LW v Cornwall Partnership NHS Trust [2018] UKUT 408 (AAC)

Meaning of "nature" in discharge criteria (1) Having considered the statutory framework of CTOs and the legislative purposes behind them the UT concluded, primarily on that basis, that in cases where there is a risk of a relapse which might necessitate recall, how soon that such a relapse is likely to occur is a relevant consideration. However, other factors, including the risk to the patient and/or others if a relapse were to occur, may also be relevant, and there is no requirement for likely relapse to be "soon", "in the near future" or within the permitted duration of a CTO. (2) Addressing the claimants' arguments on the analogy between detention and CTO cases, the judge stated that while there are some parallels between the s3 regime and CTOs they are not such that the same principles necessarily apply to both, and (to the extent necessary to reach a view on the detention cases) neither of the previous judgments cited in CM v Derbyshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust [2011] UKUT 129 (AAC) provided an authoritative basis for the view that imminence of relapse is the only factor or need be in the near future.

Judicial Summary

From Gov.uk website (link below):

Is a defined degree of imminence of likely relapse required in order to justify not discharging a patient from a CTO? What is to be expected of the FtT’s reasons in such a case?


External links

CASES DATABASE

Full judgment: BAILII

Subject(s):

  • Upper Tribunal decisions🔍

Date: 29/11/18

Court: Upper Tribunal🔍

Judge(s):

Parties:

  • LW🔍
  • Cornwall Partnership NHS Trust🔍
  • SE🔍
  • Devon Partnership NHS Trust🔍
  • TS🔍
  • Birmingham and Solihull Mental Health NHS Trust🔍

Cites:

Citation number(s):

What links here:

Published: 11 Jan 2019, 02:05:05 PM

Cached: 2019-03-18 20:03:47