Main Page

Revision as of 22:25, 10 February 2019 by Jonathan (talk | contribs)

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.

Updates

Subscribe to free email updates and join the email discussion list.

  • 24/06/19: 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: 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: 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)."


See also:

Jobs

Advertise your vacancies here

  • No current job adverts

CPD

Online CPD scheme providing 12 hours for £60: suitable for solicitors, barristers, psychiatrists, social workers and psychiatric nurses

Magic Book

The Magic Book is a database of contact details - please contribute to it (the process is quick and simple).

Events

Advertise your events here

RSS feeds

Items from Bailii and various blogs have been moved temporarily to the RSS feeds page.