Special

Drilldown: Resources

See also: General information. 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.

Resources > Type : Article or Report or Tribunal_guidance

Use the filters below to narrow your results.

Publisher:
Date closed:

Showing below up to 22 results in range #1 to #22.

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

Resource Type Sentence Abstract Date
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

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.

2020-03-25
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

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).

2020-03-19
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

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".

2019-05-02
CQC, 'Monitoring the Mental Health Act in 2016/17' (amended version, 9/1/19) Report

Amended version of report

"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
CQC, 'Monitoring the Mental Health Act in 2017/18' (26/2/19) Report

Annual CQC report on MHA

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
CQC, 'Monitoring the Mental Health Act in 2018/19' (6/2/20) Report

Annual CQC report on MHA

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
Hill Dickinson LLP, 'Coronavirus Act - key facts' (26/3/20) Article Coronavirus resource

Summary of Coronavirus Act 2000

This detailed summary of the Coronavirus Act 2020 contains the following headings: (1) Emergency registration of health and social care professionals; (2) Suspension of duties to undertake assessments of need/discharge of patients from hospital; (3) Deaths and inquests; (4) Indemnity for health service activity; (5) Powers in relation to potentially infectious persons; (6) Children; (7) Offences; (8) Impact on NHS employers; (9) Emergency volunteering leave; (10) Statutory sick pay; (11) Changes to the Mental Health Act 1983: (a) Applications for detention under section 2 and section 3; (b) Holding powers; (c) Treatment - administration of medicine to persons liable to detention in hospital; (d) Detention in place of safety; (e) Patients concerned with the criminal justice system.

2020-03-26
Home Office, 'Preventing and tackling forced marriage: a consultation' (15/11/18) Report

The introduction of this document begins: "This consultation seeks views about whether it is necessary to introduce a new legal mandatory reporting duty relating to cases of forced marriage and, if it is, what such a reporting requirement would look like. It also seeks views on how the current guidance on forced marriage could be improved and strengthened." The Background chapter begins: "A forced marriage is a marriage where one or both of the spouses does not consent to the marriage and is coerced into it, or where one or both of the spouses lacks the capacity to consent. Coercion may involve violence, threats, or different types of pressure (e.g. psychological, financial, or emotional). Forced marriage is a criminal offence in England and Wales under section 121 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014. The offence applies regardless of whether the marriage ceremony is legally binding or not."

2018-11-15
Independent Review of the Mental Health Act 1983, 'Modernising the Mental Health Act: Increasing choice, reducing compulsion' (final report, 6/12/18) Report

The report states that "[a] purpose and a set of principles should be included in the Act itself" and makes recommendations under the following headings: (1) Principle 1 - Choice and autonomy: (a) Making decisions about care and treatment; (b) Family and carer involvement; (c) Advocacy; (d) Complaints; (e) Deaths in detention. (2) Principle 2 - Least Restriction: (a) Tackling the rising rates of detention; (b) Criteria for detention; (c) A statutory Care and Treatment Plan; (d) Length of detention; (e) Challenging detention; (f) Deprivation of liberty: MCA or MHA?; (g) Community Treatment Orders; (h) Coercion and restrictive practices within inpatient settings. (3) Principle 3 - Therapeutic Benefit: (a) Care planning/aftercare; (b) Hospital visitors; (c) Inpatient social environments; (d) Inpatient physical environments. (4) Principle 4 - The Person as an Individual: (a) Person centred care; (b) Recognition of patient individuality at the tribunal; (c) The experiences of people from ethnic minority communities; (d) Children and young people; (e) People with learning disabilities, autism or both; (f) Policing; (g) Patients in the criminal justice system; (h) Immigration Detention; (i) Victims. (5) System wide enablers: (a) Data; (b) Digital enablers; (c) Quality Improvement (QI); (d) Staffing; (e) Improving staff morale.

2018-12-06
Julian Hendy, 'Victims and the Mental Health Tribunal' (UK Administrative Justice Institute, 10/3/20) Article

Victims and tribunals

In this article Julian Hendy (founder of the Hundred Families charity) argues that the Mental Health Tribunal "could easily be more transparent and accountable to victims if only [it] had the will do to so". He argues for less secrecy and more transparency (making comparisons with the Court of Protection's transparency pilot and the Family Court's transparency review) and a greater role for victims in the tribunal's decision-making process (by analogy with the Parole Board's post-Warboys measures and its welcoming of victim personal statements).

2020-03-10
Lucy Series et al, 'Welfare cases in the Court of Protection: A statistical overview' (Cardiff University, 28/9/17) Report

Statistics

The report is based on findings from (1) a study based on data gathered from CoP welfare case files held by the court; and (2) a study using the Freedom of Information Act 2000 to gather data from local authorities and NHS bodies about their involvement in CoP welfare litigation.

2017-09-27
Ministry of Justice, 'Family Court Statistics Quarterly, England and Wales, April to June 2017' (28/9/17) Report

Statistics including COP and OPG

This quarterly statistical bulletin includes the following chapters: (10) Mental Capacity Act - Court of Protection; (11) Mental Capacity Act - Office of the Public Guardian. Extract from Gov.uk website: "This report presents the latest statistics on type and volume of cases that are received and processed through the family court system of England and Wales in the second quarter of 2017 (April to June). The material contained within this publication was formerly contained in Court Statistics Quarterly, a publication combining Civil, Family and Criminal court statistics."

2017-09-28
NCISH, 'Annual Report: England, NI, Scotland and Wales' (13/12/19) Report

Suicide and homicide report

"The 2019 annual report from the National Confidential Inquiry into Suicide and Safety in Mental Health (NCISH) provides findings relating to people who died by suicide in 2007-2017 across all UK countries. Additional findings are presented on the number of people convicted of homicide, and those under mental health care."

2019-12-13
Richard Jones, 'Response to MHA Review (1): Removing the distinction between s2 and s3' (8/12/18) Article

Article

This article discusses the fact that the MHA Review does not recommend merging s2 and s3.

2018-12-08
Richard Jones, 'Response to MHA Review (2): Managers' hearings' (10/12/18) Article

Article

This article considers the MHA Review's recommendations in relation to hospital managers' hearings.

2018-12-10
Richard Jones, 'Response to MHA Review (3): Jurisdiction of the First-tier Tribunal' (28/12/18) Article

Article

This article considers the MHA Review's recommendations in relation to the Mental Health Tribunal.

2018-12-28
Richard Jones, 'Response to MHA Review (4): Bureaucratic burdens' (14/1/19) Article

Article

This article argues that the MHA Review's recommendations would lead to an unnecessary increase in bureaucracy.

2019-01-14
Richard Jones, 'Response to MHA Review (5): MHA or MCA?' (29/1/19) Article

Article

This article argues against the MHA Review's recommendation that patients who lack capacity to consent to admission or treatment for mental disorder, but who are clearly not objecting, should only be detained under the MCA.

2019-01-29
Ross Tomison, 'Electronic Signatures and the Mental Health Act' (Thalamos, 20/11/19) Article

Electronic signatures

The conclusion of this article is: "The Mental Health Act doesn’t require a signature to be handwritten. Provided all other formalities have been met under the act for the form which is being completed, then an electronic signature is legally valid."

2019-11-20
Simon Burrows, 'Amendments to the Mental Health Act 1983 proposed in the Coronavirus Bill 2020 as originally submitted to Parliament' (Law in the Time of Corona Blog, 23/3/20) Article

Description of MHA changes in Coronavirus Bill

This article contains information under the following headings: (1) Introduction; (2) The Coronavirus Bill - its purpose; (3) The process of detention: sections 2, 3, 4 and 5 MHA; (4) Patients involved in the criminal justice process; (5) Administration of medication without consent; (6) Police powers: places of safety; (7) Transitional Provisions; (8) Deprivation of liberty under the Mental Capacity Act?; (9) Concluding remarks.

2020-03-23
Simon Lindsay, 'Digital mental health: Use of electronic forms and signatures' (Bevan Brittan, 31/3/20) Article

Electronic signatures

This article provides equivocal advice about the use of electronic signatures.

2020-03-31
TPC, 'Responses to the consultation on possible changes to the Tribunal Procedure (FTT) (HESC) Rules 2008 regarding pre-hearing examinations and decisions without a hearing in the case of references by the hospital or Department of Health' (23/10/18) Report

One interesting response, of many, is this from an MHT judge: "If cases are decided on papers alone, I can see little point in having those cases referred to the Tribunal. I have done a number of paper hearings and they are unsatisfactory." The TPC noted the following points and in consequence rejected the proposed rule changes: (1) The PHE provides for greater participation in the process by the patient. (2) The PHE reduces stress and anxiety at the hearing for the patient who will not need to be asked distressing questions. (3) The PHE allows the patient to talk about their situation privately to a person not involved in their detention. (4) The PHE allows for information missing from reports to be picked up. (5) The PHE is a lesser cost to the public purse than independent psychiatric reports. (6) The High Court has confirmed that there is no reason why the MM cannot carry out a PHE, provided the findings are disclosed at the outset of the hearing as they are currently. (7) Having a second medical opinion to assist the panel reduces the possibility of the wrong decision being made, thus reducing the risk to both the patient and the general public. (8) The system in England is not comparable to the Scottish system which operates in a fundamentally different way. (9) In Wales PHEs are carried out in every case and there are no current plans to alter that. (10) The outcome of MHTs cannot be measured by the numbers discharged but by whether the patient and their representative are satisfied that the case has been properly scrutinised with all relevant evidence before it. (11) Those who have their cases referred to the MHT are the most vulnerable members of society, often lacking the mental capacity to make an application to the MHT. (12) Disposals without a hearing would mean that the MHT panel would have evidence from only one party. (13) The MHT panel would not have adequate information to decide whether an oral hearing is appropriate. (14) There are a significant number of examples of MHTs reaching a decision on referred cases based on evidence that came out at the hearing and not contained in the reports.

2018-10-23

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