Updates

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.

  • 17/07/19
    (1523)
    : New policy for contacting nearest relative — On 14/6/19 the tribunal secretariat wrote to tribunal users as follows: "Following the feedback from some of our users. From Monday the 17 June the Tribunal will use the information provided on the Statement of Information about a patient objecting to their nearest relative being contacted in precedence to that provided on the application form. It is therefore vital that questions 14 and 15 on the form are fully completed. If we do receive forms which are unclear or the questions haven’t been answered then these will be returned to the mental health authority." See Form T132: In-patient: Statement of information about the patient.
  • 17/07/19
    (1028)
    : Case (Reinstatement). JS v SLAM NHS Foundation Trust [2019] UKUT 172 (AAC) — (1) Reinstatement: "As there is no right to reinstatement, the tribunal has a discretion whether or not to reinstate the party’s ‘case’. It must, like all discretions, be exercised judicially and that involves complying with the overriding objective of the tribunal’s rules of procedure, which is ‘to enable the Tribunal to deal with cases fairly and justly’ (rule 2(1)). ... Considered methodically, the factors that the tribunal should take into account neatly divide into three. First, the tribunal should consider whether there is anything to undermine either the patient’s application to withdraw or the tribunal’s consent. Just to give some examples, the application may have been based on a misunderstanding of the facts or the law. Or there may be an issue whether the patient had capacity or gave informed consent. Or the tribunal’s reasons for consenting may have been defective. Second, there may have been a change of circumstances that makes it appropriate to agree to reinstatement. Third, the tribunal will have to consider any other factors that may be relevant under the overriding objective. These will include: (a) the reasons given in support of the application, whatever they may be; (b) any prejudice to the patient in refusing consent; (c) any detriment to the other parties if consent is given; (d) any prejudice to other patients if consent is given; and (d) any impact that reinstatement might have on the operation of the tribunal’s mental health jurisdiction system as a whole." (2) Respondent status: "[T]he Trust was properly named as a respondent on the appeal to the Upper Tribunal ... The Trust was the responsible authority and, as such, a party to the proceedings in the First-tier Tribunal ... On appeal by the patient to the Upper Tribunal, everyone else who was a party before the First-tier Tribunal became a respondent ... That is standard procedure in appeal generally. The Trust’s letter shows a confusion between an appeal and a judicial review. In the latter, the tribunal is the respondent, and others may be interested parties."
  • 17/07/19
    (1010)
    : Case (Immigration detention). R (ASK) v SSHD [2019] EWCA Civ 1239 — "These appeals raise important issues concerning the powers of the Respondent Secretary of State to detain those who suffer from mental health conditions pending removal from the United Kingdom. In each case, the Appellant is a foreign national who satisfied the statutory criteria for detention pending removal, but who suffered from mental illness such that it is said that, for at least some of the period he was detained, he was not only unfit to be removed and/or detained in an immigration removal centre ("IRC"), but did not have mental capacity to challenge his detention and/or engage with the procedures to which he was subject as a detainee. As a result, it is submitted that, in detaining each Appellant, the Secretary of State acted unlawfully in one or more of the following ways. ..."
  • 08/07/19
    (2225)
    : Case (Death - wishes and feelings). Royal Bournemouth and Christchurch Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust v TG [2019] EWCOP 21 — "I am being asked to take today an irreversible decision that will lead inevitably to death sooner rather than later and probably within minutes or seconds of the tube being removed. I am being asked to do so in the face of what I find are the wishes and feelings of TG. ... I have come to the clear decision that it is in the patient's best interests that intubation should continue. I recognise that this places a huge burden on the treating team. It is against their advice and their wishes and of course also those of Dr Newman but I remind myself constantly, this is her life and her wishes as I have found them to be and nobody else's. It may be that if the position were to remain the same in six months' time or no successful tracheostomy had been carried out that different considerations might apply but I am not looking at the future, I am looking at things as they are now and for those reasons I reach my decision and refuse the application."
  • 08/07/19
    (2206)
    : Case (Jehovah's Witness - blood transfusion). Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust v DE [2019] EWCOP 19 — "The only issue during the hearing was the degree to which DE's wishes and feelings would be overborne by a decision to allow a blood transfusion, in the light of her being a Jehovah's Witness; and therefore whether there was a disproportionate interference in DE's article 8 rights. However, the evidence even at the oral hearing was that although DE described herself as a Jehovah's Witness she was not someone for whom those beliefs were central to her personality or sense of identity. During the oral hearing I did not get any sense that she would feel deeply upset if an order was made in the form sought, or that she would feel a deep conflict with her religious beliefs. As such she was someone who was in a quite different decision from B in Jackson J's decision, where his religious beliefs were fundamental to B's sense of who he was. The other stark contrast with that case is that DE had been completely clear that she did not want to die. She is also significantly younger than was B."
