View table: Resources
- Type - List of String
- Sentence - Wikitext
- Title - String
- Author - List of String
- Book_author - List of String
- Book_editor - List of String
- Abstract - Wikitext
- Publication - String
- Publisher - List of String
- Date - Date
- Date_closed - Date
- URL - URL
- Volume - String
- Issue - String
- First_page - String
- Last_page - String
- DOI - String
- Edition_number - String
- Edition_next_title - String
- ASIN - String
- Detail - Text
- External_links - Text
- Saved - Boolean
- Download - File
This table has 305 rows altogether.
|Page||Type||Sentence||Title||Author||Book author||Book editor||Abstract||Publication||Publisher||Date||Date closed||URL||Volume||Issue||First page||Last page||DOI||Edition number||Edition next title||ASIN||Detail||External links||Saved||Download|
|1 Crown Office Row, 'Alasdair Henderson secures award of damages for false imprisonment in a hospital setting' (30/1/19)||Web page||
|Alasdair Henderson secures award of damages for false imprisonment in a hospital setting||
This web page reports on a claim against Kings College Hospital in which the High Court held that there had been a failure to follow the DOLS requirements to undertake a full capacity assessment and, if appropriate, a best interests assessment, and that the hospital had intentionally kept the family in the dark about Christiana Esegbona's discharge to a nursing home until the last minute in order to prevent objection. The claim for false imprisonment and for negligent failures to provide adequate information to the nursing home (at which the patient died after pulling out her tracheostomy tube) was successful, and the court awarded aggravated damages because of the deliberate exclusion of the family from the discharge planning process.
|1 Crown Office Row||2019-01-30||Yes|
|A Platform for the Future - consultation||Consultation||Ministry of Justice||
"In March 2010 an announcement was made that the Ministry of Justice would be bringing Her Majesty’s Courts Service (HMCS) and the Tribunals Service together, creating a single unified organisation. This consultation paper sets out the rationale for the creation of a new agency and explains what we believe the benefits will be. In seeking the views of the public on these benefits it also sets out what will remain the same following the creation of the agency."
|Aasya Mughal and Steven Richards, 'Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards Case Law Summary 2017-19' (April 2019 edition, 24/4/19)||Document||
DOLS case law summaries
|Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards Case Law Summary 2017-19||Mughal, Aaysa • Richards, Steven||
This two-page document summarises selected domestic and European caselaw on deprivation of liberty (not just those between 2017 and 2019). A newer version is available: Aasya Mughal and Steven Richards, 'Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards Case Law Summary 2017-19' (June 2019 edition, 10/6/19).
|Edge Training||2019-04-24||==See also== Older version: [[Aasya Mughal and Steven Richards, 'Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards Case Law Summary 2016-18' (February 2018 edition, 8/3/18)]].||Yes|
|Aasya Mughal and Steven Richards, 'Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards Case Law Summary 2017-19' (June 2019 edition, 10/6/19)||Document||
DOLS case law summaries
|Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards Case Law Summary 2017-19||Mughal, Aaysa • Richards, Steven||
This two-page document summarises selected domestic and European caselaw on deprivation of liberty (not just those between 2017 and 2019).
|Edge Training||2019-06-10||==See also== Older version: [[Aasya Mughal and Steven Richards, 'Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards Case Law Summary 2017-19' (April 2019 edition, 24/4/19)]].||Yes|
|Adult Social Care consultation||Consultation||Law Commission||
"The overall aim of the project is to provide a clearer, modern and more cohesive framework for adult social care."
|Alex Ruck Keene (ed), Assessment of Mental Capacity (4th edn, Law Society 2015)||Book||
Mental capacity book
|Assessment of Mental Capacity||Ruck Keene, Alex||Ruck Keene, Alex||Law Society||2015||4||1784460389||No|
|Alex Ruck Keene and Rosie Scott, 'The COVID-19 pandemic, the Coronavirus Bill and the Mental Capacity Act 2005' (39 Essex Chambers, 25/3/20)||Article • Coronavirus resource||
Impact of coronavirus on operation of MCA
|The COVID-19 pandemic, the Coronavirus Bill and the Mental Capacity Act 2005||Ruck Keene, Alex • Scott, Rosie||
This article contains information under the following headings: (1) The Coronavirus Bill; (2) Non-Statutory Guidance; (3) Guidance from the Court of Protection; (4) Advance care planning; (5) Commentary.
|39 Essex Chambers||2020-03-25||Yes|
|Alex Ruck Keene et al, 'Rapid response guidance note: Testing for COVID-19 and mental capacity' (4/5/20)||Coronavirus resource||
Coronavirus testing and capacity
|Rapid response guidance note: Testing for COVID-19 and mental capacity||Ruck Keene, Alex • Allen, Neil • Scott, Katie • Kohn, Nicola||
"The Court of Protection team has been asked to advise on a number of occasions as to the legal position in relation to testing for COVID-19, especially as testing (a) starts to be more generally available; and (b) is increasingly been rolled out as mandatory in certain settings. What follows is a general discussion, as opposed to legal advice on the facts of individual cases, which the team can provide. It primarily relates to the position in England in relation to those aged 18 and above; specific advice should be sought in respect of Wales and those under 18."
|Alex Ruck Keene et al||2020-05-04||Yes|
|Alex Ruck Keene et al, Court of Protection Handbook: A User's Guide (2nd edn, LAG 2016)||Book||
Court of Protection book
|Court of Protection Handbook: A User's Guide||Ruck Keene, Alex • Edwards, Kate • Eldergill, Anselm • Miles, Sophy||Legal Action Group||2016||2||Alex Ruck Keene et al, Court of Protection Handbook: A User's Guide (2nd rev edn, LAG 2017)||1908407883||No|
|Alex Ruck Keene et al, Court of Protection Handbook: A User's Guide (2nd rev edn, LAG 2017)||Book||
Court of Protection book
|Court of Protection Handbook: A User's Guide||Ruck Keene, Alex • Edwards, Kate • Eldergill, Anselm • Miles, Sophy||
Note that a 3rd edition has now been published.
|Legal Action Group||2017||2 (rev)||Alex Ruck Keene et al, Court of Protection Handbook: A User's Guide (3rd edn, LAG 2019)||1912273101||==Notes on this edition== You can purchase the revised second edition in paperback, or read the free Kindle supplement to the second edition. The supplement contains the following headings: capacity; best interests; informal decision-making and the role of the Court of Protection; case management; the participation of P; public funding; deprivation of liberty: statutory wills, gifts and powers of attorney; human rights; destination table. It also contains the full text of the [[Court of Protection Rules 2017]].||No|
|Alex Ruck Keene et al, Court of Protection Handbook: A User's Guide (3rd edn, LAG 2019)||Book||
Court of Protection book
|Court of Protection Handbook: A User's Guide||Ruck Keene, Alex • Edwards, Kate • Eldergill, Anselm • Mackintosh, Nicola • Miles, Sophy||Legal Action Group||2019||3||1912273276||No|
|Alex Ruck Keene, 'COVID-19 and MCA - first guidance out' (Mental Capacity Law and Policy, 19/3/20)||Article • Coronavirus resource||
Article about coronavirus guidance mentioning MCA
|COVID-19 and MCA - first guidance out||Ruck Keene, Alex||
This article contains brief comments on the following: (1) DHSC, 'Responding to COVID-19: the ethical framework for adult social care' (19/3/20); (2) HM Government and NHS, 'COVID-19 Hospital Discharge Service Requirements' (19/3/20).
|Mental Capacity Law and Policy||2020-03-19||Yes|
|Alex Ruck Keene, 'Foreign powers of attorney - an unfortunate judicial wrong turn' (Mental Capacity Law and Policy, 26/3/18)||Web page||
Commentary on protective measure case
|Foreign powers of attorney - an unfortunate judicial wrong turn||Ruck Keene, Alex||
This article states that the two litigants in person, in seeking recognition and enforcement of a Canadian "Continuing Power of Attorney for Property" as a protective measure (under Part 4 Schedule 3 MCA 2005), had led the judge astray, as the relevant question was whether (under Part 3) the Canadian power was valid according to Ontario law, assuming JMK had been habitually resident there at the point of granting the power. A application can be made under rule 23.6 Court of Protection Rules 2017 in any case where there is doubt as to the basis upon which the attorney under a foreign power is operating.
