Mental health case law
Revision as of 19:49, 23 April 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 potentially useful than the old categorisation system: see Special:Drilldown/Cases.
(1) (1) (10) (1) (6) (2) (11) (3) (4) (5) (2) (24) (8) (4) (2) (1) (3) (1) (1) (1) (2) (6) (2) (2) (9) (7) (8) (3) (6) (9) (2) (3) (4) (37) (4) (23) (22) (4) (2) (1) (14) (12) (5) (13) (3) (1) (7) (3) (1) (5) (1) (5) (21) (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|
|* EAT capacity and litigation friend Stott v Leadec Ltd (2020) UKEAT 263/19 — The Employment Appeal Tribunal adjourned for a medical report on litigation capacity and commented on the continuing lack of rules rules containing clearly defined powers in relation to proceedings involving protected parties (as defined in Part 21 of the CPR) in employment tribunals and in the EAT.||2020‑08‑29 17:25:13||Judgment available on Bailii, Cases, 2020 cases, Litigation friend cases
|* Insanity legislation and foreign criminals SSHD v MZ  UKUT 225 (IAC) — A person sentenced to a hospital order following a finding under CPIA 1964 s5(1)(b) that he "is under a disability and that he did the act or made the omission charged against him" is not subject to s117C Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 ("Article 8: additional considerations in cases involving foreign criminals") or paragraphs A398-399 (also concerning deportation of foreign criminals) of the Immigration Rules.||2020‑07‑20 22:39:33||Judgment available on Bailii, Cases, 2020 cases, Repatriation cases
|* Restricted hospital order instead of life sentence R v Cleland  EWCA Crim 906 — Life sentence with 7-year minimum term quashed and substituted with s37/41 restricted hospital order.||2020‑07‑20 22:26:00||Judgment available on Bailii, Cases, 2020 cases, Sentence appeal cases
|* Sexual relations and contact with husband Re SF  EWCOP 15 — (1) SF lacked capacity in relation to some areas (litigation, care, residence, finances, tenancy, contact with strangers and people who are unfamiliar) but did have capacity to consent to sexual relations and to decide on contact with her husband. The psychiatric evidence was that SF would only have episodic memory ("memory for the personally experienced events of a person’s life, with retention of the details of time and situation in which they were acquired") in relation to contact with strangers, but would have semantic memory ("knowledge which is retained irrespective of the circumstances in which it was acquired [deriving] from the 'feeling' around the memory rather than the 'facts' surrounding the memory") in relation to her husband. (2) The court authorised the deprivation of liberty which existed both when living at her home and (on an interim basis until authorised by the placement) when receiving respite care at a residential supported care provision.||2020‑07‑18 20:31:17||2020 cases, Capacity to consent to sexual relations, Cases, Deprivation of liberty, Judgment available on Bailii
|* Capacity to make tribunal application SM v Livewell Southwest CIC  UKUT 191 (AAC) — (1) This majority decision confirmed that the test for capacity to make a tribunal application stated in the VS case was correct (that the patient must understand that she is being detained against her wishes and that the First-tier Tribunal is a body that will be able to decide whether she should be released). (2) In a dissenting judgment Sarah Johnston DCP stated that the test should be: "Does the patient want to be free to leave?" (3) The Upper Tribunal decided (again by a majority) that tribunal panel had not erred in striking out the patient's case, and gave detailed procedural guidance, including on when the hospital managers, IMHA, or the tribunal itself should request the making of a reference.||2020‑07‑10 23:49:01||2020 cases, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, MHT capacity cases, Upper Tribunal decisions
|* Habitual residence Re QD (No.2)  EWCOP 14 — A legal deadlock had arisen: (a) the English court did not have primary jurisdiction, as QD was habitually resident in Spain; (b) the Spanish court would not exercise its jurisdiction unless QD were in Spain; (c) there was no obligation to return QD there. The coronavirus travel bans meant an "urgent" decision under MCA 2005 sch 3 that he be returned could not be made, so the decision was adjourned for 3-4 months.||2020‑07‑08 14:46:59||2020 cases, Cases, Foreign protective measure cases, Judgment available on Bailii
|* Capacity - DOL Sunderland City Council v AS  EWCOP 13 — (1) The court decided that a CTO patient lacked capacity in all relevant areas (litigation, residence, care and contact). When giving oral evidence the jointly-instructed psychologist changed her mind on: litigation capacity (initially she thought AS had litigation capacity while not having subject matter capacity), residence (she placed insufficient weight on 'structure and routine', which is an integral part of the information relevant to a decision on residence in supported as opposed to independent living), and fluctuating capacity. The judge noted with approval the approach in NICE guidance on "Decision-making and mental capacity" to people with executive dysfunction. (2) The court authorised the deprivation of liberty (there was a high level of supervision throughout the day and night, in the accommodation and community).||2020‑07‑07 16:47:31||2020 cases, Cases, Deprivation of liberty, Judgment available on Bailii, Litigation capacity cases, Other capacity cases
|* Recognition of foreign protective measure Health Service Executive of Ireland v Moorgate  EWCOP 12 — (1) The necessary criteria were met for the recognition and enforcement of protective measures contained in an order made by the Southern Irish High Court which authorised the patient's transfer from a London hospital to a specialist hospital in Leeds. (2) An appendix entitled "Domestic regimes applicable to SM and those in her position" contains the following headings: (a) Application of the MHA; (b) Hospital admission under the MHA; (c) Treatment under the MHA; (d) Representation and support; (e) Challenging detention; (f) Removal of alien patients; (g) Mental Capacity Act 2005 (excluding the provisions of Schedule 3); (h) Inherent jurisdiction of the High Court; (i) Comparison of protections under MHA and under Schedule 3.||2020‑07‑06 14:28:45||2020 cases, Cases, Foreign protective measure cases, Judgment available on Bailii
|* Treatment despite religious delusions Sherwood Forest Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust v C  EWCOP 10 — (1) Having previously undergone two hysteroscopies, and initially consented to removal of her ovaries and fallopian tubes, C disengaged, expressed religious views (such as that only God could cure her cancer), and was assessed as lacking capacity. The judge decided that "she clearly lacked capacity and her rejection of the treatment, which is clinically so manifestly in her best interests, is predicated on a delusional belief structure which manifests itself in the language of religion". (2) The delay in this case, which was attributable to the treating clinicians not initially knowing C had paranoid schizophrenia, and their reluctance to contemplate coercion, should not have happened and likely stressed C and her family, but had not led to neglect of the cancer.||2020‑07‑06 13:47:32||2020 cases, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Medical treatment cases
|* Deputies and litigation Re ACC  EWCOP 9 — This case concerned whether, and in what circumstances, a property and affairs deputy can recover from the protected person’s assets costs which have been or are likely to be incurred in legal proceedings. The applicant deputies from Irwin Mitchell wanted to know when a professional deputy may instruct a legal firm with which it is associated and recover the costs from P. The court gave detailed guidance, including a summary of conclusions in an appendix.||2020‑07‑03 22:27:38||2020 cases, Cases, Deputyship cases, Judgment available on Bailii|
- Bailii - including Court of Protection decisions on Bailii
- Gov.uk website: Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber) decisions
- MoJ/OPG website (archived)
- 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.