These cases are also categorised according to their subject matter.

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
RC v NHS Islington (2013) UKUT 167 (AAC), (2013) MHLO 34 — "This is an appeal by a patient, brought with my leave, against a decision of the Mental Health Review Tribunal for Wales refusing an application for the postponement of the hearing of the patient’s appeal. ... The grounds of appeal argue that the ... policy on which the decision was based, of not postponing hearings other than to a fixed date, was unlawful and in any case there was nothing to prevent the tribunal from fixing a new date for the hearing even if the postponement was granted. ... The result of what I have held to be a flawed approach by the tribunal in relation to the patient’s application for a postponement in this case may have had serious consequences. Rather than proceed with a hopeless appeal, the patient was forced to withdraw his application to the tribunal. Although his subsequent appeal was successful, the tribunal’s refusal of the initial postponement application may have resulted in the patient’s detention for longer than would otherwise have been ..→	2013-04-22	2013 cases, No summary, Transcript, Upper Tribunal decisions
MD v Mersey Care NHS Trust (2013) UKUT 127 (AAC), (2013) MHLO 32 — "This case raises one issue: is the nature of the risk posed by a patient detained under the Mental Health Act 1983 relevant to the appropriateness of treatment under section 72(1)(b)(iia) of that Act?" [Summary required.]	2013-04-05	2013 cases, No summary, Transcript, Upper Tribunal decisions
JP v South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust (2012) UKUT 486 (AAC), (2012) MHLO 172 — "The grounds of appeal related to the Tribunal’s finding that he suffered from a mental disorder; the insufficiency of the Tribunal’s reasons for their decision that the appellant was to continue to be detained under section 2, and to his view that there had been a breach of his right to a fair hearing under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. He made seven specific submissions on this which I shall address hereafter. At the hearing the appellant also raised a breach of Article 9 of the Convention – his right to freedom of thought, and submitted that the Mental Health Act 1983 was flawed." [Summary required.]	2013-03-27	2012 cases, No summary, Transcript, Upper Tribunal decisions
MA v SSH (2012) UKUT 474 (AAC), (2012) MHLO 171 — "Section 66 of the 1983 Act deals with applications to tribunals (“a section 66 application”). In the present case this would be to the First-tier Tribunal. Applications may be made in a wide range of circumstances. By virtue of section 66(1) (g) these include where a report has been made under section 25 of that Act (see above – this relates to the responsible clinician issuing a certificate to the effect specified in section 25). However, an application to the tribunal may only be made under this provision in respect of a patient who has been admitted for treatment (or in certain other cases) but not in respect of a patient who has been admitted under section 2 for assessment. That exclusion is at the heart of this case." [Summary required.]	2013-03-27	2012 cases, No summary, Transcript, Upper Tribunal decisions
Bernard v SW London and St George's MH NHS Trust (2013) UKUT 58 (AAC), (2013) MHLO 26 — "This is an appeal against a decision of the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) of the Health, Education and Social Care (HESC) Chamber in the mental health jurisdiction. The appeal is brought on the ground of an alleged breach of natural justice. It is argued that certain comments of the FTT’s psychiatrist member in the course of the hearing demonstrated bias. This is said to be on the basis either that the panel doctor had a preconceived and concluded view (actual bias) on a live issue in the appeal or that he had expressed himself in such a way as to give rise to a reasonable apprehension that he had (apparent bias)." [Summary required.]	2013-03-27	2013 cases, No summary, Transcript, Upper Tribunal decisions
MM v Nottinghamshire Healthcare NHS Trust (2013) UKUT 107 (AAC), (2013) MHLO 25 — "The issues arose from the skeleton argument of counsel for the hospital (not Mr Kovats). Unpacking her argument, it came to this: (i) Dr G had visited Mr M; (ii) he had been instructed to prepare an independent report; (iii) Mr M was not relying on that report; (iv) the tribunal should infer that the report was not favourable to Mr M; and (v) that Dr G had concurred with the clinical team’s diagnosis and conclusions. Counsel also invited the tribunal to consider ordering disclosure of Dr G’s report. ... Mr Pezzani argued that the panel should have recused themselves. ... because Mr M would not receive a fair hearing in view these factors: (a) the way in which the case had been presented to them, (b) the fact that Mr M and his legal team could not respond to the argument, (c) the manner in which the panel engaged with the argument in their decision and (d) their failure to rule out the argument as a matter of principle." [Summary required.]	2013-03-27	2013 cases, No summary, Transcript, Upper Tribunal decisions
