March 2009 update

The following updates were made to the site in March 2009.

Legislation

Other documents

  • The Ministry of Justice published new guidance documents for (a) clinical supervisors and (b) social supervisors. See Ministry of Justice#Guidance
  • The LSC have re-issued their "Principles of mental health fees" guidance document. See Legal Aid.
  • The MoJ published their response to the "MCA 2005 forms, supervision and fees" consultation. See Consultations
  • The DH published a Dear Colleague letter "The Mental Capacity Act 2005 Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (MCA DOLS)" - "This letter from David Nicholson outlines roles and responsibilities for health and social care providers under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards which 'go live' on 1 April." See Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards
  • The DH and OPG published "Making decisions: The Independent Mental Capacity Advocate (IMCA) service" - "This document sets out the role and responsibilities of the Independent Mental Capacity Advocate (IMCA) under the Mental Capacity Act 2005. This edition has been updated to reflect the requirements of the MCA and MCA DOLS legislation." See Independent Mental Capacity Advocate service

Caselaw

New cases

  • R (EM) v SSWP [2009] EWHC 454 (Admin)The Regulations which deprive of welfare benefits transferred prisoners (s47/49 and s45A patients until they would be entitled to release if in prison) are lawful; this is because there is enough of a relevant difference between them and civil/s37 patients to justify different treatment (i.e. they have been sentenced to a term of imprisonment to which they remain subject); in general, this applies all determinate and indeterminate sentence prisoners, including post-tariff lifers, technical lifers being the only exception because they had not been considered when the Regulations were drawn up and there is not enough of a relevant difference present.
  • Re J (Enduring Power of Attorney) [2009] EWHC 436 (Ch)An Enduring Power of Attorney appointing successive or alternative attorneys is valid if it is stated for each set of attorneys, in the event that they exercise the power, whether they must exercise it jointly or jointly and severally.
  • R v Tabbakh [2009] EWCA Crim 464The judge was entitled to rule that it was open to the jury to draw adverse inferences from the fact that the appellant had not given evidence, and that the exception in s35(1)(b) Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 (that it appears to the court that the physical or mental condition of the accused makes it undesirable for him to give evidence) did not apply to him even though he suffered from a mental health condition.
  • R v Stewart [2009] EWCA Crim 593‎Guidance on directions to the jury where the defence case was diminished responsibility based on alcohol dependency syndrome.

Old cases

Website information