases, Brief summary, Reasons, Transcript, Upper Tribunal decisions
RB v Nottinghamshire Healthcare NHS Trust (2011) UKUT 73 (AAC) — (1) The Tribunal's reasons for not reconvening following non-implementation of its statutory recommendation were inadequate. (2) A decision had clearly been made not to transfer so there would be no point in requiring the Tribunal to reconvene or reconsider whether or not to do so; the decision was therefore not set aside.	2011-03-07	2011 cases, Brief summary, Reasons, Transcript, Upper Tribunal decisions
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
R (Modaresi) v SSH (2011) EWHC 417 (Admin) — The claimant missed the 14-day deadline for submission of a s2 Tribunal application because of oversight/neglect on the part of Trust employees. Judicial review claims against the Tribunal (for deciding that the application was invalid), the Secretary of State for Health (for refusing to make a reference) and the Trust (for their actions) were all unsuccessful. [Caution.]	2011-03-06	2011 cases, Detailed summary, Other Tribunal cases, Transcript
Re CW; A Primary Care Trust v CW (2010) EWHC 3448 (COP) — (1) Medical treatment is of no benefit to a person in a persistent vegetative state because he is not sentient and has no prospect of recovery; whether the withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment measures is in P's best interests depends on whether the diagnosis of PVS is correct; if it is correct then the provision of any treatment is futile and cannot be in his best interests. (2) CW was in a persistent vegetative state with no prospect of recovery; it was in his best interests for artificial nutrition and hydration to be withheld, which could be done lawfully; it was in his best interests to receive treatment and nursing care to ensure that he retains the greatest dignity possible until death.	2011-03-02	2011 cases, Best interests, Brief summary, Transcript
Re Steven Neary; LB Hillingdon v Steven Neary (2011) EWHC 413 (COP) — (1) The judge directed that: (a) the named media organisations could send designated representatives to court, subject to further directions; (b) the media could identify the parties by name, rather than initials; (c) the media could report any information already in the public domain when reporting the proceedings; (d) any application to report information during the course of any private hearing is to be determined by the court at the conclusion of the relevant hearing. (2) The reasons given were that: (a) the circumstances are already in the public domain to a significant extent; (b) there is no evidence of a real possibility of detriment or distress to Stephen of anything other than a trivial nature; (c) it would be impossible to prevent the media from reporting parties' names at the end of proceedings. (3) In relation to future care, directions had been given for a mediated solution to be attempted. (4) In relation to lawfulness of the past deprivation of liberty, a hearing was ..→	2011-03-02	2011 cases, Best interests, Brief summary, Transcript
Re P and Q; P and Q v Surrey County Council; sub nom Re MIG and MEG (2011) EWCA Civ 190 — Judgment of Parker J upheld: neither P (aged 18, in a foster placement) nor Q (aged 17, in a small group home) was deprived of her liberty.	2011-02-28	2011 cases, Deprivation of liberty, Detailed summary, Transcript
NMC Conduct and Competence Committee decision: Josiah Foeka Amara 18/2/11 — Nurse was struck off for misconduct. The following charges were proved: 'That you, on or around 19 December 2005, whilst working as a Staff Nurse on Vincent Ward at the Gordon Hospital, Bloomberg Street, London SW1V 2RH: (1) Purchased crack cocaine in the company of Patient A, a patient on the ward; (2) Took crack cocaine with Patient A; (3) Had sexual intercourse with an unknown female when Patient A was also present in your flat; AND in light of the above, your fitness to practise is impaired by reason of your misconduct.'	2011-02-24	2011 cases, Brief summary, Miscellaneous, Transcript
Haworth v Cartmel and HMRC (2011) EWHC 36 (Ch) — Disability Discrimination Act, and lack of capacity, used to annul bankruptcy order.	2011-02-24	2011 cases, Detailed summary, Other capacity cases, Transcript
Hill v Fellowes Solicitors LLP (2011) EWHC 61 (QB) — Professional negligence claim including an allegation that a solicitor's firm negligently failed to make enquiries as to the client's capacity to understand the sale of her house.	2011-02-24	2011 cases, Detailed summary, Other capacity cases, Transcript
Massie v H (2011) EWCA Civ 115 — The general rule is that an appeal shall lie from a decision of a county court to the High Court. One exception is for final decisions in Part 7 CPR multi-track cases, which go to the Court of Appeal. (1) This exception does not apply in nearest relative displacement cases under s29 MHA as the application is made under Part 8 CPR; no other exception applied. (2) The court declared that it lacked jurisdiction and that a previous consent order was therefore a nullity. (3) Because of the passage of time and costs involved, rather than abandon the matter or simply transfer it to the High Court, the case was transferred to the High Court for one of the Court of Appeal judges to consider it as a High Court judge there and then.	2011-02-17	2011 cases, Brief summary, Displacement, Transcript
R (Hertfordshire CC) v LB Hammersmith and Fulham (2011) EWCA Civ 77 — The appellant sought: 'A declaration that "is resident" in s117(3) Mental Health Act 1983 has the same (or substantially the same) meaning as "is ordinarily resident" under s24 National Assistance Act 1948, so that a person placed by a local authority under s21 NAA in the area of another local authority remains ordinarily resident in the area of the placing authority for the purposes of Part 3 NAA and s117(3) MHA.' The court refused to grant the declaration as: (1) Parliament must have deliberately chosen a different formula for s117; (2) s117 was intended to be a free-standing provision, not dependent on the 1948 Act; (3) there was no legitimate way to interpret 'resident' as excluding a placement under s21. The court noted that the decision is in line with recent government guidance, and that the Law Commission's current project provides a much better forum for considering and remedying any defects in the present law.	2011-02-17	2011 cases, After-care, Brief summary, Transcript
R v Welsh (2011) EWCA Crim 73 — Welsh appealed against a discretionary life sentence for diminished responsibility manslaughter, but was unsuccessful because (1) his propensity for violence, even before he suffered from paranoid schizophrenia, and the gravity of the offence, meant that public confidence would not be maintained by making a restricted hospital order, and (2) there was ample justification for the conclusion that he bore substantial responsibility and that there was a risk he would remain a source of danger even if his condition substantially improved once he received treatment and medication.	2011-02-02	2011 cases, Brief summary, Life sentence cases, Transcript
Re AB; D Borough Council v AB (2011) EWHC 101 (COP) — (1) The test for capacity to consent to sex is set at a relatively low level: 'does she have sufficient rudimentary knowledge of that the act comprises and of its sexual character to enable her to decide whether to give or withhold consent?' (2) Capacity to consent to sexual activity is act-specific, not partner-specific; decisions to the contrary were based on a conflation of capacity to consent to sex and the exercise of that capacity. (3) The test requires an understanding and awareness of (a) the mechanics of the act, (b) that there are health risks involved, particularly the acquisition of sexually transmitted and sexually transmissible infections, and (c) that sex between a man and a woman may result in the woman becoming pregnant; however, not all criteria will apply to every type of sexual activity. (4) The test does not require an understanding (a) that sex is part of having relationships with people and may have emotional consequences, (b) that only adults over the age of ..→	2011-02-01	2011 cases, Capacity to consent to sexual relations, Detailed summary, Transcript
Re KM; NCC v KM (2009) COP 1145479102 — Consideration of the legal aid position in relation to deprivation of liberty reviews following final hearing.	2011-01-24	2009 cases, Brief summary, Deprivation of liberty, Transcript
Re JP; DP v JCP (2010) COP 11692737 — DP's application to be appointed financial deputy for her father JP was opposed by her siblings, who also disputed DP's claim to the ownership of their mother's ashes. Guidance was given as to the ownership of the ashes. DP was capable of acting as deputy but did not have the necessary independence so a panel deputy was appointed. [Summary based on Eld LJ case report.]	2011-01-23	2010 cases, Brief summary, Other capacity cases, Transcript
R v Inglis (2010) EWCA Crim 2269 — Appeal allowed and retrial ordered on the basis of fresh evidence which showed that the appellant suffered at the time of the killing from bipolar affective disorder and supported a defence of diminished responsibility.	2011-01-22	2010 cases, Brief summary, Diminished responsibility cases, Transcript
R (Guntrip) v SSJ (2010) EWHC 3188 (Admin) — Parole Board Article 5(4) delay case. [Summary required.]	2011-01-22	2010 cases, No summary, Prison law cases, Transcript
CB v Sussex County Council (2010) UKUT 413 (AAC) — (1) Under s25 TCEA 2007 the Upper Tribunal issued a fine of £500, payable within 28 days, for failure to comply with a witness summons issued by the HESC chamber (education jurisdiction). (2) Under s16(3) Contempt of Court Act 1981 the Upper Tribunal specified a term of imprisonment of 7 days if payment was not made within the specified period.	2011-01-22	2010 cases, Brief summary, Transcript, Upper Tribunal decisions
Re J (2010) COP 6/12/10 — Under MCA 2005 s22(3) ('Powers of court in relation to validity of lasting powers of attorney') the court can consider any past behaviour or apparent prospective behaviour by the attorney (not just behaviour as P's attorney); depending on the circumstances and gravity of any offending behaviour found, it can then take whatever steps it regards as appropriate in P’s best interests (this only arising if P lacks capacity) whether by revoking the power or by taking some other course.	2011-01-22	2010 cases, Brief summary, LPA cases - all, LPA cases - other, Transcript
Francis v GSCC (2010) UKFTT 434 (HESC) — The GSCC had refused to register Francis as a social worker under s58 Care Standards Act 2000 because (a) he had from 2005 to 2006 failed to register as a social worker but continued to act as such, (b) during the same period he had continued to act as an AMHP; (c) he had failed to inform his employer of his personal difficulties, (d) there was no adequate endorsement of his application. His appeal under s68 was dismissed.	2011-01-22	2010 cases, Brief summary, Miscellaneous, Transcript
GSCC conduct committee decision: Philip Julian Davies 10/12/10 — Social worker suspended for misconduct for 12 months. Two of the proven allegations were: '(4) Without authority, on or around 18th July 2008, you requested service user Mrs Z to sign financial papers after she had been diagnosed by a consultant psychiatrist as having a lack of mental capacity. (5) Between 20th May 2008 and 30th October 2009, you failed to ensure that an application for a Court of Protection order in respect of a service user Mr Z, was made expeditiously, or at all.'	2011-01-22	2010 cases, Brief summary, Miscellaneous, Transcript
Salisu v SSH (2011) UKFTT 1 (HESC) — The Applicant was guilty of misconduct within the meaning of Section 86(7)(a) Care Standards Act 2000 (convicted of ill-treatment under s127 MHA 1983) but was not unsuitable to work with vulnerable adults and children under s86(7)(b).	2011-01-22	2011 cases, Brief summary, Miscellaneous, Transcript
Re AVS; AVS v A NHS Foundation Trust (2011) EWCA Civ 7 — Court of Appeal refuse permission to appeal from Court of Protection decision in medical treatment case. [Official summary available.]	2011-01-17	2011 cases, Best interests, Brief summary, Transcript
TTM v LB Hackney (2011) EWCA Civ 4 — (1) Where a local authority makes an unlawful application to a hospital for the detention of a patient under the MHA, it can be held liable in damages for false imprisonment when its unlawful act directly causes the detention; (2) although the hospital may act lawfully in detaining such a patient under s6(3) (if the application appeared to be duly made) that does not prevent the detention being held to be unlawful from the outset as against the local authority; (3) an application for detention that is made contrary to s11(4) (in the face of the Nearest Relative's objection) is in breach of Article 5(1); (4) Article 5(5) entitles a person detained in breach of Article 5(1) to compensation, and s139(1) (no liability unless bad faith or lack of reasonable care) can be read down so as to allow such a claim to proceed; (5) the word 'practicable' in s12(2) (requiring a recommendation from a doctor with previous acquaintance of the patient if practicable) should be ..→	2011-01-14	2011 cases, Consulting NR, Detailed summary, Miscellaneous, Transcript, Unlawful detention cases
DL v South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust (2010) UKUT 455 (AAC) — The Tribunal failed to explain why it rejected medical and social reports which recommended absolute discharge. Their decision was set aside and the case remitted to the First-tier Tribunal for a rehearing.	2011-01-13	2010 cases, Brief summary, Reasons, Transcript, Upper Tribunal decisions
SSJ v RB (2010) UKUT 454 (AAC) — (1) The Tribunal may conditionally discharge with conditions which amount to a regime of detention (deprivation of liberty) to any establishment which is not defined as a 'hospital'. [Caution.] (2) The Upper Tribunal will follow High Court decisions unless it is convinced they are wrong, but where highly specialised issues arise the UT may feel less inhibited than the High Court in revisiting the issues.	2011-01-13	2010 cases, Deprivation of liberty, Detailed summary, Discharge conditions, Transcript, Upper Tribunal decisions
Re HM; PM v KH (2010) EWHC 3279 (Fam) — PM sentenced to 4 months' imprisonment for contempt of court. [Summary required.]	2011-01-06	2010 cases, Best interests, No summary, Transcript
Re HM; PM v KH (2010) EWHC 2107 (Fam) — Costs orders against PM. [Summary required.]	2011-01-06	2010 cases, Best interests, No summary, Transcript
Re RK; YB v BCC (2010) EWHC 3355 (COP) — (1) Given the terms of s20(8) Children Act 1989 (that any person with parental responsibility may at any time remove the child) the provision of accommodation to a child under s20(1), (3), (4) or (5) will not ever give rise to a deprivation of liberty within the terms of Article 5. If the child is being accommodated under the auspices of a care order, interim or full, or if the child has been placed in secure accommodation under s25, then the position might be different. (2) In any event: (a) the objective element of deprivation of liberty was not remotely close to being met on the facts; (b) the subjective element was not met, as the parents had consented on RK's behalf; (c) RK's placement was at the behest of her parents and could not be imputed to the state. [Detailed summary to follow.]	2011-01-04	2010 cases, Brief summary, Deprivation of liberty, Transcript
G v E (2010) EWHC 3385 (Fam) — Costs judgment. "In all the circumstances, I conclude that this is a case for departing from the general rule set out in rule 157 of the Court of Protection rules, and I make an order in the following terms: (1) That the local authority should pay the costs of G, F and E, including pre-litigation costs, up to and including the first day of the hearing before me on 14th January 2010 on an indemnity basis. (2) The local authority shall pay one third of the costs of G, F and E from that date up to and including the hearing on 6 May 2010 on a standard basis. (3) All costs will be subject to a detailed assessment, if not agreed." [Summary required.]	2011-01-04	2010 cases, COP costs cases, Deprivation of liberty, No summary, Transcript
Re KS (2010) COP 99162476 — Costs under the Court of Protection Rules. [Summary required.]	2010-12-20	2010 cases, No summary, Other capacity cases, Transcript
R (Khela) v Brandon MH Unit (2010) EWHC 3313 (Admin) — This renewed application for permission to judicially review a Tribunal decision and to quash the RC's previous diagnosis was dismissed and the claim found to be totally without merit.	2010-12-19	2010 cases, Brief summary, Transcript, Unimportant cases
Re P (Scope of Schedule A1) (2010) COP 30/6/10 — Given that a standard authorisation extends to restraining P from leaving the accommodation, it must also extend to compelling him to return.	2010-12-16	2010 cases, Brief summary, Deprivation of liberty, Transcript
R (Faulkner) v SSJ (2010) EWCA Civ 1434 — Delay in Parole Board hearing led to Article 5(4) breach. [Summary required.]	2010-12-16	2010 cases, No summary, Prison law cases, Transcript
Re MM; City of Sunderland v MM (2011) 1 FLR 712 — P's partner's Article 8 rights were breached by the denial of contact between them. [Summary required.]	2010-12-16	2010 cases, No summary, Other capacity cases, Transcript
Public Interest Lawyers v LSC (2010) EWHC 3277 (Admin) — (1) The verification process following the LSC's public law and mental health tendering process fell short of what was required by the Public Contract Regulations 2006. No objection was taken, nor could it be, to self-certification. But the self-certification supervisor forms did not require supervisors to confirm specifically the nature of the employment arrangements between them and the organisation or whether they had complied with the supervision standards set out in the contract, in particular the supervision experience or training course requirement (clause 2.28) and the 1:6 supervisor ratio requirement (clause 2.35). There may therefore be a number of firms with contracts who did not meet the supervision criteria, for example who have an external non-employed supervisor, or a part-time supervisor who is not employed for sufficient hours. The LSC must ensure, within a limited period, that all firms currently comply with the supervision standards; those who do not must have ..→	2010-12-16	2010 cases, Detailed summary, Miscellaneous, Transcript
AG's ref (nos 37, 38 and 65 of 2010) sub nom R v Khan (2010) EWCA Crim 2880 — Sentencing case which includes an illustration of the principle that there is no presumption that a hospital order will be made as a consequence of the satisfaction of the conditions in s37(2). The court noted that 'there were recognised symptoms of a depressive illness which in Mrs Khan's case were absent or equivocal. She was sleeping well; she could concentrate; she had been fit to give evidence but declined to do so; she was selective in her submission to treatment. These features of Mrs Khan's illness were relevant to her ability to serve a sentence of imprisonment which, as the judge found, was richly deserved. This was not a case in respect of which it could be argued that Mrs Khan's mental condition had any causative influence upon her offending.'	2010-12-11	2010 cases, Brief summary, Other criminal law cases, Transcript
R v Maynard (2010) EWCA Crim 2854 — On appeal the conviction for murder had been reduced to diminished responsibility manslaughter, and a restricted hospital order was imposed. The appellant remained in prison 18 months later, largely because he had refused to cooperate in the belief that he would be released sooner if given a prison sentence. Based on his dangerousness, the gravity of the offence and the level of culpability, the court imposed a life sentence with a 10-year tariff.	2010-12-09	2010 cases, Brief summary, Other criminal law cases, Transcript
R v AN (2004) EWCA Crim 3238 — (1) Although the medical evidence recommended a hospital order, the judge had been entitled to exercise his discretion not to impose a hospital order, particularly since there was no causal connection between the mental illness and the offending. (2) The 12-year sentence was not excessive.	2010-12-09	2004 cases, Brief summary, Sentence appeal cases, Transcript
Perrins v Holland (2010) EWCA Civ 1398 — Unsuccessful costs appeal. [No summary.]	2010-12-09	2010 cases, No summary, Other capacity cases, Transcript
Seal v UK 50330/07 (2010) ECHR 1976 — The claimant issued his claim on the eve of the limitation period without seeking leave under s139; the House of Lords had found that his claim was therefore a nullity. (1) No breach of Article 6 was found because (a) the six-year limitation period pursued a legitimate aim, (b) s139 was to restrict access to the court only where the claim was manifestly unmeritorious, and its general aim of protecting those who exercise powers under that Act, including the police, pursued a legitimate aim, (c) the decision to strike out did not impair the very essence of the applicant's right of access to court and was not disproportionate: he had not explained his delay or failure to seek leave, and should bear the consequences of his own decisions, and in any event could continue his non-MHA claims (2) No breach of Article 6 taken with Article 14 was found because he did not argue it in any substance and, by not having argued it previously, had failed to exhaust domestic remedies.	2010-12-09	2010 cases, Brief summary, ECHR, Miscellaneous, Transcript
SSWP v SS (DLA) (2010) UKUT 384 (AAC) — The decision under challenge was stated to have been made unanimously when in fact it was made by majority. (1) There is no obligation on the First-tier Tribunal (Social Entitlement Chamber) to state whether a decision is made by a majority or is unanimous; however, any statement given must be accurate. (2) If the decision notice accurately records that the decision was by a majority then any statement of reasons must contain at least a brief statement of the reasons for the dissent of the minority member. (3) An inaccurate statement that a decision is unanimous amounts to an error of law. (4) The decision was therefore set aside and remitted to a freshly constituted Tribunal for reconsideration.	2010-12-02	2010 cases, Brief summary, Transcript, Upper Tribunal decisions
R (SP) v SSJ (2010) EWCA Civ 1590 — The Secretary of State for Justice was entitled to rely on a medical recommendation under s47 which did not explicitly address the new 'appropriate treatment' test: (1) his case workers are not concerned to pursue medical reasoning, but only to see whether the expert had given some reasons which they considered adequate and did not conflict with the facts known or the statutory requirements; (2) he was entitled to give the reports a sensible meaning, and to satisfy himself that the 'appropriate treatment' test was met by reference to matters which had been in the report by necessary implication. [Summary based on All ER (D) report of ex tempore judgment]	2010-12-01	2010 cases, Brief summary, Transcript, Unlawful detention cases
Re JG (Estate Planning for Adults who have lost Capacity) (2009) ScotSC 3/3/09 — Scottish case. [Summary required.]	2010-11-28	2009 cases, No summary, Scottish cases, Transcript
JG v MHTS (2010) ScotSC 14/10/10 — Challenge to Mental Health Tribunal for Scotland decision. [Summary required.]	2010-11-25	2010 cases, No summary, Scottish cases, Transcript
LBL v RYJ (2010) EWHC 2665 (COP) — RYJ had capacity in relation to care, contact, residential education and residence, and was not vulnerable as a result of external factors so as to invoke the inherent jurisdiction; discussion of mother's status as appointee and her application to SENDIST. [Summary required.]	2010-11-25	2010 cases, Brief summary, Other capacity cases, Transcript
R v Dunn (2010) EWCA Crim 2935 — Dunn had been convicted of four counts of ill-treating a person without capacity contrary to MCA 2005 s44 against three victims at the residential care home of which she was manageress. The judge had directed that 'a person without capacity' meant a person unable to make decisions for himself because of a disturbance or impairment of function of the mind or brain, that a diagnosis of dementia was not enough, that 'impairment' could be permanent or temporary, that capacity was presumed unless disproved on the balance of probabilities, and that this direction applied to all three victims. The defendant appealed on the basis that the direction on 'a person without capacity' was inadequate, failed to focus on the capacity of each victim to make a decision at the relevant time, and failed to identify the questions required by s3. Appeal dismissed. (1) The legislation, including s2, was convoluted and did not appropriately define the elements of the ..→	2010-11-25	2010 cases, Brief summary, Criminal law capacity cases, Transcript
Re G (TJ) (2010) EWHC 3005 (COP) — The court considered the meaning of 'best interests' when deciding whether or not to direct a deputy to make maintenance payments from P's funds to her daughter. (1) The balance sheet of facts which P would draw up if he had capacity to make the decision (taking into account actual wishes, beliefs and values, and other factors) is a relevant factor for the court's decision: thus a substituted judgment can be subsumed into the consideration of best interests. (2) 'Best interests' does not only include the self-interest of P: it includes wishes (or those he would have formed had he capacity) even if altruistic and not self-interested, and even if P has no awareness of the fact that such wishes are being respected. (3) On the facts: (a) no weight would be given to the possibility that P might be thought to have done the 'right thing', principally because she could not participate in the decision in any way, and partly because the family disagreed about what was the right thing; (b) ..→	2010-11-22	2010 cases, Best interests, Brief summary, Transcript
Singellos v Singellos (2010) EWHC 2353 (Ch) — (1) The approach in Parker v Felgate (1883) 8 PD 171 (that if a testator gives instructions when he has capacity, the will stands good even though at the time of execution he only understands that he is executing the will which he has instructed) applies also to dispositions inter vivos. (2) Mrs Singellos had the necessary capacity when she gave instructions to her accountant, but when she signed the multiple documents involved she only understood that she was giving effect to her instructions: the documents were declared to be validly executed.	2010-11-18	2010 cases, Brief summary, Other capacity cases, Transcript
C v D (2010) EWHC 2940 (Ch) — (1) A settlement offer which is time-limited (in this case it was open for acceptance for 21 days) is not capable of being a Part 36 offer; (2) on the facts, the offer had expired after 21 days and was not capable of acceptance. [Caution: partly overturned on appeal.]	2010-11-18	2010 cases, Detailed summary, Miscellaneous, Transcript
RH v South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust (2010) EWCA Civ 1273 — (1) The SC case stated that one of the key questions that the Tribunal will wish to ask itself when considering how to exercise its powers under section 75(3) is whether it is - as section 73(1)(b) puts it - 'satisfied that it is not appropriate for the patient to remain liable to be recalled to hospital for further treatment'. The putting of the burden of proof on the patient is not in breach of the ECHR: Article 5 does not apply; conditions imposed may engage Article 8, but it is justified to require a patient made subject to a restriction order following a criminal trial/conviction to satisfy the FTT that the order should cease to have effect. (2) The FTT's reasons were undoubtedly adequate. (3) The FTT had not said that RH's restriction order 'should remain in place essentially for life' (it had said that in some cases this would be the case) so this ground of appeal failed. (4) The FTT's comparison between conditional discharge and life licence was not an equation but merely to ..→	2010-11-13	2010 cases, Brief summary, Reasons, Transcript, Upper Tribunal decisions
R (Royal College of Nursing) v SSHD (2010) EWHC 2761 (Admin) — Previous scheme established under the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006 which automatically prohibited those placed on lists established under the scheme from working with children and/or vulnerable adults was unlawful: the absence of a right to make representations breached their right to a fair trial.	2010-11-11	2010 cases, Detailed summary, Miscellaneous, Transcript
Re Collis (2010) COP 27/10/10 — An application was made to the court to direct the Public Guardian to cancel the registration of an LPA on the grounds that the instrument was not a valid LPA because the Donor lacked capacity to create an LPA at the date of execution. In the course of his judgment the Senior Judge set out the law relating to capacity to create an LPA. [OPG summary - LPA case.]	2010-11-06	2010 cases, Brief summary, LPA cases - all, LPA cases - capacity to make an LPA, Transcript
YA(F) v A Local Authority (2010) EWHC 2770 (COP) — P and his mother brought claims under s7 HRA in the Court of Protection; the other parties asserted that only declaratory relief was possible as the CoP had no jurisdiction to hear and deal with (a) any of the mother's HRA claim or (b) the son's HRA damages claim, and that the claim should have been in the Queen's Bench Division. (1) The common ground that the CoP has jurisdiction to deal with P's HRA claim and grant declaratory relief was correct. (2) The CoP has jurisdiction (a) to hear argument on behalf of the mother that acts done in relation to P constitute breaches of her Convention rights and (b) to make declarations as to the lawfulness of such acts. (3) The CoP is a 'court which has power to award damages... in civil proceedings' under s8(1) HRA 1998 when exercising its HRA jurisdiction either because (a) in exercising its jurisdiction the CoP has the same powers as the High Court, which can award damages in such cases, or because (b) the CoP has power to award damages ..→	2010-11-03	2010 cases, Brief summary, Other capacity cases, Transcript
Hirst v UK (No 2) 74025/01 (2005) ECHR 681 — The blanket restriction on voting, which applies to all convicted prisoners in prison irrespective of the length of their sentence, the nature or gravity of their offence, or their individual circumstances, is unlawful.	2010-11-02	2005 cases, Brief summary, Miscellaneous, Transcript
Re AVS; CS v A NHS Foundation Trust (2010) EWHC 2746 (COP) — (1) AVS suffered from CJD and at a previous hearing it had been declared that he lacked capacity to instruct solicitors or make medical decisions. (2) The critical question was: 'is it in AVS's bests interests that PPS treatment continues to be administered to him?' The applicant wanted it to recommence; the Trust did not. (3) The applicant brother was not an appropriate next friend as the relationship between him and the clinicians had broken down completely and he lacked the necessary objectivity: the Official Solicitor would be invited to act. (4) The court's 'best interests' analysis embraces all the circumstances of the case, and clinical opinion is not necessarily determinative, but it is unlikely in the extreme that the court would order a clinician to undertake a medical intervention which the clinician did not believe to be in the best interests of the patient. (5) These proceedings would therefore be doomed to failure without a clinical opinion on the applicant's side. A ..→	2010-11-02	2010 cases, Best interests, Brief summary, Transcript
Re HP (Remuneration of a Financial Guardian under Section 68 of the Adults with Incapacity (Scotland) Act 2000) (2010) ScotSC 21/7/10 — This appeal concerns a decision of the Public Guardian regarding the question of the remuneration payable to a financial guardian in respect of the work undertaken by him in connection with the applications he submitted for renewal of the guardianship. Following an application to the Public Guardian for remuneration in connection with the renewal process, it was decided that additional remuneration was appropriate, but the proposed payment was at a level the guardian did not regard as adequate. The court held that this case was an exceptional circumstance in which the Public Guardian should authorise payment on a time and trouble basis.	2010-10-30	2010 cases, Brief summary, Scottish cases, Transcript
Re LC (2005) ScotSC 19/5/05 — A sheriff may dispense with intimation, or notification, of an application for Guardianship where such intimation "would be likely to pose a serious risk to the health of the adult". It was held that it was insufficient for the medical practitioners to simply repeat the words which appear in the statute and that concise and articulate reasons should be given in order that the court has proper information on which to form a view.	2010-10-30	2005 cases, No summary, Scottish cases, Transcript
Re FB (Incapacity Application) (2005) ScotSC 26 — An application for guardianship was sought and granted. The court held that the first question it was to consider was whether the respondent was incapable in relation to decisions about, or of acting to safeguard his interests in, his personal welfare, as a consequence of the mental disorder, and whether this was likely to continue to be so. It was held that this meant much more than just being incapable of making decisions but also being incapable of understanding decisions in relation to his interests in his personal welfare or of acting to safeguard or promote those interests. The next question to consider was whether there was any other means provided by or under the Act which would be sufficient to enable the respondent's interests in his personal welfare to be safeguarded. Finally, the court held that the next question to be considered was whether the interests could be safeguarded otherwise than by guardianship order.	2010-10-29	2005 cases, Brief summary, Scottish cases, Transcript
E v Channel Four (2005) EWHC 1144 (Fam) — In these proceedings the Official Solicitor, joined by St Helens Borough Council, seeks an interim injunction to restrain the broadcasting by Channel Four Television Corporation of a film and the publication by the Sunday Times of an article about E. She is a woman of 32, who they assert lacks the capacity to consent to what Channel Four and the Sunday Times are proposing. They invoke the inherent jurisdiction of the court. [Summary required.]	2010-10-29	2005 cases, Best interests, No summary, Transcript
Re DC (Dispensing with Service of Applications under the Adults with Incapacity (Scotland) Act 2000 on the Adult) (2010) ScotSC 6 — An application for Financial and Welfare Guardianship was accompanied by a form purporting to justify dispensing with intimation of the application on the adult. The Sheriff referred to his earlier decision in Re LC (2005) ScotSC 19/5/05 and held that the words in the application that "He is too disturbed and mentally ill" were insufficient to demonstrate that intimation of the application itself would be likely to pose a serious risk to the health of the adult.	2010-10-27	2010 cases, Brief summary, Scottish cases, Transcript
R v Oakley (2010) EWCA Crim 2419 — Sentencing for diminished responsibility manslaughter. [Summary required.]	2010-10-27	2010 cases, Diminished responsibility cases, No summary, Transcript
Anam v SSHD (2010) EWCA Civ 1140 — This appeal concerns the Secretary of State for the Home Department's powers of detention under paragraph 2(3) of Schedule 3 to the Immigration Act 1971 and the implications of his failure to have regard, when exercising those powers to detain the Appellant, to his own policy as set out in a document entitled "Enforcement Instructions and Guidance". [Summary required.]	2010-10-27	2010 cases, Brief summary, Repatriation cases, Transcript
A Local Authority v DL (2010) EWHC 2675 (Fam) — Scope of inherent jurisdiction. [Summary required.]	2010-10-25	2010 cases, No summary, Other capacity cases, Transcript
A County Council v MB (2010) EWHC 2508 (COP) — Court of Protection case about 'DOLS breakdowns'. [Official summary available.]	2010-10-22	2010 cases, Deprivation of liberty, No summary, Transcript
City of Edinburgh Council v D (2010) ScotSC 30/9/10 — An Intervention Order was sought, and granted, to allow the applicant to instruct solicitors, on the adult's behalf, to negotiate for settlement with respect to an outstanding compensation claim, to receive funds and invest same for the benefit of the adult, and to instruct solicitors to apply to have the applicant confirmed as executor to the adult's father's estate, in order that his estate could then be wound up and disbursed.	2010-10-18	2010 cases, Brief summary, Scottish cases, Transcript
Law Society v Legal Services Commission (2010) EWHC 2550 (Admin) — Family law tendering process declared unlawful because of the LSC's approach to accreditation. [Summary required.]	2010-10-18	2010 cases, Miscellaneous, No summary, Transcript
G v E (2010) EWHC 2512 (COP) — Unsuccessful applications for (1) deputies to be appointed and (2) sister to become Litigation Friend in place of Official Solicitor. [Official summary available.]	2010-10-18	2010 cases, No summary, Other capacity cases, Transcript
R v Cooper (2010) EWCA Crim 2335 — Unsuccessful appeal against s45A hybrid order. [Summary required.]	2010-10-18	2010 cases, Hybrid order cases, No summary, Transcript
Re SA; FA v Mr A (2010) EWCA Civ 1128 — Court of Protection case. [Summary to follow.]	2010-10-18	2010 cases, Best interests, No summary, Transcript
F v Clinical Director of Our Lady's Hospital (2010) IEHC 243 — The discharge of the patient from voluntary status (despite his desire to remain as a voluntary patient) and the subsequent admission order making him an involuntary patient, in order to be transferred to the Central Mental Hospital in Dublin, and the CMH policy only to accept involuntary patients, were lawful.	2010-10-06	2010 cases, Brief summary, Southern Irish cases, Transcript
Perrins v Holland (2010) EWCA Civ 840 — Unsuccessful appeal against decision to pronounce in favour of a will. Summary of decision below: The testator had testamentary capacity at the time that he gave instructions for the will, but not when he executed it; however, when he executed the will he believed that it gave effect to his previous instructions, it did in fact do so, and the instructions remained his testamentary wishes. Therefore the court pronounced in favour of the will. [Summary of appeal required.]	2010-10-06	2010 cases, No summary, Other capacity cases, Transcript
An NHS Foundation Trust v D (2010) EWHC 2535 (COP) — (1) D lacked the capacity to decide on medical treatment for her prolapsed uterus, as she held the delusional belief that her condition was normal and did not require treatment. (2) It was in D's best interests to receive surgery, as if untreated her condition could be life-threatening. (3) The proposed restraint and deprivation of liberty (including a general aesthetic six days before the surgery) was authorised, if absolutely necessary, as being in her best interests. (Summary based on press articles.)	2010-10-05	2010 cases, Best interests, Brief summary, Transcript
Re S (statutory will); D v R (the deputy of S) (2010) EWHC 2405 (COP) — S's financial deputy started an action in S's name seeking a declaration that gifts of money totalling over £500,000 made by S to D were procured by undue influence; S wanted the Chancery proceedings to be discontinued, so D sought a declaration that S had the capacity to do so. (1) Detailed consideration was given to the law (including that whether a decision is unwise or foolish is a relevant consideration in deciding on capacity, in particular where there is a marked contrast between the unwise nature of the decision and the former attitude when capacity was not in question) and to the conflicting medical evidence. (2) In order to have capacity: S must be able to understand, as a minimum, the nature and extent of the relationship of trust and confidence which he arguably reposed in Mrs D, the extent to which it may be said that his gifts to her cannot readily be accounted for by ordinary motives, and the general nature of the evidential burden resting on her to rebut any ..→	2010-10-05	2010 cases, Brief summary, Other capacity cases, Transcript
Peters v East Midlands SHA (2009) EWCA Civ 145 — [Summary required.]	2010-10-04	2009 cases, No summary, Other capacity cases, Transcript
EG v RS (2010) EWHC 3073 (COP) — EG had to pay the costs of her application for permission to apply to be appointed RS's health and welfare deputy: she ought to have known that her application was doomed to fail because her role as RS's brother-in-law's solicitor, in an acrimonious family dispute, conflicted with the duty to act in RS's best interests.	2010-10-04	2010 cases, Brief summary, Other capacity cases, Transcript
Attorney General v Ratra (2003) EWHC 1291 (Admin) — Vexatious litigant. [Summary required.]	2010-09-27	2003 cases, No summary, Transcript, Unimportant cases
Breslin v McKenna (Omagh Bombing case) (2009) NIQB 50 — Omagh bombing civil judgment, including consideration of damages for psychiatric injury. [Summary required.]	2010-09-27	2009 cases, Miscellaneous, No summary, Transcript
Eagle v Chambers (2004) EWCA Civ 1033 — [Summary required.]	2010-09-27	2004 cases, Miscellaneous, No summary, Transcript
Aylott v Stockton-On-Tees BC (2010) EWCA Civ 910 — This appeal is about how the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 should be interpreted in law and applied in practice. [Summary required.]	2010-09-23	2010 cases, Disability discrimination, No summary, Transcript
J v DLA Piper UK LLP (2010) UKEAT 0263/09/1506 — (1) In holding that at the material time (June 2008) the claimant was not suffering from 'clinical depression' amounting to a disability within the meaning of the DDA 1995, the Tribunal had (a) wrongly declined to give weight to the evidence of Claimant's GP, on the issues both of impairment and of 'deduced effect', because she was not a specialist; and (b) made a perverse finding as to whether the claimant's past depression had amounted to an impairment having a substantial adverse effect on her ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities, which was material both to the question of whether she had an impairment in June 2008 and to the potential application of para 2(2) of Schedule 1. (2) The appeal was allowed and the issue remitted. (3) Discussion of: (a) correct approach to issue of 'impairment' in cases involving a mental disability following the repeal of para 1(1) of Schedule 1; (b) distinction between 'clinical depression' and reactions to stress or other adverse ..→	2010-09-23	2010 cases, Brief summary, Disability discrimination, Transcript
R (Nassery) v LB Brent (2010) EWHC 2326 (Admin) — The claimant unsuccessfully challenged decisions that he did not have a need for care and attention pursuant to s1 NAA 1948 and s47 NHSCCA 1990; the challenge was on the basis that the decisions failed to have regard to, or give good reasons for rejecting, evidence that he needed looking after because of the continued risk of self‑harm or violence arising out of mental health problems (a subsidiary issue was raised about his ability to cook).	2010-09-23	2010 cases, Brief summary, Community care, Transcript
Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform v Murphy (2010) IESC 17 — (1) A 'sentence of detention' under (Irish) European Arrest Warrant Act 2003 s10(d), read with the aid of the relevant Framework Decision, is any order involving deprivation of liberty which has been made by a criminal court in addition to or instead of a prison sentence. (2) This therefore includes a restricted hospital order made under s37/41 MHA 1983. (3) The appellant, who had escaped having been convicted of extraditable offences, was surrendered to the UK.	2010-09-23	2010 cases, Brief summary, Southern Irish cases, Transcript