MS v North East London Foundation Trust (2013) UKUT 92 (AAC), (2013) MHLO 24 — "Ms S applied for permission to appeal on two grounds: (i) the tribunal had applied the test appropriate to detention under section 2 rather than, as it should have, detention under section 3; and (ii) the tribunal had failed to explain, as it had said it would, why it did not make a recommendation." [Summary required.]	2013-03-27	2013 cases, No summary, Transcript, Upper Tribunal decisions
SSJ v MP (2013) UKUT 25 (AAC), (2013) MHLO 8 — "The Secretary of State had two grounds of appeal. One related to the tribunal’s finding on diagnosis; the other related to the decision not impose any conditions. ... I can only decide that, despite the errors of law, the tribunal’s decision should not be set aside. The result is that this decision provides in effect a declaration of the errors made in the tribunal’s decision." [Summary required.]	2013-03-25	2013 cases, No summary, Reasons, Transcript, Upper Tribunal decisions
R (S) v Mental Health Tribunal (2012) MHLO 164 (UT) — S unsuccessfully challenged by judicial review (a) the decision of the FTT setting aside its own decision that she be discharged and (b) her continued detention by the hospital. [Summary required.]	2013-02-08	2012 cases, No summary, Transcript, Upper Tribunal decisions
AC v Partnerships in Care Ltd (2012) UKUT 450 (AAC), (2012) MHLO 163 — AC appealed against the tribunal's rejection of his application for a notification under s74 that, if subject to a s37/41 hospital order rather than a s47/49 prison transfer direction, he would be entitled to a conditional discharge. (1) The tribunal failed to explain why it rejected Dr Kahtan's independent evidence which supported discharge: (a) although it stated that the RC had more experience of the patient, this is not of itself a reason for preferring evidence but rather is the background to almost every case, and it does not always follow that greater knowledge means greater insight; (b) the tribunal's criticisms of Dr Kahtan's evidence on the link between the index offences and AC's mental state did not necessarily undermine his views on discharge. (2) The tribunal was right not to consider the conditions which might be imposed by the Parole Board (and any consequent diminution of risk on release) and only to consider conditions possible with a conditional discharge: (a) the ..→	2013-01-23	2012 cases, Brief summary, Powers, Transcript, Upper Tribunal decisions
SH v Cornwall Partnership NHS Trust (2012) UKUT 290 (AAC), (2012) MHLO 143 — The appellant was subject to a CTO. When he attended for his depot injection, he said that he did not consent to it but nonetheless he submitted to receive it without resistance. He argued that his lack of consent meant that the 'appropriate medical treatment is available for him' test was not met, but the tribunal did not discharge. The UT held that the issue of consent is outside the jurisdiction of the tribunal: (a) the tribunal can only consider the statutory criteria (consent does not arise until the decision to treat has been made, whereas appropriateness and availability are issues that arise prior to that decision); (b) it is the courts which provide judicial oversight of treatment under the Act.	2012-12-20	2012 cases, Brief summary, Transcript, Upper Tribunal decisions
LN v Surrey NHS Primary Care Trust (2011) UKUT 76 (AAC) — "This is an interlocutory appeal against a decision of the First-tier Tribunal (Health, Education and Social Care Chamber), whereby the First-tier Tribunal declined to exclude evidence. ... the issue for the First-tier Tribunal is not whether evidence is admissible, i.e., whether it can be admitted, but is whether it should be admitted. Relevance is a key consideration. Irrelevant evidence should not be admitted. However, relevance is not the only consideration. The First-tier Tribunal is also entitled to consider the weight of evidence when deciding whether to admit it. ... It is wholly inconsistent for the primary care trust to say that it is confining its case to ten specific incidents and for it then to adduce evidence of complaints or other allegations relating to other incidents in order to show that those ten specific incidents are not isolated. ... In my judgment, the First-tier Tribunal erred in not considering whether any specific evidence should be excluded or redacted at ..→	2012-12-19	2012 cases, No summary, Transcript, Upper Tribunal decisions
AM v West London MH NHS Trust (2012) UKUT 382 (AAC), (2012) MHLO 139 — "The issue in this case is when a tribunal is under a duty to adjourn to obtain information on possible aftercare available to a patient. ... The social work evidence before the tribunal may have been incomplete, even inadequate, but that did not affect the tribunal’s ability to give Mr M a fair hearing and to deal with his case fairly and justly. On the tribunal’s findings, Mr M had not yet progressed to the point where the issue of aftercare that was actually available would arise. Without some acceptance or insight, Mr M could not progress to the point where his management in the community could even be tested by unescorted leave, let alone where he could be conditionally discharged." [Summary required.]	2012-12-19	2012 cases, No summary, Transcript, Upper Tribunal decisions
CNWL NHS Foundation Trust v HJ-H (2012) UKUT 210 (AAC), (2012) MHLO 88 — The tribunal granted discharge from a CTO, deferred for 3 months, expressing the hope that in the meantime the RC would consider reducing the level of the patient's medication. The Trust appealed. (1) The challenge to the decision to discharge was essentially an attempt to re-argue the tribunal’s assessment of the evidence, and was therefore unsuccessful. In deciding on whether there is an error of law, the UT must respect the FTT's assessment of the evidence and fact-finding role (provided this was carried out rationally and explained): (a) the UT's statutory jurisdiction is limited to points of law; (b) the expert composition of the FTT means its fact-finding is worthy of such respect. (2) The challenge to the deferral also failed, as there was no evidence that the tribunal had misdirected itself by granting the deferral with the intention that that the patient's medication could be reduced in order to make her ready for discharge on a future date. (3) If the FTT's reasons for ..→	2012-09-24	2012 cases, Brief summary, Powers, Transcript, Upper Tribunal decisions
MP v West London Mental Health NHS Trust (2012) UKUT 231 (AAC), (2012) MHLO 81 — In the final days of his determinate prison sentence, MP was transferred to Broadmoor under s47 in order to prolong his detention. The tribunal recommended transfer to an MSU, which proved impossible; when it reconvened it granted discharge, delayed for 10 weeks for appropriate after care arrangements to be made. A salaried tribunal judge accepted the trust's argument that there had been inadequate reasons for discharge: she reviewed and set aside the decision, and refused the patient's application for her decision to be set aside. As these were excluded (unappealable) decisions, the patient sought judicial review. (1) The review decision, although made without receiving representations from the patient, was not made unfairly. (2) Taking account of the two relevant principles - that (a) the review power should only be exercised in clear cases, and (b) the Upper Tribunal should seldom interfere with review decisions when judicial review proceedings are brought, because the review ..→	2012-08-21	2012 cases, Brief summary, Reasons, Transcript, Upper Tribunal decisions
EC v Birmingham and Solihull Mental Health NHS Trust (2012) UKUT 178 (AAC), (2012) MHLO 70 — (1) Appeals against tribunals' refusals to hear arguments in relation to extra-statutory recommendations were dismissed as (a) there is no legal right to advance these arguments (this is a sufficient reason for not making an extra-statutory recommendation which can be implied if not stated), (b) refusal to consider a extra-statutory recommendation is neutral rather than disadvantageous to the patient, and (c) a flawed extra-statutory should have no effect because of its legal status. (2) The judge made further comments about (a) potential guidance to hospital managers about UT procedure, (b) secondary challenges by the appellants, and (c) tribunal procedure generally in relation to extra-statutory recommendations.	2012-07-24	2012 cases, Brief summary, Reasons, Transcript, Upper Tribunal decisions
DC v Nottinghamshire Healthcare NHS Trust (2012) UKUT 92 (AAC), (2012) MHLO 53 — (1) The tribunal cannot grant a deferred conditional discharge until (a) it has found, on the balance of probabilities, that the patient should not be detained but should be subject to recall, and (b) it has drafted the conditions for the discharge. (2) A deferred conditional discharge is not a device for gathering information on whether a conditional discharge would be possible or what conditions might be appropriate. (3) On the facts (where the tribunal had decided that 'with the exception of the availability of suitable after-care for the Patient, none of the criteria for his detention in hospital for treatment are met' but had not drafted conditions) the decision to adjourn was correct.	2012-05-20	2012 cases, Brief summary, Powers, Transcript, Upper Tribunal decisions
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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 simultaneously 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Dorset Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust v MH (2009) UKUT 4 (AAC) — The responsible authority appealed against the Tribunal's interlocutory decision to direct disclosure of medical records, including third-party information, to the patient's solicitor; having agreed it had jurisdiction, the Upper Tribunal made no order on the appeal, as the patient had by that time been placed on a CTO; however, detailed guidance was given as to the proper approach where either the responsible authority resists disclosure of confidential third-party information or the solicitor wishes to disclose such information to his client. Guidance was also given on the status of a decision by a three-judge panel of the Administrative Appeals Chamber.	2009-01-15	2009 cases, Brief summary, Powers, Transcript, Upper Tribunal decisions