Difference between revisions of "R v Cox (Lee Michael) (1999) EWCA Crim 848"

 
Line 6: Line 6:
 
==External link==
 
==External link==
 
{{#bailii:[1999] EWCA Crim 848}}
 
{{#bailii:[1999] EWCA Crim 848}}
 +
 +
{{judgment available offline}} (MHLR)
  
 
[[Category:Brief summary]]
 
[[Category:Brief summary]]

Latest revision as of 21:05, 22 May 2020

The judge was able to impose a restriction order against the views of the doctors giving evidence; there was assistance as to the meaning of “serious harm” in the s31 Criminal Justice Act 1991, and so it covered serious physical or psychological injury; the risk of such harm had to be real, not fanciful or remote. [MHLR.]

MHLR

The summary below has been supplied by Kris Gledhill, Editor of the Mental Health Law Reports. The full report can be purchased from Southside Online Publishing (if there is a "file not found" error, it means this particular report is not yet available online). More similar case summaries from the year 1999 are available here: MHLR 1999. 1999 30

The propriety of a restriction order – R v Lee Michael Cox [1999] MHLR 30 CA

Points arising: The judge was able to impose a restriction order against the views of the doctors giving evidence; there was assistance as to the meaning of “serious harm” in the s31 Criminal Justice Act 1991, and so it covered serious physical or psychological injury; the risk of such harm had to be real, not fanciful or remote.

Facts and outcome: C, who was already subject to a hospital order under s37 MHA 1983 and had previous convictions including for violence, admitted affray involving threatening 2 men at a garage and brandishing a penknife, and criminal damage to a book at the police station. Although the psychiatrists did not support a restriction order, the judge was entitled to find on the evidence that there was a real (ie not fanciful or remote) risk that the public would suffer serious harm on C’s reoffending (of which there was a considerable risk).

External link

Possible Bailii link (not there when last checked, but it might have appeared since 0700 this morning!)

The judgment in this case is available but has not yet been uploaded to MHLO. Contact me if you need to read it. (MHLR)