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 1482 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 2014 cases:
|Page and summary||Date added to site||Categories|
|R (LH) v Shropshire Council (2014) EWCA Civ 404, (2014) MHLO 18 — "This is an appeal about the extent of consultation required when a local authority reconfigures its day care services for citizens in its area and then decides to close a day centre. LH is 63 years old, has a learning disability, has been assessed as having substantial care needs and has been using the services of Hartleys Day Centre in Shrewsbury. Shropshire Council ("the Council") has decided to close that day centre as a result of its re-thinking of day centre care in the county; that re-thinking is itself a result partly of budgetary constraints and partly of encouragement from central Government to give disabled people their own personalised budget for spending in relation to their disability. The Council contends that it consulted generally about the new system which it brought in and made clear that some day centres would close; LH contends by JL (her litigation friend and sister) that LH and others should have been consulted in relation to the closure of Hartleys itself ..→||2014-04-07||2014 cases, Community care, No summary, Transcript|
|R (Cornwall Council) v SSH (2014) EWCA Civ 12, (2014) MHLO 17 — (1) In deciding the ordinary residence of an adult lacking capacity the Secretary of State had erred in applying 'test 1' from the Vale case (that a person who is so severely handicapped as to be totally dependent upon a parent or guardian in the same position as a small child and his ordinary residence is that of his parents or guardian because that is his base). (2) Instead, the words 'ordinary residence' should, unless the context indicates otherwise, be given their ordinary and natural meaning. (3) There is much to be said for the court adopting in the context of severely incapacitated adults a test of ordinary residence similar to the test of habitual residence adopted for dependent children in Re A (namely where he is integrated into a social and family environment). (3) On the facts, the person was ordinarily resident in South Gloucestershire (where he lived) rather than Cornwall (where his parents lived).||2014-03-24||2014 cases, Brief summary, Community care, Transcript|
|Cheshire West and Chester Council v P (2014) UKSC 19, (2014) MHLO 16 — (1) The 'acid test' for deprivation of liberty is whether the person is under continuous supervision and control and is not free to leave. (2) The following are not relevant: (a) the person's compliance or lack of objection; (b) the relative normality of the placement (whatever the comparison made); and (c) the reason or purpose behind a particular placement. (3) Because of the extreme vulnerability of people like P, MIG and MEG, decision-makers should err on the side of caution in deciding what constitutes a deprivation of liberty.||2014-03-20||2014 cases, Deprivation of liberty, No summary, Transcript|
|SRA decision: Lucia Benyu of Peters Legal Limited (2014) MHLO 15 (SRA) — On 28/1/14 the SRA published their 30/5/13 decision to prosecute, before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal, Lucia Benyu (who until 18/4/2013 was the director of Peters Legal Limited, one of the largest mental health law firms). The Tribunal certified that there is a case to answer in respect of allegations which are or include that she: (1) failed to maintain properly written up and accurate accounting records; (2) authorised or permitted improper withdrawals of client money from client account; (3) failed promptly or at all to remedy the breaches; (4) failed to manage the financial affairs of the firm either effectively or properly; (5) submitted misleading correspondence and/or documents to third parties; (6) created correspondence and/or documents; (7) continued to act on behalf of clients when there existed a conflict between her own interests and those of her clients; and (8) failed to provide to a client adequate information regarding costs. The allegations are subject to a ..→||2014-03-16||2014 cases, Brief summary, No transcript, SRA decisions|
|Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals Foundation Trust v LM (2014) EWHC 454 (COP), (2014) MHLO 14 — "On 18 February, an application was made by the Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals Foundation Trust for a declaration that it would be lawful to withhold a blood transfusion from LM, a gravely ill 63-year-old female Jehovah's Witness. ...At the end of the hearing I granted the application and made the following declaration: 'It shall be lawful for the doctors treating LM to withhold blood transfusions or administration of blood products notwithstanding that such treatments would reduce the likelihood of her dying and might prevent her death.' ... In consequence, I find that LM made a decision that the doctors rightly considered must be respected. In the alternative, if LM had not made a valid, applicable decision, I would have granted the declaration sought on the basis that to order a transfusion would not have been in her best interests. Applying s.4(6) in relation to the specific issue of blood transfusion, her wishes and feelings and her long-standing beliefs and values carried ..→||2014-03-05||2014 cases, No summary, Other capacity cases, Transcript|
|LB Redbridge v G (2014) EWHC 485 (COP), (2014) MHLO 13 — "Before the case can proceed any further a decision has to be reached as to capacity; if G lacks capacity and if she does whether it is because of mental impairment within the meaning of the MCA sections 2 and 3 or if not whether she is a vulnerable adult deprived of capacity by constraint, coercion or undue influence and so entitled to the protection of the court under its inherent jurisdiction. ... I have found, on the balance of probabilities, that G lacks capacity under sections 2 and 3 of the MCA 2005 and accordingly this case falls under the jurisdiction of the Court of Protection. I do not consider it necessary to rule on any application under the inherent jurisdiction. ... The Public Guardian asked that the court vary the order of the 15th November 2013 directing C not to exercise any of the powers conferred on her under the LPA in respect of G in relation to her health and welfare. It is my intention to so direct. ... Rule 90 (3) allows me to authorise any person or class of ..→||2014-03-05||2014 cases, No summary, Other capacity cases, Transcript|
|JS v KB and MP (Property And Affairs Deputy for DB) (2014) EWHC 483 (COP), (2014) MHLO 12 — "This cautionary tale illustrates vividly the dangers of informal family arrangements for an elderly relative who lacks mental capacity, made without proper regard for: (i) the financial and emotional vulnerability of the person who lacks capacity; and (ii) the requirements for formal, and legal, authorisation for the family's actions, specifically in relation to property and financial affairs. ... For the reasons set out above, the order I make is that: (i) JS shall pay four-fifths of the deputy's litigation costs to date; (ii) JS shall pay two-thirds of the litigation costs of KB. Given the possibility that JS will be unable to fund the costs within a reasonable time, either from the sale of the Spanish property or otherwise, I propose to allow MP to explore the mechanics of an equity release scheme to permit JS to discharge her liability for costs by way of a loan against the equity in Beech Avenue. I give MP leave to apply for such a scheme. ... I give further leave to MP to ..→||2014-03-05||2014 cases, No summary, Other capacity cases, Transcript|
|Westminster City Council v Sykes (2014) EWHC B9 (COP), (2014) MHLO 11 — "It is my view that it is in Ms S's best interests to attempt a one-month trial of home-based care. Very helpfully, at the end of the final hearing the local authority told me that if I rejected its primary case, and decided on such a trial, they would put a transitional plan in place to enable the trial to proceed. ... Having thought about the issue carefully, I have decided on balance - and it is quite finely balanced - that lifting the usual veil of anonymity is appropriate. In my opinion this is a relatively unusual case where the case for being named outweighs that in favour of continuing the usual anonymity. MS’s personality is a critical factor. She has always wished to be heard. She would wish her life to end with a bang not a whimper. This is her last chance to exert a political influence which is recognisable as her influence."||2014-03-04||2014 cases, Best interests, No summary, Transcript|
|Re ES: Kent County Council v PLC and AJS (2014) EWHC B6 (COP), (2014) MHLO 10 — "Because there has been a challenge to their competence and integrity, which AJS and PLC have failed to rebut, it would not be in ES’s best interests to appoint either of them to be her deputy for property and affairs. ... I decided that, in the first instance, the court would approach ES’s own solicitors, Hallett & Co, to see whether they would be willing to act, failing which a panel deputy would be appointed."||2014-03-04||2014 cases, No summary, Other capacity cases, Transcript|
