From Mental Health Law Online
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).
Mental Health Law Online currently contains 1370 categorised cases. In addition, some Cases to be added have been identified (no transcript or summary available for these). See also Settled cases and forthcoming judgments.
Case law by category
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. Also on that page is an explanation of how to create new pages, edit existing ones, and categorise pages.
If you are registered as a contributor, use the following box to add a case. Enter the case name and neutral citation, using round brackets only (for software reasons).
The following are the most recently-added 2012 cases:
|Page and summary||Date added to site||Categories|
|Y County Council v ZZ (2012) MHLO 179 (COP) — "This is an application made by Y County Council in the Court of Protection in relation to Mr ZZ, a man of young middle age. I am invited to make a number of declarations in relation to Mr ZZ. First, I am asked to find that he lacks litigation capacity on the issues in this case. Second, I am invited to declare that he lacks capacity to decide upon the restrictions relevant to supporting his residence and care. Finally, I am asked to declare that he is being deprived of his liberty, but that it is lawful as in his best interests pursuant to schedule A1 of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. Mr ZZ is represented by the Official Solicitor. He has been present throughout the hearing and has conducted himself with dignity throughout. Indeed, he gave unsworn, oral evidence before me in an entirely courteous and helpful way." [Summary required.]||2013-06-06||2012 cases, Deprivation of liberty, No summary, Transcript|
|R v Ahmed (2012) EWCA Crim 99, (2012) MHLO 178 — (1) The appellant sought a s37/41 restricted hospital order in place of an IPP sentence. (2) The Responsible Clinician argued for a s45A hybrid order, for reasons summarised by the court as follows: 'The appellant is an illegal immigrant. In order to be discharged from hospital he would have to undergo a period of controlled supervision. This would be in appropriate accommodation. Dr Swinton tells us that this is not an option open to an illegal immigrant like the appellant. Thus he cannot be discharged into the community because he cannot undertake the necessary conditioning which would satisfy the hospital that he was safe to be left in the community on his own. As a consequence he has to remain in hospital and he will take up a bed, apparently permanently. This is damaging to the wider public interest. If a section 45A order were made, then although the appellant would receive precisely the same treatment under a section 47 transfer as he currently does, a discharge can ..→||2013-03-28||2012 cases, Brief summary, Sentence appeal cases, Transcript|
|R (Chatting) v Viridian Housing (2012) EWHC 3595 (Admin), (2012) MHLO 177 — "This litigation arises out of what may be loosely called the reorganisation by Viridian Housing, the charity which owns the premises, of the arrangements for the provision of care to residents of the building in which Miss Chatting lives. ... On behalf of Viridian Housing, Mr Christopher Baker urged upon me that the relief sought against his client – namely, declarations that in transferring responsibility for Miss Chatting's care to another organisation Viridian were in breach of a compromise agreement made in earlier litigation and had infringed article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights – was academic and should not in any event be granted. On behalf of Miss Chatting Mr Stephen Cragg pursued claims for those declarations, as well as a declaration that Wandsworth Borough Council had acted unlawfully in its management of the transfer of Miss Chatting's care, in that it had failed to ensure that care was provided to her in a way that meets her assessed needs and takes ..→||2013-03-28||2012 cases, Community care, No summary, Other capacity cases, Transcript|
|A County Council v E (2012) EWHC 4161 (COP), (2012) MHLO 176 — "This case involves the personal welfare of two young women, E and K. E is 26 years old and K is 24. Both have a diagnosis of Fragile X syndrome and associated learning disabilities, as confirmed by a consultant psychiatrist in a report of 7 August 2010. E is selectively mute. K also has a diagnosis of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder ('ADHD')." [Summary required.]||2013-03-28||2012 cases, Best interests, No summary, Transcript|
|HT v CK (2012) EWHC 4160 (COP), (2012) MHLO 175 — "This decision deals with residence, contact and financial arrangements for CK ('C' or 'Ms K'). In particular, the court must decide whether it is in her best interests to remain where she is living and the appropriate contact arrangements" [Summary required.]||2013-03-28||2012 cases, Best interests, No summary, Transcript|
|PB v RB (2012) EWHC 4159 (COP), (2012) MHLO 174 — "This decision deals with a fact-finding hearing held on 10-12 September 2012. ... The local authority sought to prove 13 alleged facts ... " [Summary required.]||2013-03-28||2012 cases, No summary, Other capacity cases, Transcript|
|Re RGS (2012) EWHC 4162 (COP), (2012) MHLO 173 — "RGS is the person concerned in these proceedings ('P'). The decision for the court is whether one of the parties, his son RBS, has litigation capacity. RBS insists he has, others are less sure." [Summary required.]||2013-03-28||2012 cases, No summary, Other capacity cases, Transcript|
|JP v South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust (2012) UKUT 486 (AAC), (2012) MHLO 172 — "The grounds of appeal related to the Tribunal’s finding that he suffered from a mental disorder; the insufficiency of the Tribunal’s reasons for their decision that the appellant was to continue to be detained under section 2, and to his view that there had been a breach of his right to a fair hearing under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. He made seven specific submissions on this which I shall address hereafter. At the hearing the appellant also raised a breach of Article 9 of the Convention – his right to freedom of thought, and submitted that the Mental Health Act 1983 was flawed." [Summary required.]||2013-03-27||2012 cases, No summary, Transcript, Upper Tribunal decisions|
|MA v SSH (2012) UKUT 474 (AAC), (2012) MHLO 171 — "Section 66 of the 1983 Act deals with applications to tribunals (“a section 66 application”). In the present case this would be to the First-tier Tribunal. Applications may be made in a wide range of circumstances. By virtue of section 66(1) (g) these include where a report has been made under section 25 of that Act (see above – this relates to the responsible clinician issuing a certificate to the effect specified in section 25). However, an application to the tribunal may only be made under this provision in respect of a patient who has been admitted for treatment (or in certain other cases) but not in respect of a patient who has been admitted under section 2 for assessment. That exclusion is at the heart of this case." [Summary required.]||2013-03-27||2012 cases, No summary, Transcript, Upper Tribunal decisions|
|R v Smith (Mark John) (2012) EWCA Crim 2566, (2012) MHLO 170 — "This is a most unusual case. It is an appeal against a restraining order made by His Honour Judge McGregor-Johnson at Isleworth Crown Court on 8 May 2012 under s5A of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. The order prohibited Mr Smith from travelling on any domestic or international commercial airline for a period of 3 years. The order was made at the end of a trial at which Mr Smith was acquitted, by reason of insanity, of offences of criminal damage and interfering with the performance of the crew of an aircraft in flight. The appeal raises questions about the scope of s5A of the 1997 Act." [Summary required; detailed external summary available.]||2013-03-26||2012 cases, Detailed summary, Sentence appeal cases, Transcript|
The following are the 20 most recently-added cases with the exception of 2012 cases:
|Page and summary||Date added to site||Categories|
|Re SB (A Patient: Capacity To Consent To Termination) (2013) EWHC 1417 (COP), (2013) MHLO 48 — SB's desire for an abortion coincided with her stopping her medication for bipolar affective disorder, which led to the Trust seeking decisions on capacity and best interests. (1) Even if aspects of her decision-making were influenced by paranoid thoughts in relation to lack of support from her husband and her mother, SB also had a range of rational reasons, and had capacity to make the decision. (2) Interesting aspects to the case include: (a) the judge disagreed with the two psychiatrists who believed SB lacked capacity; (b) he appeared to consider the question of being 'unable' to make a decision separately in relation to its ordinary meaning (whether SB had in fact made a decision, para 38) and its legal meaning by reference to MCA 2005 s3(1) (whether she could understand the relevant information etc, para 39); (c) the Official Solicitor asked for his appointment as litigation friend to be ended, and this request was granted (para 30); (d) the judge granted this request ..→||2013-06-03||2013 cases, Best interests, Brief summary, Transcript|
|EC v Birmingham and Solihull Mental Health NHS Trust (2013) MHLO 47 (CA) — The appellant restricted patients had sought extra-statutory recommendations, in relation to leave and transfer, but the First-tier Tribunal had refused, without hearing evidence, to make recommendations. (1) The parliamentary answer in relation to extra-statutory recommendations given by a Home Office minister on 28/10/87, and the fact that recommendations had been made and considered in the past, did not give rise to a legitimate expectation that the tribunal would entertain submissions that a recommendation should be made. (2) If the FTT had been faced with the contention that leave or transfer were necessary or available parts of the patient's treatment (in relation to the test in s72(1)(b)(iia)) it would have had to consider it, but in these cases it had not been. [Summary based on Lawtel and All ER (D) reports.]||2013-05-12||2013 cases, Brief summary, No transcript, Powers|
