From Mental Health Law Online
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).
Keeping up to date
- Kindle e-reader Receive monthly updates delivered automatically to your
Recent updates on website
* To help clear a backlog of updates, some news items will be added to the Updates page without being added anywhere else on the website (for now), and will be marked with asterisks.
- 09/12/13 (4): Richard Charlton, 'Non-means tested legal aid restored for patients detained under Mental Capacity Act 2005' (Family Law Week, 8/2/13). See UF v A Local Authority (2013) MHLO 105
- 09/12/13 (3): UF v A Local Authority: Agreed Note of Judgment (8/2/13). See UF v A Local Authority (2013) MHLO 105
- 09/12/13 (2): Legal Aid case. UF v A Local Authority (2013) MHLO 105 — Under Civil Legal Aid (Financial Resources and Payment for Services) Regulations 2013/480, Legal Aid for MCA 2005 s21A appeals is non-means-tested for as long as the relevant DOLS standard authorisation is in force. In this case the Ministry of Justice confirmed that they would provide Legal Aid if the court extends the standard authorisation for the duration of the case.
- 09/12/13 (1): Legal Aid legislation. Civil Legal Aid (Financial Resources and Payment for Services) Regulations 2013/480 — Financial eligibility for Legal Aid. In force 1/4/13.
- 08/12/13 (1): Deputy case. Neutral citation available: Re GM: MJ and JM v The Public Guardian (2013) EWHC 2966 (COP), (2013) MHLO 44
- 07/12/13 (2): Caesarian case. Neutral citation available: Re AA (2012) EWHC 4378 (COP), (2012) MHLO 182
- 07/12/13 (1): Best interests case. ACCG v MN (2013) EWHC 3859 (COP), (2013) MHLO 105 — The Court of Protection may, exceptionally, in determining whether a local authority has breached convention rights, consider best interests beyond the available options. " I find therefore that: (i) As restated by Baroness Hale in Aintree 'the court has no greater powers than the patient would have if he were of full capacity'. (ii) Judicial review remains the proper vehicle through which to challenge unreasonable or irrational decisions made by 'care providers' and other public authorities. (iii) There may be rare cases where it appears to those representing a party that a public authority, in failing to agree to provide funding for or a particular form of care package, is acting in a way which is incompatible with Convention rights. In those circumstances, notwithstanding the fact that such an option is not available and before the court, the court may exceptionally, pursuant to a formal application made under s7(1)(b) HRA, conduct an assessment of the person's best interests beyond the scope of the available options, in order to determine whether the public authority has acted in a way which is disproportionate and incompatible with a convention right. (iv) Protection of the Article 8 rights of the parties are otherwise protected by a consideration of them by the court as part of all the relevant circumstances when carrying out a section 4 MCA 2005 best interests assessment.  In all the circumstances I accept the submission of ACCG that, contact at the family home is not an available option now or in the foreseeable future and that the court should not now embark upon a best interests analysis of contact at the parents' house as a hypothetical possibility. Looking at the care plan and taking into account all matters set out in s4 MCA2005 I am satisfied that the contact programme put forward by ACCG and approved by the Official Solicitor is in his best interests" [Summary required.]
