From Mental Health Law Online
The mental health cases on this site are structured into categories and (where appropriate) sub-categories:
- To browse through categories and cases, click on the [+] and [-] symbols as appropriate.
- To view summaries of all cases within a category, click on the category name.
- To view a particular case, click on the case name (which will be listed under the relevant category).
Mental Health Law Online currently contains 1432 categorised cases. In addition, some Cases to be added have been identified (no transcript or summary available for these). See also Settled cases and forthcoming judgments.
Case law by category
If you have been involved in a case not listed here, or have a transcript that is not yet on Bailii, then please get in touch. See Help page for contact details. Also on that page is an explanation of how to create new pages, edit existing ones, and categorise pages.
If you are registered as a contributor, use the following box to add a case. Enter the case name and neutral citation, using round brackets only (for software reasons).
The following are the most recently-added 2013 cases:
|Page and summary||Date added to site||Categories|
|Re P (A Child) (2013) MHLO 106 (Fam) — Decision of Charles J on reporting restrictions in 'forced caesarian' case. [Summary required.]||2013-12-11||2013 cases, No summary, Other capacity cases, Transcript|
|Re P (2013) MHLO 106 (Fam) — Decision of Charles J on reporting restrictions in 'forced caesarian' case. [Summary required.]||2013-12-11||2013 cases, No summary, Other capacity cases, Transcript|
|UF v A Local Authority (2013) MHLO 105 — Under Civil Legal Aid (Financial Resources and Payment for Services) Regulations 2013/480, Legal Aid for MCA 2005 s21A appeals is non-means-tested for as long as the relevant DOLS standard authorisation is in force. In this case the Ministry of Justice confirmed that they would provide Legal Aid if the court extends the standard authorisation for the duration of the case.||2013-12-09||2013 cases, Brief summary, Deprivation of liberty, Transcript|
|ACCG v MN (2013) EWHC 3859 (COP), (2013) MHLO 104 — The Court of Protection may, exceptionally, in determining whether a local authority has breached convention rights, consider best interests beyond the available options. " I find therefore that: (i) As restated by Baroness Hale in Aintree 'the court has no greater powers than the patient would have if he were of full capacity'. (ii) Judicial review remains the proper vehicle through which to challenge unreasonable or irrational decisions made by 'care providers' and other public authorities. (iii) There may be rare cases where it appears to those representing a party that a public authority, in failing to agree to provide funding for or a particular form of care package, is acting in a way which is incompatible with Convention rights. In those circumstances, notwithstanding the fact that such an option is not available and before the court, the court may exceptionally, pursuant to a formal application made under s7(1)(b) HRA, conduct an assessment of the person's best ..→||2013-12-07||2013 cases, Best interests, No summary, Transcript|
|Re P (A Child) (2013) EW Misc 20 (CC), (2013) MHLO 103 — Care proceedings judgment in 'Italian forced caesarian' case. [Summary required.]||2013-12-03||2013 cases, Miscellaneous, No summary, Transcript|
|R v Edgington (2013) EWCA Crim 2185, (2013) MHLO 102 — The appellant had been sentenced to life imprisonment for murder and attempted murder, with a minimum term of 37 years. (1) Appeal against conviction dismissed, as the judge was not wrong to prevent counsel from re-examining the defence expert on whether she would 'as a matter of practice ... ever be released' from a hospital order. (2) Appeal against sentence dismissed as it was not manifestly excessive.||2013-12-03||2013 cases, Brief summary, Sentence appeal cases, Transcript|
|Equilibrium Health Care v AK (2013) UKUT 543 (AAC), (2013) MHLO 101 — A tribunal medical member had referred the RC to the GMC in 2010 in relation to the RC's evidence at a tribunal. The RC argued, following the adjournment of a 2013 hearing, that this medical member should recuse himself because of bias. He was unsuccessful as there was no real possibility of bias, or actual bias, at either the 2010 hearing or the 2013 hearing. Obiter: decisions on recusal are best challenged after the proceedings are concluded.||2013-11-27||2013 cases, Bias, Brief summary, Transcript, Upper Tribunal decisions|
|R (Zhang) v Camden and Islington NHS Foundation Trust (2013) EWCA Civ 1425, (2013) MHLO 100 — Unsuccessful challenge to (1) detention under s2 (a subsequent tribunal decision to discharge was consistent with a lawful initial detention) and (2) decision not to hold hospital managers' hearing (it was reasonable to wait a few days for the tribunal).||2013-11-19||2013 cases, Brief summary, Miscellaneous, Transcript|
