The relevant pages (and summaries) are displayed at the bottom of this page.
Choose a table:
- Cases (246)
- Contact (245)
- Events (357)
- Jobs (61)
- Legislation (125)
- News (455)
- Resources (315)
- All pages (8703)
Use the filters below to narrow your results.
Showing below up to 13 results in range #1 to #13.
|Bernadette McSherry and Ian Freckelton (eds), Coercive Care: Rights, Law and Policy (Routledge 2013)||Book||
|Consultation in relation to section 268 appeals against conditions of excessive security||Consultation||
"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 proposals for a Mental Health (Scotland) Bill (2013)||Consultation||
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."
|Court Fees: Proposals for reform||Consultation||
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.'
|David Hewitt, 'Illegitimate concern' (2013) 157(25) SJ 9||Journal article||
Nearest relative of adult
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.
|Denzil Lush, Cretney and Lush on Lasting and Enduring Powers of Attorney (7th edn, Jordans 2013)||Book||
Powers of attorney book
|Jonathan Butler, Mental Health Tribunals: Law, Practice and Procedure (2nd edn, Jordans 2013)||Book||
|Jonathan Wilson, 'Safeguards against What? A critical analysis of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards' (LLM dissertation, 28/8/13)||Document||
Critical analysis of DOLS
This dissertation considers the meaning of ‘deprivation of liberty’ in the context of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) which were implemented in April 2009 to bridge the ‘Bournewood gap’. This was a gap in the law confirmed by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in October 2002, whereby people lacking capacity were accommodated in situations amounting to deprivation of liberty without sufficient legal safeguards. The dissertation will discuss a fundamental problem with the DoLS, namely that ‘deprivation of liberty’ is nowhere defined: it means what it means in Article 5(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), in other words, it means what the courts consider it to mean on a case-by-case basis.
|Medical examination of the patient - consultation||Consultation||
The Tribunal Procedure Committee propose to amend the rules as follows: (a) to make the medical examination discretionary (except in s2 cases, where there is to be no change); (b) to allow any member of the tribunal to view the medical records (rather than just the medical member); (c) to require either a medical examination or a finding that one is unnecessary or not practicable before a tribunal can proceed in the patient's absence.
|Phil Fennell, Penny Letts and Jonathan Wilson, Mental Health Tribunals: Law, Policy and Practice (Law Society, 2013)||Book||
|Review of NHS complaints system||Consultation||
Dept of Health, 'Review of NHS complaints system' (press release, 15/3/13). The review will be encouraged to make recommendations about: (a) any aspect of the NHS complaints arrangements and other means by which patients make concerns known; (b) the way that organisations receive and act on concerns and complaints; (c) how Boards and managers carry out their functions; (d) the process by which individual organisations are held to account for the way that they handle concerns and complaints. Contact details are provided for anyone wishing to submit evidence. Review begins 15/3/13 and is due to report by 30/7/13.
|Richard Murphy and Philip Wales, Mental Health Law in Nursing (Learning Matters, 2013)||Book||
|Transforming Legal Aid: Delivering a more credible and efficient system - consultation||Consultation||
This consultation sets out the Government's proposals for further reform of the legal aid system in England and Wales.
One proposal is a residence test. Under the proposed residence test, civil Legal Aid would only be available to those who are lawfully resident (in the UK, Crown Dependencies or British Overseas Territories) at the time the application for civil Legal Aid was made, and also had been so resident for a continuous period of at least 12 months at any point in the past. There will be some exceptions to the residence test. One exception is for 'detention cases', in specified areas including mental health (see para 125 of Annex B to the government response).