|Heart of England NHS Foundation Trust v JB (2014) EWHC 342 (COP), (2014) MHLO 9 — "My conclusion is that JB undoubtedly has a disturbance in the functioning of her mind in the form of paranoid schizophrenia (as to which she lacks insight), but that it has not been established that she thereby lacks the capacity to make a decision about surgery for herself. On the contrary, the evidence establishes that she does have capacity to decide whether to undergo an amputation of whatever kind. She now appears to be open to having the below-knee operation that the doctors recommend. Whether she has it will be a matter for her to decide for herself with the support of those around her."||2014-03-04||2014 cases, No summary, Other capacity cases, Transcript|
The following are the 20 most recently-added cases with the exception of 2014 cases:
|Page and summary||Date added to site||Categories|
|The Local Authority v Mrs D (2013) EWHC B34 (COP), (2013) MHLO 140 — "These proceedings were heard in private however this judgement is being published at the request of the respondents in order to explain the thinking of the court when approving an agreed order compromising a claim for remedies under s.8 Human Rights Act 1998 ('HRA'), which included a sum in damages, for alleged breaches of a party's rights under Articles 5 and 8 ECHR. ... However, despite this non-admission of liability, the Local Authority had offered in compromise: (a) an apology to Mrs D for the delay in bringing these proceedings; (b) to pay a sum of £15,000 to Mrs D; (c) to pay the reasonable costs of the action incurred by Mrs D's litigation friend; (d) to pay a sum of £12,500 to her husband Mr D; (e) to pay Mr D's reasonable costs of the action. ... For all of the above reasons therefore, the Court's view was that the totality of the compromise represented a reasonable settlement and in the circumstances represented sufficient satisfaction for the alleged breaches of ..→||2014-03-05||2013 cases, Deprivation of liberty, No summary, Transcript|
|AB v LM (2013) EWHC 1234 (COP), (2013) MHLO 139 — "I find on paying close attention to Dr P's advice, but also considering the contribution of Dr G, that Lisa does possess the abilities required to lead to the conclusion that she has capacity to make decisions about whether or not to have sexual relations. She is somebody who has been full to sexually active in the past; she has had children; she understands the rudiments of the sexual act; she has a basic understanding of issues of contraception and the risks of sexually transmitted diseases. The area in which she is weakest is her ability to understand the implications for herself should she become pregnant. Pregnancy for Lisa would be an extremely serious state of affairs; there can be no doubt about that. But her weakness in that respect does not, for me, lead to the conclusion that her capacity is absent; it argues for her to receive continued safeguarding and help, advice and explanation as and when the question of sexual activity might become a reality."||2014-02-15||2013 cases, Capacity to consent to sexual relations, No summary, Transcript|
|Arshad v Court of Magistrates Malta (2013) EWHC 3619 (Admin), (2013) MHLO 138 — Extradition case with mental health background. [Summary required.]||2013-12-30||2013 cases, No summary, Repatriation cases, Transcript|
|R v Yusuf (Nadia Ali) (2013) EWCA Crim 2077, (2013) MHLO 137 — The appellant sought a restricted hospital order in place of an IPP sentence, but was unsuccessful as her medical evidence addressed the current situation rather than the situation at the time of sentencing.||2013-12-30||2013 cases, Brief summary, Sentence appeal cases, Transcript|
|R (McKay) v SSJ (2013) EWHC 3728 (Admin), (2013) MHLO 136 — Permission to apply for judicial review of the decision to refer the claimant prisoner to a prison Dangerous and Severe Personality Disorder (DSPD) unit for assessment was refused because it was 'a classic example of a situation in which two experts disagree' and it was not for the court to interfere and substitute its own view.||2013-12-30||2013 cases, Brief summary, Miscellaneous, Transcript|
|R v Kenyon (Lindsay) (2013) EWCA Crim 2123, (2013) MHLO 135 — Unsuccessful appeal against eight-month sentence for eight offences of neglect of a person who lacks capacity contrary to MCA 2005 s44.||2013-12-30||2013 cases, Brief summary, Criminal law capacity cases, Transcript|
|R v Anderson (Darren Gabriel) (2013) EWCA Crim 2212, (2013) MHLO 134 — Appellant sought restricted hospital order, in place of IPP and s45A hybrid order, but was unsuccessful.||2013-12-30||2013 cases, Brief summary, Hybrid order cases, Transcript|
|Re L (A Child) (2013) EWCA Civ 1557, (2013) MHLO 133 — Mother unsuccessfully sought permission to appeal against Court of Protection order (a) that her son lacked capacity in relation to welfare matters, and (b) that it was in his best interests to remain at his current placement for at least a year and finish at the existing school (as opposed to living with the mother and attending a school near her, or moving to a residential home near the mother and have some education in her area).||2013-12-30||2013 cases, Best interests, Brief summary, Transcript|
|R (MM) v SSWP (2013) EWCA Civ 1565, (2013) MHLO 132 — (1) The Court of Appeal upheld the Upper Tribunal's decision that the process for assessing eligibility for Employment Support Allowance (involving the claimant completing a questionnaire and attending a face to face interview) placed mental health patients at a 'substantial disadvantage' (under the Equality Act 2010) when compared with other claimants. (2) In relation to the proposal that obtaining further medical evidence in such cases would be a 'reasonable adjustment', the UT had adjourned for further evidence, directing the SSWP to investigate its reasonableness: the adjournment was lawful but the directions were quashed.||2013-12-30||2013 cases, Brief summary, Transcript, Welfare benefits cases|
|R v Odiowei (2013) EWCA Crim 2253, (2013) MHLO 131 — The appellant sought a restricted hospital order in place of a life sentence, relying on two recent medical reports which were critical of previous reports. The matter was adjourned for six weeks to obtain responses from the previous reports' authors.||2013-12-30||2013 cases, Brief summary, Life sentence cases, Transcript|
|R v G (A) (2013) EWCA Crim 2256, (2013) MHLO 130 — Unsuccessful appeal against restriction order. [Summary required.]||2013-12-30||2013 cases, No summary, Restriction order cases, Transcript|
|Obrey v SSWP (2013) EWCA Civ 1584, (2013) MHLO 129 — (1) The Upper Tribunal had not erred in law in finding that the cessation of Housing Benefit after 52 weeks as a hospital patient (which indirectly discriminated against the mentally ill) was justified . (2) The Court of Appeal discussed the limitations on appeals against the specialist Upper Tribunal.||2013-12-30||2013 cases, Brief summary, Transcript, Welfare benefits cases|
|RGB v Cwm Taf Health Board (2013) EWHC B23 (COP), (2013) MHLO 128 (COP) — At a time when she had been assessed to have capacity, Mrs B left her husband and did not wish him to see her. On the basis of these wishes, when she was admitted to hospital with dementia Mr B was refused access. The husband unsuccessfully sought a declaration that the Health Board had acted unlawfully.||2013-12-30||2013 cases, Best interests, Brief summary, Transcript|
|Re P (Caesarian) (2013) MHLO 127 (COP) — The press has reported this case as follows: Peter Jackson J decided that, in the event of a Caesarian scar rupturing during labour, it was in P's best interests that doctors could intervene and perform a Caesarean section.||2013-12-30||2013 cases, No summary, No transcript, Other capacity cases|
|R v Fry (David George) (2013) EWCA Crim 2337, (2013) MHLO 126 — Unsuccessful appeal against conviction. Summary from judgment: "The central complaints are that his legal team (a) failed to ensure that he was mentally and/or emotionally able to decide whether or not on give evidence; (b) failed to ensure that he properly understood that an adverse inference might be drawn by the jury if he did not give evidence; (c) failed to ensure that he properly understood that if he did not give evidence the jury would have no account from him as to the allegation made by SB, given that he had declined to answer questions during his police interview about those allegations; (d) failed to make the judge aware of his mental difficulties before she decided whether or not the jury should be directed that they might, subject to various conditions, draw an adverse inference from his failure to give evidence; (e) failed to place evidence of his mental condition before the jury to explain his failure to give evidence; and (f) in the circumstances to which we have ..→||2013-12-30||2013 cases, No summary, Other criminal law cases, Transcript|
The following are the main sources of case transcripts/information: