Mental Health Law Online - New pages [en]

Austin v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis (2007) EWCA Civ 989

2012-05-08T19:26:31Z

Jonathan:

Kettling/[[Article 5]] case. [Summary required.]

==Related judgments==
[[Austin v UK 39692/09 (2012) ECHR 459, (2012) MHLO 22]]
*[[Austin v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis (2009) UKHL 5]]
**[[Austin v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis (2007) EWCA Civ 989]]

==External link==
{{bailii|(2007) EWCA Civ 989}}

[[Category:Deprivation of liberty]]
[[Category:No summary]]
[[Category:Transcript]]
[[Category:2007 cases]]

Re G (2012) EWCA Civ 431, (2012) MHLO 52

2012-05-05T22:07:35Z

Jonathan: Created page with "The local authority issued proceedings under the court's inherent jurisdiction in relation to a 30-year-old with Downs Syndrome history who was in the exclusive care of her mo..."

The local authority issued proceedings under the court's inherent jurisdiction in relation to a 30-year-old with Downs Syndrome history who was in the exclusive care of her mother. This decision relates to an unsuccessful appeal against case management orders. [Summary required.]

==Transcript==
{{Transcript|Re G (2012) EWCA Civ 431, (2012) MHLO 52}}

==External link==
{{bailii|(2012) EWCA Civ 431|no}}

[[Category:Other capacity cases]]
[[Category:No summary]]
[[Category:Transcript]]
[[Category:2012 cases]]

DD v Durham County Council (2012) EWHC 1053 (QB), (2012) MHLO 51

2012-05-05T21:47:43Z

Jonathan: Created page with "''The claimant was gate sectioned at Durham prison and detained under s2, then s3, in a Middlesborough hospital. He had complaints of false imprisonment and breaches o..."

''The claimant was gate sectioned at Durham prison and detained under [[s2]], then [[s3]], in a Middlesborough hospital. He had complaints of false imprisonment and breaches of [[Article 3]] and [[Article 8|8]] relating to matters such as his being kept in seclusion, the lighting in his room, the number of people supervising his activities and a general lack of privacy. (1) He needed leave under [[s139]] to bring civil proceedings against Durham County Council and Middlesborough City Council. This was refused: there was no realistic prospect of establishing illegality against the AMHPs who made the recommendations for s2 and s3 as AMHPs are (a) not required to choose or investigate the quality of the place of detention, (b) not required to research medical views earlier than those in the statutory recommendations, (c) not responsible for the medical or other regimes to which a detained person is subjected. (2) The AMHP who applied for s3 detention was employed by Middlesborough, so Durham claimed that Middlesborough would be vicariously liable. This was incorrect: Durham would have been liable for any wrongdoing, because vicarious liability arises not as a result of employment law but through the statutory relationship in [[s13]].''

==Other==
Judgment: 24/4/12

Hearing: 27/3/12

Before: Eady J

Christopher Buttler (instructed by Scott-Moncrieff & Associates LLP) for the Claimant

John Norman (instructed by DWF LLP) for the First Defendant

Patrick Limb QC (instructed by Berrymans Lace Mawer LLP) for the Second Defendant

==External link==
{{bailii|(2012) EWHC 1053 (QB)}}

[[Category:Miscellaneous]]
[[Category:Brief summary]]
[[Category:Transcript]]
[[Category:2012 cases]]

R v Parkins (2012) EWCA Crim 856, (2012) MHLO 50

2012-05-05T13:44:51Z

Jonathan: Created page with "''The sentencing judge had not been wrong to impose a restriction order contrary to the medical recommendations.'' ==External link== {{bailii|(2012) EWCA Crim 856|no}} [[Med..."

''The sentencing judge had not been wrong to impose a restriction order contrary to the medical recommendations.''

==External link==
{{bailii|(2012) EWCA Crim 856|no}}

[[Media:R v Parkins (2012) EWCA Crim 856, (2012) MHLO 50.pdf|Transcript]]

[[Category:Restriction order cases]]
[[Category:Brief summary]]
[[Category:Transcript]]
[[Category:2012 cases]]

Verlander v Rahman (2012) EWHC 1026 (QB), (2012) MHLO 49

2012-05-05T13:28:22Z

Jonathan:

''Personal injury quantum judgment including the following issues: (1) whether and to what extent the claimant's disabilities were due to frontal lobe brain damage (and are now incapable of significant improvement) or due depression or psychological factors (which may well improve over time); (2) whether the claimant had capacity to manage her properties and affairs.''