|Alex Ruck Keene, 'Going beyond the Mental Capacity Act in assessing capacity: recognising and overcoming biases and stereotypes' (The Mental Elf, 26/3/20)||Blog post||
Summary of capacity assessment briefing note
|Going beyond the Mental Capacity Act in assessing capacity: recognising and overcoming biases and stereotypes||Ruck Keene, Alex||The Mental Elf||2020-03-26||Yes|
|Alex Ruck Keene, 'Public health restrictions and capacity' (Mental Capacity Law and Policy, 29/3/20)||Blog post • Coronavirus resource||
Coronavirus public health restrictions
|Public health restrictions and capacity||Ruck Keene, Alex||
"Two sets of regulations brought into force in the past week have radically changed the legal landscape in England & Wales, effectively placing the population under severe restrictions (which the Daily Mail might even characterise as house arrest) for their good, and the good of society. This post looks at them through the prism of the law relating to those with impaired decision-making capacity; it also looks at through a similar prism at a part of the Coronavirus Act 2020 which is not (yet) in force, but is likely to come into force shortly,"
|Mental Capacity Law and Policy||2020-03-29||Yes|
|Andrew Norfolk, 'CQC covered up suspected rape in care home' (Times, 27/7/17)||Newspaper article||CQC covered up suspected rape in care home||Norfolk, Andrew||
This article related to a "cluster" of sex alerts at residential homes owned by Hillgreen Care, a private company that specialised in the care of young adults with learning disabilities. It was said that confidential documents revealed that: (a) the deputy manager of one home was a convicted sex offender working in Britain illegally; (b) concerns were raised at other homes over “sexual grooming” of residents, and staff having sex while on duty; (c) care workers were initially told not to inform police of a suspected rape in November 2015 of a severely autistic 23-year-old man who lacked capacity to consent to sexual relations; and (d) potential DNA evidence linked to the incident was destroyed. The CQC said it was "actively pursuing what criminal action can be taken in relation to the failings" at the Enfield home, and had not made any of the concerns public because its desire to be "open and transparent" needed to be balanced alongside a risk of "compromising ongoing investigations".
|Andrew Norfolk, 'Sexual predator’s victim was failed at every turn' (The Times, 27/7/17)||Newspaper article||
Criticisms of CQC and care home
|Sexual predator’s victim was failed at every turn||Norfolk, Andrew||
(1) This article is critical of the CQC's response to sexual abuse in a care home: "It had the power to bring criminal charges against the company or the senior individuals responsible for its running. Instead, it chose a much quieter, less public course of action. The Enfield home no longer has any vulnerable adults in its care. It is one of four Hillgreen homes that have ceased to operate since November 2015 because the CQC identified, and publicised, lesser problems in their operation. In the case of the home where Tom was allegedly attacked, the commission’s website carries the report of a 2016 inspection that was published in October last year. It rated the facilities as inadequate and unsafe, but not because a high-risk sex offender was allowed unsupervised access to the bedroom of a defenceless, highly vulnerable resident. Instead, the report criticised the home for failings that included storing mops and buckets in the garden and having overflowing bins, scuffed skirting boards, loose handles on kitchen drawers and a broken dishwasher. The report noted the recent promotion of a senior care worker to deputy manager but chose not to reveal that the vacancy was created by the exposure of her predecessor as a convicted sex offender. ... No one has told the residents of those homes, or their families, what happened at the Enfield home in November 2015. It is almost a year since anyone spoke to Tom’s mother about the attack." (2) It is also critical of the care home management: "In written statements seen by The Times, three Hillgreen workers said that Ross Dady, the company’s regional manager, and Roger Goddard, its director of care, initially told them they should not contact police or any external authorities. ... [Tom's mother's] shock and dismay increased, she said, when the manager told her that Tom had not yet been taken to hospital and that JL had not been arrested because '[Tom] may have consented to it'. There is some disagreement as to how swiftly, and by what means, the various safeguarding authorities became aware of the incident but by the time the police were involved Tom’s underwear had already been put through the laundry." (3) After this article the CQC did prosecute: see CQC v Hillgreen Care Ltd  MHLO 50.
|Andy McNicholl, 'Court quashes “unlawful” Care Act assessment of learning disabled man' (Community Care, 3/7/17)||News article||
Community care case summary
|Court quashes “unlawful” Care Act assessment of learning disabled man||McNicholl, Andy||
This article summarises R (JF) v London Borough of Merton  EWHC 1519 (Admin).
|Bar Council, 'Chair of the Bar sets out concerns to MoJ, HMCTS, the Legal Aid Agency, the senior judiciary, the Bar Standards Board and the Inns of Court' (18/3/20)||Letter • Coronavirus resource||
Bar Council coronavirus statement
|Chair of the Bar sets out concerns to MoJ, HMCTS, the Legal Aid Agency, the senior judiciary, the Bar Standards Board and the Inns of Court||Pinto, Amanda • Bar Council||
The Bar Council is "calling for a suspension of all in-person hearings across all jurisdictions, save in very exceptional circumstances where a video link or phone hearing cannot accommodate the interests of justice" for an initial 30-day period.
|Bar Council, 'Coronavirus advice and updates' (March 2020, updated periodically)||Web page • Coronavirus resource||
Bar Council coronavirus guidance
|Coronavirus advice and updates||Bar Council||
This web page contains information and links under the hearings: (1) Bar Council guidance; (2) Bar Council statements; (3) Bar Council, LPMA and IBC advice bulletins; (4) HMCTS updates; (5) Legal Aid Agency updates; (6) General government guidance.
|BASW, 'Information and support for AMHPs, AMHP leads and Principal SWs on the role of AMHPs during the Covid-19 pandemic' (25/3/20)||Document • Coronavirus resource||
AMHP coronavirus guidance
|Information and support for AMHPs, AMHP leads and Principal SWs on the role of AMHPs during the Covid-19 pandemic||British Association of Social Workers||
The introduction to this 11-page document states: "This information has been prepared by BASW, with support from the Approved Mental Health Professional Leads Network and the Chief Social Workers office to provide up to date information on the AMHP role as the country responds to the Covid 19 pandemic." This is version 1. Check the BASW website for updates.
|2020-03-25||*[https://www.basw.co.uk/membership/independent-members/coronavirus-covid-19-guidance-independents BASW, 'Coronavirus (COVID-19) guidance for Independents']. This is the page which links to the PDF document.||Yes|
|BBC News, 'Peterborough roof jump woman wins appeal bid' (25/3/10)||News article||
News report on restriction order being quashed
|Peterborough roof jump woman wins appeal bid||
The article ends as follows: Lord Justice Elias agreed, saying: "What was before the crown court did not substantiate sufficient risk to the public to justify a restriction order. We therefore quash that part of the sentence."
|Belfast Telegraph, 'Blind veteran tells judge he is ‘living again’ after going home' (19/3/19)||Newspaper article||
Man returns home after inherent jurisdiction case
|Blind veteran tells judge he is ‘living again’ after going home||Press Association||
The article states that Hayden J is overseeing developments at follow-up hearings in London, and that at a hearing the previous week the council's lawyers stated that Douglas Meyers had returned home. The High Court decision is: Southend-On-Sea Borough Council v Meyers  EWHC 399 (Fam).
|Ben Troke, 'The death of DoLS - the "Liberty Protection Safeguards" are before Parliament now' (Browne Jacobson, 4/7/18)||Web page||The death of DoLS - the "Liberty Protection Safeguards" are before Parliament now||Troke, Ben||
This article lists several initial observations about the detail of the Mental Capacity (Amendment) Bill, and in relation to its implementation notes: "On the timescales, we understand that it is anticipated that the Bill will be out of the Lords by the end of November 2018, and through the Commons early next year, with Royal Assent perhaps by April 2019. Allowing for implementation and training, we might expect it to come into force perhaps in late 2019, early 2020."
|Bernadette McSherry and Ian Freckelton (eds), Coercive Care: Rights, Law and Policy (Routledge 2013)||Book||
|Coercive Care: Rights, Law and Policy||McSherry, Bernadette • Freckleton, Ian • Weller, Penelope • Lord, Janet • Ashley Stein, Ashley • Rioux, Marcia • Gilmour, Joan • Angel, Natalia • Kampf, Annegret • Daw, Rowena • Gledhill, Kris • Perkins, Elizabeth • Sheldrick, Heulwen • Glover-Thomas, Nicola • Perlin, Michae • Brookbanks, Warren • Diesfeld, Kate||Weller, Penelope • Lord, Janet • Ashley Stein, Ashley • Rioux, Marcia • Gilmour, Joan • Angel, Natalia • Kampf, Annegret • Daw, Rowena • Gledhill, Kris • Perkins, Elizabeth • Sheldrick, Heulwen • Glover-Thomas, Nicola • Perlin, Michae • Brookbanks, Warren • Diesfeld, Kate||McSherry, Bernadette • Freckleton, Ian||Routledge||2013||1||0415628199||No|
|Bournewood Consultation: The approach to be taken in response to the judgement of the European Court of Human Rights in the 'Bournewood' case||Consultation||Department of Health||
"This document seeks views on the issues raised by, and consequent options for public policy arising from, the judgement of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), published on 5th October 2004, in the case of H.L. v. the United Kingdom (the 'Bournewood' judgement - so called because H.L's care and treatment took place in Bournewood Hospital)."
|Breaking the cycle: effective punishment, rehabilitation and sentencing of offenders - consultation||Consultation||Ministry of Justice||
"The Ministry of Justice Structural Reform Plan published in July 2010 set out a commitment to introduce a 'rehabilitation revolution' and conduct a review of sentencing policy. This consultation sets out the resulting proposals which aim to break the destructive cycle of crime and protect the public, through more effectively punishing and rehabilitating offenders and reforming the sentencing framework."
The proposals in relation to managing offenders with mental health problems are as follows: 'We want to ensure that our valuable resources are targeted on the people who are committed to changing their lives and being rehabilitated. In some cases, the criminal justice system is not the best place for them. This is particularly the case for offenders with mental health problems. We propose to: (a) work with the Department of Health and the Home Office to pilot and roll out liaison and diversion services nationally by 2014 for mentally ill offenders; and (b) increase the treatment capacity for offenders who present a high risk of harm where this is linked to severe personality disorders.'
|Brenda Hale, Mental Health Law (5th edn, Sweet & Maxwell 2010)||Book||
Mental health law book
|Mental Health Law||Hale, Brenda||Hale, Brenda||
Covers mental health law and associated mental capacity law topics.
|Sweet and Maxwell||2010||5||Brenda Hale, Mental Health Law (6th edn, Sweet and Maxwell 2017)||0414041690||No|
|Brenda Hale, Mental Health Law (6th edn, Sweet and Maxwell 2017)||Book||
Mental health law book
|Mental Health Law||Hale, Brenda||
Covers mental health law and associated mental capacity law topics. See book review by Alex Ruck Keene, 1/5/17.
|Sweet and Maxwell||2017||6||0414051203||No|
|British National Formulary (Pharmaceutical Press, 73rd edn 2017)||Book||British National Formulary||BNF authors||Pharmaceutical Press||2017||73||British National Formulary (Pharmaceutical Press, 79th edn 2020)||0857112767||No|
|British National Formulary (Pharmaceutical Press, 79th edn 2020)||Book||
|British National Formulary||BNF authors||
This edition is published on 20/3/20. The book is updated every March and September, so always check the Amazon page for the latest edition.
|Pharmaceutical Press • BMJ Group||2020-03-20||79||0857113658||No|
|Care Quality Commission, 'COVID-19: Interim Methodology for Second Opinions' (Dear Colleague letter, 20/3/20)||Letter • Coronavirus resource||
CQC coronavirus procedure for SOADs
|COVID-19: Interim Methodology for Second Opinions||Care Quality Commission||
The summary stated in the letter is: "(1) We are asking mental health services to provide a summary of the patient’s current issues to CQC when submitting a second opinion request, which SOADs will use instead of visiting the hospital to examine care records. (2) Consultations with professionals, including with the responsible clinician, will be undertaken by telephone or video (Skype or Microsoft teams). (3) Following telephone consultations, we will ask services to support patients who agree to speak with SOADs to have access to telephones or technology to support a video call with the SOAD. (4) SOADs will not be asked to post original copies of certificates. We encourage services to accept electronic copies of certificates and act on that. The Government may lift the requirement for a paper copy, and we will issue further communications once this is confirmed."
|Cases involving people with mental health problems and/or learning disabilities as victims and witnesses||Consultation||Crown Prosecution Service||2009-03-01||2009-03-01|
|Celia Kitzinger, 'Remote justice: a family perspective' (Transparency Project, 29/3/20)||Blog post • Coronavirus resource||
Critical lay view of remote COP hearing
|Remote justice: a family perspective||Kitzinger, Celia||
This article is written from the perspective of the daughter of the patient in the video hearing in A Clinical Commissioning Group v AFB.
|Changes to Mental Health Act 1983 Code of Practice||Consultation||Department of Health||
Extract from press release: "Our consultation ‘Stronger Code: Better Care’ is asking for your thoughts on a new draft Code which includes: (1) five new guiding principles; (2) significantly updated chapter on how to support children and young people, on the use of restraint and seclusion and the use of police powers and places of safety; (3) new chapters on care planning, equality and human rights, links to the Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards, and support for victims."
|Christine Hutchinson and Neil Hickman, Focus on Social Work Law: Mental Health (Palgrave 2016)||Book||
Mental health law book
|Focus on Social Work Law: Mental Health||Hutchinson, Christine • Hickman, Neil||Palgrave||2016||1137447400||No|
|Christopher Johnston (ed), Medical Treatment: Decisions and the Law: the MCA in Action (2nd edn, Bloomsbury 2009)||Book||
MCA book - medical treatment
|Medical Treatment: Decisions and the Law: the Mental Capacity Act in Action||Johnston, Christopher||Bloomsbury Professional||2009||2||184592424X||No|
|Civil Bid Rounds for 2010 Contracts - consultation||Consultation||Legal Services Commission||
Consultation closed on 23/1/09. "Through this consultation we are seeking views on our proposals for the bid criteria and award process for civil legal aid contracts that will be introduced from 2010. We are also consulting on key changes to the contract terms and to changes to the scope of legal aid funding."
|Claire Barcham, The Pocketbook Guide to Mental Health Act Assessments (2nd edn, OUP 2016)||Book||
|The Pocketbook Guide to Mental Health Act Assessments||Barcham, Claire||Oxford University Press||2016||2||0335262503||No|
|Claire Tyler, 'The stormy passage of the Mental Capacity (Amendment) Bill' (The House Magazine, 2/5/19)||Article||
Summary of LPS legislation passage through Parliament
|The stormy passage of the Mental Capacity (Amendment) Bill||Tyler, Claire||
In this article Baroness Tyler summarises the history of this legislation, concluding that "much relies on what will be set out in the Code of Practice and in secondary legislation, which will be vital in determining how the new system will work, including the vexed issue of a definition of what does and doesn’t constitute a deprivation of liberty" and that "without proper funding[,] staff resources and training it will fail in practice".
|The House Magazine||2019-05-02||Yes|
|Claire Wills-Goldingham et al, Court of Protection Made Clear (Bath 2016)||Book||
Court of Protection book
|Court of Protection Made Clear: A User's Guide||Keehan, Michael • Wills-Goldingham, Claire • Leslie, Marie • Divall, Paul||Wills-Goldingham, Claire • Leslie, Marie • Divall, Paul||Keehan, Michael||Bath Publishing Ltd||2016||1||0956777465||No|
|Conroys Solicitors, 'Listing of community hearings' (press release, 6/5/20)||Press release • Coronavirus resource||
CTO hearings being listed again
|Listing of community hearings||Conroy, Ben • Conroys Solicitors||
It is understood that the order which postponed community hearings is no longer in force (the order stated that it was not feasible or practicable for a community patient to attempt to participate in a telephone or video hearing) and that the tribunal secretariat is working through the backlog.
|2020-05-06||==Full text== '''Press Release from Ben Conroy - Conroys Solicitors LLP''' Following on from the First-tier Tribunal decision in Re B  MHLO 18 (FTT) which addresses the order of DCP Johnson dated 26 March 2020 and the postponement of all CTO applications, it would seem that the order may no longer be in force and that CTO cases are now going to be listed for hearing. It is understood that the tribunal service is working through a list of all the CTO cases that were postponed to re-list them. Currently there has been no formal press release from HMCTS or anything via MHLA. Hopefully HMCTS will provide an update to practitioners and Responsible Authorities shortly. ==See also== *[[Re B (2020) MHLO 18 (FTT)]] *[[Mental Health Tribunal, 'Order and directions for all community patients who are subject to a CTO or conditional discharge and who have applied or been referred to the tribunal for the duration of the Pilot Practice Direction' (26/3/20)]]||Yes|
|Consultation Document: Delivering Excellence: Achieving Recovery: A Professional Framework for the Mental Health Nursing Profession in Northern Ireland (2010-2015)||Consultation||Northern Ireland Assembly||
Consultation run by NI's Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety.
|Consultation in relation to section 268 appeals against conditions of excessive security||Consultation||Scottish Government||
"A consultation seeking views on the way forward in respect of appeals against excessive security for mental health patients following the Supreme Court decision of M v Scottish Ministers."
|Consultation on a Separate Legal Jurisdiction for Wales||Consultation||Welsh Government||
The Welsh Government are consulting on making things even more unnecessarily complicated, by creating an entirely separate legal jurisdiction for Wales.
|Consultation on Adults with incapacity (Scotland)||Consultation||Scottish Law Commission||
Scottish Law Commission, 'Discussion Paper on Adults with Incapacity' (discussion paper 156, 31/7/12). Extract from news release: 'The main questions raised by the Discussion Paper are: (1) Is Scots law as it currently stands adequate to meet the requirements of the European Convention in this area? and (2) If not, how should it be changed? In particular, there is a need to decide if there should be a new procedure for authorising deprivation of liberty in residential care for adults with incapacity. If there should, what should that process be? And, very importantly, what sorts of care and what type of facilities should be regarded as involving deprivation of liberty for those who live there?'
|Consultation on allocation options for funding for Local Healthwatch: PCT Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards||Consultation||Department of Health||
'Subject to the passage of the Health and Social Care Bill, the Department (DH) will allocate funding for local HealthWatch and, potentially, PCT Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards from October 2012. This new funding will be added to the current DH Learning Disabilities and Health Reform grant. This consultation is asking for your views on options for distributing the new funding for local HealthWatch and PCT Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DOLS).'
|Consultation on amendments to the Community Legal Service (Financial) Regulations 2000 (2009)||Consultation||Ministry of Justice||
The plan is to increase income eligibility limits by 5%, and to introduce non-means-tested legal aid for COP proceedings for those deprived of their liberty, from April 2009. Closing date 17/2/09.
The response to the consultation is included in the explanatory memorandum to the following Regulations:
|Consultation on an Equality Impact Assessment for New Mental Capacity Legislation||Consultation||Northern Ireland Assembly||
"Following publication of the Bamford Review report, A Comprehensive Legislative Framework and consultation on the Department's proposal, A Legislative Framework for Mental Capacity and Mental Health Legislation, the Minister in September 2009 announced his intention of preparing a single Bill encompassing mental capacity and mental health provisions."
|Consultation on Appointments and Diversity||Consultation||Ministry of Justice||
Of relevance to mental health law are the following proposals: (1) Amending s63 Constitutional Reform Act 2005, which currently requires judicial appointment to be 'solely on merit', to allow the Equality Act 2010's protected characteristics (age, disability, gender reassignment, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, gender and sexual orientation) to be taken into account: where a 'selection assessment on a range of criteria rates them as equally capable of doing the job' then the presumption will be that protected characteristics will tip the balance in favour of those possessing them. (2) To provide more opportunity for appointments based on diversity, changing the tenure of fee-paid appointments so that they no longer last until retirement, but instead for a maximum of three five-year terms save in exceptional cases where there is a clear business need.
|Consultation on Certification of Incapacity for Medical Treatment under Part 5 Section 47 Adults with Incapacity (Scotland) Act 2000||Consultation||Scottish Government||
'This consultation seeks views on four issues on Adults with Incapacity (Scotland) Act 2000 Part 5 in relation to medical treatment. The issues are: widening the range of institutions which can offer training, whether dentists should be required to undertake training for this purpose; whether multiple section 47 medical treatment certificates should be required in some circumstances; and whether other medical practitioners not specified should be enabled to certify incapacity for medical treatment'
|Consultation on Fees in the High Court and Court of Appeal||Consultation||Ministry of Justice||
'A consultation proposing changes to fees in the High Court and Court of Appeal Division. It is aimed at users of the High Court and Court of Appeal Civil Division, the legal profession, the judiciary, the advice sector and all with an interest in this area in England and Wales. The aim of these proposals is to charge users of these two jurisdictions more proportionally for the resource their cases consume, while protecting access to justice for the most vulnerable. This will reduce the taxpayer subsidy of the courts service.'
|Consultation on low secure services and psychiatric intensive care||Consultation||Department of Health||
"A consultation document on low secure services and psychiatric intensive care is being issued today for a three month consultation by stakeholders. The purpose of this consultation is to invite the views of stakeholders on how new guidance will operate by explaining the rationale behind the strategic approach and raising questions which cover a broad range of issues."
|Consultation on Mental Capacity Act 2005: forms, supervision and fees||Consultation||Ministry of Justice||
Responses published: 11 March 2009
A consultation on proposed changes to three areas of the work of the Office of the Public Guardian and the Court of Protection following the implementation of the Mental Capacity Act:
1. redesign of the Lasting Power of Attorney forms 2. restructuring of the Supervision of Deputies by the Public Guardian 3. alterations to the fee structure.
This consultation was the initial stage of a wider 12-18 month investigation into the implementation of the Mental Capacity Act.
See the following for details:
|Consultation on Mental Health (Assessment of Former Users of Secondary Mental Health Services) (Wales) Regulations 2011||Consultation||Welsh Government||
'Part 3 of the Mental Health (Wales) Measure 2010 is concerned with mental health assessments for former users of secondary mental health services. The Welsh Assembly Government is proposing to make Regulations under this part of the Measure which will set out certain eligibility criteria for such assessments. For example, the length of time a person will be eligible for such an assessment following their discharge from services. This consultation seeks your views on these draft regulations.'
|Consultation on Mental Health (Care Coordination and Care and Treatment Planning) (Wales) Regulations 2011||Consultation||Welsh Government||
'[This consultation] is concerned with the coordination of secondary mental health services, and care and treatment planning for secondary mental health service users. The Welsh Assembly Government is proposing to make Regulations connected to Part 2 of the Measure. This relates to the appointment of care coordinators and the making, reviewing and revising of care and treatment plans. This consultation seeks your views on these draft regulations.'
|Consultation on Mental Health (Independent Mental Health Advocates) (Wales) Regulations 2011||Consultation||Welsh Government||
'Part 4 of the Mental Health (Wales) Measure 2010 expands the statutory independent mental health advocacy scheme established by the 1983 Act. Patients subject to certain "short term" sections of the 1983 Act, and those in hospital informally (i.e. not under compulsion) are able to access the service. The Welsh Assembly Government is proposing to make Regulations connected to the expanded independent mental health advocacy scheme. This will relate to the provision, appointment and approval of advocates. It will also say which people advocates can talk to in undertaking their role of supporting patients. This consultation seeks your views on these draft Regulations.'
|Consultation on Mental Health (Regional Provision) (Wales) Regulations 2012||Consultation||Welsh Government||
'This consultation seeks your views on regulations which would enable Local Health Boards (LHBs) and local authorities in Wales to enter into regional working arrangements.'
|Consultation on OFT Mental Capacity Guidance||Consultation||Office of Fair Trading||
"Following the consultation on irresponsible lending the OFT identified a need to provide further clarity on the issue of mental capacity as it impacts on borrowing decisions."
|Consultation on our assessments of quality 2010-11||Consultation||Care Quality Commission||2010-02-02||2010-04-27|
|Consultation on paper hearings for CTO reference cases||Consultation||Mental Health Tribunal||
The Tribunal Procedure Committee is consulting on changes to the rules so that the Tribunal may (1) make a decision on a reference under s68 (duty of managers to refer cases to tribunal) without a hearing if the patient is a community patient and has consented to this; and (2) strike out a party's case without a hearing. The purpose is to save money. The rationale given for the first proposal is that community patients are often content with their position and do not want to attend the hearing or medical examination; that if the patient does not attend then full reports often mean there is little point having a hearing; and that hearings place an unnecessary burden on community patients, who are likely to be quite capable of making the necessary decisions and are entitled to IMHAs and Legal Aid. It is anticipated that all community patients would be posted a form inviting them to consent to their case being decided without a hearing. In relation to the second proposal, it is intended that the power would be used when it is obvious that the tribunal lacks jurisdiction. Consultation runs from 1/6/11 to 23/8/11.
