Updates

(Redirected from Update)

If you have anything which is not yet on the internet (e.g. court results or transcripts) then please send it in (see Help page). As well as reading the website, you can keep up to date by subscribing to the CPD scheme, email updates, email discussion list, and the various other options listed at the top of each page.

Recent updates on website

For details of any news item, click on the relevant link below.

  • 21/07/17 (2): Welsh Tribunal forms. New forms and guidance documents were created, and translated into Welsh, in April and May 2017 — MHRTW-01: Application to the tribunal; MHRTW-02: Nearest Relative Application; MHRTW-03: Attendance Form; MHRTW-04: Expenses claim - witness; MHRTW-05: Permission for Appeal Application Form; MHRTW-06: Guidance - Applying to the Tribunal; MHRTW-07: Guidance - Referrals; MHRTW-08: Guidance - The Tribunal Hearing; MHRTW-09: Guidance - Nearest Relative Information; MHRTW-10: Guidance - Provision of Reports to the Tribunal; MHRTW-11: Guidance - Report Layout and Content; MHRTW-12: Guidance - Expenses claim - Witness; MHRTW-13: Guidance - The Tribunal’s Powers; MHRTW-14: Guidance - Permission for Appeal; MHRTW-15: Publications Register; MHRTW-16: List of words; MHRTW-17: Eligibility Criteria; MHRTW-18: Request to Withdraw application; MHRTW-18A: Guidance - Request to Withdraw application. See Tribunal forms
  • 21/07/17 (1): RadcliffesLeBrasseur: Annual Mental Health Conference - London, 5/10/17 — Speakers: Simon Burrows (Mental health case law and DoLS update), Mat Kinton (The key issues that keep attracting the attention of CQC at MHA inspections), Andrew Parsons (CQC regulatory powers), Simon Cheverst (Consent and the psychiatric patient: treatment, covert medication and the law) and Paul Spencer (What is likely to trouble a coroner at an inquest into the death of a psychiatric patient?). Time: 9.15am - 3.30pm. Price: £96 inc VAT. See RadcliffesLeBrasseur website for further details and booking information.
  • 11/07/17 (1): Immigration case. BA v SSHD (2017) UKAITUR IA343212013, [2017] MHLO 26 — "The Appellant is a citizen of Nigeria born on 26th February 1980. His appeal against a refusal to vary leave was allowed by First-tier Tribunal Judge Abebrese on Article 8 grounds on 23 rd May 2016. ... The Appellant sought permission to appeal against the Article 3 findings only ... On the basis of the factual findings, the opinion in the Amnesty International Report and the opinion of Dr Bell, the Appellant is likely to suffer a breakdown at some point on return to Nigeria whether that be at the airport or some time later. He is likely to come to the attention of the police if he has such a breakdown and he would not be able to access the psychiatric hospital in Lagos because he is unable to afford treatment there. Accordingly, it is likely that he would be held in prison where the conditions for this particular Appellant with his particular condition would result in treatment in breach of Article 3. ... The Applicant would not be at risk of Article 3 treatment because of a heightened risk of suicide. He would, however, be at risk of inhuman and degrading treatment in breach of Article 3 because of the conditions of return. ... The medical evidence indicates that the Appellant is vulnerable to relapse even in the UK and without the threat of removal. His removal to Nigeria is likely to trigger a relapse and his behaviour will draw hostile attention. His treatment by the authorities in detaining him under the Lunacy Act 1958 would amount to inhuman and degrading treatment. There is a reasonable degree of likelihood that he would be detained in a prison, there would be no treatment for his mental health, his situation would deteriorate, the length of detention is indeterminate, there is no right of appeal and there is no requirement for him to consent to treatment. Accordingly, I allow the Appellant's appeal on Article 3 grounds."
  • 08/07/17 (1): Sentence appeal case. R v Kitchener [2017] EWCA Crim 937, [2017] MHLO 25 — "On 22 November 2002 at the Crown Court at Cardiff before the Recorder of Cardiff His Honour Judge Griffith-Williams QC the applicant, then aged 20, pleaded guilty to attempted murder contrary to s.1(1) of the Criminal Attempts Act 1981. On 2 December 2002, he was sentenced by the same judge to custody for life with a minimum term of 4 years and 8 months less 4 months on remand in custody. His applications for an extension of time of about 14 years, for leave to appeal against sentence and to call fresh psychiatric evidence have been referred to the full Court by the single judge. The basis for the application for leave to appeal against sentence is that the applicant contends that he should have been sentenced to a hospital order and a restriction order under sections 37 and 41 of the Mental Health Act 1983 rather than to custody for life. The basis for the application for an extension of time is that the psychiatric report of Dr Sobia Khan dated 26 October 2015 was not available at the time of sentence. That report is said to satisfy the conditions for the admission of fresh evidence under section 23 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968. The admission of the report is said to be both necessary and expedient in the interests of justice."
  • 04/07/17 (1): Debra Whittle, 'Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Request -112074' (letter to Lucy Series, 19/6/17). This FOI response includes the following information. Time from receipt to disposal: section 2 (0 weeks 24.5%, 1 week 53.0%, 2 weeks 18.2%, 4 or more weeks 1.9%); restricted (0-3 weeks 8.0%, 4-9 weeks 15.4%, 10-15 weeks 59.6%, 16-18 weeks 5.1%, 19 or more 11.9%); non-restricted (0-3 weeks 22.1%, 4-7 weeks 47.9%, 8-9 weeks 17.5%, 10-12 weeks 6.5%, 13 or more weeks 6.1%). Total number of cases: section 2 (10,617); restricted (3,449); unrestricted (21,065). Median age of case: section 2 (1 week); restricted (10-15 weeks); non-restricted (4-7 weeks). See Mental Health Tribunal#Listing of hearings
  • 03/07/17 (5): MHLA: Advocacy, Risk and Cross-examination - Leicester, 16/10/17 — This one-day course is designed to enhance advocacy and case preparation skills. The focus is on preparing for advocacy, with advice on ?cross-examination of the medical witnesses and taking evidence-in-chief from the client, along with formulation and delivery of effective submissions. Price: £150 (MHLA members); £195 (non-members). See MHLA website for further details and booking information
