Page values for "SSJ v MM (2018) UKSC 60"

"_pageData" values

_creationDate2018-11-28 1:49:47 PM
_modificationDate2019-02-25 10:41:57 PM
_categories2018_cases Brief_summary Cases Deprivation_of_liberty ICLR_summary Judgment_available_on_Bailii Powers Transcript
_pageNameOrRedirectSSJ v MM (2018) UKSC 60

"Cases" values

SummaryThe patient had capacity to and was prepared to consent to a conditional discharge requiring that he live at a particular place, which he would not be free to leave, and from which he would not be allowed out without an escort. (1) The Supreme Court decided 4-1 that the MHA 1983 does not permit either the First-tier Tribunal or the Secretary of State to impose conditions amounting to detention or a deprivation of liberty upon a conditionally discharged restricted patient. (2) The dissenting decision was that the tribunal has the power to impose such conditions so long as the loss of liberty is not greater than that already authorised by the hospital and restriction orders, and that this power does not depend on the consent of the (capacitous) patient.
Detail==See also== *[[HM Prison and Probation Service, 'Mental Health Casework Section: Guidance: Discharge conditions that amount to deprivation of liberty' (January 2019)]] — '"`UNIQ--item-365--QINU`"'
SubjectDeprivation of liberty Powers
JudgesHale Kerr Hughes Black Lloyd-Jones
PartiesSecretary of State for Justice MM
CourtSupreme Court
NCN[2018] UKSC 60
ICLR[2018] WLR(D) 727
Other_citations[2018] 3 WLR 1784
External_links[ Supreme Court case details page]† *[ Judgment]† *[ Press summary]† *[ Watch hearing: 26/7/18 morning session] *[ Watch hearing: 26/7/18 afternoon session]