Tribunal Procedure Committee, 'Response to consultation on proposed amendments to the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Health, Education and Social Care Chamber) Rules 2008 (SI 2008/2699) (1 June 2011 – 29 August 2011)' (February 2012)
|Consultation on police guidance for mental health||Consultation||College of Policing||
"The College of Policing has published new draft national guidance clarifying the police's role in dealing with incidents involving people in mental health crisis.
"The draft Authorised Professional Practice (APP) is now open for consultation and sets out guidance for police officers and staff when investigating an offence or assisting people with mental health problems, learning disabilities and difficulties and other vulnerabilities."
|Consultation on preventing suicide in England: a cross-government outcomes strategy to save lives||Consultation||Department of Health||
'This document sets out a proposal for a new suicide prevention strategy for England with the aims of reducing the suicide rate and improving support for those bereaved or affected by suicide. The draft strategy brings together knowledge about groups at higher risk of suicide, effective interventions and resources available. The closing date for consultation responses is 11 October 2011. Consultation responses will inform the final strategy, early in 2012.'
|Consultation on proposals for a Mental Health (Scotland) Bill (2013)||Consultation||Scottish Government||
From Scottish Government website: "This consultation paper seeks views on proposals for a draft Mental Health Bill. This draft Bill brings forward changes to improve the operation of the 2003 Act - notably in relation to named persons, advance statements, medical matters and suspension of detention. In addition the draft Bill makes provision for a Victim Notification Scheme for victims of Mentally Disordered Offenders."
|Consultation on proposed changes to listing procedure||Consultation||Mental Health Tribunal||
The Tribunals Service are consulting stakeholders on new procedures and forms for the listing of cases.
Consultation details on "MHRT" website - 12/4/10
Mental Health Lawyers Association: Consultation - proposed changes to Tribunal listing procedure - 7/4/10 - Membership required
Summary of Consultation Responses - 30/7/10
|Consultation on proposed Mental Health (Wales) Measure||Consultation||Welsh Government||
As part of its Stage 1 consideration, the National Assembly for Wales’ Legislation Committee No. 3 is calling for evidence on the general principles of the proposed Mental Health (Wales) Measure.
|Consultation on revision of the Mental Health Act 1983 Code of Practice for Wales||Consultation||Welsh Government||
"The new draft Code takes account of the changes to relevant legislation since the previous Code was written. In particular: (a) the requirements in the Mental Health (Wales) Measure 2010 with regards to care and treatment planning and the expanded provision of independent mental health advocacy; (b) the relationship between the Act, the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards.
Within the draft Code there is strengthened emphasis on: (a) the involvement of patients and, where appropriate, their families and carers in all aspects of assessment and treatment; (b) understanding the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and how these should apply to all care and treatment; (c) the involvement of Independent Mental Health Advocates; (d) the use of appropriate transport for patient subject to the Act to ensure their dignity and safety as far as is practicable.
There are 2 other matters of proposed guidance in the draft Code that are not in the existing code. (a) Firstly, it reiterates that the Act provides a limit of 72 hours for detention under section 136 and that assessments should only take place in a police station in exceptional circumstances. However in relation to the timing of assessments both at the police station and elsewhere, the draft Code proposes: (i) that they should be undertaken within 3 hours; (ii) that detention in a police station should not exceed a maximum of 12 hours. (b) Secondly, it proposes that a statutory care and treatment plan, if needed, will be started no longer than 72 hours after admission."
For the revised Code of Practice, see Mental Health Act 1983 Code of Practice for Wales.
|Consultation on Scottish tribunal rule 58||Consultation||Scottish Government||
The Scottish Government, 'Scottish Government Consultation: Amendment to Rule 58 of the Mental Health Tribunal for Scotland (Practice and Procedure) (No. 2) Rules 2005: Rule 58: Power to Decide Case Without a Hearing' (March 2011)
The Scottish Government is consulting on plans to increase the availability of rule 58 which allows the Tribunal, if all parties agree in writing, to dispose of a case without an oral hearing. The three proposed options, all dispensing with the need for agreement and presumably with the intention of cutting costs, are: (1) any party wanting a hearing must show cause why a hearing is necessary, or (2) as option 1 except the patient has the automatic right to hearing if requested, or (3) as option 1 except the hearing will take place unless the patient positively elects not to have one. It is envisaged that the rule would be used 'where there is no real dispute between the parties'.
Consultation responses. On this page, published 15/6/11, can be found all the responses to this consultation
|Consultation on Service Framework for the Treatment of People with a Co-occurring Mental Health and Substance Misuse Problem||Consultation||Welsh Government||2015-03-05||2015-04-23|
|Consultation on the CQC mental health strategy||Consultation||Care Quality Commission||
"We are currently developing our strategic plan for our work on mental health over the next three to five years. We are keen to get a range of views to help us develop this plan.
"We would like to invite you to give your views as part our consultation on:
|Consultation on the draft code of practice to parts 2 and 3 of the Mental Health (Wales) Measure 2010||Consultation||Welsh Government||
'This consultation seeks views on a draft Code of Practice for care and treatment planning. It also covers reassessment for secondary mental health services under the Mental Health (Wales) Measure 2010. Part 2 of the Measure is concerned with: (1) the appointment of care coordinators as part of the process of planning and coordinating care; and (2) care and treatment plans for people receiving secondary mental health services. Part 3 of the Measure is concerned with: (1) former users of secondary mental health services; and (2) providing a right for them to refer themselves back to secondary services for assessment directly. The draft code sets out guiding principles and practice guidance for the operation of the Measure.'
|Consultation on the future of the Parole Board (2009)||Consultation||Ministry of Justice||
"Since its creation in 1968, the role of the Parole Board has changed significantly, from an advisory body to a court-like decision-making body. It has evolved in light of legislative changes, court judgments and changing caseloads, but its functions, status and resources have not been systematically considered in light of these changes. This consultation paper represents an opportunity to address this, and consider whether any changes to its sponsorship and role would support the Parole Board in carrying out its functions more effectively and efficiently."
|Consultation on the joint Department of Health / NOMS Offender Personality Disorder Pathway Implementation Plan||Consultation||Department of Health||
'This consultation is seeking your views about a new pathway approach for the treatment and management of offenders with serious personality disorders.'
|Court Fees: Proposals for reform||Consultation||Ministry of Justice||
From Government website: "Under the proposals contained in this consultation paper, those using the civil court system would, in future, be expected to meet the cost of the service where they can afford to do so, and for certain types of proceeding would be expected to contribute more than the cost. Fee remissions will continue to be provided for those who qualify, so that access to justice is not denied."
The proposals include introducing new, and amended, fees for the Court of Protection, and increased fees for judicial review.
Ministry of Justice, 'Court Fees: Proposals for reform' (December 2013)† (main consultation document)
Regulatory Policy Committee, 'Impact assessment opinion: enhanced court fees' (20/1/14)† The summary of this report is: 'The Impact Assessment is not fit for purpose. The Department needs to make clear whether the proposal will result in the Court Service raising more funds than is necessary to cover their costs.'
|Court of Protection, 'Additional Guidance for Judges and Practitioners arising from Covid-19' (The Hon Mr Justice Hayden, 18/3/20)||Court guidance • Coronavirus resource||
Further COP coronavirus guidance
|Additional Guidance for Judges and Practitioners arising from Covid-19||Hayden, Anthony • Court of Protection||
(1) This guidance contains the following key messages (paraphrased): (a) hearings of less than 2 hours will be by telephone, but longer hearings will proceed unless the judge decides otherwise; (b) all practitioners must consider the range of options, including Skype and telephone conferences; (c) if directions hearings cannot be dealt with by agreement then a remote hearing should be sought; (d) every sensible effort to alleviate the pressure on court staff should be made; (e) further use of Skype beyond the current limited circumstances is being considered. (2) The guidance answers various questions in relation to: (a) acceptance of electronic signatures; (b) notification of P; (c) interim appointment of professional deputies; (d) service by email; (e) scanned documents and electronic bundles; (f) capacity assessments undertaken via video. (3) A "Core Working Group (COVID-19)" including judges and representatives of the (legal) profession will be set up to look at ongoing interim solutions.
|Judiciary of England and Wales||2020-03-18||Yes|
|Court of Protection, 'Court User Group Update' (HHJ Carolyn Hilder and Amrit Panesar, 21/5/20)||Court guidance • Coronavirus resource||
|Court User Group Update||Court of Protection • Hilder, Carolyn • Panesar, Amrit||
This letter to court users deals with the court's performance and activities during the coronavirus outbreak and some of the work being done to assist practitioners, under the headings: (1) Hearings; (2) Filing of form COP20s; (3) Electronic filing of P & A deputy applications; (4) Performance.