|Re VT (minimally conscious state) (2013) MHLO 99 (COP) — Extract from press article: "The family of an elderly devout Muslim who is in a minimally conscious state have lost their legal bid to prolong his life. They argued that the 72-year-old man, who can be identified only as VT, would regard his suffering as bringing him closer to God. The family contested an application by an NHS Trust that it was not in VT's best interests for him to be given intensive resuscitation or be admitted to intensive care if his condition deteriorated. ... Granting the application, he said that bag and mask resuscitation was excluded from the declaration sought, but CPR was not in VT's best interests, and to require staff to treat him in intensive care would be entirely futile." [No transcript available.]||2013-11-19||2013 cases, Best interests, No summary, No transcript|
|R (Antoniou) v Central and North West London NHS Foundation Trust (2013) EWHC 3055 (Admin), (2013) MHLO 98 — "This claim for judicial review arises out of the suicide of Mrs Jane Antoniou... At the time she was a patient detained ... under section 3 of the Mental Health Act 1983... For the reasons given above, we have concluded that, given all the circumstances of this case, in particular the fact that there was a properly constituted and conducted Inquest, there was no obligation under Article 2 of the ECHR to have, in addition, a separate independent investigation into the death of JA, either from the outset or from any time thereafter. We have also concluded that, taken as a whole, the investigation process into the death of JA was independent, effective and prompt. Lastly, we have concluded that there was no unlawful discrimination against JA or the claimant by any of the defendants in the way that JA's death was investigated." [Summary required.]||2013-11-19||2013 cases, Inquests, No summary, Transcript|
The following are the 20 most recently-added cases with the exception of 2013 cases:
|Page and summary||Date added to site||Categories|
|Re AA (2012) EWHC 4378 (COP), (2012) MHLO 182 — Judgment of Mostyn J in 'Italian forced caesarian' case. [Summary required.]||2013-12-04||2012 cases, Best interests, No summary, Transcript|
|R (EH) v SSHD (2012) EWHC 2569, (2012) MHLO 181 — Immigration/mental health case. [Summary required; detailed external summary available.]||2013-09-07||2012 cases, Detailed summary, Repatriation cases, Transcript|
|An NHS Trust v L (2012) EWHC 4313 (Fam), (2012) MHLO 180 (COP) — "By application made on 6 August 2012 an NHS Trust seeks a declaration that in the event of a patient, called "Mr L" for the purposes of these proceedings, suffering a cardiac arrest and/or a respiratory arrest and/or other serious deterioration in his condition, it would not be in his best interests for active resuscitation and/or other similar treatment to be provided. ... I am persuaded that the balance comes down firmly against the provision of active resuscitation and/or other similar treatment and in favour of granting the Trust's application. ... Harsh though it will sound, in my judgment to take the opposite course would indeed be, as was said in the evidence, to prolong Mr L's death and not to prolong, in any meaningful way, his life. I repeat Dr Bell's powerful analysis - It would result in Mr L's death being characterised by a series of harmful interventions without any realistic prospect of such treatment producing any benefit." [Summary required.]||2013-08-14||2012 cases, No summary, Other capacity cases, Transcript|
|Y County Council v ZZ (2012) EWHC B34 (COP), (2012) MHLO 179 (COP) — "This is an application made by Y County Council in the Court of Protection in relation to Mr ZZ, a man of young middle age. I am invited to make a number of declarations in relation to Mr ZZ. First, I am asked to find that he lacks litigation capacity on the issues in this case. Second, I am invited to declare that he lacks capacity to decide upon the restrictions relevant to supporting his residence and care. Finally, I am asked to declare that he is being deprived of his liberty, but that it is lawful as in his best interests pursuant to schedule A1 of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. Mr ZZ is represented by the Official Solicitor. He has been present throughout the hearing and has conducted himself with dignity throughout. Indeed, he gave unsworn, oral evidence before me in an entirely courteous and helpful way." [Summary required.]||2013-06-06||2012 cases, Deprivation of liberty, No summary, Transcript|
|R v Ahmed (2012) EWCA Crim 99, (2012) MHLO 178 — (1) The appellant sought a s37/41 restricted hospital order in place of an IPP sentence. (2) The Responsible Clinician argued for a s45A hybrid order, for reasons summarised by the court as follows: 'The appellant is an illegal immigrant. In order to be discharged from hospital he would have to undergo a period of controlled supervision. This would be in appropriate accommodation. Dr Swinton tells us that this is not an option open to an illegal immigrant like the appellant. Thus he cannot be discharged into the community because he cannot undertake the necessary conditioning which would satisfy the hospital that he was safe to be left in the community on his own. As a consequence he has to remain in hospital and he will take up a bed, apparently permanently. This is damaging to the wider public interest. If a section 45A order were made, then although the appellant would receive precisely the same treatment under a section 47 transfer as he currently does, a discharge can ..→||2013-03-28||2012 cases, Brief summary, Sentence appeal cases, Transcript|