|Pitt v Holt (2013) UKSC 26, (2013) MHLO 46 — As receiver under the MHA 1983 (old equivalent to deputy under the MCA 2005) for her husband, Mrs Pitt set up a settlement trust which overlooked the impact of inheritance tax; Futter's case did not involve the mental capacity. (1) The court considered the Hastings-Bass rule, and dismissed Mrs Pitt's appeal on this point (she had not breached her fiduciary duty so the settlement would not be set aside on this basis). (2) The court considered the test for setting aside a voluntary disposition on the ground of mistake, and allowed Mrs Pitt's appeal on this point.||2013-05-11||2013 cases, Brief summary, Other capacity cases, Transcript|
|SL v Westminster City Council (2013) UKSC 27, (2013) MHLO 45 — "The short issue raised by this appeal is whether the respondent (SL), a failed asylum-seeker, was at the relevant time in need of 'care and attention', requiring the provision of accommodation by the local authority under section 21(1)(a) of the National Assistance Act 1948. Burnett J decided that he was not, but that decision was reversed by the Court of Appeal ... I consider that Burnett J reached the right result for substantially the right reasons." [Summary required.]||2013-05-11||2013 cases, Community care, No summary, Transcript|
|Re GM: MJ and JM v The Public Guardian (2013) MHLO 44 (COP) — "The applicants ... have applied to the court for the retrospective approval of a number of gifts they have made from GM’s funds to themselves, their families, some friends and several charities, and also for the court to agree what they have described as their deputyship expenses. ... I have no hesitation in revoking their appointment as deputies. GM’s finances are in disarray because of their conduct, and it is in her best interests that someone with experience of cases of unjust enrichment and restitution, such as a panel deputy, is appointed to manage her affairs in their place." [Summary required.]||2013-05-07||2013 cases, No summary, Other capacity cases, Transcript|
|PS v LP (2013) EWHC 1106 (COP), (2013) MHLO 43 — (1) It was in LP's best interests not to see her estranged family: before losing capacity due to a cerebral aneurism, she had taken the decision that her future was with her new partner and that she wished to break with the past. (2) Contact should only commence in future if LP becomes capable of expressing a view to that effect, and the family should be kept informed in relation to this approximately every six months.||2013-05-05||2013 cases, Best interests, Brief summary, Transcript|
|R v Dixon (2013) EWCA Crim 465, (2013) MHLO 42 — (1) Despite the appellant's intellect and condition the judge was entitled to permit the jury to draw an adverse inference from his failure to give evidence. (2) The appellant argued that fresh medical evidence showed the judge's decision was wrong, but this evidence was not admitted. (3) The appellant had been able meaningfully to participate in his trial, which was fair, and the conviction was safe. (4) The minimum term of the appellant's detention at Her Majesty's pleasure was reduced from 14 to 13 years.||2013-05-05||2013 cases, Brief summary, Other criminal law cases, Transcript|
|R (T) v LSC (2013) EWHC 960 (Admin), (2013) MHLO 41 — The LSC's decision in care proceedings to agree prior authority for a multi-disciplinary assessment at a lower amount than that sought was unlawful because of the lack of reasons given, and was quashed.||2013-05-05||2013 cases, Brief summary, Miscellaneous, Transcript|
|R v Foye (2013) EWCA Crim 475, (2013) MHLO 40 — The rule in s2(2) Homicide Act 1957 that the burden of establishing diminished responsibility lies on the defendant, on the balance of probabilities, is not incompatible with the presumption of innocence contained in Article 6(2).||2013-05-05||2013 cases, Brief summary, Diminished responsibility cases, Transcript|
|Bialek v Circuit Court in Warsaw Poland (2013) EWHC 930 (Admin), (2013) MHLO 39 — Extradition case with psychiatric element. [Summary required.]||2013-05-05||2013 cases, No summary, Repatriation cases, Transcript|