|2020-05-21||==See also== *[[Court of Protection User Group]]||Yes|
|Court of Protection, 'Dear Colleagues letter' (Mr Justice Hayden, 23/3/20)||Court guidance • Coronavirus resource||
HIVE group and 2m separation at court
|Dear Colleagues letter||Hayden, Anthony • Court of Protection • Judiciary of England and Wales||
The "HIVE" group has been established, the objective being "to continue to refine our approach to dealing with the Court’s business and to seek to ensure that it runs as smoothly as possible". It consists of: The Vice President; The Senior Judge, HHJ Hilder; Sarah Castle, the Official Solicitor; Vikram Sachdeva QC; Lorraine Cavanagh QC; Alex Ruck Keene; Kate Edwards; Mary Macgregor, Office of Public Guardian; Joan Goulbourn, Senior Policy Advisor, Ministry of Justice. All those who attend court should keep 2m separation from others at all times.
|Court of Protection, 'Further Guidance for Judges and Practitioners in the Court of Protection arising from Covid-19' (Mr Justice Hayden, 24/3/20)||Court guidance • Coronavirus resource||
COP guidance on remote hearings and serious cases
|Further Guidance for Judges and Practitioners in the Court of Protection arising from Covid-19||Court of Protection • Hayden, Anthony • Judiciary of England and Wales||
(1) The guidance on remote hearings is now: "as from today no hearings which require people to attend are to take place unless there is a genuine urgency and it is not possible to conduct a remote hearing." (emphasis in original) (2) Genuinely urgent and life/death cases will be identified and prioritised in the usual way, but if any difficulty arises the VP's clerk may be emailed.
|Court of Protection||2020-03-24||==Note== The "sea change" mentioned in the first paragraph was the previous evening's "stay at home" requirement.||Yes|
|Court of Protection, 'Letter about Hive group' (Mr Justice Hayden, 4/5/20)||Court guidance • Coronavirus resource||
Information about Hive group
|Letter about Hive group||Court of Protection • Hayden, Anthony||
This letter sets out the aim and constitution of the Hive group, with particular focus on: (1) property and affairs; (2) welfare cases in the context of deprivation of liberty; (3) "community DOL" orders under COP DOL11; (4) transparency. The HIVE mailbox (email@example.com) can be used to raise coronavirus issues which do not relate to specific cases.
|Court of Protection, 'Remote access to the Court of Protection guidance' (Mr Justice Hayden, 31/3/20)||Court guidance • Coronavirus resource||
Detailed COP remote hearing protocol
|Remote access to the Court of Protection guidance||Court of Protection • Hayden, Anthony||
This 20-page document confirms that no COP hearings which require people to attend are to take place unless there is a genuine urgency and it is not possible to conduct a remote hearing. It includes a template case management order, and sets out sets out operational protocols governing remote hearings under the following headings: (1) General; (2) Legislative framework; (3) Judicial access to audio/visual conferencing platforms; (4) video/visual Conferencing: (a) Cloud Video Platform MoJ/HMCTS; (b) Skype for Business; (c) Microsoft Teams; (d) Zoom; (e) FaceTime; (f) Lifesize; (5) Audio/Telephone; (6) Security; (7) Transparency; (8) Transcription/recording of the hearing; (9) GDPR; (10) Attendance of P at the remote hearing; (11) Litigants in Person; (12) Witness Evidence; (13) Electronic Bundles; (14) Use of Interpreters and Intermediaries; (15) Orders and Service; (16) Legal aid funding.
|Court of Protection, 'Visits to P by Judges and Legal Advisors' (The Hon Mr Justice Hayden, 13/3/20)||Court guidance • Coronavirus resource||
COP coronavirus guidance
|Visits to P by Judges and Legal Advisors||Hayden, Anthony • Court of Protection||
This guidance from the Vice President of the Court of Protection states that "visits should only be made to P where that is assessed as absolutely necessary", that "[a]lternative arrangements should always be considered first, such as telephone FaceTime and Skype conferencing", and that "[v]isits to care home are to be strongly discouraged" (emphasis in original). Judges should discuss any potential visits with the Regional Lead Judge, and keep informed of the advice on the judicial intranet which is reviewed daily.
|Judiciary of England and Wales||2020-03-13||==See also== *[[Judiciary of England and Wales, 'Additional Guidance for Judges and Practitioners arising from Covid-19' (The Hon Mr Justice Hayden, 18/3/20)]]||Yes|
|Court Of Protection: Authorised Officers: A consultation on the delegation of some decisions in the Court of Protection to court officers||Consultation||Ministry of Justice||
'A consultation on the proposal that an amendment be made to the Court of Protection Rules to provide for authorised officers to deal with specified types of applications. '
Ministry of Justice, 'Court Of Protection: Authorised Officers: A consultation on the delegation of some decisions in the Court of Protection to court officers' (consultation paper CP9/2011, June 2011)
|CQC, 'Avon & Wiltshire Mental Health Partnership fined £80,000 after patient is injured falling from hospital roof' (21/8/19)||Case summary||
Trust fined for failing to provide safe care and treatment
|Avon & Wiltshire Mental Health Partnership fined £80,000 after patient is injured falling from hospital roof||Care Quality Commission||
Extract from press release: "The risk of the low roof at Applewood Ward had been highlighted in previous annual risk assessments since 2011. The outcome was that the risk should be managed through staff observation. CQC believe this was an inappropriate and inadequate response to the risk posed to all service users by this low roof. In 2015 there were 28 direct references to the low roof in the garden of Applewood Ward between January and December at seven different Trust forums. The Trust was also aware that numerous other service users had been able to access the low roof prior to the service user’s fall in January 2016. The trust was fined £80,000 for failing to provide safe care and treatment and putting patient at risk of avoidable harm. It was also ordered to pay the prosecution costs of £12,033.96 and a £170 victim surcharge."
|2019-08-21||==Further details== The CQC provided the following information (email to MHLO, 23/8/19): <div class="perm">The CQC’s investigation considered whether the registered provider, Avon and Wiltshire Mental Health Partnership NHS Trust had breached Regulation 12(1) and 22 (2) of the [[Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014]]. In respect of its role as Registered Provider responsible for the location known as Applewood Ward, they failed to provide safe care and treatment to an inpatient, resulting in them suffering avoidable harm and thereby committing an offence under Regulation 22 of the Health and Social Care Act (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014.</div>||*There is no written judgment in this case (an email from Taunton Magistrates' Court to MHLO on 28/8/19 states: "Unfortunately the Magistrates Court is not a Court of record and as such written judgements are not routinely made, I have confirmed with the Judge who dealt with this case that there was no written judgement so I am afraid I am unable to assist in your enquiry.")||No|
|CQC, 'CQC finds improvements in use of the Mental Health Act but remains concerned about safety' (26/2/19)||Press release||
Press release about MHA report
|CQC finds improvements in use of the Mental Health Act but remains concerned about safety||Care Quality Commission||
Extract from press release: "In its Monitoring the Mental Health Act in 2017/18 report published today, CQC has concluded that there has been an overall improvement in some aspects of care in 2016 to 2018, compared with findings in 2014 to 2016. They found: (1) Some improvement in the quality of care planning and patient involvement. A higher proportion of care plans are detailed, comprehensive and developed in collaboration with patients and carers. However, there is still considerable room for further improvement. (2) The provision of information about legal rights to patients and relatives is still the most frequently raised issue from visits. In many cases, patients may struggle to understand information given to them on admission because they are most ill at this point. (3) The greatest concern from Mental Health Act monitoring visits is about the quality and safety of mental health wards; in particular acute wards for adults of working age."
|CQC, 'CQC has made changes to Mental Health Act complaints process' (11/5/20)||CQC guidance • Coronavirus resource||
|CQC has made changes to Mental Health Act complaints process||Care Quality Commission||
The CQC are prioritising MHA complaints from or about currently-detained patients; other complaints "will be reviewed, but may be paused during the coronavirus outbreak".
