Mental health case law
Revision as of 12:02, 10 February 2020 by Jonathan
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 useful than the old categorisation system: see Special:Drilldown/Cases. Currently, 190 of this website's 2021 categorised cases have been transferred to the new database (1831 cases still to add!)
(1) (1) (6) (1) (6) (2) (8) (4) (5) (2) (17) (8) (3) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (2) (1) (7) (3) (3) (3) (4) (4) (2) (3) (25) (3) (17) (18) (4) (2) (11) (10) (5) (12) (3) (1) (4) (3) (1) (4) (1) (5) (16) (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 2019 cases:
The new database structure introduced in 2019 is more useful than this Category page: see Special:Drilldown/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|
|* 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, Judgment missing from Bailii, MHT capacity cases, Powers, Transcript, Upper Tribunal decisions
|* 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, Judgment available on Bailii, Medical treatment cases
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