Follow MHLO:
Share this page:

Main Page

Mental Health Law Online

The internet resource on mental health law, and mental capacity law, for England & Wales.

From April 2006 to September 2010 this website was called Wiki Mental Health. You can read a review of the site here.


Subscribe to free email updates and join the email discussion list. For details of any news item, click on the relevant link below.

  • 01/08/15 (2): West London MH NHS Trust, 'Policy A6: Admissions Panel Operational Policy (Broadmoor Hospital)' (3/6/15). See High secure hospital
  • 01/08/15 (1): Hospital transfer case. YZ v NHS Trust (2015) EWHC 2296 (Admin), (2015) MHLO 58(1) YZ ceased to comply with clozapine treatment, and was referred by a medium secure unit (MSU) to Broadmoor hospital. After Broadmoor's Admission Panel decided that while off clozapine the risks justified a high secure setting, YZ became willing to restart clozapine but his new doctor at the MSU was unwilling to prescribe it. YZ appealed the Admission Panel decision and argued that new information meant the case should be reconsidered by the original panel, but Broadmoor decided there was no new information so the case was considered by the Admission Appeals Panel, which upheld the decision. (2) YZ's position was that he could restart clozapine in medium security, the relationship with staff at the MSU had broken down but he should be transferred to another MSU, and once treatment of his gender dysphoria commenced his mental state would probably improve. He argued that transfer to Broadmoor would breach the Code of Practice's least restriction principle and violate Articles 3 and 8. He sought judicial review of: (a) the decision not to prescribe clozapine; (b) the decision to transfer him to Broadmoor; (c) Broadmoor's decision to accept him; (d) the decision not to refer the case back to the original admissions panel. (3) Taking the grounds in turn, the court held that: (a) There was no clinician willing to prescribe clozapine, and the court "cannot and should not seek to decide what medical treatment is appropriate in these circumstances and declare an informed and justified decision unlawful". (b) The decision to transfer to Broadmoor was taken carefully and through the correct procedures, and no medium secure unit was willing to take the patient. (c) The decision to accept was a rational decision open to the admissions panel on the material before it. (d) The appeals panel decision was not susceptible to judicial review, and the process was rational and had not been challenged at the time. Permission was therefore refused.
  • 27/07/15 (1): Upper Tribunal case. Case HM/0339/2015 (2015) MHLO 57 (UT)After the case had been adjourned part-heard, the patient's withdrawal was agreed by a tribunal clerk. The panel judge spoke with a salaried tribunal judge, who then set aside the decision to consent to withdrawal, and the tribunal reconvened without discharging the patient. The salaried tribunal judge's decision was unlawful and the tribunal therefore had no jurisdiction to continue with the hearing.
  • 20/07/15 (6): Deputyship case. Re HC: Public Guardian v CC (2015) EWCOP 29, (2015) MHLO 55 — "This is an application by the Public Guardian for an order under section 16(8) of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 revoking the appointment of a deputy because he has behaved in a way that contravenes the authority conferred on him by the court or is not in the best interests of the person for whom he acts as deputy."
  • 20/07/15 (3): Best interests case. Re LC: Bedford Borough Council v Mrs C and Mr C (2015) EWCOP 25, (2015) MHLO 52 — "The proceedings concern Mrs C’s best interests in relation to residence and her contact with her husband and a deprivation of her liberty. ... There is also in existence a separate application by the local authority for a deputy for property and affairs to be appointed for her."
  • 20/07/15 (2): Criminal injuries compensation case. Newcastle City Council v PV (2015) EWCOP 22, (2015) MHLO 51 — "This judgment considers the role of the Court of Protection in connection with applications to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority ('CICA'). In particular, it looks at cases in which the CICA requires a trust to be created in order to exclude any possibility that the assailant may benefit from the compensation award. These cases arise almost exclusively in the context of domestic violence, where the assailant is a family member."
  • 20/07/15 (1): Sterilisatio ..→
See also:



Online CPD scheme providing 12 points for £60: suitable for solicitors (SRA-accredited), barristers (established practitioners), psychiatrists, social workers and psychiatric nurses


Advertise here:

  • Mental Health Lawyer - ODonnells Solicitors, Preston
  • Mental Health Act Administrator - Alpha Hospital, Bury
  • Details of jobs...


Publicise your event here: