A summary of the coronavirus resources can be found here: Coronavirus resources.
The relevant pages (and summaries) are displayed at the bottom of this page.
Choose a table:
- Cases (212)
- Contact (239)
- Events (354)
- Jobs (59)
- Legislation (78)
- News (356)
- Resources (259)
- All pages (8523)
Use the filters below to narrow your results.
Showing below up to 5 results in range #1 to #5.
|Law Society, 'Coronavirus (COVID-19) advice and updates' (19/3/20)||Web page • Coronavirus resource||Law Society coronavirus guidance||This guidance contains information under the headings: (1) Advice for employers; (2) Advice for firm owners, managing partners or senior leaders; (3) Advice for members visiting police stations, prisons or courts; (4) Advice for international firms; (5) Advice for conveyancers; (6) Advice for litigators; (7) Advice for legal aid firms.||2020-03-19|
|Law Society, 'Mental Health Accreditation: Application and re-accreditation application forms guidance notes and policies' (dated 5/12/18)||Web page||This document contains updated guidance on the professional development requirements for panel membership. Dated: December 2018. Metadata: created 5/12/18. Downloaded 7/12/18. Filename: mental-health-accreditation-guidance-december-2018.pdf||2018-12-05|
|Law Society, 'Parliamentary briefing: Mental Capacity (Amendment) Bill: House of Commons second reading' (18/12/18)||Document||Parliamentary briefing on Mental Capacity (Amendment) Bill||Extract from Law Society website: "The Law Society is concerned by provisions in the Mental Capacity (Amendment) Bill. While attempting to simplify the current arrangements under the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), the Bill removes vital existing safeguards for cared-for people. The Bill should be amended to avoid the unlawful treatment of the vulnerable individuals who receive care and treatment under conditions of detention. Many changes have been made but there is still some way to go. There is a real risk that many of the flaws in the existing system will be duplicated and that the new system will replace one deficient system with another than removes existing safeguards for people. This briefing sets out our key positions on the Bill."||2018-12-18|
|Mental Health Tribunal, 'Message to the Royal College of Psychiatrists' (Sarah Johnston and Joan Rutherford, 26/3/20)||Tribunal guidance • Coronavirus resource||Guidance to psychiatrists about remote hearings||(1) This guidance to psychiatrists includes the following: all evidence will be taken before a tribunal judge alone, using BT MeetMe (phone or video); the doctor giving evidence will released after giving evidence except in all but exceptional cases; the patient will not be given the decision orally. (2) To help the tribunal, clinical teams should: (a) submit s2 reports the day before the hearing (to avoid delays); (b) advise the tribunal judge if the patient will be unable to stay in the room or should give evidence first; (c) tell the tribunal judge whether the patient can remain as a voluntary patient (which is no longer possible in many areas); (d) emphasise any limitations of the evidence (for instance if the patient has recently been moved between "clean" and "dirty" coronavirus wards); (e) focus on the statutory criteria; (f) suggest delayed discharge for follow-up to be arranged; (g) give evidence from a private area. (3) The tribunal are encouraging wing members to return to clinical work, and are looking at formats for shorter reports.||2020-03-26|
|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)||Document||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).||2017|