  • 06/07/19
    (2225)
    : Case (Litigation friend). LJ v Mercouris [2019] EWHC 1746 (QB) — "The essential questions are: (1) Does Mr [J] lack capacity within the meaning of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. (2) Is the court satisfied that Mrs [J] satisfies the conditions in Rule 21.4 (3). This requirement is incorporated by Rule 21.6 (5). The main function of a litigation friend appears to be to carry on the litigation on behalf of the Claimant and in his best interests. However, part of the reasoning for imposing a requirement for a litigation friend appears also to be for the benefit of the other parties. This is not just so that there is a person answerable to the opposing party for costs."
  • 04/07/19
    (2242)
    : Case (Summary of MH sentencing guidance - life sentence replaced with s37/41). R v Fisher [2019] EWCA Crim 1066Having summarised the Sentencing Council's Definitive Guideline for Manslaughter (in force 1/11/18) and the relevant available disposals under the MHA, the Court of Appeal revoked sentences of imprisonment and replaced the life sentence with a s37/41 restricted hospital order.
  • 24/06/19
    (1305)
    : Event. Bristol University: AMHPs and nearest relatives - Bristol, 8/7/19 —This seminar will explore the experiences of Approved Mental Health Professionals of working with Nearest Relatives under the Mental Health Act. The event will include presentations by legal, social work and psychology researchers from the Universities of Bath, Bristol, and UWE. Presentations will focus on: the findings of an empirical project with AMHPs and Nearest Relatives in the South West of England; current challenges and practice dilemmas; and recent proposals for reform set out in the Independent Review of the Mental Health Act, as well as potential areas for further research. The event is organised jointly by: the Centre for Health, Law and Society at the University of Bristol; UWE; and the University of Bath. Price: free. Times: 1300-1600. See Eventbrite website for further details and booking information.
  • 17/06/19
    (1253)
    : Case (MHT/Parole Board delay). LV v UK 50718/16 [2019] MHLO 32 (ECHR)LV, a s47/49 patient, had argued that there had been a delay, in breach of Article 5(4), in securing her release, in particular because of the two-stage process involving both the Mental Health Tribunal and Parole Board. She accepted the government's offer of £2,500 in settlement of her claim.
  • 15/06/19
    (2248)
    : Case (Costs in s21A case). BP v London Borough of Harrow [2019] EWCOP 20 — "The relevant circumstances of the adjournment of the January hearing are that the Respondent, the London Borough of Harrow, offered at the hearing a trial of BP returning home. ... For the Applicant, it is submitted that this is a case where it is appropriate to depart from the usual costs rule and to order the costs of the January hearing be paid by the Respondent because of the Respondent's consistent failure to offer a trial period at home before the start of and for the duration of the proceedings, and its decision to do so only after the January hearing had commenced. ... Overall, I can see the basis on which the Applicant considers an application for costs to be justified. However, this was a finely balanced case on the Applicant's own submissions in position statements, in particular that of 15 June 2018. I bear in mind the authorities on which the parties rely, in particular the Applicant's reliance on the comments of Hooper LJ in the Court of Appeal. I note the circumstances of Manchester City Council v. G, E and F [2010] EWHC 3385 were quite different. On balance and considering the circumstances as a whole, I am not persuaded that it is appropriate to depart from the general rule on this occasion. I decide this based on the chronological position of the parties set out above and all the circumstances. The Respondent's conduct falls short, to what degree is immaterial, of the necessary test. This case does not represent a blatant disregard of the processes of the Act and the Respondent's obligation to respect BP's rights under ECHR as in the Manchester case (paraphrased slightly)."
  • 11/06/19
    (1251)
    : COPUG minutes. Minutes of Court User Group Meeting (11/4/19) — (1) Apologies; (2) Minutes and Action points; (3) Court Manager's Report; (4) Update on the Mental Capacity Amendment Bills; (5) Response to correspondence; (6) Update on ALR scheme; (7) Contacting the court by telephone; (8) Update on progress of e-bundling; (9) COP9 papers not served; (10) COP General visitors using insecure IT equipment when visiting lay deputies; (11) Dealing with urgent applications; (12) Applications for authorities outside the standard terms of deputyship; (13) Request for consideration of a streamlined property and affairs process; (14) Amendment of property and affairs order templates to include reference to support for making decisions when P has capacity; (15) Naming solicitors in judgments; (16) Any other business. Next meeting: 15/10/19 at 1400, at First Avenue House.