|R (Chatting) v Viridian Housing (2012) EWHC 3595 (Admin), (2012) MHLO 177 — "This litigation arises out of what may be loosely called the reorganisation by Viridian Housing, the charity which owns the premises, of the arrangements for the provision of care to residents of the building in which Miss Chatting lives. ... On behalf of Viridian Housing, Mr Christopher Baker urged upon me that the relief sought against his client – namely, declarations that in transferring responsibility for Miss Chatting's care to another organisation Viridian were in breach of a compromise agreement made in earlier litigation and had infringed article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights – was academic and should not in any event be granted. On behalf of Miss Chatting Mr Stephen Cragg pursued claims for those declarations, as well as a declaration that Wandsworth Borough Council had acted unlawfully in its management of the transfer of Miss Chatting's care, in that it had failed to ensure that care was provided to her in a way that meets her assessed needs and takes ..→||2013-03-28||2012 cases, Community care, No summary, Other capacity cases, Transcript|
|A County Council v E (2012) EWHC 4161 (COP), (2012) MHLO 176 — "This case involves the personal welfare of two young women, E and K. E is 26 years old and K is 24. Both have a diagnosis of Fragile X syndrome and associated learning disabilities, as confirmed by a consultant psychiatrist in a report of 7 August 2010. E is selectively mute. K also has a diagnosis of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder ('ADHD')." [Summary required.]||2013-03-28||2012 cases, Best interests, No summary, Transcript|
|HT v CK (2012) EWHC 4160 (COP), (2012) MHLO 175 — "This decision deals with residence, contact and financial arrangements for CK ('C' or 'Ms K'). In particular, the court must decide whether it is in her best interests to remain where she is living and the appropriate contact arrangements" [Summary required.]||2013-03-28||2012 cases, Best interests, No summary, Transcript|
|PB v RB (2012) EWHC 4159 (COP), (2012) MHLO 174 — "This decision deals with a fact-finding hearing held on 10-12 September 2012. ... The local authority sought to prove 13 alleged facts ... " [Summary required.]||2013-03-28||2012 cases, No summary, Other capacity cases, Transcript|
|Re RGS (2012) EWHC 4162 (COP), (2012) MHLO 173 — "RGS is the person concerned in these proceedings ('P'). The decision for the court is whether one of the parties, his son RBS, has litigation capacity. RBS insists he has, others are less sure." [Summary required.]||2013-03-28||2012 cases, No summary, Other capacity cases, Transcript|
|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|
|R v Smith (Mark John) (2012) EWCA Crim 2566, (2012) MHLO 170 — "This is a most unusual case. It is an appeal against a restraining order made by His Honour Judge McGregor-Johnson at Isleworth Crown Court on 8 May 2012 under s5A of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. The order prohibited Mr Smith from travelling on any domestic or international commercial airline for a period of 3 years. The order was made at the end of a trial at which Mr Smith was acquitted, by reason of insanity, of offences of criminal damage and interfering with the performance of the crew of an aircraft in flight. The appeal raises questions about the scope of s5A of the 1997 Act." [Summary required; detailed external summary available.]||2013-03-26||2012 cases, Detailed summary, Sentence appeal cases, Transcript|
|Durham County Council v Dunn (2012) EWCA Civ 1654, (2012) MHLO 169 — "On 17 December 2007, the claimant's solicitors wrote to the Council intimating a claim for damages in respect of assaults alleged to have been committed by staff at the Centre when he was there in the early 1980s. The letter included a request for the disclosure of certain documents. Some documents were disclosed in redacted form. On 25 March 2011, the claimant issued these proceedings. This appeal is concerned with the ambit of the Council's duty of disclosure. ... In particular, confusion can arise as to whether the duty of disclosure is primarily one that arises under the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA) or one arising pursuant to the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR)." [Summary required; detailed external summary available.]||2013-03-26||2012 cases, Miscellaneous, No summary, Transcript|
|WCC v AB (2012) MHLO 168 (COP) — Whether AB's aunt should be appointed as litigation friend. [Summary required; detailed external summary available.]||2013-03-26||2012 cases, No summary, Other capacity cases, Transcript|
The following are the main sources of case transcripts/information: