Difference between revisions of "Mental health case law"
|(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)|
|Line 52:||Line 52:|
The following are the most recently-added [[:Category:
The following are the most recently-added [[:Category:cases|cases]]:
Revision as of 16:14, 26 March 2020
The mental health cases on this site are structured into categories and (where appropriate) sub-categories:
- To browse through categories and cases, click on the ▼ and ► symbols as appropriate.
- To view summaries of all cases within a category, click on the category name.
- To view a particular case, click on the case name (which will be listed under the relevant category).
New database structure
The new database structure introduced in 2019 is more potentially useful than the old categorisation system: see Special:Drilldown/Cases. Currently, 217 of this website's 2046 categorised cases have been transferred to the new database (1829 cases still to add!)
(1) (1) (8) (1) (6) (2) (9) (4) (5) (2) (19) (8) (3) (2) (1) (1) (1) (1) (2) (1) (9) (3) (7) (3) (4) (5) (2) (3) (31) (3) (25) (20) (4) (2) (12) (11) (5) (12) (3) (1) (5) (3) (1) (4) (1) (5) (17) (1)
If you have been involved in a case not listed here, or have a transcript that is not yet on Bailii, then please get in touch. See Help page for contact details.
The following are the most recently-added 2020 cases:
The pages below are initially ordered according to the dates on which they were added to the site (most recent first). The order can be changed by clicking on the symbol beside a column heading: click on the symbol beside "Page and summary" for alphabetical order; click beside "Categories" for the order in which the cases were reported. Click on the arrow symbol again to reverse the order. Click on a page name to view the relevant page. Asterisks mark those cases which have been added to the new database structure.
|Case and summary||Date added||Categories|
|* Inherent jurisdiction and DOL Hertfordshire CC v K  EWHC 139 (Fam) — "In this matter, the question before the court is whether it should grant a deprivation of liberty order (hereafter a DOL order) under the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court in respect of AK, born in 2003 and now aged 16."||2020‑04‑02 15:27:37||Judgment available on Bailii, Cases, 2020 cases, Deprivation of liberty, Inherent jurisdiction cases
|* Withholding life-sustaining treatment from baby Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council v ZZ  EWHC 185 (Fam) — "It is impossible not to feel that X's life is one of nothing but suffering. As is set out in the cases above, life itself is precious and there is a very strong presumption in favour of preserving life. But X's life is a truly tragic one and certainly reaches a threshold of intolerability. ... His life expectancy is probably no more than a year on the basis of the literature. ... For all these reasons I am clear that it is not in X's best interests that he should be resuscitated or that he should be given life sustaining treatment."||2020‑04‑02 14:48:15||
|* Diminished responsibility sentencing R v Rodi  EWCA Crim 330 — Unsuccessful appeal against s45A and 10-year sentence, in which the November 2018 sentencing guidelines for diminished responsibility manslaughter were applied.||2020‑03‑16 21:51:46||
|* Disclosure of patient's medical information ABC v St George's Healthcare NHS Trust  EWHC 455 (QB) — "By this claim brought against three NHS trusts, the claimant contends that the defendants breached a duty of care owed to her and/or acted contrary to her rights under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights in failing to alert her to the risk that she had inherited the gene for Huntington's disease in time for her to terminate her pregnancy."||2020‑03‑16 21:28:33||Judgment available on Bailii, Cases, 2020 cases, Miscellaneous
|* FMPOs and capacity Re K (Forced Marriage: Passport Order)  EWCA Civ 190 — (1) The Family Court the court has jurisdiction to make a Forced Marriage Protection Order to protect an adult who does not lack mental capacity (and the statistics demonstrate that the courts regularly make FMPOs to protect capacitous adults). (2) An open-ended passport order or travel ban should only be imposed in the most exceptional of cases and where the court can look sufficiently far into the future to be satisfied that highly restrictive orders of that nature will be required indefinitely.||2020‑02‑22 23:33:05||Judgment available on Bailii, Cases, 2020 cases, Other capacity cases
|* Reviewing appointment of legal representative SB v South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust  UKUT 33 (AAC) — The tribunal appointed a representative under Tribunal rule 11(7)(b) and later refused to put on record another representative who stated that he was acting on instructions. (1) The initial appointment was unlawful because Form 6b was deficient: the rubric did not mention the 14-day time limit for challenging a delegated decision under Tribunal rule 4. If it had done then the patient's attempt to have a new representative put on record might not have been made too late to be resolved before the hearing. (2) By basing its refusal to review the appointment purely on the appointed solicitor's objection, the tribunal had abdicated its decision-making responsibility and had not given sufficient weight to the presumption of capacity in the face of new evidence of instruction. (3) The decision of the tribunal panel in not discharging the patient was not flawed in any material respect. (4) Neither of the unlawful decisions were set aside as the patient had since been discharged. (5) No damages were awarded as the Upper Tribunal has no power to do so.||2020‑02‑06 23:08:39||2020 cases, Cases, Judgment available on MHLO, MHT capacity cases, Powers, Transcript, Upper Tribunal decisions, Judgment available on Bailii
|* Contingent/anticipatory declarations - MCA/inherent jurisdiction - Caesarean section Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust v R  EWCOP 4 — "All the treating clinicians agreed: R had capacity to make decisions as to her ante-natal and obstetric care; there was a substantial risk of a deterioration in R's mental health, such that she would likely lose capacity during labour; there was a risk to her physical health, in that she could require an urgent Caesarean section ('C-section') for the safe delivery of her baby but might resist."||2020‑01‑30 18:54:37||2020 cases, Cases, Deprivation of liberty, Inherent jurisdiction cases, Medical treatment cases, Judgment available on Bailii
The following are the main sources of case transcripts/information:
- Bailii - including Court of Protection decisions on Bailii
- Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber) website - decisions
- MoJ/OPG website (archived)
- Readers of the website submitting previously-unpublished decisions (see Help page for contact details, and Contributors).
- Upper Tribunal case summary document (January 2016) — This is a document issued to tribunal judges as guidance. The summary of PJ v A Local Health Board  UKUT 480 (AAC),  MHLO 63 (in relation to the tribunal's role when faced with an ECHR breach) effectively rephrases as correct the position found to be unlawful by the Upper Tribunal (whose decision has since been overturned on appeal). The summary of WH v Partnerships in Care  UKUT 695 (AAC),  MHLO 132 (in relation to the appropriate medical treatment test applying to the detaining hospital only) appears to contradict the ratio of the Upper Tribunal decision. See the case law pages for further details.
- Government website: Case Tracker for Civil Appeals