From Mental Health Law Online
(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 First-tier Tribunal President for directions to arrange a further hearing.
Before: UT Judge H Levenson
For the applicant: Stephen Simblet, instructed by Karen Wolton of Wolton & Co
From judgment: LC v DHIC (CHL) & SSJ & CUK  UKUT 319 (AAC). The initials of the first respondent are DHIH.
Bailii - No transcript on Bailii at time of writing