Online CPD scheme providing 12 hours for £60: suitable for solicitors, barristers, psychiatrists, social workers and psychiatric nurses
Magic Book | Email updates | Email discussion list | Online updates | Case law | CPD scheme | Books | Jobs | Events

Difference between revisions of "R (SR) v Huntercombe Maidenhead Hospital (2005) EWHC 2361 (Admin)"

 
Line 1: Line 1:
''Usually the managers should discharge if they disagree with the RMO's barring report, but there can be exceptions; they have an unfettered discretion.''
+
{{Case
 
+
|Date=2005/09/21
==Summary==
+
|NCN=[2005] EWHC 2361 (Admin)
 
+
|Court=High Court (Administrative Court)
 +
|Judges=Jackson
 +
|Parties=SR, Huntercombe Maidenhead Hospital, London Borough of Hackney, East London and City Mental Health NHS Trust
 +
|Cites=R v Riverside Mental Health Trust, ex p Huzzey (1998) EWHC Admin 465
 +
|Sentence=Hospital managers and dangerousness
 +
|Summary=''Usually the managers should discharge if they disagree with the RMO's barring report, but there can be exceptions; they have an unfettered discretion.''
 +
|Detail===Summary==
 
Hospital managers discharged SR from section. Decision to discharge quashed because (a) discretion fettered by the assumption that disagreeing with the RMO automatically led to duty to discharge and (b) the decision itself was irrational.
 
Hospital managers discharged SR from section. Decision to discharge quashed because (a) discretion fettered by the assumption that disagreeing with the RMO automatically led to duty to discharge and (b) the decision itself was irrational.
 
+
|Subject=Hospital managers hearings, Other NR cases
== External links ==
+
|News=No
 
+
|RSS pubdate=2019/11/5 12:36:52 AM
[http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2005/2361.html Bailii] - full text
+
}}
 
 
[[Category:2005 cases]]
 
[[Category:Hospital managers hearings]]
 
[[Category:Other NR cases]]
 
[[Category:Brief summary]]
 
[[Category:Transcript]]
 

Latest revision as of 00:36, 5 November 2019

Hospital managers and dangerousness Usually the managers should discharge if they disagree with the RMO's barring report, but there can be exceptions; they have an unfettered discretion.

Summary

Hospital managers discharged SR from section. Decision to discharge quashed because (a) discretion fettered by the assumption that disagreeing with the RMO automatically led to duty to discharge and (b) the decision itself was irrational.

CASES DATABASE

Full judgment: BAILII!

Subject(s):

  • Hospital managers hearings🔍
  • Other NR cases🔍

Date: 21/9/05🔍

Court: High Court (Administrative Court)🔍

Judge(s):

Parties:

  • SR🔍
  • Huntercombe Maidenhead Hospital🔍
  • London Borough of Hackney🔍
  • East London and City Mental Health NHS Trust🔍

Cites:

Citation number(s):

What links here:

Published: 12/4/06

Cached: 2019-11-21 23:12:19