==External link==
{{bailii|(2012) EWHC 1026 (QB)|no}}

[[Media:Verlander v Rahman (2012) EWHC 1026 (QB), (2012) MHLO 49.pdf|Transcript]]

[[Category:Other capacity cases]]
[[Category:Brief summary]]
[[Category:Transcript]]
[[Category:2012 cases]]

Re D; An NHS Trust v D (2012) EWHC 885 (COP), (2012) MHLO 47

2012-05-05T13:11:22Z

Jonathan: Created page with "''(1) P was in a permanent vegetative state so continued medical treatment is of no benefit to him because it is futile. (2) His letter refusing life-sustaining treatment did ..."

''(1) P was in a permanent vegetative state so continued medical treatment is of no benefit to him because it is futile. (2) His letter refusing life-sustaining treatment did not comply with the MCA requirements for an advance decision so could not have been relied upon; however, had the evidence on PVS not been clear cut, the judge would have given P's previous wishes and feelings great weight.''

==Related judgments==
[[Re D (Official Solicitor's costs); An NHS Trust v D (2012) EWHC 886 (COP), (2012) MHLO 48]]
*[[Re D; An NHS Trust v D (2012) EWHC 885 (COP), (2012) MHLO 47]]

==External link==
{{bailii|(2012) EWHC 885 (COP)}}

[[Media:Re D; An NHS Trust v D (2012) EWHC 885 (COP), (2012) MHLO 47.pdf|Transcript]]

[[39 Essex Street COP Newsletter#May 2012]]

[[Category:Best interests]]
[[Category:Brief summary]]
[[Category:Transcript]]
[[Category:2012 cases]]

Re D (Official Solicitor's costs); An NHS Trust v D (2012) EWHC 886 (COP), (2012) MHLO 48

2012-05-05T13:11:21Z

Jonathan: Created page with "''(1) In medical cases in the Court of Protection, an order that the health authority pays half the Official Solicitor's costs is the starting point, from which the court can ..."

''(1) In medical cases in the Court of Protection, an order that the health authority pays half the Official Solicitor's costs is the starting point, from which the court can depart if there is reason to do so (thus the practice under the inherent jurisdiction continues). (2) On the facts, this was the order made.''

==Related judgments==
[[Re D (Official Solicitor's costs); An NHS Trust v D (2012) EWHC 886 (COP), (2012) MHLO 48]]
*[[Re D; An NHS Trust v D (2012) EWHC 885 (COP), (2012) MHLO 47]]

==External link==
{{bailii|(2012) EWHC 886 (COP)|no}}

[[Media:Re D (Official Solicitor's costs); An NHS Trust v D (2012) EWHC 886 (COP), (2012) MHLO 48.pdf|Transcript]]

[[39 Essex Street COP Newsletter#May 2012]]

[[Category:COP costs cases]]
[[Category:Brief summary]]
[[Category:Transcript]]
[[Category:2012 cases]]

LB Haringey v FG (No. 2) (2011) EWHC 3933 (COP)

2012-05-05T12:50:54Z

Jonathan: Created page with ""There are many issues that have arisen in this case, but now the critical welfare issue is whether or not H should be returned home to live with her mother. This is an outco..."

"There are many issues that have arisen in this case, but now the critical welfare issue is whether or not H should be returned home to live with her mother. This is an outcome sought by the mother, but opposed both by the Local Authority and by the Official Solicitor as litigation friend to H." [Summary required.]

==Related cases==
[[LB Haringey v FG (No. 2) (2011) EWHC 3933 (COP)]]
*[[LB Haringey v FG (No. 1) (2011) EWHC 3932 (COP)]]

==External links==
{{bailii|(2011) EWHC 3933 (COP)|no}}

[[Media:LB Haringey v FG (No. 2) (2011) EWHC 3933 (COP).pdf|Transcript]]

[[39 Essex Street COP Newsletter#May 2012]]

[[Category:Best interests]]
[[Category:No summary]]
[[Category:Transcript]]
[[Category:2011 cases]]

LB Haringey v FG (No. 1) (2011) EWHC 3932 (COP)

2012-05-05T12:50:35Z

Jonathan:

"In this case there are a number of matters: does H have capacity to conduct litigation; does she have capacity to decide where she should live, or capacity to decide where she should be educated, or capacity to decide on the extent of the contact and relationship she should have with her natural family; capacity to deal with her financial affairs, or to enter into what has been described as a tenancy agreement, and capacity in a sense to judge her own best interests in those respects?" [Summary required.]

==Related cases==
[[LB Haringey v FG (No. 2) (2011) EWHC 3933 (COP)]]
*[[LB Haringey v FG (No. 1) (2011) EWHC 3932 (COP)]]

==External links==
{{bailii|(2011) EWHC 3932 (COP)|no}}

[[Media:LB Haringey v FG (No. 1) (2011) EWHC 3932 (COP).pdf|Transcript]]

[[39 Essex Street COP Newsletter#May 2012]]

[[Category:Other capacity cases]]
[[Category:No summary]]
[[Category:Transcript]]
[[Category:2011 cases]]

B v B (2010) EWHC 543 (Fam)

2012-05-05T12:41:58Z

Jonathan:

"This is an application by the Official Solicitor for an order that Mr B do pay the Official Solicitor’s costs, on an indemnity basis, of acting on behalf of Mr B as his guardian ad litem, until the Official Solicitor was discharged by order of 19th August 2009." [Summary required.]

