Special

Drilldown: Resources

Resources > Author : Hinchliffe, Mark or Sentencing_Council

Showing below up to 3 results in range #1 to #3.

View (previous 250 | next 250) (20 | 50 | 100 | 250 | 500)

Resource Abstract
Mental Health Tribunal, 'Guidance for the observation of tribunal hearings' (5/11/09) This guidance has been superseded by Mental Health Tribunal, 'Guidance for the observation of tribunal hearings in the First-tier Tribunal Health Education and Social Care Chamber (mental health jurisdiction)' (10/1/19). It deals with the various categories of observers and the terms on which they may be permitted to attend tribunal hearings.
Phillip Sycamore, Mark Hinchliffe and Joan Rutherford, 'Representations to the Tribunals Procedure Committee from the Chamber President, Deputy Chamber President and Chief Medical Member (HESC)' (undated, probably late 2017) This document, together with Tribunal Procedure Committee, 'Extracts from the Minutes of the Tribunal Procedure Committee' (4/10/17 to 7/3/18), were obtained under the Freedom of Information Act by the charity Rethink Mental Illness. They relate to the proposal to abolish pre-hearing examinations and have paper reviews in certain cases. They provide information on the rationale behind the proposals which was omitted from the final version of the consultation document - mainly saving money and promoting flexibility in panel composition (judge-only hearings, including for all s2 cases, and judge-only paper reviews, including for many reference cases).
Upper Tribunal case summary document (January 2016) This is a document issued to tribunal judges as guidance. The summary of PJ v A Local Health Board [2015] UKUT 480 (AAC), [2015] MHLO 63 (in relation to the tribunal's role when faced with an ECHR breach) effectively rephrases as correct the position found to be unlawful by the Upper Tribunal (whose decision has since been overturned on appeal). The summary of WH v Partnerships in Care [2015] UKUT 695 (AAC), [2015] MHLO 132 (in relation to the appropriate medical treatment test applying to the detaining hospital only) appears to contradict the ratio of the Upper Tribunal decision. See the case law pages for further details.

View (previous 250 | next 250) (20 | 50 | 100 | 250 | 500)