LC v DHIH (2010) UKUT 319 (AAC) — (1) The MHRT for Wales's decision not to discharge the patient, following a deferred conditional discharge, was inadequately reasoned because: (a) it took into account matters to which it had not referred in its original decision; (b) in relation to the newly-identified risk factors, either they must have been risk factors at the time of the original decision, or something unidentified must have happened to make them risk factors; (c) the tribunal could have deferred its decision for a report from the RC at the proposed accommodation, given that all staff agreed with the transfer; (d) the transfer was recommended despite the above; (e) given the liability to recall inherent in a conditional discharge, no reason was given as to why it was necessary to retain the "support of the MHA for the time being" during the accommodation move. (2) The second decision was set aside, so the original deferred conditional discharge decision remained effective, and the matter was referred to the ..→	2010-09-23	2010 cases, Brief summary, Reasons, Transcript, Upper Tribunal decisions
A Primary Care Trust v P (2009) EW Misc 10 (EWCOP) — (1) P lacked capacity to decide where and with whom he should reside. (2) The removal of P from AH's care at home, as a manifest breach of Article 8, could only be proportionate if the best interests of P compellingly required it. (3) It was in P's best interests to be moved to independent living accommodation. (4) There would be a deprivation of liberty due to (a) the degree of control to be exercised by staff, (b) the constraint on P leaving if he intends to return to AH, (c) the power to refuse a request from AH for P's return, (d) the restraints on contact, (e) the fairly high degree of supervision and control. (5) Directions were given in relation to the conduct of further court reviews. (6) Contact would be dealt with separately in an Order.	2010-09-13	2009 cases, Best interests, Brief summary, Deprivation of liberty, Transcript
Smith v MHTS (2006) CSOH 44 — A Mental Health Officer sought Judicial Review of the Mental Health Tribunal for Scotland's decision not to convene a Tribunal before the end of the 5-day STDC extension period. The Tribunal had cited the limited availability of venues and the lateness of the compulsory treatment order application as reasons; these were irrelevant as the obligation is straightforward and clear and not qualified by reference to reasonable practicability. An order was pronounced requiring the Tribunal administration to schedule a hearing within 5 days of the judicial review hearing.	2010-09-09	2006 cases, Brief summary, Scottish cases, Transcript
Laurie v MHTS (2007) GWD 32-555 — An application was made for revocation/variation of a Compulsory Treatment Order by the patient's Named Person. Two competing arguments were before the Mental Health Tribunal - one regarding a community option, the other a move to a specialist unit. A report prepared on behalf of the specialist unit was before the Tribunal. The Sheriff concluded that there will be many cases where proceeding on the basis of a report, without requiring the author to speak to it, was entirely proper and satisfactory but that it was not adequate in the circumstances of this case given the importance attached to that report. Whilst no party had requested an opportunity to cross-examine the author of the report, the Sheriff held that the Tribunal is not purely adversarial but there is an inquisitorial element in the approach required to be adopted by the Tribunal in its reaching decisions. The failure to consider whether to require the author to give evidence and the failure to consider the weight ..→	2010-09-09	2007 cases, Brief summary, Scottish cases, Transcript
Di Mascio v MHTS (2008) GWD 37-559 — The Mental Health Officer appealed against the decision by the Mental Health Tribunal for Scotland to vary the conditions of a Compulsory Treatment Order from a hospital based order to a community based one. The variation provided that the patient should reside with his mother. The appeal was refused. It was held that he Tribunal should have regard to the principles set out in section 1 of the Mental Health (Care & Treatment) (Scotland) Act 2003 when determining what compulsory measures should be authorised; and that a significant risk to the safety of others did not determine that detention in hospital must be authorised.	2010-09-09	2008 cases, Brief summary, Scottish cases, Transcript
AB v MHTS (2008) GWD 36-543 — During the course of a Mental Health Tribunal the Convenor curtailed the appellant's solicitor's repetitive cross-examination. An interim Compulsory Treatment Order (CTO) was granted. A subsequent Tribunal granted a CTO. This decision was subject to appeal. The Sheriff concluded there had been no procedural impropriety in the conduct of the hearing, nor was there a requirement for the Responsible Medical Officer to formally adopt their mental health report; the Tribunal could consider the evidence read as a whole in conjunction with the earlier mental health reports.	2010-09-09	2008 cases, Brief summary, Scottish cases, Transcript
LM v MHTS (2010) ScotSC x — The appellant had been subject to a Short-Term Detention Certificate (STDC), which was followed by an (unlawful) Extension Certificate, which was then followed by a subsequent STDC. Section 44(2) Mental Health (Care and Treatment) (Scotland) Act 2003 prohibits the granting of a STDC when the patient is subject to an Extension Certificate. An application under s50 was made to revoke the second STDC; the MHTS considered the detention criteria and refused the application. This decision was subject to an appeal to the Sheriff Principal who held that as the appellant had not been "subject to" the Extension Certificate (it being unlawful) the second STDC was valid. The Sheriff noted that the appellant could have made an application in terms of section 291 to challenge the lawfulness of his detention; this option met Article 5 requirements and would have been more appropriate as the detaining party would have been the respondent.	2010-09-04	2010 cases, Brief summary, Scottish cases, Transcript
Re MIG and MEG (2010) EWHC 785 (Fam) — Neither MIG (aged 18, in a foster placement) nor MEG (aged 17, in a small group home) was deprived of her liberty.	2010-09-03	2010 cases, Deprivation of liberty, Detailed summary, Transcript
WS v MHTS (2010) CSIH 74 — WS had been transferred from an English medium secure unit to the state hospital at Carstairs in Scotland under s80 MHA 1983. (1) His appeal to the MHTS under s220 Mental Health (Care and Treatment) (Scotland) Act 2003 ("Appeal to Tribunal against transfer under section 218 to state hospital") was misconceived because he had not been transferred under s218. (2) The appropriate remedies would have been (a) a judicial review in England of the English s80 decision or (b) an appeal under the Scottish s264 ("Detention in conditions of excessive security: state hospitals"). (3) An order under s264 would oblige the Health Board to search for suitable accommodation in England if necessary.	2010-08-22	2010 cases, Brief summary, Scottish cases, Transcript
Re LD; London Borough of Havering v LD and KD (2010) EWHC 3876 (COP) — (1) The practice of the Court to appoint personal wefare deputies only relatively rarely, in the most extreme cases, is the correct approach, considering the intention of s16(4). Specific decisions of the court are to be preferred to the ongoing appointment of a deputy and when a deputy must be appointed it is to be for the narrowest scope and the shortest time reasonably practicable in the circumstances. (2) The local authority's application to be appointed as LD's personal welfare deputy until further order was rejected: the case was not especially unusual or difficult; residence had recently been resolved by the court, and the other issues were either routine (and thus subject to s5) or very major (requiring court scrutiny); the absence of a deputy would not cause problematic delay in decision-making, as as court orders can be obtained very swiftly, and was not preventing care or services being provided; mere convenience to a local authority in ..→	2010-08-21	2010 cases, Best interests, Brief summary, Transcript
Re D (Statutory Will); VAC v JAD (2010) EWHC 2159 (Ch) — (1) There is no presumption that the Court of Protection should not direct the execution of a statutory will in any case where the validity of an earlier will is in dispute. Such an approach would tend to elevate one factor (a previous written statement) over all others, contrary to the structured decision-making process required by the MCA 2005. (2) On the facts, the doubts about the validity of the previous wills were sufficient to conclude that D's best interests would be served by the execution of a statutory will to prevent her estate being eroded, and her memory being tainted, by a bitter contested probate dispute.	2010-08-17	2010 cases, Brief summary, Other capacity cases, Transcript
Re Lodge (2010) COP 6/8/10 — Unfortunately by mistake the donor signed Part C and the attorney signed Part B of the EPA instrument. On the attorney's application the Court held that the donor's failure to execute the instrument correctly was a material defect and it was not a valid EPA. The attorney applied for a reconsideration of this order. By an order of the Senior Judge made on 14/3/11 the previous order was affirmed. [OPG summary - EPA case - transcript available.]	2010-08-16	2010 cases, Brief summary, EPA cases - all, EPA cases - whether the instrument was validly executed, Transcript
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
Re RC (Deceased); SC v LB Hackney (2010) EWHC B29 (COP) — LBH had successfully applied for a property and affairs LPA to be declared invalid and for residence orders; costs were awarded against the donee, SC; the costs order was appealed; subsequently RC died. (1) The court could hear the appeal against costs (but not other issues) after RC's death under its residual jurisdiction; this was so despite the only relevant rule being narrower in scope than to allow this. (2) The judge was wrong to hold that "the LPA was a personal welfare LPA, and therefore its general rule would fall within rule 157". (The general rules are rule 156, that P pay for property and affairs proceedings, and rule 157, that there be no order for costs in personal welfare proceedings.) (3) As a general rule the incidence of costs in cases where there is an LPA for health and welfare should not necessarily differ from the rule in property and affairs cases, subject to the provisions of rule 159 (departure from general rule if justified in circumstances). (4) ..→	2010-08-10	2010 cases, COP costs cases, Detailed summary, LPA cases - all, Transcript
BB v AM (2010) EWHC 1916 (Fam) — (1) BB was not ineligible to be deprived of her liberty within the meaning of Case E of MCA 2005 sch 1A as the psychiatric evidence was that the criteria under s2 or s3 MHA were not made out. (2) In relation to whether or not there was a deprivation of liberty: on one hand (a) BB was under sedation; staff exercised control over her care, movements, assessments and treatments; staff also exercised control over her residence and the contacts she had with other people; her family were hostile to her placement; the court was refusing to sanction the discharge of BB into the care of her parents pending the conclusion of investigations being carried out by the police; on the other hand (b) BB was apparently happy where she was; she had a degree of freedom within the hospital; in addition if she asked to leave, she was allowed to do so, although only under the supervision of accompanying staff; in conclusion (c) she was being deprived of her liberty as she was away from her family, in ..→	2010-08-09	2010 cases, Deprivation of liberty, Detailed summary, Transcript
Re MN (2010) EWHC 1926 (Fam) — Whether (and, if so, according to what criteria) the Court of Protection should recognise and enforce an order of a court of competent jurisdiction in California requiring the return of MN to that state. (1) The basis of jurisdiction is habitual residence: the key to that decision is whether the agent (like an English deputy) had authority to remove MN to England. (2) If she had, then MN is likely habitually resident in England and the English court has jurisdiction. The Californian order could only be enforced if indicated by a full best interests enquiry on the evidence. (3) If she did not have the authority, then MN remains habitually resident in California and its courts should exercise primary jurisdiction. The Californian order would likely be recognised and enforced, unless the carrier or the independent doctor advised otherwise; the best interests enquiry would be confined to the journey; however, a full best interests jurisdiction could be adopted at the invitation of the ..→	2010-08-09	2010 cases, Detailed summary, Other capacity cases, Transcript
D County Council v LS (2010) EWHC 1544 (Fam) — The original decision in this case, that LS had capacity to consent to sexual relations and marriage, was revisited in light of the House of Lords decision in R v C. (1) The MCA statutory scheme should be applied in preference to the previous civil case law; the approach in R v C clearly applied to both the civil and criminal arenas, and was consistent with s3 MCA, so would be followed. (2) Capacity requires not only an understanding of the relevant information but also the ability to retain and weigh it in the balance: therefore capacity to consent to sexual relations is person- and situation-specific, and there may be factors (such as irrational fear) impeding or undermining a person's capacity to make a choice. (3) This approach applies equally to marriage. (4) On the facts, the conclusion about capacity was the same. [Caution.]	2010-08-09	2010 cases, Brief summary, Capacity to consent to sexual relations, Transcript
Saulle v Nouvet (2007) EWHC 2902 (QB) — (1) The claimant had capacity to conduct litigation and manage his own property and affairs. (2) The definition of and approach to capacity to be adopted by the Queen's Bench Division of the High Court in deciding whether a person is a protected party, or a protected beneficiary, is the MCA 2005 statutory definition.	2010-08-08	2007 cases, Brief summary, Other capacity cases, Transcript
R (RJM) v SSWP (2007) EWCA Civ 614 — "For the reasons I have given I would hold that the right to IS is a possession within A1P1 but that RJM's appeal must be dismissed because a person without accommodation does not have an "other status" within the meaning of Article 14 of the Convention. If, contrary to that view, RJM does have such a status, the refusal to pay DP to those who do not have accommodation is not unlawful under the Convention because the Secretary of State has justified their differential treatment. I would therefore dismiss the appeal." [Summary required.]	2010-08-07	2007 cases, No summary, Transcript, Welfare benefits cases
R v Matthews (2010) EWCA Crim 1936 — The trial judge had wanted to impose a hospital order under s37 and restriction order under s41 but could not as no hospital bed was available, despite several adjournments; given the risk to the public, the judge had no alternative but to pass a sentence of imprisonment for public protection. The extension of time sought exceeded two years nine months. There was no merit in the application and accordingly the application for leave and the application to extend permission to apply out of time were refused.	2010-08-05	2010 cases, Brief summary, Life sentence cases, Transcript
G v E, Manchester City Council and F (2010) EWHC 2042 (Fam) — (1) The arguments in favour of publication of the local authority's name (openness and accountability) were truly compelling: they amounted to a "good reason" and the balancing exercise came down in favour of publication. It would be a different matter if there was any significant risk that the family might be identified, but Manchester is a large city. (2) It would inappropriate and unfair to name the social workers, because responsibility for what went wrong rested at a much higher level, including the failure to provide any or any adequate training on the introduction of the DOLS. (3) Neither the company running the establishment nor its manager would be identified: (a) they were not represented when the criticisms were made or identification was discussed; (b) it had not been necessary to make findings on the criticisms, the appropriate course being for the OS to raise the issue with the CQC which has some responsibility for such establishments; and (c) crucially, it would lead ..→	2010-08-04	2010 cases, Deprivation of liberty, Detailed summary, Transcript
Henderson v MHTS (2010) ScotSC x — A Curator ad litem appointed by the Mental Health Tribunal for Scotland is appointed to protect and safeguard the interests of the patient during particular proceedings before the Tribunal and has no standing to appeal that Tribunal's decision to the Sheriff Principal.	2010-08-01	2010 cases, Brief summary, Scottish cases, Transcript
R (Cart) v Upper Tribunal (2010) EWCA Civ 859 — Judicial review of Upper Tribunal decisions is restricted to cases of outright excess of jurisdiction or fundamental denials of procedural justice. [Caution.]	2010-07-29	2010 cases, Brief summary, Other Tribunal cases, Transcript
RT v LT (2010) EWHC 1910 (Fam) — (1) Applying the MCA 2005 provisions, LT lacked capacity in relation to residence and what contact she should have with her family. (2) Wherever possible, the plain words of the Act should be directly applied to the facts of the case in hand, but there will be cases in which it may be necessary to look at pre- or even post-Act authority on the question of capacity.	2010-07-27	2010 cases, Best interests, Brief summary, Transcript
R v MB (2010) EWCA Crim 1684 — (1) It was unfair to try the appellant, who was unfit to plead, with a co-defendant who made allegations against him in an attempt to exculpate herself, so the finding that he had committed the acts charged against him was unsafe. (2) This successful appeal meant that he had to be acquitted and that, because of a lacuna in the law, the Secretary of State now had no power to remit him for trial on the basis that he had become fit to plead.	2010-07-22	2010 cases, Brief summary, Transcript, Unfitness and insanity cases
HBCC v LG (2010) EWHC 1527 (Fam) — It was in the best interests of an elderly lady suffering from dementia to remain at a residential home, rather than be returned home to live with her daughter (who was assisted by a McKenzie Friend, whose role was the subject of consideration by the Court)	2010-07-21	2010 cases, Best interests, Brief summary, Transcript
Re MB (Medical Treatment) (1997) EWCA Civ 3093 — "This appeal arose from the application by a health authority for a declaration from the High Court that it would be lawful for the consultant gynaecologist to operate upon a young woman, Miss MB, who was 40 weeks pregnant and admitted to hospital on Friday 14th February." [Summary required.]	2010-07-20	1997 cases, Best interests, No summary, Transcript
Re SA; A Local Authority v MA (2005) EWHC 2942 (Fam) — "This case raises novel questions about the court's inherent jurisdiction in relation to vulnerable adults. I have before me a vulnerable young woman who has just turned eighteen and has therefore attained her majority. While she was still a child the court had exercised its inherent parens patriae and wardship jurisdictions to protect her from the risk of an unsuitable arranged marriage. The question is whether I have jurisdiction to continue that protection now she is an adult." [Summary required.]	2010-07-20	2005 cases, Best interests, No summary, Transcript
Re HM; PM v KH (2008) EWHC 2824 (Fam) — It was in the best interests of a young lady without capacity to determine questions of treatment, care and medical treatment to reside at a specialist placement rather than with her father.	2010-07-20	2010 cases, Best interests, Detailed summary, Transcript
Re P (2010) EWHC 1592 (Fam) — Derek Paravicini's parents and sister (rather than any independent person) were made joint and several financial and welfare deputies, subject to (1) a condition under s16(5) to consult fully with the RNIB and the county council when considering a move of accommodation; and (2) a requirement under s19(9) to give notice to the public guardian in the event that his earnings exceed £150,000 a year, as at this point he could begin to contribute to the costs of his care while making a profit from a musical career.	2010-07-17	2010 cases, Best interests, Brief summary, Transcript
G v E (2010) EWCA Civ 822 — The judge was right to reject the appellant's submission that Article 5 places distinct threshold conditions which have to be satisfied before a person lacking capacity can be detained in his best interests under the MCA 2005. The MCA generally, and the DOLS in particular, plug the Bournewood gap and are Article 5 compliant.	2010-07-17	2010 cases, Deprivation of liberty, Detailed summary, Transcript
R (Bary) v SSJ (2010) EWHC 587 (Admin) — The living and working regime for the inmates of the Detainee Unit at HMP Long Lartin (who are being held indefinitely pending extradition or deportation) was changed so that they were confined to the Unit, because of concerns that a new inmate might radicalise Muslims or plan/incite terrorism if allowed access to the main prison. The decision was challenged on the grounds that (1) it was irrational, unreasonable, disproportionate or made for illegitimate aims; (2) in breach of Article 3, it caused inhuman or degrading treatment for the two inmates with pre-existing mental illnesses; (3) in breach of Article 8, it unjustifiably removed them all from normal association and was an unjustifiable infringement of their right to the preservation of their mental stability in the broadest sense. The claim failed on all grounds.	2010-07-17	2010 cases, Brief summary, Prison law cases, Transcript
R (OM (Algeria)) v SSHD (2010) EWHC 65 (Admin) — OM was a failed asylum seeker facing deportation at the end of a criminal sentence. The Secretary of State's operational guidance stated that the mentally ill are normally considered suitable for detention in only very exceptional circumstances: he was unable to justify the detention according to this policy, and therefore it was unlawful. Detention was also unlawful because the claimant had not been notified of his in-country right of appeal.	2010-07-12	2010 cases, Detailed summary, Repatriation cases, Transcript