|Stoke City Council v Maddocks (2013) EWHC 1137 (COP), (2013) MHLO 38 — (1) As a result of his Alzheimer's Disease and vascular dementia, JM lacked capacity to litigate, or make decisions as to his residence, care plan, contact with his family, or dealing with his property and financial affairs. (2) It was in JM's best interests to remain at the AH care home; it was not in his best interests to be cared for by his daughter WM, either in the UK or Turkey, in particular because of her psychological profile and failure to provide a detailed proposed care plan. (3) In light of a recent development (JM had been taken out of the care home in breach of an injunction), contact by family members could be suspended, and resinstated at the discretion of the local authority. (4) A local authority deputy was appointed to sell the home and administer the finances, because if WM were deputy she would refuse to meet the local authority's fees. (5) JM's passport could not be returned to the family and would remain with the Official Solicitor until further review. (6) ..→||2013-05-04||2013 cases, Brief summary, Other capacity cases, Transcript|
|R v AJR (2013) EWCA Crim 591, (2013) MHLO 37 — The appellant had been found not guilty by reason of insanity and sentenced to a supervision order for 2 years under s5 CPIA 1964 and made the subject of a restraining order under s5A Protection from Harassment Act 1997 for 5 years. He appealed against the restraining order. (1) An finding of 'not guilty by reason of insanity' is an acquittal for the purposes of the 1997 Act so a restraining order may be lawfully imposed. (2) On the facts, there was no evidence that the defendant was likely to 'pursue a course of conduct which amounts to harassment', so the restraining order was quashed. (3) In any event, the restraining order had been drafted very widely and for a long duration, and concerns as to the children's welfare would more properly be addressed by agreement between mother and local authority, or by the family courts under the Children Act 1989.||2013-05-04||2013 cases, Brief summary, Sentence appeal cases, Transcript|
|Greaves v Stolkin (2013) EWHC 1140 (Ch), (2013) MHLO 36 — "Mr Leslie Stolkin ..., some seven weeks before his death, executed a codicil. This case concerns the validity of that document. ...[O]ne of the deceased's sons, Mr Gary Stolkin ... disputes the validity of the Disputed Codicil on two grounds: (i) Want of testamentary capacity; and (ii) Want of knowledge and approval. ... In my judgment, the Disputed Codicil is valid, and it should be admitted to probate." [Summary required.]||2013-05-04||2013 cases, No summary, Other capacity cases, Transcript|
|Coombs v North Dorset NHS PCT (2013) EWCA Civ 471, (2013) MHLO 35 — "Can an involuntary patient detained in a mental hospital under the provisions of the Mental Health Act 1983 pay for his care or treatment, or is such a possibility denied the patient (or his family on his behalf) by the provisions of that Act (the "MHA 1983") and/or public policy? ... In these circumstances, it seems to me that there is nothing inherent in the structure or wording of the MHA 1983 or the 2006 Act, and nothing by way of public policy, to exclude absolutely the possibilities of detained patients (or their family or others holding responsibility for looking after their assets) paying for or contributing in part to the cost of their treatment or care. Presumably, private patients detained in a private hospital do exactly that. Detained patients who are being looked after by an NHS authority will have most, if not all, of their costs funded by the state: but even in their case, it may be possible, as in the case of any patient within the NHS system, to purchase private ..→||2013-05-03||2013 cases, Miscellaneous, No summary, Transcript|
|RC v NHS Islington (2013) UKUT 167 (AAC), (2013) MHLO 34 — "This is an appeal by a patient, brought with my leave, against a decision of the Mental Health Review Tribunal for Wales refusing an application for the postponement of the hearing of the patient’s appeal. ... The grounds of appeal argue that the ... policy on which the decision was based, of not postponing hearings other than to a fixed date, was unlawful and in any case there was nothing to prevent the tribunal from fixing a new date for the hearing even if the postponement was granted. ... The result of what I have held to be a flawed approach by the tribunal in relation to the patient’s application for a postponement in this case may have had serious consequences. Rather than proceed with a hopeless appeal, the patient was forced to withdraw his application to the tribunal. Although his subsequent appeal was successful, the tribunal’s refusal of the initial postponement application may have resulted in the patient’s detention for longer than would otherwise have been ..→||2013-04-22||2013 cases, No summary, Transcript, Upper Tribunal decisions|
The following are the main sources of case transcripts:
- Court of Protection decisions on Bailii
- Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber) website - decisions
- MoJ/OPG website
- Hugh Southey QC and Jesse Nicholls, 'Mental Health Law Update', presentation by Hugh Southey to Mental Health Lawyers Association conference on 19/11/10
- 39 Essex Street COP Newsletter - Links to newsletters by Alex Ruck Keene and Victoria Butler-Cole