View source for DN v Northumberland Tyne and Wear NHS Foundation Trust (2011) UKUT 327 (AAC)

''It was argued before the FTT that DN should be discharged, deferred until arrangements under the MCA DOLS could be put in place in relation to residence and control of his alcohol consumption. (1) When the MHA applies, it has primacy over the MCA; however, if the MCA were applied in anticipation of discharge from detention then DN would NOT then be 'within the scope' of the MHA and therefore not ineligible for MCA DOLS. (2) The FTT erred in law by failing, when deciding not to discharge, to address the possibility of supervision under the MCA. (3) The Trust had not participated in the appeal so the UT erred on the side of caution by setting aside and directing a rehearing.''

==Note==
The reference in para 3 to conditional discharge is an error, as the patient was detained under s3.

==Other==
Judgment: 16/8/11

Before: UTJ Edward Jacobs

Ms Susanna Rickard for the Applicant

==External link==
{{#bailii:(2011) UKUT 327 (AAC)}}

[[Category:Reasons]]
[[Category:Upper Tribunal decisions]]
[[Category:Brief summary]]
[[Category:Transcript]]
[[Category:2011 cases]]