Re HM; PM v KH (2010) EWHC 1579 (Fam) — In this case PM had removed HM (an incapacitated adult) out of the jurisdiction following a best interests judgment with which he disagreed. This judgment discusses various orders which were made at a subsequent hearing. For orders, including in relation to anonymity/publicity, to be enforceable they must be drafted as injunctions and be clearly worded. The text of the orders is set out in an annex.	2010-07-12	2010 cases, Best interests, Brief summary, Transcript
Stojanovski v Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia 1431/03 (2009) ECHR 1615 — Breach of Article 5. [Summary required.]	2010-07-09	2009 cases, ECHR, ECHR deprivation of liberty cases, No summary, Transcript
R (Smith) v Secretary of State for Defence (2010) UKSC 29 — The ECHR does not apply to soldiers serving abroad.	2010-07-09	2010 cases, Detailed summary, Inquests, Transcript
R (Noone) v HMP Drake Hall (2010) UKSC 30 — In calculating release dates, the provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 apply to sentences of under 12 months provided that these are not imposed concurrently or consecutively with sentences of 12 months or over, and the CJA 2003 apply to sentences of under 12 months that are imposed concurrently or consecutively with sentences of 12 months or over.	2010-07-09	2010 cases, Detailed summary, Prison law cases, Transcript
Hossack v Legal Services Commission (2010) EWHC 1457 (Admin) — (1) The function being discharged by the LSC in attempting to obtain files for peer review in accordance with contractual obligations did not have any public law dimension, so the decisions were not amenable to judicial review. (2) In any event: there were alternative contractual remedies; there was no realistic prospect of showing that the LSC acted unlawfully; there was no longer any live issue between the parties as the files had been delivered up. (3) Consideration would be given to the making of a civil restraint order.	2010-07-08	2010 cases, Brief summary, Miscellaneous, Transcript
Rabone v Pennine Care NHS Trust (2010) EWCA Civ 698 — Health trusts do not have the Article 2 operational obligation to voluntary patients in hospital, who are suffering from physical or mental illness, even where there is a "real and immediate" risk of death.	2010-07-08	2010 cases, Detailed summary, Inquests, Transcript
A Local Authority v Mrs A and Mr A (2010) EWHC 1549 (Fam) — (1) The test for capacity to make decisions as to contraceptive treatment should be applied so as to ascertain the woman's ability to understand and weigh up the immediate medical issues surrounding contraceptive treatment ("the proximate medical issues"), including: (i) the reason for contraception and what it does (which includes the likelihood of pregnancy if it is not in use during sexual intercourse); (ii) the types available and how each is used; (iii) the advantages and disadvantages of each type; (iv) the possible side-effects of each and how they can be dealt with; (v) how easily each type can be changed; and (vi) the generally accepted effectiveness of each. (2) Questions do not need be asked as to the woman's understanding of what bringing up a child would be like in practice; nor any opinion attempted as to how she would be likely to get on; nor whether any child would be likely to be removed from her care. (3) Mrs A did understand the proximate medical issues. (4) ..→	2010-07-08	2010 cases, Best interests, Brief summary, Transcript
Re A (Adult) and Re C (Child); A Local Authority v A (2010) EWHC 978 (Fam) — The circumstances of the domestic care of A and C by their families in the family home did not involve a deprivation of liberty engaging the protection of Article 5.	2010-07-08	2010 cases, Deprivation of liberty, Detailed summary, Transcript
G v E (2010) EWCA Civ 548 — Successful renewed application for permission to appeal: it was arguable that the judge was wrong in deciding that the court may entertain an application for an order under s16 MCA 2005 that would have the effect of depriving a person of his liberty without being satisfied that his condition warrants compulsory confinement. Permission was given on other grounds also.	2010-07-08	2010 cases, Brief summary, Deprivation of liberty, Transcript
R (Mwanza) v LB of Greenwich (2010) EWHC 1462 (Admin) — The claimant was an illegal overstayer who tried to use a s3 admission eight years earlier to obtain free accommodation. (1) An after-care service under s117 must be a service that is necessary to meet a need arising from a person's mental disorder. It does not cover any and all services simply because those services do or may prevent deterioration of relapse of a mental condition. Employment and ordinary accommodation are common needs which do not arise from mental disorder, although mental disorder may give rise to a need for assistance in finding them. However, as a matter of law, ordinary accommodation could fall within s117, although it is difficult readily to envisage any practical examples. (2) On the facts, there could be no duty under s117 to provide what was sought. (3) In any event, eight years earlier a lawful decision had been made to discharge the s117 responsibilities of the local authority and the Trust, so no s117 duty arose. (4) Furthermore, it would be ..→	2010-06-18	2010 cases, After-care, Brief summary, Transcript
SSHD v AP (2010) UKSC 24 — Control order/deprivation of liberty case. [Summary required.]	2010-06-18	2010 cases, Deprivation of liberty, No summary, Transcript
KF v Birmingham and Solihull Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust (2010) UKUT 185 (AAC) — Various issues including (1) what should happen where an appeal from a First-tier Tribunal's substantive decision on a s2 application is overtaken by events and (2) whether a s3 reference to the First-tier Tribunal lapse once a CTO is made. [Summary required.]	2010-06-18	2010 cases, Change of status after application made, No summary, Transcript, Upper Tribunal decisions
TTM v LB Hackney (2010) EWHC 1349 (Admin) — (1) There was a division of opinion in the treating team so it was considered ‘impracticable’ to obtain two medical recommendations from doctors with previous acquaintance of the patient: this was lawful as a reasonable and proper exercise of judgment of what was in the patient’s best interests. (2) The hospital were entitled to rely on the s6(3) protection (that any application which appears to be duly made etc may be acted upon without further proof) because the managers were entitled to rely on the AMHP’s confirmation that there had been no objection from the NR and because there had been no breach of s12(2). (3) As an AMHP is treated as acting on behalf of the LSSA the relevant council is vicariously liable for any lack of care or bad faith on the part of an AMHP: the council was therefore the correct defendant. (4) The proposed claim was based on the AMHP’s mistaken belief that the NR had not objected. A duty of care existed but there was no reasonable prospect of ..→	2010-06-12	2010 cases, Consulting NR, Detailed summary, Miscellaneous, Transcript
R (RB) v First-tier Tribunal (Review) (2010) UKUT 160 (AAC) — RB was conditionally discharged with a condition that he should not leave a care home without an escort; the MoJ sought a review on the basis that the condition constituted a deprivation of liberty and there was therefore no lawful discharge; the Regional Tribunal Judge set aside the conditional discharge, remitted the case to the First-tier Tribunal, and refused permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal. (1) It is only appropriate for the First-tier Tribunal to exercise its set-aside powers where there has been a clear error of law; where the legal points are contentious the case should be allowed to proceed to the Upper Tribunal. (2) The RTJ's decisions were quashed/set aside, and permission was given to the MoJ to appeal against the conditional discharge.	2010-06-09	2010 cases, Detailed summary, Discharge conditions, Transcript, Upper Tribunal decisions
Watts v UK 53586/09 (2010) — The challenge to a care home closure, based on Articles 2, 3, 8 and 14, was declared inadmissible.	2010-06-03	2010 cases, Brief summary, Community care, Transcript
R (AC) v Berkshire West PCT (2010) EWHC 1162 (Admin) — The claimant, who suffered from gender identity disorder, unsuccessfully challenged the decisions to refuse funding for breast augmentation surgery and the underlying policies.	2010-05-26	2010 cases, Brief summary, Miscellaneous, Transcript
DH NHS Foundation Trust v PS (2010) EWHC 1217 (Fam) — (1) It was in PS's best interests to undergo a hysterectomy, and removal of the fallopian tubes and ovaries, in order to treat her endometrial cancer. (2) If, given her hospital and needle phobia, sedation or force were necessary to convey her to hospital, then that would be in her best interests. (3) It would be necessary to detain her in hospital for post-operative recovery; as it was in her best interests to have the operation, it was in her best interests to recover appropriately from it. In the circumstances, the court authorised the deprivation of liberty and it was unnecessary to invoke the DOL Safeguards.	2010-05-26	2010 cases, Best interests, Brief summary, Transcript
R v Hardy (2010) EWHC 1064 (QB) — A whole life order is the normal starting point for the murder of two or more persons where each murder involves sexual or sadistic conduct. That was such a case, of the utmost gravity, in which exceptionally Hardy's early acceptance of responsibility for his victims' death, his personality disorder at the time, his eventual pleas of guilty and such remorse as he expressed through his counsel carry little weight. A lengthy finite term would not suffice and a whole life order was made.	2010-05-22	2010 cases, Brief summary, Other criminal law cases, Transcript
R v Kluxen (2010) EWCA Crim 1081 — (1) Where the UK Borders Act 2007 requires (subject to exceptions, including certain detained psychiatric patients) the Secretary of State to make a deportation order in respect of a foreign criminal who has received a custodial sentence in relation to a single offence of at least 12 months, it is not appropriate for the court to recommend deportation. (2) Where because of the sentence imposed the UK Borders Act 2007 does not apply, deportation orders are appropriate only in exceptional cases. (3) As the Act applied, the recommendations for deportation were quashed.	2010-05-22	2010 cases, Brief summary, Other criminal law cases, Transcript
R (SP) v SSJ (2010) EWHC 1124 (Admin) — (1) In considering the lawfulness of a s47 transfer the two questions are (a) whether the decision-maker applied his mind to the statutory criteria and (b) whether the material before the decision-maker was sufficient to sustain the eventual conclusion. The court will review the decision with anxious scrutiny, as transfer at the end of a prison sentence extends detention. (2) It was clear that the decision-maker did apply her mind to the criteria. (3) One of the two medical recommendations was on the old form so did not explicitly address the new "appropriate treatment available" test. However, the medical report provided a sound foundation for the conclusion that the test was met: it was implicit in her report; there is an overlap with the "appropriate to be detained" test, which was addressed; and it was further confirmed in a letter.	2010-05-22	2010 cases, Brief summary, Transcript, Unlawful detention cases
R (MJ (Angola)) v SSHD (2010) EWCA Civ 557 — (1) The MHA regime and the Immigration Act 1971 run in parallel in relation to a person who is both an immigrant and mentally ill, so the SSHD was entitled to decide to deport MJ notwithstanding that he was still subject to s37/41. (2) There is no express statutory limitation on the SSJ's power to discharge under the MHA; it can be used in order to facilitate deportation; the protection for the patient is that the power must be exercised rationally and without breaching his Convention rights. (3) For a settled migrant who has lawfully spent all or most of his childhood in the host country, especially where he committed the relevant offences as a juvenile, very serious reasons are required to justify expulsion; the AIT had not appreciated that very serious reasons were needed so the appeal was granted.	2010-05-22	2010 cases, Detailed summary, Repatriation cases, Transcript
R v Hughes (2010) EWCA Crim 1026 — Life sentence quashed and substituted with hospital order and restriction order.	2010-05-13	2010 cases, Brief summary, Life sentence cases, Transcript
Re MP; LBH v GP (2009) FD08P01058 — (1) MP, who suffered from a learning disability and lacked capacity as to residence and contact, was removed from his mother's accommodation and conveyed by the police to a care home. On the facts, there was presently no deprivation of liberty and it was in MP's best interests to remain at the care home with the existing contact regime continuing. (2) Guidance was given, subsequently approved by the President of the Family Division and Court of Protection, for cases where a vulnerable or incapacited adult requires to be removed from premises with the help of the police.	2010-05-13	2009 cases, Deprivation of liberty, Detailed summary, Transcript
City of Westminster v FS (2009) COP 11685959 — Successful appeal by Official Solicitor against rejection of application to instruct independent social worker.	2010-05-11	2010 cases, Best interests, Brief summary, Transcript
Re HM; PM v KH (2010) EWHC 870 (Fam) — The case involved the abduction of P by his father to Israel in contravention of a best interests declaration. The judgment describes the various orders which were made to secure the return of P. Discussion of court's powers in relation to adults lacking capacity. The court has exactly the same powers when it is concerned to locate the whereabouts of a missing or abducted adult lacking capacity as when concerned to locate the whereabouts of a missing or abducted child.	2010-05-11	2010 cases, Best interests, Detailed summary, Transcript
DL-H v Devon Partnership NHS Trust (2010) UKUT 102 (AAC) — (1) The Tribunal gave inadequate reasons for its decision not to discharge the patient; this decision was set aside and a re-hearing directed. (2) In principle, and in this case, it would not be fair and just to restrict the scope of an appeal to the grounds in the application. (3) Discussion of the meaning of mental disorder and its classification for the purposes of the Mental Health Act. (4) Detention is authorised by reference to the twin requirements of treatment and protection, moderated by the word “necessary”; that demanding test provides ample protection without the need for any additional consideration of proportionality. (5) Discussion of "appropriate treatment available" test in context of personality disorder and refusal of treatment.	2010-05-06	2010 cases, Brief summary, Reasons, Transcript, Upper Tribunal decisions
RM v St Andrew's Healthcare (2010) UKUT 119 (AAC) — (1) When considering the "interests of justice" limb of rule 14(2), the key test to be applied is whether or not non-disclosure of the document or information would allow the patient to make an effective challenge to his detention. (2) On the facts, without knowing that he was being covertly medicated the patient would be unable effectively to challenge his detention; the non-disclosure decision was set aside and re-made. (3) Non-disclosure orders should not only be drafted in terms of documents, but also should deal, in a precise, clear and exhaustive way, with the information which should not be disclosed.	2010-05-06	2010 cases, Brief summary, Reasons, Transcript, Upper Tribunal decisions
Eba, Petitioner (2010) CSOH 45 — The petitioner sought judicial review of the Upper Tribunal's refusal of permission to appeal against a decision of the Social Security Appeal Tribunal. (1) The UT decision in the present case is subject to review only in exceptional circumstances, i.e. on pre-Anisminic grounds (excess of jurisdiction in the narrow sense) or because there has been a breakdown of fair procedure. (2) This case was not within that restricted right of review so the petition was dismissed.	2010-05-02	2010 cases, Brief summary, Other Tribunal cases, Scottish cases, Transcript
Savage v South Essex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust (2010) EWHC 865 (QB) — (1) The Trust had breached Article 2 as (a) they had the requisite knowledge, actual or constructive, of a real and immediate risk to the patient's life from self harm, and (b) failed to do all that could reasonably have been expected of it to avoid or prevent that risk. (2) The patient's daugher was eligible to bring the claim as a victim under s7 HRA 1998. (3) Compensation of £10,000 was awarded.	2010-05-01	2010 cases, Brief summary, Miscellaneous, Transcript
M v B (2005) EWHC 1681 (Fam) — Injunction granted to prevent P being taken to Pakistan for arranged marriage. [Summary required.]	2010-05-01	2005 cases, Best interests, No summary, Transcript
Link Lending Ltd v Bustard sub nom Link Lending Ltd v Hussein (2010) EWCA Civ 424 — (1) The defendant to these possession proceedings was "a person in actual occupation" for the purpose of entitlement to an overriding interest within the meaning of the Land Registration Act 2002 despite her involuntary residence in hospital under s3 MHA, as there was a sufficient degree of continuity and permanence of occupation and a persistent intention to return home when possible. (2) There is no single test but relevant factors from case law are: the degree of permanence and continuity of presence of the person concerned, the intentions and wishes of that person, the length of absence from the property and the reason for it, and the nature of the property and personal circumstances of the person.	2010-05-01	2010 cases, Detailed summary, Miscellaneous, Transcript
R (F and Thompson) v SSHD (2010) UKSC 17 — The notification requirements in Part 2 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (the Sex Offenders Register) constitute a disproportionate interference with Article 8 rights because they make no provision for individual review of the requirements.	2010-04-22	2010 cases, Brief summary, Other criminal law cases, Transcript
LB Enfield v SA (2010) EWHC 196 (Admin) — (1) Hearsay evidence is admissible in the Court of Protection. (2) This includes hearsay from a witness who is incompetent by reason of mental disability; however, this lack of competence is an important factor when evaluating the weight to be attached to the evidence. (3) Where P has been interviewed by police in an ABE interview, the DVD should be disclosed to the parties: in general, it would be justified for the Court of Protection to make a "specific disclosure" order under r133(3) requiring "full and frank disclosure" of all relevant material. (4) Where there are extant COP proceedings then, in the absence of an absolutely pressing emergency, any question of interviewing P must be subject to a direction of the judge; initially it may be raised without notice to a party about whom allegations relate, but P's litigation friend should always be given notice. (5) Once findings of fact have been made the case is part heard and the trial should not resume before a different judge.	2010-04-15	2010 cases, Best interests, Brief summary, Transcript
Pitt v Holt (2010) EWHC 45 (Ch) — The principle in Hastings-Bass, originally applied only to trustees, applies equally to receivers under the MHA 1983. Therefore Mrs Pitt, who as a receiver had put her husband's money into a settlement without considering the inheritance tax position, could have the settlement set aside as an ineffective transaction. (The principle in Hastings-Bass has been summarised as: "Where trustees act under a discretion given to them by the terms of the trust, in circumstances in which they are free to decide whether or not to exercise that discretion, but the effect of the exercise is different from that which they intended, the court will interfere with their action if it is clear that they would not have acted as they did had they not failed to take into account considerations which they ought to have taken into account, or taken into account considerations which they ought not to have taken into account.")	2010-04-11	2010 cases, Brief summary, Other capacity cases, Transcript
R (Boyejo) v Barnet LBC (2009) EWHC 3261 (Admin) — The council's decision to change the way it provided support services to those living in sheltered accommodation in its area by terminating contracts for on-site warden based services and developing a peripatetic support service with the retention of an alarm service to all residents in such accommodation breached the Disability Discrimination Act 1995.	2010-04-11	2009 cases, Brief summary, Disability discrimination, Transcript
R (MC (Algeria)) v SSHD (2010) EWCA Civ 347 — Unsuccessful challenge to lawfulness of detention under Schedule 3 Immigration Act 1971 which was mainly based on failure to have regard to policy that mentally ill should be detained only in very exceptional circumstances. [Summary required.]	2010-04-11	2010 cases, No summary, Repatriation cases, Transcript
MK (Mental Illness, Articles 3 and 8) Pakistan (2005) UKIAT 00075 — Consideration of the approach to the availability of treatment and the assessment of Article 3 and 8 cases in an immigration context. [Summary required.]	2010-04-11	2005 cases, No summary, Repatriation cases, Transcript
MJJAB v Scottish Ministers (2010) CSIH 31 — Consideration of the serious harm test in Section 64(A1) Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984 and standard of proof. [Summary required.]	2010-04-11	2010 cases, No summary, Other Tribunal cases, Scottish cases, Transcript
