Revision as of 22:25, 10 February 2019 by Jonathan
Mental Health Law Online
The internet resource on mental health law, and mental capacity law, for England & Wales. You can read a review of the site here.
- 19/04/19: Case (Death). Hounslow Clinical Commissioning Group v RW  EWCOP 12 — "This is an application brought by the Hounslow Clinical Commissioning Group concerning RW a 78-year-old man, suffering from vascular dementia. ... I would very much have liked to have been able to endorse a plan which permitted RW to return home. There is no doubt at all, as the history of this case shows, that RW would want to die at home. I do not know whether he would survive the transition but I should have been prepared to take that risk. However, PT would, in my judgement, continue to try to give his father food and water. As I speak these words he indicates to me that this is precisely what he would do. I have been told by Ms I that, at this stage, if PT were to attempt to feed his father there is a real risk that he would asphyxiate on any food given. I cannot permit RW to be exposed to the risk of ending his life in this way and, if I may say so, I would not be prepared to take that risk for PT either, especially having regard to all the loving care he has provided for his father. I endorse the applicant's plan. I indicate that it is in RW's best interest to have his sons with him as much as possible. I am not prepared to be prescriptive of the times and the circumstances in which the sons may visit. In this I reject the applicant's proposals in this respect."
- 19/04/19: Case (Amputation). East Lancashire Hospitals NHS Trust v PW  EWCOP 10 — "This is an application by East Lancashire NHS Trust for orders under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 that PW lacks capacity "to make a decision regarding whether to undergo the leg amputation surgery to address his high risk of sepsis"; and that it is lawful to carry out that surgery having regard to his best interests. Before dealing with the substantive issues in this case I will deal with the timing of the application."
- 19/04/19: Case (Damages for unlawful psychiatric detention). PB v Priory Group Ltd  MHLO 74 — A Part 36 offer of £11,500 plus legal costs was accepted in this claim brought for unlawful detention and breach of Article 5. The patient had been detained under s5(2) when not an in-patient, and this section had lapsed for nearly seven hours before detention under s2 began.
- 18/04/19: Case (Appointment of property and affairs deputy). NKR v The Thomson Snell And Passmore Trust Corporation Ltd  EWCOP 15 — "The application before the Court is for the discharge of the appointment of an existing professional property and affairs deputy, and the appointment of another instead. The discharge of the current deputy is agreed but there is an issue as to who should be appointed instead. ... In the matter of Re AS; SH v LC  MHLO 113 (COP),  COPLR 29 at paragraph 22 Senior Judge Lush set out "generally speaking" an order for preference of various candidates for appointment as deputy. A panel deputy is included "as deputy of last resort," after "a professional adviser, such as the family's solicitor or accountant." ... I am not aware of any previous appointments of a barrister as professional deputy (as distinct from a family member who just happens to be a barrister by profession but is appointed on the usual non-remunerated basis of a family member). Not being considered by the Bar Council as 'a legal service', discharge of the functions of deputyship is apparently not subject to the Bar Council's full regulatory force. However, the risk of property and affairs deputyship lies chiefly in misappropriation of funds. It seems to me beyond debate that misappropriation of MBR's funds whilst acting as deputy would count as "behaviour which diminishes trust and confidence" in Ms. Sood individually and her profession generally, and so Ms. Sood's holding of deputyship appointment would be subject to some professional regulation. ... On the information presently available to me, I am willing to accept that Ms. Sood is personally and professionally a suitable person to hold a deputyship appointment. Her appointment is however not the only option before the Court. A panel deputy has also been identified as willing to act ... Taking all matters into consideration, I conclude that it is in the best interests of MBR for Mr. Kambli to be appointed as replacement deputy upon discharge of the appointment of TSPTC."
Online CPD scheme providing 12 hours for £60: suitable for solicitors, barristers, psychiatrists, social workers and psychiatric nurses
The Magic Book is a database of contact details - please contribute to it (the process is quick and simple).
- Edge Training: BIA Report Writing - London, 26/4/19
- Edge Training: DOLS MH Assessors Annual Refresher Course - London, 29/4/19
- Court of Protection User Group Meeting - London, 30/4/19
- PELT: Depriving Children and Young People of their liberty lawfully - Hoylake, 9/5/19
- Edge Training: Liberty Protection Safeguards - London, 13/5/19
- PELT: Mental Health Act Masterclass (new material) - Hoylake, 14/5/19
- PELT: Court of Protection Masterclass (new material) - Hoylake, 16/5/19
- RAB: AMHP Refresher and Re-approval course - London, 3/6/19 to 5/6/19
- Edge Training: MHA and MCA Interaction - London, 3/6/19
- PELT: Introduction to using Court of Protection - Hoylake, 5/6/19
- Edge Training: BIA Legal Update (Annual Refresher) - London, 10/6/19
- Edge Training: MCA and Tenancy Agreements - London, 14/6/19
- Edge Training: Mental Capacity and Best Interests Assessments (Advanced) - London, 17/6/19
- Edge Training: Hoarding and the Law - London, 21/6/19
- Edge Training: DOLS Authorised Signatories Training Course - London, 21/6/19
- Edge Training: DOLS MH Assessors Annual Refresher Course - London, 24/6/19
- Edge Training: Liberty Protection Safeguards - London, 28/6/19
- Edge Training: AMHP Legal Update - London, 7/10/19
We benefit when you buy fromhaving come from this website