|CQC, 'CQC sets out next steps to support adult social care during the COVID-19 pandemic' (15/4/20)||Press release • Coronavirus resource||
Support for adult social care providers
|CQC sets out next steps to support adult social care during the COVID-19 pandemic||Care Quality Commission||
This document deals with (1) Personal Protective Equipment; (2) coronavirus testing procedures for staff; (3) statistics (from this week, death notifications collected from providers will include whether the person had suspected or confirmed COVID-19); (4) information gathering (data on coronavirus pressures from services providing care in people's own homes will now be collected).
|CQC, 'CQC to review the use of restraint, prolonged seclusion and segregation for people with mental health problems, a learning disability and/or autism' (3/12/18)||Web page||
CQC to review restraint, seclusion and segregation
|CQC to review the use of restraint, prolonged seclusion and segregation for people with mental health problems, a learning disability and/or autism||Care Quality Commission||
Extract from CQC website: "We will review and make recommendations about the use of restrictive interventions in settings that provide inpatient and residential care for people with mental health problems, a learning disability and/or autism. ... We will take forward this work and will report on its interim findings in May 2019, with a full report by March 2020. We have encountered the use of physical restraint, prolonged seclusion and segregation in wards for people of all ages with a learning disability and/or autism and in secure and rehabilitation mental health wards. The review will consider whether and how seclusion and segregation are used in registered social care services for people with a learning disability and/or autism. This will include residential services for young people with very complex needs - such as a severe learning disability and physical health needs - and secure children’s homes. This aspect of the review will be undertaken in partnership with Ofsted."
|Care Quality Commission website||2018-12-03||==See also== *'"`UNIQ--item-368--QINU`"'[[CQC, 'Thematic review of the use of restraint, prolonged seclusion and segregation for people with mental health problems, learning disabilities and/or autism: Terms of Reference' (26/11/18)]] — '"`UNIQ--item-369--QINU`"'||Yes|
|CQC, 'Monitoring the Mental Health Act in 2016/17 - amendment list' (13/11/18)||Document||
List of amendments
|Monitoring the Mental Health Act in 2016/17 - amendment list||Care Quality Commission||
There is a newer version of the document: CQC, 'Monitoring the Mental Health Act in 2016/17 - amendment list' (31/12/18). The CQC published the following text alongside a full list of corrections to their 2016/17 report: "We are currently amending this document after our analysts found that we had displayed some data gathered by Mental Health Act reviewers on their visits in an inaccurate way. We will publish the updated report in November 2018. An explanation for the amendments: (1) Up until 2015-16, we used ‘Yes/No’ to document whether providers could show evidence of patient involvement in care planning. (2) In 2015-16, we added an option for Mental Health Act reviewers to document this as ‘Requires improvement’. This gave reviewers the option of documenting that the provider had shown some evidence of recording patient information, but it still required improvement. (3) When working on the 2016/17 report, our analysts found that reviewers had been inconsistent in how they had documented this information. Some reviewers had recorded patient involvement just as ‘Yes’ or ‘No’, while others had recorded as ‘Yes’, ‘No’, or ‘Requires Improvement’. (4) In preparing the report, we sought to present the information in the ‘Yes/No’ style to show a trend from past results. However, in doing so we combined the responses of ‘requires improvement’ with the ‘No’ responses, which was inaccurate. As a result, we have amended the report."
|2018-11-13||*[https://www.cqc.org.uk/publications/major-report/monitoring-mental-health-act-report&mhlo=s The CQC web page containing the text quoted above]†||Yes|
|CQC, 'Monitoring the Mental Health Act in 2016/17 - amendment list' (31/12/18)||Document||
List of amendments
|Monitoring the Mental Health Act in 2016/17 - amendment list||Care Quality Commission||
This document contains the amendments which have been incorporated into CQC, 'Monitoring the Mental Health Act in 2016/17' (amended version, 9/1/19). "An explanation for the amendments: (1) Up until 2015/16, we used ‘Yes/No’ categories to document specific types of data gathered by Mental Health Act Reviewers on their visits. In 2015/16, we added an option for Reviewers to use a category of ‘Requires improvement’. This gave Reviewers the option of documenting that the provider had shown some evidence of meeting requirements, but that it still required improvement. (2) When working on the 2016/17 report, our analysts found that Reviewers had been inconsistent in how they had documented this information. Some had recorded results with just ‘Yes’ or ‘No’, while others had recorded ‘Yes’, ‘No’, or ‘Requires improvement’. (3) In preparing the report, we sought to present the information in the ‘Yes/No’ style to show a trend from past results. However, in doing so we combined the responses of ‘Requires improvement’ with the ‘No’ responses, which was inaccurate. As a result, we have amended the report."
|2018-12-31||==See also== *[[CQC, 'Monitoring the Mental Health Act in 2016/17 - amendment list' (13/11/18)]] - the initial list of amendments (not sure if any different)||*[https://www.cqc.org.uk/publications/major-report/monitoring-mental-health-act-report Web page containing link to PDF]||Yes|
|CQC, 'Monitoring the Mental Health Act in 2016/17' (amended version, 9/1/19)||Report||
Amended version of report
|Monitoring the Mental Health Act in 2016/17||Care Quality Commission||
"This document has been amended after our analysts found that we had displayed some data gathered by Mental Health Act reviewers on their visits in an inaccurate way." See CQC, 'Monitoring the Mental Health Act in 2016/17 - amendment list' (31/12/18) for details.
|2019-01-09||==See also== *[[CQC, 'Monitoring the Mental Health Act in 2016/17' (27/2/18)]] - the original report||Yes|
|CQC, 'Monitoring the Mental Health Act in 2017/18' (26/2/19)||Report||
Annual CQC report on MHA
|Monitoring the Mental Health Act in 2017/18||Care Quality Commission||
The two parts of this report contain the following headings. (1) Part 1: Key findings from our MHA activities: (1.1) National figures on the use of the Mental Health Act; (1.2) What are the key issues we have found in people's experience of the MHA? (1.21) How is information being provided to patients? (1.22) How are people being involved in care planning? (1.23) Are people accessing Independent Mental Health Advocacy? (1.24) How are services challenging restrictive practices? (1.25) Are physical health issues being identified on admission? (1.26) How is the Second Opinion Appointed Doctor service working for patients? (1.27) How are people being supported in discharge planning? (2) Part 2: CQC and the Mental Health Act: (2.1) Deaths in detention; (2.2) Complaints and contacts; (2.3) Absence without leave; (2.4) Children and young people admitted to adult mental health wards; (2.5) The First-Tier Tribunal (Mental Health).
|2019-02-26||*[https://www.cqc.org.uk/publications/major-report/monitoring-mental-health-act-report CQC web page]||Yes|
|CQC, 'Monitoring the Mental Health Act in 2018/19' (6/2/20)||Report||
Annual CQC report on MHA
|Monitoring the Mental Health Act in 2018/19||Care Quality Commission||
The Foreword to the report states that the CQC found: "(1) Services must apply human rights principles and frameworks. Their impact on people should be continuously reviewed to make sure people are protected and respected. (2) People must be supported to give their views and offer their expertise when decisions are being made about their care. (3) People who are in long-term segregation can experience more restrictions than necessary. They also may experience delays in receiving independent reviews. This is particularly true for people with a learning disability and autistic people. (4) People do not always get the care and treatment they need. Some services struggle to offer appropriate options, both in the community and in hospital. (5) It is difficult for patients, families, professionals and carers to navigate the complex laws around mental health and mental capacity."
|2020-02-06||*[https://www.cqc.org.uk/publications/major-report/monitoring-mental-health-act-201819&mhlo=s CQC, 'Monitoring the Mental Health Act in 2018/19' (web page, 6/2/20)]† **[https://www.cqc.org.uk/sites/default/files/20200206_mhareport1819_report.pdf&mhlo=s The report]† **[https://www.cqc.org.uk/sites/default/files/20200206_mhareport1819_summary.pdf&mhlo=s Summary]† **[https://www.cqc.org.uk/sites/default/files/20200206_mhareport1819_easyread.pdf&mhlo=s Easy read]† *[https://www.cqc.org.uk/news/releases/cqc-finds-more-focus-human-rights-needed-healthcare-services-when-using-mental-health&mhlo=s CQC, 'CQC finds more focus on human rights needed by healthcare services when using the Mental Health Act' (press release, 6/2/20)]†||Yes|
|CQC, 'Relationships and sexuality in adult social care services' (21/9/19)||Document||
Relationships and sexuality guidance
|Relationships and sexuality in adult social care services||Care Quality Commission||
Headings include: (6) Can a best interests assessment be made in relation to a person’s consent to sex? (12) What if someone lacks capacity to consent to sexual relations? (13) How is someone’s capacity to consent to sexual relations assessed?