G v E (2010) EWHC 621 (Fam) — E lacked capacity and was being deprived of his liberty at a residential unit by the local authority. They had breached his Article 5 rights by doing so without seeking a DOLS authorisation or court order, and had breached his Article 8 rights by actions including a failure properly to involve his carer. However, the court authorised continuing deprivation of liberty at the residential unit pending the final hearing as this was in his best interests. There is no threshold condition for an order under s16 depriving someone of his liberty, other than that P lacks the relevant capacity. When considering DOL there is a clear distinction between a placement at home, with family or an adult carer, and a residential placement. Hearsay from an incompetent witness is admissible but no weight would be given to E's statements.	2010-03-31	2010 cases, Deprivation of liberty, Detailed summary, Transcript
Independent News and Media Ltd v A (2010) EWCA Civ 343 — The judge's decision (that designated representatives of the media could attend the hearing in the Court of Protection and thereafter apply to the judge for authorisation to publish information disclosed in the proceedings) was upheld, but his approach (that article 10 was not engaged when the media's application was made but rather when the court decided that there was "good reason" under Rule 93(1)(a)) was not.	2010-03-31	2010 cases, Detailed summary, Other capacity cases, Transcript
Mezey v South West London and St George's Mental Health NHS Trust (2010) EWCA Civ 293 — Dr Mezey had admitted a conditionally-discharged patient informally to a secure ward without informing the Home Office, and granted him unescorted leave that day without personally assessing him; the patient went AWOL and killed a stranger. The Trust's formal investigation, although it found her conduct inappropriate and not in accordance with the standards of good practice, did not call into account her capability to practise. The Trust were therefore not entitled to convene a capability panel under the Maintaining High Professional Standards in the modern NHS (MHPS) framework.	2010-03-30	2010 cases, Brief summary, Miscellaneous, Transcript
Dorset CC v EH (2009) EWHC 784 (Fam) — The Official Solicitor's view and independent expert's opinion was that EH, an elderly lady with dementia, should be assisted to continue to live at home; notwithstanding this, the judge agreed with the local authority that it was in EH's best interests to be deprived of her liberty in residential accommodation for her own safety.	2010-03-28	2009 cases, Brief summary, Deprivation of liberty, Transcript
KH (Afghanistan) v SSHD (2009) EWCA Civ 1354 — Save in very exceptional cases, withdrawal of medical treatment as a result of ordering return of a failed asylum-seeker would not constitute a violation of Article 3. In order for a case to be "very exceptional" it would have to be exceptional inside the class of person with mental illness without family support: perhaps a very old or very young person would qualify but hardly an ordinary adult. The appellant's was not such a case.	2010-03-26	2009 cases, Brief summary, Repatriation cases, Transcript
Thomas-Ashley v Drum Housing Association Ltd (2010) EWCA Civ 265 — The appellant argued that a possession order should be set aside as, on the grounds of her bi-polar affective disorder, the maintanence of the "no animals" provision made it impossible for her to enjoy the premises under s24A Disability Discrimination Act 1995. (1) The prohibition against keeping animals in the premises did not make it impossible or unreasonably difficult for her to enjoy the premises. (2) In any event: (a) the "no animals" term would have had the same effect if the appellant did not have the disability of bipolar disorder; and (b) no reasonable steps the respondents should have taken but failed to take were identified, particularly as variation of the term would have lead to forfeiture by the head lessor.	2010-03-26	2010 cases, Brief summary, Disability discrimination, Transcript
R v Osborne (2010) EWCA Crim 547 — It was neither necessary nor expedient in the interests of justice to admit fresh evidence that the claimant suffered from ADHD: it would not afford any ground for allowing the appeal against conviction on the basis of diminished responsibility.	2010-03-26	2010 cases, Brief summary, Diminished responsibility cases, Transcript
Maga v Trustees of the Birmingham Archdiocese of the Roman Catholic Church (2010) EWCA Civ 256 — The claimant brought proceedings, by the Official Solicitor as his litigation friend, against the Archdiocese for damages for sexual abuse in 1975/6 by Father Clonan: (1) the priest's sexual abuse of the claimant was so closely connected with his employment that it would be fair and just to hold the Archdiocese vicariously liable; (2) obiter, the Archdiocese owed a duty of care to the claimant and was negligent.	2010-03-26	2010 cases, Brief summary, Miscellaneous, Transcript
MD v Nottinghamshire Health Care NHS Trust (2010) UKUT 59 (AAC) — The Tribunal decided that appropriate treatment was available at Rampton, or alternatively that MD was benefiting from the ward milieu; their reasons were adequate. (1) The detention was not mere containment: (a) treatment could be appropriate even without the possibility of risk reduction; (b) although if there was no prospect of the patient progressing beyond milieu therapy (to engage in psychotherapeutic work) there might come a point at which treatment was no longer appropriate, MD was not at that stage. (2) There was no practical distinction in this case between s72(1)(b)(i) and (iia) so if the tribunal dealt properly with head (iia), its reasoning covered head (ii). (3) The Tribunal was entitled to rely on the evidence, and make the findings of fact, which it did. (4) Although treatment is not defined by reference to its likely effect, as a practical matter, that will have been taken into account in deciding whether the treatment could be given for a permitted purpose. (5) ..→	2010-03-15	2010 cases, Brief summary, Reasons, Transcript, Upper Tribunal decisions
R (M) v Hammersmith and Fulham LBC and Sutton LBC (2010) EWHC 562 (Admin) — M moved from Hammersmith to a hostel in Sutton, but Hammersmith continued to pay; he was subsequently placed under s3 in a Sutton hospital and surrendered his tenancy; as he was resident in Sutton when admitted, Hammersmith was not responsible for future accommodation costs under s117. [Summary required.]	2010-03-15	2010 cases, After-care, No summary, Transcript
Key v Key (2010) EWHC 408 (Ch) — Successful challenge to will on the grounds of want of testamentary capacity and want of knowledge and approval.	2010-03-06	2010 cases, Detailed summary, Other capacity cases, Transcript
R (Pounder) v HM Coroner for North and South Districts of Durham and Darlington (2010) EWHC 328 (Admin) — Inquiry into Adam Rickwood's death in custody. Bias. [Summary required.]	2010-03-02	2010 cases, Inquests, No summary, Transcript
Juncal v UK 32357/09 (2010) ECHR 249 — Lawfulness of detention. Statement of facts and questions to the parties lodged at court. [Summary required.]	2010-03-02	2010 cases, ECHR, ECHR deprivation of liberty cases, No summary, Transcript, Unfitness and insanity cases
R (Gill) v SSJ (2010) EWHC 364 (Admin) — The Defendant's failure to offer the Claimant, who was a short-tariff lifer with learning disability, sufficient suitable offending behaviour work to give him the opportunity to demonstrate safety for release, unlawfully breached the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 and breached his public law duties.	2010-03-02	2010 cases, Brief summary, Disability discrimination, Prison law cases, Transcript
Barber v LB Croydon (2010) EWCA Civ 51 — (1) The council's decision to seek an immediate order for possession, following an assault which was almost certainly linked with the claimant's learning difficulties and a personality disorder, without applying the Council's policy on vulnerable people, was Wednesbury unreasonable. (2) The DDA aspect of the appeal was unsuccessful: the question was not whether he was treated less favourably than a person without his disabilities but whether he should have been treated differently precisely because he has such disabilities and because they were a significant contributory factor to his behaviour that day.	2010-02-18	2010 cases, Brief summary, Disability discrimination, Transcript
RH v South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust (2010) UKUT 32 (AAC) — (1) The Tribunal's reasons for refusing to grant the absolute discharge of a conditionally-discharged patient, against the unanimous evidence of the treating team and an independent psychiatrist, were adequate. (2) The Tribunal disagreed not with the witness's assessments but with their conclusions as to whether the restriction order should cease to have effect: that was the kind of judgment for which it is difficult to give reasons beyond those required to show that the tribunal has directed itself correctly as to the law and to show to what matters the tribunal has had regard. (3) The extensive references to the SC case were enough to show that the Tribunal had the correct legal test in mind. (4) The restrictions can continue in the absence of any mental disorder, and risk from possible future disorder is relevant, so the criteria here are very different from those for discharge of a CTO: in the latter a focus on the short-term position might be appropriate, whereas the Tribunal ..→	2010-02-18	2010 cases, Brief summary, Reasons, Transcript, Upper Tribunal decisions
CV v South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust (2010) EWHC 742 (Admin) — (1) In cases involving consultation under s11(4), the AMHP is to be judged according to the circumstances as they appear to her at the time. (2) Given that the AMHP believed (albeit wrongly) that 7 hours remained of the s5(2) detention, the decision not to consult the nearest relative on the ground that it "would involve unreasonable delay" was unlawful. (3) It was inappropriate for the AMHP to assume, based on a previous consultation, that the NR would not object. (4) Subsequent rectification under s15(1) could not be relied upon in the circumstances of this case	2010-02-09	2010 cases, Consulting NR, Detailed summary, Transcript
R (Degainis) v SSJ (2010) EWHC 137 (Admin) — In relation to a 7-month delay in holding a Parole Board hearing, the SSJ admitted breach of Article 5(4) and apologised, but the claimant sought damages under Article 5(5). (1) Article 5(5) (which gives an "enforceable right to compensation") and s8 HRA 1998 (which limits the power to award damages) are not inconsistent because compensation in Article 5(5) is not limited to money. (2) The first of two grounds for the claim was that the delay increased the length of detention: because of the number of imponderables in the case it was impossible to conclude this. (3) The second ground was based on an inference that frustration and anxiety had been caused: the judge was not prepared to infer, in the absence of specific evidence, a level of frustration of distress sufficient to warrant an award of damages. (4) In general, as to whether or not to award damages, the length of the delay, the effect of the delay, and the impact on the claimant are relevant factors; the seriousness ..→	2010-02-05	2010 cases, Deprivation of liberty, Detailed summary, Transcript, Tribunal delay
R (D and M) v SSWP (2010) EWCA Civ 18 — (1) That prisoners detained under s47, s47/49 or s45A, in contrast with civil patients or hospital order patients, receive no welfare benefits until their release date is not unlawful discrimination under Article 14 taken with A1P1. (2) On a proper construction of the statutory language, lifers detained under the MHA are entitled to Income Support or State Pension Credit when they reach their tariff expiry date. [Caution.]	2010-01-27	2010 cases, Detailed summary, Transcript, Welfare benefits cases
R (DK) v SSJ (2010) EWHC 82 (Admin) — DK's s47 transfer was based on the report of a doctor and a psychologist which dealt with the treatability of his psychopathic disorder, and three proforma reports from doctors which did not deal with treatability. As treatability was not addressed, with reasons, by two medical practitioners, the transfer decision was quashed. [Caution: decided before 2007 Act amendments.]	2010-01-20	2010 cases, Brief summary, Transcript, Unlawful detention cases
SSNI, Re Judicial Review (Oswald Brown) (2006) NIQB 94 — It was lawful for the hunger-striking prisoner, who lacked capacity, to be given nutrition.	2010-01-12	2006 cases, Best interests, Brief summary, Northern Irish cases, Transcript
R (Southall) v Dudley PCT (2009) EWHC 1780 (Admin) — The defendant elected to go to a more expensive home for a continuing care package than the one that the PCT offered. The PCT entered into a contract with the care home operator at the lower rate, which would have been appropriate for the other care home on the same overall site, and the patient funded the difference. The patient then challenged the legality of this top up. The Court found that the PCT's refusal to pay in full for the claimant's continuing care package at the more expensive home was reasonable, and that the arrangement was lawful. There was no breach of article 8 in the patient having to choose between making a payment of top-up fees or having to move to the less expensive care home. The claim for Judicial Review was therefore dismissed.	2009-12-23	2009 cases, Brief summary, Community care, Transcript
R (Johnson) v SSJ (2009) EWHC 3336 (Admin) — The Secretary of State's decision that the next Parole Board review would occur 14-15 months after the last review was unsupported by any reason and, on the facts, inconsistent with Article 5(4).	2009-12-23	2009 cases, Brief summary, Prison law cases, Transcript
R (P) v HM Coroner for the District of Avon (2009) EWCA Civ 1367 — In this inquest to which Article 2 applied (suicide in prison) the Deputy Coroner misdirected the jury because she did not properly explain to them that, if they returned a verdict of suicide or accident, they could also append a narrative about the circumstances of the accident. However, in the circumstances, the verdict was not quashed.	2009-12-23	2009 cases, Brief summary, Inquests, Transcript
R (Manchester City Council) v St Helens Borough Council (2009) EWCA Civ 1348 — PE had voluntarily moved from St Helens to Manchester and, following the Secretary of State's decision that she was now ordinarily resident there, St Helens decided to stop funding her community care services. (1) Under s29 National Assistance Act 1948 a local authority is under a duty to provide services to those ordinarily resident in its area. (2) St Helens had a power to pay but the exercise of this power did not give rise to a duty or negate Manchester's duty, or give rise to any legitimate expectation.	2009-12-23	2009 cases, Brief summary, Community care, Transcript
R (Lewis) v HM Coroner for the Mid and North Division of the County of Shropshire (2009) EWCA Civ 1403 — A coroner is not obliged to leave to the jury a fact or circumstance which could have caused or contributed to the death but cannot be shown probably to have done so.	2009-12-23	2009 cases, Brief summary, Inquests, Transcript
R (Stojak) v Sheffield City Council (2009) EWHC 3412 (Admin) — Extension of time refused for JR application relating to charging for residential after-care services.	2009-12-23	2009 cases, After-care, Brief summary, Transcript
Salford City Council v BJ (2009) EWHC 3310 (Fam) — Following a final hearing concerning deprivation of liberty the previous year, the judge now had to determine: (a) the nature and timing of future reviews by the court, (b) the nature and timing of future internal reviews by the local authority, and (c) whether the proceedings should now be transferred to the Court of Protection.	2009-12-17	2009 cases, Brief summary, Other capacity cases, Transcript
Re Clarke (2009) COP 18/11/09 — The donor appointed three attorneys, A (his wife), B, and C, to be his attorneys. They were appointed to act jointly in some matters and jointly and severally in others. He then stated that the attorneys were to act together for transactions not exceeding £5,000 "but together in respect of all other decisions subject to my wife A's opinion prevailing in the event that my attorneys are not unanimous in any decision involving property or expenditure exceeding £5,000". On the application of the Public Guardian, the words "subject to my wife A's opinion" onwards were severed on the ground that they purported to facilitate one of the three attorneys being able to act independently in relation to matters that had been specified as subject to the joint decision of the attorneys. [OPG summary.]	2009-12-15	2009 cases, Brief summary, LPA cases - all, LPA cases - severance of restrictions incompatible with a joint appointment, Transcript
Re Kittle (2009) COP 1/12/09 — Regulation 8(3) of the LPA, EPA and PG Regulations 2007 sets out categories of persons who cannot act as certificate provider. Included in the list is "a family member" of the donor or of the attorney (or of the owner, director, manager or employee of any care home in which the donor is living when the instrument is executed). In this case the certificate provider was the donor's first cousin. The Public Guardian declined to register the instrument on the ground that a first cousin was a family member of the donor. The court ruled that a first cousin is not a family member, and so the LPA was valid. [OPG summary.]	2009-12-15	2009 cases, Brief summary, LPA cases - all, LPA cases - eligibility of certificate provider, Transcript
R (Domb) v London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham (2009) EWCA Civ 941 — The council's decision to make charges for non-residential home care services provided pursuant to the Health and Social Services and Social Security Adjudications Act 1983 was challenged (unsuccessfully) on the basis that the council did not have "due regard" to its general equality duties.	2009-12-14	2009 cases, Brief summary, Disability discrimination, Transcript
Chief Constable of Lincolnshire Police v Caston (2009) EWCA Civ 1298 — The employment judge had permitted an out-of-time DDA claim to proceed; he was entitled to exercise his discretion (on whether, in all the circumstances of the case, he considered that it was just and equitable to do so) as he did.	2009-12-14	2009 cases, Brief summary, Disability discrimination, Transcript
R (Miller) v Independent Assessor (2009) EWCA Civ 609 — The Independent Assessor must have erred in law by failing to make proper use of the civil law awards, because without much explanation he arrived at an award which is irrationally low (namely £55,000 for over 4 years' detention following wrongful conviction for murder).	2009-12-09	2009 cases, Deprivation of liberty, Detailed summary, Transcript
FW v Dept of Psychiatry James Connolly Memorial Hospital (2008) IEHC 283 — Challenge to lawfulness of detention under Southern Irish law. [Summary required.]	2009-12-09	2008 cases, Miscellaneous, No summary, Southern Irish cases, Transcript
Z v Khattak (2008) IEHC 262 — Challenge to lawfulness of detention under Southern Irish law. [Summary required.]	2009-12-09	2008 cases, Miscellaneous, No summary, Southern Irish cases, Transcript
C v Clinical Director of St Patricks Hospital (2009) IEHC 13 — This is an application on behalf of the applicant for a declaration that the applicant is unlawfully detained by the first respondent contrary to Article 40.4 of the Constitution. The essence of the applicant’s case is that prior to her arrival at the respondent’s hospital, she was initially detained by the gardaí and unlawfully removed to the hospital by them. The applicant argues that this alleged unlawful detention by the gardaí, has tainted the subsequent detention by the respondents even though, by and large, apart from this initial reception the respondents have meticulously followed the proper procedures for dealing with such persons as set out in the legislation and the Mental Health Act 2001 in particular. [Summary required.]	2009-12-09	2009 cases, No summary, Southern Irish cases, Transcript, Unlawful detention cases
AB v Nugent Care Society (2009) EWCA Civ 827 — In these appeals, arising from allegations of historic sexual abuse at children's homes, guidance was given on the correct approach to the application of s33 Limitation Act 1980 in the light of A v Hoare [2008] UKHL 6.	2009-12-07	2009 cases, Brief summary, Miscellaneous, Transcript
R (Cart) v Upper Tribunal (2009) EWHC 3052 (Admin) — (1) Decisions of inferior courts are subject to judicial review for exceeding their jurisdiction. Excess of jurisdiction can mean either the court (a) embarks on a case beyond its statutory remit, or (b) makes a legal mistake. (2) Judicial review of the Upper Tribunal is not ousted by s3 TCEA 2007. (3) The UT is, for the relevant purposes, an alter ego of the High Court, and it would never be right to exercise the JR jurisdiction on the ground that it had made a legal mistake. (4) Decisions of the UT are only amenable to JR for excess of jurisdiction or where there is a wholly exceptional collapse of fair procedure (something as gross as actual bias). (5) Consideration was also given to the status of SIAC decisions. [Caution.]	2009-12-07	2009 cases, Brief summary, Other Tribunal cases, Transcript
Seal v UK 50330/07 (2009) ECHR 806 — Statement of facts and question lodged with court. Case concerns the procedure under s139 MHA 1983.	2009-12-04	2009 cases, Brief summary, ECHR, Miscellaneous, Transcript
Anam v SSHD (2009) EWHC 2496 (Admin) — It is the Secretary of State's policy not to detain mentally ill persons pending deportation, save in "very exceptional circumstances". The claimant was entitled to a declaration that the SoS had unlawfully failed to consider the implications of his policy; however, the detention was not in breach of the policy, and continued detention was lawful.	2009-12-04	2009 cases, Brief summary, Repatriation cases, Transcript
MS v UK 24527/08 (2009) ECHR 1762 — Statement of facts and question lodged with the court. The case relates to detention under s136 beyond the permitted 72-hour period and a subsequent civil claim against the Trust for negligence, for breaches of Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention, and for misfeasance in public office.	2009-12-04	2009 cases, Brief summary, Miscellaneous, Transcript
Hurst v UK 42577/07 (2009) ECHR 1988 — Statement of facts and questions lodged with the court (case relates to Article 2-compliant inquests).	2009-12-04	2009 cases, Brief summary, ECHR, Inquests, Transcript
R (Hurst) v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis (2007) UKHL 13 — No need to hold Article 2-compliant inquest when death occurred before implementation of Human Rights Act 1998.	2009-12-04	2007 cases, Brief summary, Inquests, Transcript
West v General Social Care Council (2009) UKFTT 330 (HESC) — The applicant mental health social worker successfully appealed against a decision made by the respondent's Preliminary Proceedings Committee to impose an six-month Interim Suspension Order.	2009-12-04	2009 cases, Brief summary, Miscellaneous, Transcript
Halilovic v Bosnia and Herzegovina 23968/05 (2009) ECHR 1933 — (1) The appellant's detention for 4 years 5 months was pursuant to an administrative decision, as opposed to a decision of the competent civil court as required by the amended domestic legislation, and so breached Article 5(1); compensation of €22,500 was awarded. (2) The Article 3 claim relating to conditions of detention failed.	2009-12-04	2009 cases, Brief summary, ECHR, ECHR deprivation of liberty cases, Transcript
Law Hospital NHS Trust v Lord Advocate (1996) ScotCS CSIH 2 — "The purpose of these proceedings is to obtain the sanction of the court to the termination of nutrition and hydration and all other life sustaining treatment to a patient at Law Hospital." [Summary required.]	2009-11-30	1996 cases, Best interests, No summary, Scottish cases, Transcript
Her Majesty's Advocate v S (1999) ScotHC 183 — Fitness to plead. [Summary required.]	2009-11-30	1999 cases, No summary, Scottish cases, Transcript, Unfitness and insanity cases
Re Robertson (Application for Judicial Review of a decision of Fife Council) (2001) ScotCS 94 — "This case concerns the controversial subject of the provision of and payment for nursing home care for the elderly and infirm." [Summary required.]	2009-11-30	2001 cases, Community care, No summary, Scottish cases, Transcript
Kim Louise Scarsbrook or Galbraith v Her Majesty's Advocate (2001) ScotHC 45 — Diminished responsibility. [Summary required.]	2009-11-30	2001 cases, Diminished responsibility cases, No summary, Scottish cases, Transcript
Re Maughland (Determination Into the Death of) (2003) ScotSC 10 — [Summary required.]	2009-11-30	2003 cases, Inquests, No summary, Scottish cases, Transcript
Re McDougall or Muldoon (Guardianship Order) (2005) ScotSC 6 — "This is an application under the Adults with Incapacity (Scotland) Act 2000, in which the Applicant, Paul Muldoon, seeks an order under section 57 of the Act appointing him as guardian with powers relating to both the welfare of, and the property and financial affairs of, his mother, Mrs Mona McDougall or Muldoon (hereafter, "the adult"). The welfare powers sought are (a) to decide where the adult should live, (b) to have access to confidential documents, and (c) to consent to, or withhold consent to, medical treatment." [Summary required.]	2009-11-30	2005 cases, No summary, Other capacity cases, Scottish cases, Transcript
Yung v Procurator Fiscal, Edinburgh (2006) ScotHC HCJAC 70 — Appeal against against a finding acquitting the Y of three charges of assault on the ground that he was insane at the time of commission of the offences. [Summary required.]	2009-11-30	2006 cases, No summary, Other criminal law cases, Scottish cases, Transcript
C v Sevenoaks Youth Court (2009) EWHC 3088 (Admin) — (1) When trying a young child, and most particularly a child such as C who is only 12 with learning and behavioural difficulties, notwithstanding the absence of any express statutory power, the Youth Court has a duty under its inherent powers and under the Criminal Procedure Rules to take such steps as are necessary to ensure that he has a fair trial, not just during the proceedings, but beforehand as he and his lawyers prepare for trial; in this case, C required an intermediary. (2) As the MoJ had voluntarily accepted responsibility for the payment of intermediaries, the LSC decision not to provide funding was lawful. (3) The CPS decision to continue with the trial was lawful.	2009-11-30	2009 cases, Brief summary, Other criminal law cases, Transcript, Unfitness and insanity cases
R (Turner) v Southampton City Council (2009) EWCA Civ 1290 — Unsuccessful challenge to the closure of care homes on Article 2 grounds: the test of a "real and immediate risk" is one that is not readily satisfied, in other words the threshold is high; the evidence in this case fell far short of the threshold. Interesting post-script to judgment, critical of solicitor and her repeated similar claims.	2009-11-27	2009 cases, Brief summary, Community care, Transcript
R v Hurst (2007) EWCA Crim 3436 — The restriction order was set aside as: (1) there was insufficient evidence that it was necessary for the protection of the public from serious harm; (2) the judge did not explain why he had rejected the medical evidence, which was against the imposition of a restriction order.	2009-11-24	2007 cases, Brief summary, Restriction order cases, Transcript
GJ v The Foundation Trust (2009) EWHC 2972 (Fam) — (1) As between the MHA 1983 and the MCA 2005 Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards, the MHA has primacy: professionals cannot pick and choose as they think fit. (2) In deciding whether P is within the scope of the MHA, the eligibility assessor must ask whether, in his own opinion, P could be detained under the MHA. (3) With respect to objections, what matters is whether P objects generally to what is proposed. (4) The correct overall approach for the eligibility assessor is to (a) look at the reality of the situation, rather than the words of the authorisation, (b) separate the mental treatment from the purely physical treatment, and (c) apply a "but for" test, i.e. whether, but for the physical treatment, P should be detained (and whether the only effective reason for detention is physical treatment); if "no" (and "yes", respectively) then P isn't ineligible for DOLS. (5) On the facts, but for his diabetes, P would not have been detainable, so he was not ineligible. It is ..→	2009-11-23	2009 cases, Detailed summary, Other capacity cases, Transcript
R v Charisma (2009) EWCA Crim 2345 — The appellant argued that his mental condition had made it undesirable for him to have given evidence, so no direction under s35 Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 (adverse inference from failure to give evidence) should have been given; he was unsuccessful.	2009-11-20	2009 cases, Brief summary, Other criminal law cases, Transcript
Johnston v Chief Constable of Merseyside Police (2009) EWHC 2969 (QB) — (1) A court faced with an application for permission under s139(2) must (a) balance the applicant's interest to be allowed to seek the adjudication of the courts upon any claim which is not frivolous, vexatious or an abuse of process, and the equally legitimate interest of the respondent not to be subjected to the risk of being harassed by baseless claims, and (b) consider whether the proposed claim has a real prospect of success. (2) On the facts, permission was granted. (3) Under the relevant test under the Limitation Act 1980 (which was explained) the 3-year limitation period on the assault claim was dis-applied.	2009-11-20	2009 cases, Brief summary, Miscellaneous, Transcript
R v Evans (2009) EWCA Crim 2243 — Unsuccessful appeal, which had been on the basis that (1) his guilty plea was based on wrong advice, and (2) memories recovered since his plea would have provided a defence based on (a) provocation or (b) diminished responsibility.	2009-11-16	2009 cases, Brief summary, Diminished responsibility cases, Transcript
Re RB (A Child) (2009) EWHC 3269 (Fam) — Transcript of judge's sentencing remarks, endorsing the parties' agreement that administration of a large dose of sedative, the removal of the ventilation tube and consequent death (rather than discharge from hospital on home ventilation after a tracheostomy) were in the baby's best interests.	2009-11-16	2009 cases, Best interests, Brief summary, Transcript
Independent News and Media Ltd v A (2009) EWHC 2858 (Fam) — The media sought, not that the CoP hearing be public, but that they be authorised to attend the hearing and be subject to reporting restrictions. CoP proceedings are excluded from the general 'open justice principle' so the media's Article 10 rights are not automatically engaged, and the court must rather adopt a two-stage approach: (1) Whether a 'good reason' (a gatekeeping test from the Rules, the standard for which is not high) for making the order can be established; (2) If there is a 'good reason', a balancing test must be applied to P's Article 8 rights and the media's Article 10 rights. On the facts: (1) There was a 'good reason' as (a) the issues were already in the public domain, (b) the court's powers can preserve privacy, and (c) it is the public interest to understand how the court operates; (2) The media would be allowed to attend, as the concerns for privacy and publicity could both be met by permitting some reporting but requiring the media to demonstrate what ..→	2009-11-12	2009 cases, Brief summary, Other capacity cases, Transcript
DCC v KH (2009) COP 11729380 — (1) A DOLS standard authorisation was sufficient to return P on the long journey from contact sessions to the residential accommodation: the Code of Practice paragraphs saying that conveyance may require a court order only apply where no SA is in place. (2) It was inappropriate to seek an anticipatory declaration for the use of force, as MCA 2005 s5 and s6 permitted restraint. (3) The interim residence order should be enough to persuade the police to facilitate P's return.	2009-11-11	2009 cases, Brief summary, Deprivation of liberty, Transcript
Baker v H (2009) EWHC B31 (Fam) — (1) The judgment sets out a structured general approach to considering the setting of security and its interplay with the terms of appointment of a deputy; (2) On the facts, the level of security was reduced from £750k to £175k.	2009-11-09	2009 cases, Brief summary, Other capacity cases, Transcript
EBR Attridge Law LLP v Coleman (2009) UKEAT 0071/09 — The Disability Discrimination Act 1995 should be interpreted so as to prohibit discrimination against employees who, although not themselves disabled, were treated less favourably or harassed on the ground of their association with a person who was disabled.	2009-11-09	2009 cases, Detailed summary, Disability discrimination, Transcript
R v Singleton (2008) EWCA Crim 468 — Sentence of 5 years' imprisonment replaced by 3-year community order with residence, supervision and mental health treatment requirements.	2009-11-03	2008 cases, Brief summary, Sentence appeal cases, Transcript
R (Nottingham Healthcare NHS Trust) v MHRT (Northern Region), Re GK (2008) EWHC 2445 (Admin) — The Tribunal's decision that GK did not suffer from any mental illness and should be discharged from Rampton, which was contrary to all the medical evidence including the independent psychiatrist's, was inadequately reasoned.	2009-11-03	2008 cases, Brief summary, Reasons, Transcript
Wilkinson v Secretary of State for Scotland (1999) ScotCS 49 — Paedophilia alone did not justify detention, as it is a sexual deviancy; but on the facts there was a mental disorder. If there is a mental disorder that manifests itself in paedophile conduct, that can be within the definition of mental disorder. [MHLR.]	2009-11-01	1999 cases, Brief summary, Scottish cases, Transcript, Treatability test and psychopathic disorder
Robbins v Mitchell and MHTS (2007) ScotSC 19 — Unsuccessful challenge to MHTS decision. [Summary required.]	2009-11-01	2007 cases, No summary, Other Tribunal cases, Scottish cases, Transcript
Ruddle v Secretary of State for Scotland (1999) ScotSC 24 — Whilst a structured hospital environment could amount to treatment, it did not on the facts, but was mere containment; and as an anti-social personality disorder was not on the facts alleviated or prevented from deterioration as a result of any treatment interventions, it was untreatable; and as there was no need for recall, an absolute discharge followed. [MHLR.]	2009-11-01	1999 cases, Brief summary, Other Tribunal cases, Scottish cases, Transcript
RM v Scottish Ministers (2008) CSOH 123 — Unsuccessful challenge relating to effectiveness of Scottish "conditions of excessive security" legislation. [Summary required.]	2009-11-01	2008 cases, No summary, Other Tribunal cases, Scottish cases, Transcript
Paterson v Kent (2006) ScotSC 48 — Successful appeal against MHTS decision. [Summary required.]	2009-11-01	2006 cases, No summary, Other Tribunal cases, Scottish cases, Transcript
McGlynn v Mental Health Tribunal for Scotland (2006) ScotSC 18 — Successful appeal against MHTS decision. [Summary required.]	2009-11-01	2006 cases, No summary, Other Tribunal cases, Scottish cases, Transcript
Lothian Health Board v Martin and MHTS (2007) — Unsuccessful appeal against MHTS decision. [Summary required.]	2009-11-01	2007 cases, No summary, Other Tribunal cases, Scottish cases, Transcript
Hughes v Mental Health Tribunal for Scotland (2006) ScotSC 56 — Funding for representation at MHTS. [Summary required.]	2009-11-01	2006 cases, No summary, Other Tribunal cases, Scottish cases, Transcript
Ferguson v State Hospital Management Committee (1999) ScotSC 10 — In considering discharge, it was not necessary to consider the hypothetical question of whether the sentencing court would impose a hospital order on the basis of present knowledge of the patient’s condition; the requirement of treatability in relation to a personality disorder was satisfied by the structured setting that made F more settled and stable and cognitive behavioural therapy and counselling. [MHLR.]	2009-11-01	1999 cases, Brief summary, Other Tribunal cases, Scottish cases, Transcript
Byrne v Mental Health Tribunal for Scotland (2006) ScotSC 29 — MHTS decision set aside. [Summary required.]	2009-11-01	2006 cases, No summary, Other Tribunal cases, Scottish cases, Transcript
Beattie v Dunbar (Mental Health Officer) (2006) ScotSC 108 — Challenge to MHTS decision to grant compulsory treatment order. [Summary required.]	2009-11-01	2006 cases, No summary, Other Tribunal cases, Scottish cases, Transcript
South West London and St George's Mental Health NHS Trust v W (2002) EWHC 1770 (Admin) — Lawfulness of transfer from prison to hospital (treatability). [Summary required.]	2009-11-01	2002 cases, No summary, Transcript, Treatability test and psychopathic disorder
R v Cornelius (Alan) (2002) EWCA Crim 138 — Extended period of licence reduced from 5 to 2 years on appeal. [Summary required.]	2009-11-01	2002 cases, No summary, Sentence appeal cases, Transcript
R v Czarnota (Michael) (2002) EWCA Crim 785 — Restriction order quashed on appeal. [Summary required.]	2009-11-01	2002 cases, No summary, Restriction order cases, Transcript
R (SSHD) v MHRT, re PG (2002) EWHC 2043 (Admin) — Inadequate reasons. [Summary required.]	2009-11-01	2002 cases, No summary, Reasons, Transcript
R (S) v SSHD and Parole Board (2002) EWHC 2424 (Admin) — Licence recall while on s3. [Summary required.]	2009-10-31	2002 cases, No summary, Prison law cases, Transcript
R (S) v Airedale NHS Trust (2002) EWHC 1780 (Admin) — Seclusion. [Summary required.]	2009-10-31	2002 cases, Miscellaneous, No summary, Transcript
R (N) v Dr M (2002) EWHC 1911 (Admin) — Unsuccessful challenge to compulsory treatment. [Summary required.]	2009-10-31	2002 cases, Challenges to compulsory treatment, No summary, Transcript
R (Munjaz) v Ashworth Hospital Authority (2002) EWHC 1521 (Admin) — Departure from Code of Practice. [Summary required.]	2009-10-31	2002 cases, Miscellaneous, No summary, Transcript
R (M) v Nottinghamshire Healthcare NHS Trust (2002) EWHC 1400 (Admin) — Unsuccessful challenge to s47/49 patient's return to prison. [Summary required.]	2009-10-31	2002 cases, Ministry of Justice, No summary, Transcript
R (LH) v MHRT (2002) EWHC 170 (Admin) — Permission to appeal against Tribunal decision refused. [Summary required.]	2009-10-31	2002 cases, No summary, Reasons, Transcript
R (L) v MHRT (2002) EWHC 618 (Admin) — AWOL claimant's delay case struck out as an abuse of process. [Summary required.]	2009-10-31	2002 cases, No summary, Other Tribunal cases, Transcript
R (Heather) v Leonard Cheshire Foundation (2001) EWHC Admin 429 — Care home closure. [Summary required.]	2009-10-31	2001 cases, Community care, No summary, Transcript
R (Heather) v Leonard Cheshire Foundation (2002) EWCA Civ 366 — Care home closure. [Summary required.]	2009-10-31	2002 cases, Community care, No summary, Transcript
R (LH) v MHRT (2002) EWHC 1522 (Admin) — (1) There is no need for reasons for not making a recommendation where, as here, there is no contention (or any evidence in support of a contention) justifying a recommendation or the consideration of it. (2) In any event, an extra-statutory recommendation, outside the scope of s72(3), has no legal effect and is not susceptible to judicial review. (3) That s72 does not allow consideration of a hospital's suitability in terms of security or family proximity does not disclose a Convention incompatibility: a lacuna in an Act or a failure to provide an effective remedy for a Convention violation does not mean that the Act is incompatible.	2009-10-31	2002 cases, Brief summary, Reasons, Transcript
R (D) v SSHD (2002) EWHC 2805 (Admin) — Parole Board and Mental Health Tribunal. [Summary required.]	2009-10-31	2002 cases, No summary, Other Tribunal cases, Prison law cases, Transcript
R (DR) v Mersey Care NHS Trust (2002) EWHC 1810 (Admin) — Renewal of section while on long-term s17 leave. [Summary required.]	2009-10-31	2002 cases, Miscellaneous, No summary, Transcript
R (C) v Brent, Kensington and Chelsea and Westminster Mental Health NHS Trust (2002) EWHC 181 (Admin) — Closure of residential accommodation. [Summary required.]	2009-10-31	2002 cases, Community care, No summary, Transcript
R (C) v Brent, Kensington and Chelsea and Westminster Mental Health NHS Trust (2001) EWHC Admin 479 — Closure of residential accommodation. [Summary required.]	2009-10-31	2001 cases, Community care, No summary, Transcript
R (C) v Lincolnsire Health Authority (2001) EWHC Admin 685 — [Summary required.]	2009-10-30	2001 cases, Community care, No summary, Transcript
R (B) v Ashworth Hospital Authority (2002) EWHC 1442 (Admin) — A patient could be treated for any form of mental disorder, not just a disorder within the classification under which he was detained.	2009-10-30	2002 cases, Brief summary, Other classification cases, Transcript
Masterman-Lister v Brutton and Co (2002) EWCA Civ 1889 — Unsuccessful appeal against decision that M was fully capable of managing and administering his property and affairs. [Summary required.]	2009-10-30	2002 cases, No summary, Other capacity cases, Transcript
Masterman-Lister v Jewell (2002) EWHC 417 (QB) — M was fully capable of managing and administering his property and affairs. [Summary required.]	2009-10-30	2002 cases, No summary, Other capacity cases, Transcript
Hession v Health Service Commissioner for Wales (2001) EWHC Admin 619 — [Summary required.]	2009-10-30	2001 cases, Miscellaneous, No summary, Transcript
Dillon v SSHD (2002) EWHC 732 (Admin) — "This Claimant’s application is that a warrant, issued by the Secretary of State for the Home Department under section 3 of the Repatriation of Prisoners Act 1984 should be amended to substitute for the discretionary life sentence, with a tariff period of seven years, an order under section 37 of the Mental Health Act with a restriction order under section 41. Alternatively, to amend the warrant to remove the tariff period." [Summary required.]	2009-10-30	2002 cases, Life sentence cases, No summary, Transcript
Cook v Bradford Community Health NHS Trust (2002) EWCA Civ 1616 — Negligence case. [Summary required.]	2009-10-30	2002 cases, Miscellaneous, No summary, Transcript
R (Wirral Health Authority) v Dr Finnegan, re DE (2001) EWHC Admin 312 — [Summary required.]	2009-10-30	2001 cases, No summary, Other Tribunal cases, Transcript
R (Wirral Health Authority) v MHRT, re DE (2001) EWCA Civ 1901 — [Summary required.]	2009-10-30	2001 cases, No summary, Other Tribunal cases, Transcript
R (WC) v South London and Maudsley NHS Trust (2001) EWHC 1025 (Admin) — Unsuccessful challenge to lawfulness of detention (consultation with nearest relative). [Summary required.]	2009-10-30	2001 cases, Consulting NR, No summary, Transcript
R (Wheldon) v Rampton Hospital Authority (2001) EWHC Admin 134 — Unsuccessful challenge to lawfulness of detention (treatability). [Summary required.]	2009-10-30	2001 cases, No summary, Transcript, Treatability test and psychopathic disorder
R (S) v Plymouth City Council (2001) EWHC Admin 750 — Unsuccessful challenge by nearest relative to council's refusal to disclose documents relating to P who was subject to guardianship and lacked capacity to consent to disclosure. [Summary required.]	2009-10-30	2001 cases, No summary, Other NR cases, Transcript
R (RH) v Ashworth Hospital Authority (2001) EWHC 872 (Admin) — Unsuccessful challenge to Ashworth policy not to issue condoms.	2009-10-30	2001 cases, Brief summary, Miscellaneous, Transcript
R (Pickering) v Ashworth Hospital Authority (2001) EWCA Civ 883 — Challenge to ward move and restriction of communication arguable so permission granted.	2009-10-30	2001 cases, Brief summary, Permission hearings, Transcript
R (P) v Surrey Oakland NHS Trust (2001) EWHC Admin 461 — Judicial review was an inappropriate means of challenging the closure of the psychiatric hospital.	2009-10-30	2001 cases, Brief summary, Miscellaneous, Transcript
NHS Hospital Trust v A (a child) (2007) EWHC 1696 (Fam) — Bone marrow transplant on baby lawful despite parents' refusal to consent.	2009-10-29	2007 cases, Best interests, Brief summary, Transcript
KD and LD v LB Havering (2009) EW Misc 7 (EWCOP) — At a hearing which was expected to be merely interlocutory, the DJ made final orders as to capacity and residence, and appointed the local authority as personal welfare deputy. (1) The power to deal with cases summarily exists but was exercised unlawfully in this case. It is to be exercised as an alternative to a hearing, for example in an emergency or where little or no contest is anticipated. It is unlikely to be exercised appropriately where there is a serious issue or potential issue as to the appropriateness of deprivation of liberty and so where Articles 5 and 6 are potentially engaged. The DJ had achieved an impermissible hybrid, in the course of a hearing exercising powers potentially available to the Court instead of a hearing. (2) A summary decision of best interests must be made by reference to the evidence and the matters in MCA 2005 s4, but this exercise was not fully carried out. (3) There was a breach of procedural fairness and Article ..→	2009-10-29	2009 cases, Best interests, Detailed summary, Transcript
Anderson v Scottish Ministers (2001) UKPC D5 — Section 1 of the Mental Health (Public Safety and Appeals) (Scotland) Act 1999 is not incompatible with Article 5(1)(e): the continued detention of restricted patients in a hospital on grounds of public safety is not dependent on their condition being capable of treatment.	2009-10-24	2001 cases, Detailed summary, Transcript, Treatability test and psychopathic disorder
AL v Mental Health Tribunal for Scotland (2007) ScotSC 44 — Successful challenge to MHTS decision. [Summary required.]	2009-10-24	2007 cases, No summary, Other Tribunal cases, Scottish cases, Transcript
AG v Mental Health Tribunal for Scotland (2006) ScotSC 113 — Challenge to MHTS decision not to adjourn. [Summary required.]	2009-10-24	2006 cases, No summary, Other Tribunal cases, Scottish cases, Transcript
R (E) v Governing Body of JFS (No 2) (2009) UKSC 1 — If the LSC decide fund a successful litigant, that decision must ordinarily be seen to carry with it something close to an assurance that the Commission will continue to support him in any subsequent appeal by the unsuccessful party; the LSC's decision not to continue funding without a protective costs order against the appellent was unlawful and public funding was therefore to continue.	2009-10-24	2009 cases, Detailed summary, Miscellaneous, Transcript
R v Ghulam (2009) EWCA Crim 2285 — Under CPIA 1964 s4 the court must not make a determination that the defendant is unfit to plead without medical evidence from two medical practitioners; however, where the medical evidence of unfitness to plead is only available from one medical practitioner, the judge is not bound to adjourn the trial but can make a determination that the defendant is fit to plead.	2009-10-24	2009 cases, Detailed summary, Transcript, Unfitness and insanity cases
R v Grant (2008) EWCA Crim 1870 — Based on recently-obtained medical evidence that the appellant's significant learning disability and unfitness to plead was masked by his external demeanour and physical appearance, his conviction (and 3-year community order) was quashed and substituted with a verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity (and a 2-year supervision order).	2009-10-24	2008 cases, Brief summary, Transcript, Unfitness and insanity cases
Re M; ITW v Z (2009) EWHC 2525 (Fam) — Statutory will case. [Summary required.]	2009-10-19	2009 cases, Best interests, Brief summary, Transcript
AA v Cheshire and Wirral Partnership NHS Foundation Trust (2009) UKUT 195 (AAC) — An application made while a patient is detained under section 2 or 3 does not lapse when the patient is made subject to a CTO, as s72(1) (powers of tribunals) should be given a literal construction. Preliminary points: (1) Discussion on Law Society guidance and cases where client lacks full capacity. The Upper Tribunal has no power to appoint a litigation friend or equivalent, and the OS's powers and duties apply to court proceedings not tribunals; in any event, justice did not require a litigation friend as the potential "best interests" argument was argued by other parties. (2) It was not unlawful for a First-tier Tribunal judge to consider an application for permission to appeal from, or a review of, his own decision.	2009-10-13	2009 cases, Brief summary, Change of status after application made, Transcript, Upper Tribunal decisions
R (X) v SSJ (2009) EWHC 2465 (Admin) — The Secretary of State had rejected an application for escorted community leave because of the nature of the index offence and the perspective of the victim's family. (1) The decision was quashed because neither the question of risk to others nor the positive benefits to the patient had been considered (irrationality, failure to take into account relevant considerations and considering irrelevant ones). (2) The reasons presented in the summary grounds of defence were patently not the reasons for the decision.	2009-10-12	2009 cases, Brief summary, Ministry of Justice, Transcript
R (PP) v SSJ (2009) 2464 (Admin) — The Secretary of State's decision to reject an application for a restricted patient to be granted trial leave to a medium secure unit was lawful; he was not bound to seek alternative evidence even where the evidence before him was unanimously in favour or leave being granted.	2009-10-12	2009 cases, Brief summary, Ministry of Justice, Transcript
R (AB) v SSJ (2009) EWHC 2220 (Admin) — Continued detention of pre-operative male-to-female transsexual in male prison breached Article 8 and was Wednesbury unreasonable.	2009-10-09	2009 cases, Brief summary, Prison law cases, Transcript
R (McKinnon) v SSHA (2009) EWHC 2449 (Admin) — Asperger's Syndrome hacker extradition case: no permission to apply for JR on Article 8 grounds; no certificate on points of law of general public importance on the Article 3 grounds; no permission to appeal.	2009-10-09	2009 cases, Brief summary, Repatriation cases, Transcript
Stockton On Tees Borough Council v Aylott (2009) UKEAT 0401/08/1103 — The decision in Malcolm on the correct comparator in disability-related discrimination cases also applies to employment cases.	2009-10-08	2009 cases, Brief summary, Disability discrimination, Transcript
SCA Packaging Ltd v Boyle (2009) UKHL 37 — Under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 an impairment which is treated or corrected is counted (in law) as causing disability if it (in fact) would be likely to cause disability if untreated or uncorrected: "likely" here does not mean "probable" but means "could well happen". The employee was therefore disabled and the employer was under a duty to make reasonable adjustments.	2009-10-08	2009 cases, Brief summary, Disability discrimination, Transcript
R v Pedley, Martin and Hamadi (2009) EWCA Crim 840 — (1) Guidance on the proper construction of the 'significant risk' test created by section 225 Criminal Justice Act 2003 for passing sentences of imprisonment for public protection (IPP) or other indeterminate sentences. (2) Such sentences are Convention compliant.	2009-10-08	2009 cases, Brief summary, Other criminal law cases, Transcript
Jansons v Latvia (2009) EWHC 1845 (Admin) — It would be oppressive under s25 Extradition Act 2003, and contrary to his Article 8 rights, for the Latvian criminal to be extradited, because there was a substantial risk that he would commit suicide.	2009-10-08	2009 cases, Brief summary, Repatriation cases, Transcript
Dzikowski v GMC (2009) EWHC 1090 (Admin) — The GMC's decision that it was necessary for the protection of patients and in the public interest for the appellant consultant psychiatrist's name to be erased from the Medical Register was lawful.	2009-10-08	2009 cases, Brief summary, Miscellaneous, Transcript
Cheltenham Borough Council v Laird (2009) EWHC 1253 (QB) — The council unsuccessfully sued its former employee for damages for making, by failing to disclose her full psychiatric history, fraudulent or negligent misrepresentations in a job application.	2009-10-08	2009 cases, Brief summary, Disability discrimination, Transcript
Bury Metropolitan Borough Council v D (2009) EWHC 446 (Fam) — It was lawful for the local authority to remove a child from its mother immediately at birth without informing the mother of its intentions.	2009-10-08	2009 cases, Best interests, Detailed summary, Transcript
Bristol City Council v AW (2009) UKUT 109 (AAC) — Housing and council tax benefits. [Summary required.]	2009-10-08	2009 cases, Community care, No summary, Transcript, Upper Tribunal decisions
Re Harries (2009) COP 22/6/09 11613871 — The witnesses to an EPA had handwritten their names but not separately signed the form, so the OPG had refused to register the EPA. The court held that the difference between a handwritten name (as opposed to a typed one) and a signature is immaterial, and ordered that the EPA be registered.	2009-09-27	2009 cases, Brief summary, EPA cases - all, EPA cases - whether the instrument was validly executed, Transcript
R (Pennington) v Parole Board (2009) EWHC 2296 (Admin) — Delays by the Parole Board, both in issuing ICM directions (which caused a 2-month delay in listing the hearing) and in communicating the decision a month late, breached Article 5(4). Claims for "pure delay" - that is where a Parole Board hearing has been delayed because of a lack of resources available to or errors or omissions on the part of the Parole Board - survive the House of Lords decsion in James. Damages to be assessed at a later date.	2009-09-27	2009 cases, Brief summary, Prison law cases, Transcript
BB v South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust (2009) UKUT 157 (AAC) — (1) The Tribunal panel failed to state with clarity how and why it disagreed with the reasoning of the independent psychiatrist who had recommended conditional discharge; therefore, the making of the decision involved the making of an error on a point of law. (2) The decision was not set aside: to do so would provide no practical benefit as the patient had recently re-applied to the Tribunal.	2009-09-04	2009 cases, Brief summary, Reasons, Transcript, Upper Tribunal decisions
KM v MHTS (2009) case B186/09 — (1) In granting a Community Treatment Order, the Mental Health Tribunal for Scotland misdirected itself in law, so its decision was set aside: in considering Regulation 5 (permitted conflicts of interest between the two recommending doctors) the Tribunal applied a subjective test of what was in the RMO's mind, rather than objectively considering whether "failure to carry out the [independent second] medical examination would result in delay which would involve serious risk to the health, safety or welfare of the patient or to the safety of other persons" (Reg 5(1)(b)). (2) No facts were found by the Tribunal which could have justified a CTO so, rather than remitting the case to the Tribunal, the application for a CTO was refused.	2009-08-31	2009 cases, Brief summary, Reasons, Scottish cases, Transcript
Re F (2009) EWHC B30 (Fam) — The "gateway" test for the engagement of the court’s powers under s48 (Interim orders and directions) is lower than that of evidence sufficient, in itself, to rebut the presumption of capacity. The proper test in the first instance is whether there is evidence giving good cause for concern that P may lack capacity in some relevant regard. Once that is raised as a serious possibility, the court then moves on to the second stage to decide what action, if any, it is in P's best interests to take before a final determination of his capacity can be made.	2009-08-16	2009 cases, Brief summary, Other capacity cases, Transcript
Re GC (2008) EWHC 3402 (Fam) — (1) The principle governing State intervention under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 is the same as under the Children Act 1989, namely that the State does not interfere in the private family life of an individual unless the continuance of that private family life is clearly inconsistent with the welfare of the person whose best interests the court is required to determine. (2) The closer the person is to having capacity the more weight his views are to be given. (3) Contrary to the professional evidence, it was in GC's best interests to return home as an interim measure: this decision was reached having regard to (a) the concept of least intervention, (b) GC's consistently-expressed wishes and feelings, (c) a finding that a trial at home was necessary and now was the best time, and (d) the importance of the emotional, as opposed to physical, component of best interests to very elderly (or young) people.	2009-08-15	2008 cases, Best interests, Brief summary, Transcript
R (McKinnon) v SSHA (2009) EWHC 2021 (Admin) — Because of the claimant's Asperger's Syndrome, extradition to the US would cause his mental health to suffer and would create risks including suicide; however, his case did not approach Article 3 severity: the SSHA's decision to order extradition, and the DPP's decision not to prosecute in the UK (although he had admitted certain offences), were lawful.	2009-08-10	2009 cases, Brief summary, Repatriation cases, Transcript
R (Krishnapillai) v SSHD (2008) EWHC 2737 (Admin) — Mental health problems can engage Article 8 and render it disproportionate to separate a failed asylum seeker from the support of his family (in this case the mental health element involved PTSD, depression and the threat of suicide); however, deportation in this case was lawful.	2009-08-09	2009 cases, Brief summary, Repatriation cases, Transcript
R (Chahboub) v SSHD (2009) EWHC 1989 (Admin) — Failed asylum seeker's challenge to detention in prison rather than immigration centre. (1) The first of the two periods of detention was outside the 3-month JR time limit so permission was refused in respect of that period. (2) The policy with respect to whether mentally ill people should be detained did not apply to the claimant, who had a personality disorder rather than mental illness. (3) The detention was justified under common law (intention to deport, detention for reasonable period, deportation possible in reasonable period, reasonable diligence to deport). (4) His transfer from the immigration centre to prison, because he had proved unmanageable, was in accordance with policy. (5) The manner of his detention in prison (required to share cell with convicted prisoner, dietary requirements ignored, 23-hour lock-up, limited access to telephone and visitors) was contrary to policy and breached his Article 5 rights.	2009-08-09	2009 cases, Brief summary, Repatriation cases, Transcript
R (Axon) v SSH (2006) EWHC 37 (Admin) — The 2004 guidance "Best Practice Guidance for Doctors and other Health Professionals on the provision of Advice and Treatment to Young People under 16 on Contraception, Sexual and Reproductive Health" was not unlawful. A medical professional can provide such advice and treatment if: (1) the young person understands all aspects of the advice; (2) the young person cannot be persuaded to have his parents informed; (3) (re contraception/STIs) the young person is very likely to have sexual intercourse; (4) without advice/treatment his physical/mental health is likely to suffer; (5) it is in the young person's best interests.	2009-08-01	2006 cases, Brief summary, Miscellaneous, Transcript
R (Purdy) v DPP (2009) UKHL 45 — (1) The prohibition of assisted suicide in section 2(1) Suicide Act 1961 interfered with the claimant's Article 8(1) right to respect for private life (her personal autonomy and right to self-determination). (2) This interference - in cases of the suicide of a person who is terminally ill or severely and incurably disabled, who wishes to be helped to travel to a country where assisted suicide is lawful and who, having the capacity to take such a decision, does so freely and with a full understanding of the consequences - is not "in accordance with the law" as required by article 8(2), in the absence of an offence-specific policy by the DPP which sets out the factors that will be taken into account in deciding under s2(4) whether to prosecute. (3) Therefore the DPP was required to promulgate such an offence-specific policy.	2009-08-01	2009 cases, Detailed summary, Other criminal law cases, Transcript
Rabone v Pennine Care NHS Trust (2009) EWHC 1827 (QB) — The Article 2 "Osman" operational obligation to protect life applied to detained patients, but not to the claimant who was an informal patient on leave from the hospital at the time she committed suicide.	2009-08-01	2009 cases, Brief summary, Inquests, Transcript
R v C (2009) UKHL 42 — For the purposes of s30 Sexual Offences Act 2003: (1) lack of capacity to choose can be person or situation specific; (2) an irrational fear arising from mental disorder that prevents the exercise of choice could amount to a lack of capacity to choose; (3) inability to communicate could be as a result of a mental or physical disorder.	2009-08-01	2009 cases, Brief summary, Capacity to consent to sexual relations, Criminal law capacity cases, Transcript
Perrins v Holland (2009) EWHC 1945 (Ch) — The testator had testamentary capacity at the time that he gave instructions for the will, but not when he executed it; however, when he executed the will he believed that it gave effect to his previous instructions, it did in fact do so, and the instructions remained his testamentary wishes. Therefore the court pronounced in favour of the will.	2009-08-01	2009 cases, Brief summary, Other capacity cases, Transcript
R (TF and Thompson) v SSHD (2009) EWCA Civ 792 — (1) The indefinite nature of the notification requirements of Part 2 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (the Sex Offenders Register) is a disproportionate breach of Article 8: there is no opportunity for review of the necessity of the requirements, and the case is stronger in the case of young offenders. (2) The scheme where it related to foreign travel did not breach article 4 ("right of exit") of EC Council Directive 2004/38.	2009-07-29	2009 cases, Brief summary, Other criminal law cases, Transcript
R v Khan (2009) EWCA Crim 1569 — (1) The judge had been right to refuse to withdraw the charge of murder from the jury at the close of the evidence: to do otherwise he would have to be satisfied that the evidence, both medical and factual, was such that no reasonable jury, properly directed, could conclude that the defendant had failed to prove, on a balance of probabilities, the diminished responsibility defence. (2) Although the medical evidence in favour of diminished responsibility was unchallenged, there was ample factual evidence on which the jury could conclude that it was not satisfied, on a balance of probabilities, that the defence was made out.	2009-07-29	2009 cases, Brief summary, Diminished responsibility cases, Transcript
Scottish Ministers v MHTS, re MM (2009) CSIH 66 — (1) Tribunal decision set aside for want of adequate reasons. (2) Discussion on interpretation of s193 Mental Health (Care and Treatment) (Scotland) Act 2003, the convoluted Tribunal discharge procedure and criteria which differ from the admission criteria.	2009-07-29	2009 cases, Brief summary, Scottish cases, Transcript
R v G; R v J (2009) UKHL 13 — Detailed explanation of elements of, and defences to, s57 and s58 Terrorism Act 2000. It was not a "reasonable excuse" for G to possess terrorist material to wind up prison guards; he was responsible for his actions (applying M'Naghten's Case) and his schizophrenia could not make reasonable what was unreasonable.	2009-07-29	2009 cases, Brief summary, Other criminal law cases, Transcript
R (N) v SSH; R (E) v Nottinghamshire Healthcare NHS Trust (2009) EWCA Civ 795 — The right or freedom to smoke does not engage Article 8(1); Article 14 could not therefore be relied upon either. In any event, the SSH's smoke-free regulations and the Trust's smoke-free policy would be justified under Article 8(2), and the different treatment under the regulations for mental health units compared with prisons, care homes and hospices would be justified under Article 14.	2009-07-26	2009 cases, Brief summary, Miscellaneous, Smoking, Transcript
Re Brammall; W Primary Care Trust v TB (2009) EWHC 1737 (Fam) — TB was eligible to be deprived of her liberty under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (either under DOLS provisions or s16 court order): she might have been ineligible under Case E, but she was not a "mental health patient" because her care home did not fall within the definition of a hospital.	2009-07-23	2009 cases, Deprivation of liberty, Detailed summary, Transcript
MJ (Angola) v SSHD (2009) EWCA Civ 741 — The SSJ should be served with the appeal proceedings as the court would be assisted by information from him as to the policy and objects as he sees them of s42 MHA (discharge power) in the context of a deportation case.	2009-07-23	2009 cases, Brief summary, Repatriation cases, Transcript
R (Faulkner) v SSJ (2009) EWHC 1507 (Admin) — 13 months after referral, the claimant was released by the Parole Board and subsequently absconded. (1) The question of whether to dismiss the claim purely on the grounds that the claimant was a fugitive was left open. (2) The Article 5(4) claim was inconsistent with R (James) v SSJ (2009) UKHL 22: there was no Article 5(4) breach as the system had not broken down entirely (by the PB being denied the information that it needed for such a long period as to make continued detention arbitrary). (3) If that analysis is wrong, there still was no breach as, looking at the totality of the matter, there had been a review within a reasonable period. (4) Even if there had been a breach, it could not be shown that the claimant would have been released earlier. (5) Damages, if appropriate, would have been in the region of £1,000-£2,000, or perhaps £4,000; but, seeing as he had absconded, no damages would have been awarded. [Caution.]	2009-07-20	2009 cases, Brief summary, Prison law cases, Transcript