  • 07/06/19
    (2121)
    : Event. Edge Training: MHA and MCA Interaction - London, 14/10/19 —This course aims to enable health and social care staff to consider the impact of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 on their work and its relationship to the use and application of the Mental Health Act 1983. Speaker: Steven Richards. Cost: £150.00 plus VAT. See Edge website for further details and booking information
  • 07/06/19
    (2118)
    : Event. Edge Training: Understanding the Court of Protection - London, 30/9/19 —This one day course is designed to enable participants to feel equipped to attend the Court of Protection and to ensure they know what to expect: the best way to give evidence; the key Court of Protection roles; courtroom etiquette and terminology. The course will help delegates prepare to give evidence and deal with challenging questioning. A barrister in the field will give them tips on staying calm and composed under pressure and ensuring the evidence they give is fair, balanced and accurately represents application of the key components of the Mental Capacity Act to the Court of Protection judge. Speaker: Sophy Miles. Cost: £150.00 plus VAT. See Edge website for further details and booking information.
  • 07/06/19
    (2117)
    : Event. Edge Training: Liberty Protection Safeguards - London, 22/11/19 —This one-day course aims to provide a detailed analysis of the Liberty Protection Safeguards contained in the Mental Capacity (Amendment) Bill. The course considers the differences between DoLS and LPS and looks at what the new process will be and who will be affected. Speaker: Steven Richards. Cost: £150 plus VAT. See Edge website for further details and booking information.
  • 07/06/19
    (2116)
    : Event. Edge Training: Liberty Protection Safeguards - Manchester, 18/10/19 —This one-day course aims to provide a detailed analysis of the Liberty Protection Safeguards contained in the Mental Capacity (Amendment) Bill. The course considers the differences between DoLS and LPS and looks at what the new process will be and who will be affected. Speaker: Steven Richards. Cost: £150 plus VAT. See Edge website for further details and booking information.
  • 07/06/19
    (2114)
    : Event. Edge Training: Liberty Protection Safeguards - Manchester, 12/7/19 —This one-day course aims to provide a detailed analysis of the Liberty Protection Safeguards contained in the Mental Capacity (Amendment) Bill. The course considers the differences between DoLS and LPS and looks at what the new process will be and who will be affected. Speaker: Steven Richards. Cost: £140 plus VAT. See Edge website for further details and booking information.
  • 07/06/19
    (2112)
    : Event. Edge Training: Level 3 Safeguarding Adults - London, 8/7/19 —This one-day Level 3 Safeguarding Adults training course offers delegates the opportunity to explore the legal framework which underpins safeguarding adults work, and to explore the key challenges that may arise in practice. It will guide the delegates through the safeguarding adults process and focus on making safeguarding personal. It is for all staff who may be involved in safeguarding adult work, which could include social workers, community care officers, social care workers, social care managers, GP’s, practice nurses, heads of quality, chief nurses, designated nurses for safeguarding adults, occupational therapists, psychologists and psychiatrists. Speaker: Dawn Revell. Cost: £140.00 plus VAT. See Edge website for further details and booking information
  • 07/06/19
    (2110)
    : Event. Edge Training: BIA Legal Update (Annual Refresher) - London, 9/8/19 —This course aims to provide an essential update on case law in relation to the role of the BIA. Learning outcomes: (a) Consider the latest DoLS news, research and guidance; (b) Examine the latest case law relevant to DoLS and the BIA role; (c) Reflect on how the information covered affects BIA practice. Speaker: Aasya Mughal. Cost: £140.00 plus VAT. See Edge website for further details and booking information.
  • 07/06/19
    (2107)
    : Event. Edge Training: BIA Legal Update (Annual Refresher) - London, 1/7/19 —This course aims to provide an essential update on case law in relation to the role of the BIA. Learning outcomes: (a) Consider the latest DoLS news, research and guidance; (b) Examine the latest case law relevant to DoLS and the BIA role; (c) Reflect on how the information covered affects BIA practice. Speaker: Steven Richards. Cost: £150.00 plus VAT. See Edge website for further details and booking information
  • 07/06/19
    (2103)
    : Event. Edge Training: Sexual relations, contraception, marriage and restricting contact - London, 17/6/19 —This one-day course is designed to enable participants to understand mental capacity in these sensitive areas. Participants will gain awareness of the relevant case law in relation to capacity and (where relevant) best interests decision making. Guidance will be offered on the steps to take where an individual lacks capacity to consent in these areas, to ensure that they are adequately safeguarded, and legal obligations are met. Speaker: Steven Richards. Cost: £140.00 plus VAT. See Edge website for further details and booking information.
  • 01/06/19
    (2226)
    : Event. MHLA: Foundation course - London, 28/8/19 —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. Speakers: Tam Gill and Neil Cronin. Price: £150 (MHLA members); £195 (non-members). See MHLA website for further details and booking information.
  • 01/06/19
    (2225)
    : Event. MHLA: Panel course - London, 17/7/19 and 18/7/19 —The MHLA is an approved provider of the two-day course which must be attended by prospective members of the Law Society’s mental health accreditation scheme. Price: £300 (MHLA members); £390 (non-members); £270 (group discount). See MHLA website for further details and to book online.

Update archive