- 04/12/13 (5): Further blogs about caesarian case. (1) Neil Munro, 'A post that is not about forced caesarean sections' (Mental Health and Mental Capacity Law Blog, 3/12/13); (2) Neil Munro, 'A post which is about caesarean without consent' (Mental Health and Mental Capacity Law, 4/12/13). See Re AA (2012) EWHC 4378 (COP), (2012) MHLO 182
- 04/12/13 (4): 39 Essex Street, 'Update on oral evidence given to House of Lords Select Committee on the Mental Capacity Act 2005 October-November 2013' (December 2013). See 39 Essex Street Mental Capacity Law Newsletter#December 2013
- 04/12/13 (3): 39 Essex Street, 'Mental Capacity Law Newsletter' (issue 40, December 2013). The cases mentioned in this issue are: Re M (Best Interests: Deprivation of Liberty) (2013) EWHC 3456 (COP), (2013) MHLO 97 — A Local Authority v SY (2013) EWHC 3485 (COP), (2013) MHLO 96 — YLA v PM and MZ  EWHC 3622 (Fam) — Re P (A Child) (2013) EW Misc 20 (CC), (2013) MHLO 103 — Re AA (2012) EWHC 4378 (COP), (2012) MHLO 182 — R v Farooqi  EWCA Crim 1649 — Cuthbertson v Rasouli  SCC 53 — LGO/PHSO Ombudsman decision Kirklees MBC 11 004 229. There is also information under the following headings: (a) Lay deputies facing custodial sentence after conviction for theft from compensation fund; (b) Transparency in the Court of Protection; (c) New COP3 published; (d) Costs in s.21A applications round 2; (e) Department of Health response to post-legislative scrutiny of MHA 2007; (f) AM - a BIA/AMHP responds; (g) New Mental Health Tribunal Practice Direction directs specific consideration of whether MCA would be less restrictive; (h) Dementia-friendly financial services charter; (i) Intervention Order integral to successful settlement of Scottish criminal injuries compensation claim after 24 years; (j) Mental Welfare Commission for Scotland recruiting new Chief Executive; (k) Mini call for evidence. See 39 Essex Street Mental Capacity Law Newsletter#December 2013
- 04/12/13 (2): Caesarian case. Judicial Office statement on application for reporting restrictions (Judiciary website, 4/12/13). See Re P (A Child) (2013) EW Misc 20 (CC), (2013) MHLO 103
- 04/12/13 (1): Caesarian case (COP judgment). Re AA (2012) EWHC 4378 (COP), (2012) MHLO 182 — Judgment of Mostyn J in 'Italian forced caesarian' case. [Summary required.]
- 03/12/13 (4): 'Italian forced caesarian' case. Various articles and commentary: (1) Lucy Series, 'More questions than answers - on the "forced caesarean" case', (The Small Places Blog, 3/12/13); (2) Lucy Reed, 'Never let the facts get in the way of a good story eh?' (Pink Tape Blog, 1/12/13); (3) Essex County Council, 'Essex County Council responds to interest in story headlined "Essex removes baby from mother"' (2/12/13); (4) Tweets from Judicial office (@JudiciaryUK): 'Proceedings not yet concluded; President of Family Division has ordered the matter be transferred to High Court. President of Family Division has order any further applications in respect of the child are to be heard by him.' (2/12/13); (5) Christopher Booker, '"Operate on this mother so that we can take her baby"' (Telegraph, 30/11/13); (6) Colin Freeman, 'Child taken from womb by social services' (Telegraph, 30/11/13); (7) John Bingham and Alice Philipson, 'Caesarean case mother denied chance to keep baby in hospital' (Telegraph, 2/12/13). See Re P (A Child) (2013) EW Misc 20 (CC), (2013) MHLO 103
- 03/12/13 (3): Caesarian case (care proceedings). Re P (A Child) (2013) EW Misc 20 (CC), (2013) MHLO 103 — Care proceedings judgment in 'Italian forced caesarian' case. [Summary required.]
- 03/12/13 (2): Sentencing Remarks of HHJ Brian Barker QC, 4/3/13. See R v Edgington (2013) EWCA Crim 2185, (2013) MHLO 102
- 03/12/13 (1): Criminal case. R v Edgington (2013) EWCA Crim 2185, (2013) MHLO 102 — The appellant had been sentenced to life imprisonment for murder and attempted murder, with a minimum term of 37 years. (1) Appeal against conviction dismissed, as the judge was not wrong to prevent counsel from re-examining the defence expert on whether she would 'as a matter of practice ... ever be released' from a hospital order. (2) Appeal against sentence dismissed as it was not manifestly excessive.