R v Erskine; R v Williams (2009) EWCA Crim 1425 — The appellants argued that, although they had not advanced the defence at trial, their convictions for murder should be quashed and substituted with diminished responsibility manslaughter. (1) The question in each case was whether, in examining the mental state at the time of the killing in accordance with s2 Homicide Act 1957, evidence which was not adduced at trial should be received under s23 Criminal Appeal Act 1968. (2) The question was a simple one and citation of numerous, merely illustrative, authorities was unhelpful. (3) In Erskine there was overwhelming contemporaneous evidence for diminished responsibility, and that his decision not to advance the defence was irremediably flawed because of his illness: appeal allowed and restricted hospital order imposed. (4) In Williams, the decision not to advance the defence was tactical, and the subsequent medical evidence unconvincing: appeal dismissed.	2009-07-20	2009 cases, Brief summary, Diminished responsibility cases, Transcript
R (P) v Barking Youth Court (2002) EWHC 734 (Admin) — The Youth Court, in considering fitness to plead, had wrongly adopted the procedure laid down for the Crown Court; s11(1) Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 and s37(3) Mental Health Act 1983 provide a complete statutory framework for the determination by the Magistrates' Court, itself a creature of statute, of all the issues that arise in cases of defendants who are or may be mentally ill or suffering from severe mental impairment in the context of offences which are triable summarily only; the procedure is first to determine whether P did the acts alleged against him, and if so, then to consider, in the light of such reports as they may think necessary, whether the case is one for an order under s37(3)); for these purposes a youth court is a magistrates' court.	2009-07-10	2009 cases, Brief summary, Other criminal law cases, Transcript
R (P) v SSJ (2009) EWCA Civ 701 — The refusal of the SSJ to hold an inquiry into P's detention in YOI Feltham was lawful: (1) Article 2 is only engaged where there is a "real and immediate" risk to life; the risk from P's self harming, while real, was not immediate. (2) There was no arguable breach of Article 3 in the delay in transfer to hospital. Had there been an arguable Article 3 breach: in general, an inquiry would not have been mandatory; in this particular case, it would not have been necessary as the relevant facts were known.	2009-07-09	2009 cases, Brief summary, Inquests, Transcript
R v Holderness (2009) EWCA Crim 1326 — The appellant argued that, due to a mental illness which she had previously concealed, she ought to have been convicted of diminished responsibility manslaughter rather than murder. This argument was rejected as (1) her appeal depended on her credibility, which had been damaged by her series of lies; (2) her excuse for concealment even up to trial - that she hoped to be let go by appearing well - was not credible; (3) she had ample opportunity to observe other patients' illnesses; (4) it was not probable that she could have concealed the delusions from the psychiatrist who saw her on the day of arrest. No jury might reasonably have found, on the balance of probabilities, that the s2 Homicide Act 1957 criteria were met. Appeal dismissed.	2009-07-09	2009 cases, Brief summary, Diminished responsibility cases, Transcript
R (Betteridge) v Parole Board (2009) EWHC 1638 (Admin) — (1) Article 5(4) requires a speedy hearing to determine the lawfulness of detention, independently of any consideration of arbitrariness under Article 5(1). (2) The delay in listing the claimant's Parole Board hearing, due to a lack of panel members, breached his Article 5(4) right to a speedy hearing; however, as there had been no chance of release, there was no claim in damages. (3) The steps being taken to fix the systemic failures, and the ongoing problems, mean that further Article 5(4) delay claims are not appropriate unless in very special circumstances.	2009-07-07	2009 cases, Detailed summary, Prison law cases, Transcript
R (Farah) v HM Coroner for the Southampton and New Forest District of Hampshire (2009) EWHC 1605 (Admin) — (a) A coroner sitting without a jury is entitled to give a verdict and a judgment dealing with the stipulated issues which are (i) who the deceased was; (ii) how, when, by what means and in what circumstances and where the deceased came by is death; and (iii) the particulars for the time being required by the Registration Act to be registered concerning the death; (b) A coroner is entitled to give a judgment on matters which arise during the inquest and which are relevant to the determination of the stipulated issues; (c) The Court has jurisdiction which should be sparingly exercised to declare comments made by a coroner as being unlawful. Such a declaration may be made if the comments (i) do not relate to any of the stipulated issues in any way; (ii) are matters of opinion; and (iii) are sufficiently unfairly critical and offensive of any party; (d) Declarations should be made that comments made by the defendant coroner in his judgment in respect of ..→	2009-07-05	2009 cases, Brief summary, Inquests, Transcript
R (Allen) v HM Coroner for Inner North London (2009) EWCA Civ 623 — An inquest into the death of a patient who was detained in a hospital under s3 had to satisfy the enhanced requirements of Article 2	2009-07-05	2009 cases, Detailed summary, Inquests, Transcript
Gray v Thames Trains Ltd (2009) UKHL 33 — The principle of ex turpi causa prevented the claimant from recovering for damage which was the consequence of his committing the offence of manslaughter.	2009-06-21	2009 cases, Detailed summary, Miscellaneous, Transcript
R (Blouet) v Bath and Wansdyke Magistrates Court (2009) EWHC 759 (Admin) — Fitness to plead - guidance on procedure to be followed by magistrates' court. [Summary required.]	2009-06-15	2009 cases, No summary, Transcript, Unfitness and insanity cases
R (Compton) v GMC (2008) EWHC 2868 (Admin) — The GMC fitness to practise panel in suspending Dr Compton for a year had exercised a fair procedure (in light of the doctor's decision not to attend) and were justified in their conclusion (that he had been dishonest in not disclosing previous unsuccessful applications for s12 approval).	2009-06-15	2008 cases, Brief summary, Miscellaneous, Transcript
RA (Sri Lanka) v SSHD (2008) EWCA Civ 1210 — Unsuccessful human rights appeal against deportation made by suspected terrorist: the article 3 claim being based on (1) a fear of being ill-treated in Sri Lanka on account of actual or suspected involvement with the Tamil Tigers; (2) mental health and in particular the risk of suicide if returned; the article 8 claim being based on the risk of suicide and interference with the private life established in the UK.	2009-06-15	2008 cases, Brief summary, Repatriation cases, Transcript
Roach v Home Office (2009) EWHC 312 (QB) — The costs of attending an inquest can in principle be recovered by way of costs in subsequent civil proceedings; the fact that the inquest work was covered by a public funding certificate had no bearing on the recoverability of the costs.	2009-06-15	2009 cases, Brief summary, Inquests, Transcript
Dalton v Latnam (2003) EWHC 796 (Ch) — The justice of the case did not require the forfeiture rule to be modified. [Summary required.]	2009-06-14	2003 cases, Miscellaneous, No summary, Transcript
Dunn v South Tyneside Health Care NHS Trust (2003) EWCA Civ 878 — Clinical negligence - hourly observations were reasonable. [Summary required.]	2009-06-14	2003 cases, Miscellaneous, No summary, Transcript
Peter Kiernan v Harrow Crown Court (2003) EWCA Crim 1052 — Hospital order quashed. [Summary required.]	2009-06-14	2003 cases, Hospital order cases, No summary, Transcript
R (A) v SSHD (2003) EWHC 270 (Admin) — It was not unfair that a differently-constituted Tribunal panel were to consider the claimant's case after the original deferred conditional discharge. [Summary required.]	2009-06-14	2003 cases, No summary, Other Tribunal cases, Transcript
R (A) v Home Secretary (2003) EWHC 2846 (Admin) — Unsuccessful challenge to the decision of the decision of the Secretary of State to permit the claimants to be interviewed by journalists but only if the interviews were conducted within earshot of officials and were tape recorded. [Summary required.]	2009-06-14	2003 cases, Miscellaneous, No summary, Transcript
R (Bitcon) v West Allderdale Magistrates Court (2003) EWHC 2460 (Admin) — Unsuccessful challenge to magistrates' revocation of s35 order. [Summary required.]	2009-06-14	2003 cases, No summary, Other criminal law cases, Transcript
R (C) v South London and Maudsley NHS Trust and MHRT (2003) EWHC 3467 (Admin) — Unsuccessful challenge to lawfulness of s4 detention and Tribunal's decision to adjourn. [Summary required.]	2009-06-14	2003 cases, Miscellaneous, No summary, Transcript
R (K) v Dr Hughes (2003) EWHC 357 (Admin) — Challenge to administration of ECT. [Summary required.]	2009-06-14	2003 cases, Challenges to compulsory treatment, No summary, Transcript
R (S) v SSHD (2003) EWCA Civ 426 — Effect of being detained under section 3 on calculation of a prisoner's release date following licence revocation. [Summary required]	2009-06-14	2003 cases, No summary, Other criminal law cases, Transcript
R (South West Yorkshire Mental Health NHS Trust) v Bradford Crown Court (2003) EWCA Civ 1857 — Criminal law - High Court lacked jurisdiction. [Summary required]	2009-06-14	2003 cases, No summary, Other criminal law cases, Transcript
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.	2009-06-14	2009 cases, Brief summary, Powers, Scottish cases, Transcript
R (Mehmet) v SSJ (2009) EWHC 1202 (Admin) — The failure, without good cause, to provide to the Parole Board for nearly a year a report on how the Claimant’s performance on the ABLB course impacts on the assessment of risk in his case (SARN report) was a breach of the Secretary of State’s public law obligations and accordingly unlawful.	2009-06-03	2009 cases, Brief summary, Prison law cases, Transcript
Re OT (2009) EWHC 633 (Fam) — OT, a nine-month-old baby, required continuous ventilation to live, and sometimes required further intensive medical treatment; the trust wanted to discontinue ventilation and treatment on the basis of the distressing and futile nature of the treatment; the parents wanted all steps to be taken to sustain life. (1) Although the application itself was made in an emergency as a result of a sudden deterioration in the child's condition, the parents had a fair opportunity to prepare their case both before and during the hearing; there was therefore no flaw in the process breaching Convention rights. (2) The provision or withdrawal of treatment for a child without parental consent, save in exceptional cases, is unlawful without a court declaration.* (3) Declarations were made permitting the clinicians to treat OT according to their clinical discretion (including not escalating treatment) and to cease ventilation immediately.	2009-05-21	2009 cases, Best interests, Brief summary, Transcript
Re OT (A Child) (2009) EWCA Civ 409 — The judge's refusal of the parents' adjournment application, and the decision to proceed with a determination of best interests of their child, was not appealable.	2009-05-18	2009 cases, Best interests, Brief summary, Transcript
R (Smith) v Secretary of State for Defence (2009) EWCA Civ 441 — (1) A British soldier who is on military service in Iraq is subject to the jurisdiction of the UK within the meaning of Article 1 of the Convention, so as to benefit from the rights guaranteed by the HRA while operating in Iraq, and not only when he is on a British military base or in a British hospital. (2) The inquest into the claimant's death must confirm with Article 2 standards in the scope of the investigation and nature of the verdict.	2009-05-18	2009 cases, Brief summary, Inquests, Transcript
R v Hughes (2009) EWCA Crim 841 — The court's power to entertain an appeal against sentence is not, as a matter purely of jurisdiction, removed by the fact that there has been an earlier reference of the sentence by the Attorney-General; however, in all but the wholly exceptional case, the applications for extension of time and for leave to appeal would be refused.	2009-05-15	2009 cases, Brief summary, Life sentence cases, Transcript
R (P) v Mersey Care NHS Trust (2003) EWHC 994 (Admin) — A Tribunal recommendation for transfer from high to medium security is an important input but is not determinative; the decision whether to use the s17 (leave) and s19 (transfer) powers is for the RC and hospital managers, subject to the consent of the Secretary of State; on the facts, the Article 8 interference was justified and a decision not to transfer was properly open to them.	2009-05-11	2003 cases, Brief summary, Ministry of Justice, Transcript
R (IR) v Dr Shetty (2003) EWHC 3022 (Admin) — Unsuccessful challenge, on Article 3 and 5 grounds, to RC's decision to recommend s47/49 patient's transfer back to prison and MoJ's decision to order it.	2009-05-11	2003 cases, Brief summary, Transcript
R (James) v SSJ (2009) UKHL 22 — (1) Following the introduction of IPP sentences, the Secretary of State was in breach of his public law duty to make reasonable provision to enable IPP prisoners (if necessary by completing treatment courses) to demonstrate to the Parole Board their safety for release. The appropriate remedy was declaratory relief condemning the Secretary of State's failures and indicating that he is obliged to do more. The systemic failure has ended (following amendments including making the IPP sentence generally available only when the notional minimum term is at least 2 years) so no further relief is appropriate. (2) In relation to post-tariff detention, the systemic failure did not: (a) make the detention unlawful (detention remains lawful under statute until Parole Board release); (b) breach Article 5(1) (causal link with objective of detention remained until Parole Board decision); or (c) breach Article 5(4) (which is concerned with procedure not substance) although cases with prior ..→	2009-05-06	2009 cases, Brief summary, Prison law cases, Transcript
Y (Sri Lanka) v SSHD (2009) EWCA Civ 362 — The appellants, who had been tortured as suspected terrorists or terrorist sympathisers before travelling from Sri Lanka to the UK, successfully resisted deportation on Article 3 grounds by claiming that they would commit suicide if returned (even though there was no objective foundation for any fear of ill-treatment).	2009-05-04	2009 cases, Brief summary, Repatriation cases, Transcript
Eastern and Coastal Kent PCT v Grey (2009) UKEAT 0454/08 — The Employment Tribunal erred as it ought to have considered (but did not consider properly) the requirements of section 4A(3)(b) of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 which means that an employer is exempt from the duty to make adjustments if each of four matters can be satisfied and they are that the employer: (a) does not know that the disabled person has a disability; (b) does not know that the disabled person is likely to be at a substantial disadvantage compared with persons who are not disabled; (c) could not reasonably be expected to know that the disabled person had a disability; and (d) could not reasonably be expected to know that the disabled person is likely to be placed at a substantial disadvantage in comparison with persons who are not disabled.	2009-05-02	2009 cases, Brief summary, Disability discrimination, Transcript
M v Murray (Mental Health Officer) (2009) ScotSC 8 — The appellant patient argued that the mental health officer's application to the Mental Health Tribunal for Scotland was misconceived because the second medical report which accompanied the application did not meet the requirements of the Mental Health (Care and Treatment) (Scotland) Act 2003; taken as a whole and in the circumstances (that the application is made in the interests of the patient and the Tribunal also hear oral evidence) the report did meet the requirements.	2009-04-26	2009 cases, Brief summary, Scottish cases, Transcript
R (Lewis) v HM Coroner for the Mid and North Division of the County of Shropshire (2009) EWHC 661 (Admin) — Coroners' inquests - deaths in custody - Article 2	2009-04-26	2009 cases, Inquests, No summary, Transcript
R (N) v Ashworth Special Hospital Authority (2001) EWHC Admin 339 — Unsuccessful challenge to Safety and Security in Ashworth, Broadmoor and Rampton Hospitals Directions 2000 which introduced a discretionary power on special hospitals to record and subsequently to listen to a random ten per cent of the outgoing and incoming telephone calls of patients at the hospitals.	2009-04-19	2001 cases, Brief summary, Miscellaneous, Transcript
R (Kenneally) v Snaresbrook Crown Court (2001) EWHC 968 (Admin) — The hospital and restriction orders made under s51 were quashed (ultra vires).	2009-04-19	2001 cases, Hospital order cases, No summary, 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.	2009-04-19	2001 cases, Brief summary, Powers, Transcript
R (F) v Oxfordshire Mental Healthcare NHS Trust (2001) EWHC 535 Admin — Refusal to make extra contractual referral for transfer from Broadmoor to medium secure unit was lawful.	2009-04-19	2001 cases, Brief summary, Miscellaneous, Transcript
R (E) v Ashworth Hospital Authority (2001) EWHC 1089 — The restrictions placed on the male claimant's freedom to dress as, and to assume the appearance of, a woman were lawful.	2009-04-19	2001 cases, Brief summary, Miscellaneous, Transcript
R (C) v South London and Maudsley NHS Trust (2001) EWHC Admin 1025 — Identification of nearest relative in s11(4) is a subjective test - "who appears to him to be the nearest relative" - and the court will not interfere unless the social worker failed to apply the test in section 26 or acted with bad faith, or in some way reached a conclusion that was plainly wrong. Permission to apply for judicial review refused.	2009-04-19	2001 cases, Brief summary, Consulting NR, Permission hearings, Transcript
C v South London and Maudsley Hospital NHS Trust (2001) EWHC 480 (Admin) — Unsuccessful application for permission to appeal against refusal of leave under s139 to bring proceedings.	2009-04-19	2001 cases, Miscellaneous, No summary, Permission hearings, Transcript
Cornelius v De Taranto (2001) EWCA Civ 1511 — Unsuccessful appeal on liability (Original decision: Unauthorised transmission of medico-legal report; unsuccessful defamation claim; damages awarded for injury to feelings caused by breach of confidence).	2009-04-19	2001 cases, Brief summary, Miscellaneous, Transcript
Cathleen Williams v Anthony Williams (2001) EWCA Civ 197 — The twelve-week requirement under s35 Mental Health Act does not apply to s48(1) Family Law Act 1996 (both sections relate to remand for medical examination and report).	2009-04-19	2001 cases, Brief summary, Miscellaneous, Transcript
Platts v Coroner for South Yorkshire (East District) (2008) EWHC 2502 (Admin) — Inquest into suicide of person with mental disorder - scope of inquest and Article 2 - whether former girlfriend was properly interested person	2009-04-18	2008 cases, Inquests, No summary, Transcript
R v Safi (2007) EWCA Crim 1392 — Appeal against restriction order dismissed.	2009-04-13	2007 cases, No summary, Restriction order cases, Transcript
Ashworth Hospital Authority v MGN Ltd (2002) UKHL 29 — MGN ordered to disclose identity of intermediary, as a means of identifying the source of the leaked information.	2009-04-12	2002 cases, Miscellaneous, No summary, Transcript
R (DB) v SSHD (2006) EWHC 659 (Admin) — Detention of "pre-operative male-to-female transsexual" on male ward did not violate Article 3 or 8	2009-04-12	2006 cases, Brief summary, Miscellaneous, Transcript
Lebrooy v LB of Hammersmith and Fulham (2006) EWHC 1976 (QB) — Claims struck out for having no prospect of success; in any event, no permission had been obtained under s139 so the proceedings were a nullity.	2009-04-12	2006 cases, Brief summary, Miscellaneous, 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.	2009-04-12	2004 cases, Brief summary, Powers, Transcript
NHS Trust v T (2004) EWHC 1279 (Fam) — The patient lacked capacity, based on medical opinion and the content of her advance directive refusing treatment; interim declaration made that blood transfusion in emergency would be in patient's best interests.	2009-04-12	2004 cases, Best interests, Brief summary, Transcript
R (Takoushis) v HM Coroner for Inner North London (2005) EWCA Civ 1440 — Where a person dies as a result of what is arguably medical negligence in an NHS hospital, the state must have a system which provides for the practical and effective investigation of the facts and for the determination of civil liability. Unlike in the cases of death in custody, the system does not have to provide for an investigation initiated by the state but may include such an investigation. The present system complied with Article 2. Inquest verdict quashed and new inquest ordered.	2009-04-12	2005 cases, Detailed summary, Inquests, Miscellaneous, Transcript
R (Takoushis) v HM Coroner for Inner North London (2004) EWHC 2922 (Admin) — Coroner's decision not to call jury or adjourn for expert evidence, and inquest verdict, were lawful. [Overturned on appeal.]	2009-04-12	2004 cases, Inquests, Miscellaneous, No summary, Transcript
R (Burke) v General Medical Council (2005) EWCA Civ 1003 — Artificial nutrition and hydration.	2009-04-12	2005 cases, Best interests, No summary, Transcript
R (Burke) v General Medical Council (2004) EWHC 1879 (Admin) — Artificial nutrition and hydration.	2009-04-12	2004 cases, Best interests, No summary, Transcript
G v Official Solicitor (2006) EWCA Civ 816 — When considering a statutory will, the function of the court is to do for the patient what the patient would fairly do for herself, if she could and acting with the benefit of advice from a competent solicitor; on the facts, including the family disputes, she would have appointed the independent receiver as executor of her estate. [Caution.]	2009-04-12	2006 cases, Best interests, Brief summary, Transcript
R (JL) v SSJ (2008) UKHL 68 — The nature of the investigation that must be carried out by the State whenever a prisoner in custody makes an attempt to commit suicide that nearly succeeds and which leaves him with serious injury.	2009-04-12	2008 cases, ECHR, No summary, Transcript
R (Scott) v London Borough of Hackney (2009) EWCA Civ 217 — The fact that a judicial review claimant is legally aided and his solicitor would therefore benefit from an