==External links==
{{bailii|(2010) EWHC 543 (Fam)|no}}

[[Media:B v B (2010) EWHC 543 (Fam).pdf|Transcript]]

[[39 Essex Street COP Newsletter#May 2012]]

In 'COP costs cases' category as it is the nearest relevant category.

[[Category:COP costs cases]]
[[Category:No summary]]
[[Category:Transcript]]
[[Category:2010 cases]]

MS v UK 24527/08 (2012) ECHR 804, (2012) MHLO 46

2012-05-05T12:07:15Z

Jonathan:

''(1) The conditions of the applicant's detention under [[s136]] in a police cell beyond the 72-hour limit, while waiting for transfer to a medium secure unit, were an affront to human dignity and reached the threshold of degrading treatment for the purposes of [[Article 3]]. (2) There was no breach of [[Article 13]] as an appropriate remedy was available in domestic law, notwithstanding the fact that he had been unsuccessful. (3) There was no claim for breach of Article 5. (4) Compensation of €3,000 was awarded.''

==External links==
{{bailii|(2012) ECHR 804}}

[http://ukhumanrightsblog.com/2012/05/03/delay-in-transferring-mental-health-patient-for-treatment-amounted-to-inhumane-treatment/ Rosalind English, 'Delay in transferring mental health patient for treatment amounted to "inhumane treatment"' (3/5/12)]. This article concludes: 'This is a prime example of using Article 3 as a social and economic right, not a basic civil right, and thus extended leaves publicly funded authorities to carry out difficult jobs with threats of litigation looming on all sides. The UK courts recognised this claim for what it was, and dismissed it. Strasbourg should have done the same.'

[http://mentalhealthcop.wordpress.com/2012/05/04/ms-v-uk-2/ Mental Health Cop Blog, 'MS v UK' (4/5/12)]. This article is in favour of the judgment and makes points in relation to (1) place of safety arguments, (2) accessing psychiatric beds, (3) media coverage, and (4) implications

[http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int////tkp197/viewhbkm.asp?action=open&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649&key=98251&sessionId=94130848&skin=hudoc-pr-en&attachment=true ECtHR, 'Prolonged police detention of mentally-ill man without adequate medical care violated his Convention rights' (Press release ref ECHR 195 (2012), 3/5/12)]. This is the court's summary of the judgment

[[Category:Miscellaneous]]
[[Category:ECHR]]
[[Category:Brief summary]]
[[Category:Transcript]]
[[Category:2012 cases]]

Access denied

2012-05-05T01:31:05Z

Jonathan: Created page with "Sorry - you have tried to view a file that can't be displayed. Return to Main Page."

Sorry - you have tried to view a file that can't be displayed.

Return to [[Main Page]].

April 2012 update

2012-04-28T23:16:18Z

Jonathan: /* Newletters */

Alternative formats: '''[[Media:MHLO Monthly Update April 2012.pdf|PDF]]''' | '''[[Media:MHLO Monthly Update April 2012.mobi|Kindle]]'''

==Case summaries==
*{{pagesummary|R v B (2012) EWCA Crim 770, (2012) MHLO 42}}
*{{pagesummary|Re JC; D v JC (2012) MHLO 35 (COP)}} Transcript provided by Barbara Rich of 5 Stone Buildings
*{{pagesummary|R (HA (Nigeria)) v SSHD (2012) EWHC 979 (Admin), (2012) MHLO 41}}
*{{pagesummary|Dunhill v Burgin (2012) EWCA Civ 397, (2012) MHLO 33}}
*{{pagesummary|R v Ahmed (2012) EWCA Crim 708, (2012) MHLO 40}}
*{{pagesummary|R (Sutton) v Calderdale Council (2012) EWHC 637 (Admin), (2012) MHLO 39}}
*{{pagesummary|R v Levey (2012) EWCA Crim 657, (2012) MHLO 34}}
*{{pagesummary|Re Drew (2012) MHLO 45 (LPA)}}
*{{pagesummary|Re Bloom (2012) MHLO 44 (LPA)}}
*{{pagesummary|Re Batchelor (2012) MHLO 43 (LPA)}}
*{{pagesummary|L v Clinical Director of St Patrick's University Hospital (2012) IEHC 15, (2012) MHLO 36}}