|2019-02-21||*[https://www.cqc.org.uk/news/stories/new-guidance-addresses-relationships-sexuality-among-people-using-adult-social-care Web page] *[https://www.cqc.org.uk/sites/default/files/20190221-Relationships-and-sexuality-in-social-care-PUBLICATION.pdf PDF document]||Yes|
|CQC, 'Routine inspections suspended in response to coronavirus outbreak' (16/3/20)||Document • Coronavirus resource||
CQC letter to providers about coronavirus
|Routine inspections suspended in response to coronavirus outbreak||CQC||
The CQC has written to all registered health and social care providers stating that inspections will stop from 16/3/20 (except in a very small number of cases when there is concern about harm), asking to be notified within 24 hours of any suspected or known case or outbreak of COVID-19, and stating: "We encourage everyone to act in the best interests of the health of the people they serve, with the top priority the protection of life. We encourage you to use your discretion and act in the best way you see fit." (emphasis in original)
|2020-03-16||*[https://www.cqc.org.uk/news/releases/cqc-stop-routine-inspections-focus-supporting-providers-deliver-safe-care-during-cov-0&mhlo=s CQC, 'CQC to stop routine inspections to focus on supporting providers to deliver safe care during COVID-19 pandemic' (16/3/20)]†. This press release covers similar ground.||Yes|
|CQC, 'The state of health care and adult social care in England 2018/19' (14/10/19)||State of Care report||
State of Care report 2018/19
|The state of health care and adult social care in England 2018/19||Care Quality Commission||
This document contains chapters on mental health care and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. The headings in the summary chapter are: (1) The care given to people with a learning disability or autism is not acceptable; (2) Other types of care are under pressure; (3) More and better community care services are needed; (4) Care services and organisations must work more closely together; (5) More room and support need to be given for innovations in care.
|CQC, 'Thematic review of the use of restraint, prolonged seclusion and segregation for people with mental health problems, learning disabilities and/or autism: Terms of Reference' (26/11/18)||Document||
Restraint review's terms of reference
|Thematic review of the use of restraint, prolonged seclusion and segregation for people with mental health problems, learning disabilities and/or autism: Terms of Reference||Care Quality Commission||
This document details how the CQC will conduct the review.
|Care Quality Commission website||2018-11-26||Yes|
|CQC, 'Use of the Mental Health Act 1983 in general hospitals without a psychiatric unit' (April 2010)||CQC guidance||
Use of MHA in general hospitals
|Use of the Mental Health Act 1983 in general hospitals without a psychiatric unit||Care Quality Commission||
Apparently this guidance document has been "withdrawn".
|Crown Prosecution Service, 'Prosecution Guidance: Assaults on Emergency Workers (Offences) Act 2018' (13/11/18)||Web page||
|Prosecution Guidance: Assaults on Emergency Workers (Offences) Act 2018||Crown Prosecution Service||
Extract: "Headlines: (1) Police and prosecutors should cease charging the existing offences of common assault, battery, assaulting a police officer in the execution of their duty and other existing similar offences where the complainant is an emergency worker (in accordance with the definition in the Act). Prosecutors should charge under the provisions of the 2018 Act as at the commencement of the legislation where there is sufficient evidence for a realistic prospect of conviction and a prosecution is required in the public interest. (2) Police should charge the offence at section 1 of the 2018 Act (where a guilty plea is anticipated and the offence is suitable for sentence in a magistrates’ court) in preference to existing summary offences that apply to assaults against emergency workers."
|Crown Prosecution Service website||2018-11-13||Yes|
|Daniel Moseley and Gary Gala (eds), Philosophy and Psychiatry: Problems, Intersections and New Perspectives (Routledge 2015)||Book||
Academic psychiatry book
|Philosophy and Psychiatry: Problems, Intersections and New Perspectives||Moseley, Daniel • Gala, Gary||Moseley, Daniel • Gala, Gary||Routledge||2015||1||0415708168||==To do== Add full list of authors to database (available on [https://www.routledge.com/Philosophy-and-Psychiatry-Problems-Intersections-and-New-Perspectives/Moseley-Gala/p/book/9780415708166 Routledge website]).||No|
|David Hewitt, 'Illegitimate concern' (2013) 157(25) SJ 9||Journal article||
Nearest relative of adult
|Illegitimate concern||Hewitt, David||
This article argues that the unmarried father of an adult patient is a relative for the purposes of s26, whether or not he had parental responsibility. This seems wrong as the wording of s26 means that for its purposes an unmarried father is not a relative of an adult patient because it is not possible to have parental responsibility for an adult. It may be in future that the the courts are asked to adjudicate on whether or not the situation is compatible with the ECHR, in particular in relation to an unmarried father who used to have parental responsibility.
|Solicitors Journal||2013||==Article== This article was first published by Solicitors Journal on 25 June 2013, and is reproduced by kind permission. <div class="perm">'''When trying to identify the nearest relative of an illegitimate person, says David Hewitt, we shouldn't simply dismiss the father''' Where a person is, or is to be, detained under the Mental Health Act 1983 (MHA 1983), his or her 'nearest relative' can play a significant role - by vetoing detention, for example, or by discharging the patient or asking a tribunal to do so. The nearest relative must be selected according to statutory criteria, which are set out in section 26 of MHA 1983. But although they have existed for 30 years, those criteria can still seem obscure. That is particularly so when it comes to unmarried fathers. Section 26 ensures that a patient's mother or father will often be his or her nearest relative (sub-section (1)). It also states, however, that an illegitimate person is to be treated as the legitimate child of her mother, but only of his or her father if he has 'parental responsibility' (section 26(2)). There is often debate about the implications of this, especially in the case of an adult patient whose father did not have parental responsibility when she was a child. One suggestion is that in such a case, the father will never, in fact, be the nearest relative, even after the child has attained her majority; that he will never be able to remedy a defect that set in much earlier. I'm afraid I disagree. The requirements of section 26 are clear: when seeking to identify the nearest relative of an adult, it is necessary merely to ascertain whether that person has a 'father', and to construe that word in its broadest, biological sense. More specifically, I do not think it is necessary to establish whether any such biological father once had parental responsibility for the person concerned. This is to be inferred from a straightforward reading of sub-section (1), in which, ?after all, the word 'father' is used ?without qualification. ''''Legitimate'''' It is perfectly true that sub-section (2) appears to state that someone who is 'illegitimate' is the child merely of his or her mother, and not of his or her (biological) father. I do not, however, consider that relevant: section 26(1) does not state that only the 'legitimate' father of an adult child can be her nearest relative. In short, there is nothing in that sub-section to which the apparent qualification in sub-section (2) ?can apply. In any case, there is a general rule that relationships are to be ascertained without reference to whether or not a person's parents were married to one another. That rule is currently set out in section 1(1) of the Family Law Reform Act 1987. (See: Brenda Hale, 2010, Mental Health Law, fifth edition, page 83.) It is perfectly true that it applies "unless the contrary intention appears", but, for the reasons I have given, I do not consider the words of section 26(2) to be clear and unequivocal evidence of such an intention. '''Present tense''' The position with regard to children is different. Section 26(2) makes it plain that in the case of an illegitimate child, the father will only be the nearest relative if he has parental responsibility for him or her. For present purposes, however, that is irrelevant, for parental responsibility will not endure beyond a child's 18th birthday. In that regard, it is noteworthy that sub-section (2) requires of a father who would be the nearest relative that he 'has', not 'had', parental responsibility. This, again, suggests that what the sub-section says is only relevant in the case of a patient, or a potential patient, who is currently a minor; and that in the case of an adult, it is irrelevant that their father had (or did not have) parental responsibility for him or her. Despite its antiquity, the Mental Health Act still has many mysteries to reveal. The solution to the problem discussed here need not, however, be among them. On any careful interpretation, the position seems clear: as far as the role of nearest relative is concerned, the father ceases to be illegitimate once the child has come of age. ''David Hewitt is a judge of the First-tier Tribunal and visiting fellow at Northumbria University and Bournemouth University. He is the author of The Nearest Relative Handbook''</div> ==See also== *[[MHA 1983 s26]] ==Related book== *[[David Hewitt, The Nearest Relative Handbook (2nd edn, Jessica Kingsley 2009)]]||Yes|