Difference between revisions of "MC v Cygnet Behavioural Health Ltd (2020) UKUT 230 (AAC)"

(Created page with "{{Case |Date=2020/07/16 |NCN=[2020] UKUT 230 (AAC) |Court=Upper Tribunal |Judges=Jacobs |Parties=MC, Cygnet Behavioural Health Ltd, Secretary of State for Justice |Cites=SSJ v...")
 
 
Line 7: Line 7:
 
|Cites=SSJ v MM (2018) UKSC 60#SSJ v KC (2015) UKUT 376 (AAC)
 
|Cites=SSJ v MM (2018) UKSC 60#SSJ v KC (2015) UKUT 376 (AAC)
 
|Sentence=Conditional discharge and DOL
 
|Sentence=Conditional discharge and DOL
|Summary=''(1) Although, following MM, the First-tier Tribunal has no power to impose conditions which would amount to a deprivation of liberty, it does have the power to coordinate its decision with the provision of an authorisation under the MCA, either by "the different hats approach" (the same judge sitting in the COP and the FTT) or "the ducks in a row approach" (adjournment or deferred conditional discharge). (2) This involves no [[Article 14]] discrimination in favour of incapacitous restricted patients as, under SSJ guidance, the equivalent outcome can be reached for capacitous patients by using s17 leave. (3) The FTT had misunderstood the MM decision and had been wrong to refuse to defer conditional discharge for a standard authorisation to be put in place. (4) The UT discharged the patient subject to conditions of residence, supervision and compliance with "all aspects of the care package", with (strangely) permission to apply to the FTT for variation on a material change in circumstances.''
+
|Summary=''(1) Although, following MM, the First-tier Tribunal has no power to impose conditions which would amount to a deprivation of liberty, it does have the power to coordinate its decision with the provision of an authorisation under the MCA, either by "the different hats approach" (the same judge sitting in the COP and the FTT) or "the ducks in a row approach" (adjournment or deferred conditional discharge). (2) This involves no [[Article 14]] discrimination in favour of incapacitous restricted patients as, under SSJ guidance, the equivalent outcome can be reached for capacitous patients by using s17 leave. (3) The FTT had misunderstood the MM decision and had been wrong to refuse to defer conditional discharge for a standard authorisation to be put in place. (4) The UT discharged the patient subject to conditions of residence, supervision and compliance with "all aspects of the care package" (surprisingly, as the care package would amount to a deprivation of liberty), with permission to apply to the FTT for variation on a material change in circumstances (surprisingly, as the MHA sets out when an application may be made).''
 
|Detail===Thanks==
 
|Detail===Thanks==
 
Thanks for Richard Jones for providing the written judgment.
 
Thanks for Richard Jones for providing the written judgment.

Latest revision as of 17:34, 28 July 2020

Conditional discharge and DOL (1) Although, following MM, the First-tier Tribunal has no power to impose conditions which would amount to a deprivation of liberty, it does have the power to coordinate its decision with the provision of an authorisation under the MCA, either by "the different hats approach" (the same judge sitting in the COP and the FTT) or "the ducks in a row approach" (adjournment or deferred conditional discharge). (2) This involves no Article 14 discrimination in favour of incapacitous restricted patients as, under SSJ guidance, the equivalent outcome can be reached for capacitous patients by using s17 leave. (3) The FTT had misunderstood the MM decision and had been wrong to refuse to defer conditional discharge for a standard authorisation to be put in place. (4) The UT discharged the patient subject to conditions of residence, supervision and compliance with "all aspects of the care package" (surprisingly, as the care package would amount to a deprivation of liberty), with permission to apply to the FTT for variation on a material change in circumstances (surprisingly, as the MHA sets out when an application may be made).

Thanks

Thanks for Richard Jones for providing the written judgment.

CASES DATABASE

Full judgment: Possible Bailii link (not there when last checked, but it might have appeared since 0700 this morning!)
Download here

Subject(s):

  • Deprivation of liberty🔍
  • Discharge conditions🔍
  • Upper Tribunal decisions🔍

Date: 16/7/20🔍

Court: Upper Tribunal🔍

Judge(s):

Parties:

  • MC🔍
  • Cygnet Behavioural Health Ltd🔍
  • Secretary of State for Justice🔍

Cites:

Citation number(s):

  • [2020] UKUT 230 (AAC)Not on Bailii!

What links here:
  • No pages link to this page

Published: 24/7/20 21:31

Cached: 2020-08-04 16:37:02