  • 03/07/17 (4): MHLA: Re-accreditation course - London, 4/10/17 — This course will be suitable for those seeking re-accreditation (by reviewing the legal and procedural developments of the last three years; providing a forum for discussing these along with the re-accreditation process; fulfilling the requirement to obtain six mental health CPD points for re-accreditation). It will also be of interest to anyone wishing to further their knowledge of mental health law and practice. Price: £150 (MHLA members); £195 (non-members). See MHLA website for further details and booking information
  • 03/07/17 (3): MHLA: Re-accreditation course - Manchester, 27/9/17 — This course will be suitable for those seeking re-accreditation (by reviewing the legal and procedural developments of the last three years; providing a forum for discussing these along with the re-accreditation process; fulfilling the requirement to obtain six mental health CPD points for re-accreditation). It will also be of interest to anyone wishing to further their knowledge of mental health law and practice. Price: £150 (MHLA members); £195 (non-members). See MHLA website for further details and booking information
  • 03/07/17 (2): MHLA: Foundation course - London, 30/8/17 — This course is aimed at new practitioners and those intending to attend the panel course in the near future. Attendance at the foundation course is strongly recommended in order to achieve a sound understanding of the basic principles of mental health law, practice and procedure and in order to achieve the most from the two-day panel course, which is a pre-requisite for application to the Law Society’s mental health panel. Price: £150 (MHLA members); £195 (non-members). See MHLA website for further details and booking information
  • 03/07/17 (1): MHLA: Foundation course - Manchester, 23/8/17 — This course is aimed at new practitioners and those intending to attend the panel course in the near future. Attendance at the foundation course is strongly recommended in order to achieve a sound understanding of the basic principles of mental health law, practice and procedure and in order to achieve the most from the two-day panel course, which is a pre-requisite for application to the Law Society’s mental health panel. Price: £150 (MHLA members); £195 (non-members). See MHLA website for further details and booking information
  • 02/07/17 (2): Upper Tribunal case. Djaba v West London Mental Health NHS Trust [2017] EWCA Civ 436, [2017] MHLO 23 — "[T]he appeal is concerned with the narrow issue whether the statutory tests within ss. 72, 73 and 145 of the Mental Health Act 1983 require a 'proportionality assessment' to be conducted, pursuant to articles 5 and/or 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and the Human Rights Act 1998, taking into account the conditions of the appellant's detention. ... The position established by these cases is that, where the question whether the detention complies with the European Convention on Human Rights is not expressly within the powers of the tribunals but can be heard in other proceedings, section 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998 does not require the powers of the tribunals to be interpreted by reference to the Convention to give them the powers to consider Convention-compliance as well. The same principle applies here too. In this case, the appellant must apply for judicial review to the Administrative Court if he considers that the conditions of his detention are disproportionate and do not comply with the Convention. That Court is able to carry out a sufficient review on the merits to meet the requirements of the Convention."
  • 24/06/17 (1): Queen's Speech 2017. (1) Queen's Speech 2017 (21/6/17); (2) Cabinet Office, 'Queen's Speech 2017: background briefing notes' (21/6/17). See Mental Health Treatment Bill
  • 19/06/17 (2): Delayed discharges (request for case studies). Mind are looking into potential legal reform in relation to delayed discharges from hospital, and request that people send case studies of patients who have remained in hospital for a number of months owing to delays in arranging aftercare packages (e.g. s117 packages, social care or community psychiatric provision). Please forward any case studies to m.henson-webb@mind.org.uk by the end of June 2017. See Mind (Charity)
  • 19/06/17 (1): Legal Aid Agency, 'Tribunal appointed representatives in mental health (rule 11(7) cases)' (8/6/17). This is guidance which has been provided to LAA auditors. In its summary section it states that: (1) No work on a client's case should be started before an application for legal aid has been made and properly signed. (2) The provider should in general always seek to visit the client to see if he has capacity and is willing to apply for legal aid himself (subject to bullets 6 and 7 below). (3) If the client lacks capacity then any person can make the application for legal aid on his behalf. That individual does not otherwise have to be involved in the case. (4) If the client lacks capacity or is unwilling/unable to sign the application form (and it is not appropriate for a third party to apply on his behalf) the provider can sign the application form in accordance with paragraph 9.40 of the contract specification. (5) In all Rule 11(7) cases, we expect to see the authority from the tribunal appointing the firm/individual on the file (usually an email). (6) If it is clear from the outset of the case that client lacks capacity or will be unwilling to sign the application form then the provider does not necessarily need to visit the client to see if he is unable/willing to apply. (7) In these circumstances, the provider should justify on file why he has not made any such attempts (e.g. the client clearly lacks capacity and/or has informed staff that he does not wish to see a solicitor). See Legal Aid#Guidance documents
  • 15/06/17 (5): HMCTS, 'Guidance for the conduct of cases before the restricted patient panel' (updated 29/3/16). This document sets out the responsibilities of the MoJ and MHT in the Tribunal procedure. For instance, the protocol provides that no MoJ comments are required in the following circumstances: (1) for initial reports, the MoJ have had the reports for 21 days; (2) for subsequent reports, including addendum and independent reports, the MoJ have received the reports at all.. See Ministry of Justice#MOJ/MHT Protocol

Update archive