==Case transcripts==
*{{pagesummary|MM (Zimbabwe) v SSHD (2012) EWCA Civ 279, (2012) MHLO 38}}
*{{pagesummary|Republic of South Africa v Dewani (2012) EWHC 842 (Admin), (2012) MHLO 37}}
*{{pagesummary|Re JO'B; HSE v JO'B (2011) IEHC 73}}
*{{pagesummary|Han v President of the Circuit Court (2008) IEHC 160}}
*Transcript and neutral citation now available: {{pagesummary|Coombs v Dorset NHS PCT (2012) EWHC 521 (QB), (2012) MHLO 13}}

==Legislation==
*{{pagesummary|Health and Social Care Act 2012}}
*{{pagesummary|Mental Health (Hospital, Guardianship and Treatment) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2012}}

==Mental Health Tribunal==
*HMCTS, 'Mental Health Tribunal Stakeholder Bulletin April 2012' (17/4/12). The following are the headings: Contacting the Tribunal; Reports Processing Team; Section 2 Cases; Scanned Reports; Password protection; Notification to the Tribunal of Patient Withdrawals and RC Discharges; HQ2 Questionnaire; FTT Mental Health Policy update; Clerking; Facilities for the Hearing impaired; Olympics and Paralympics 2012 and the potential impact; Relist Team; Customer Survey; Feedback. In relation to the new forms: '''Form CNL2''' ('Case Notification Letter 2'), which from May 2012 will be sent to the representative with the RC's report, demands that the representative complete '''Form HQ2''' ('Hearing Questionnaire 2'). HQ2 asks the following questions: (1) What is the Patient seeking from the tribunal, and what are the principal areas of dispute? (2) Do you intend to call an independent expert? If so, please give details. (3) What is your hearing time estimate? (4) Would this case benefit from pre-hearing review by a tribunal judge? If so, please say why (e.g. change of status under the Act, or recent hospital transfer). (5) Are there any other matters that you feel that the panel should know in order to dispose of this matter justly, fairly and without delay? (6) Does the patient need an interpreter? If so, please give details of language and dialect. See [[Mental Health Tribunal#Tribunal member and stakeholder email bulletin]]
*New Practice Direction on reports. {{pagesummary|Practice Direction: First-tier Tribunal Health Education and Social Care Chamber: Statements and Reports in Mental Health Cases}}
*HMCTS, 'T128: Options for your Tribunal Referral Hearing: Community Patients' (April 2012). This is the form which is sent to CTO patients inviting them to cancel their tribunal referral hearings. See [[Tribunal Procedure (Amendment) Rules 2012]]
*Updated guidance. HMCTS, 'Room Specification Recommendations for Tribunal Hearings' (March 2012). See [[Mental Health Tribunal]]
*{{pagesummary|Guidance Booklet: Reports for Mental Health Tribunals}}
*Mark Hinchliffe, 'Important Notice' (29/3/12). This document describes the changes made by the [[Tribunal Procedure (Amendment) Rules 2012]] on 6/4/12. In relation to the tribunal's requirement, in CTO reference cases, for evidence from the RC about the patient's capacity to decide not to attend or be represented, it states: 'We do not see that this should present a difficulty or a conflict of interest. The Responsible Clinician, as an expert witness, has no "interest" one way or the other and, in any event, has a responsibility to assess capacity in many situations...' See [[Mental Health Tribunal#Messages from Deputy Chamber President]]

==Court of Protection==
*New COP Practice Direction. {{pagesummary|COP Practice Direction: Preparation of Bundles}}

==Care Quality Commission==
*CQC, 'CQC inspector dismissed for gross misconduct' (27/4/12). 'A CQC inspector has been dismissed for gross misconduct after an internal investigation revealed that the impartiality of their regulatory judgements had been seriously compromised. This came to light as a result of whistle-blowing information to the CQC. No additional detail can be provided as CQC has now referred this matter to the police.' See [[CQC]]

==Legal Services Commission==
*The LSC is consulting on their proposal to discontinue funding for the Specialist Support Service, as a result of conceding a judicial review of their decision to do so. The consultation runs until 11/5/12. The specialist support service for mental health is run by Scott Moncrieff Solicitors, and is available from Monday to Friday, 10am to 4pm, on 0844 800 3364. Related articles: Legal Aid Handbook Blog, 'LSC concede judicial review; specialist support reprieved' (1/3/12); Legal Aid Handbook Blog, 'Weekly round up' (1/4/12). See [[Consultations#Legal Services Commission]]
*LSC, 'New Keycard 48 to be introduced from 9 April' (5/4/12). Keycard 48 reflects an increase in the standard dependants' allowances assessed for a partner or child living within the client's household; the new rates are applicable to new applications or further assessments made on or after 9 April 2012. Eligibility limits are unchanged. See [[Legal Aid News]]

==Newsletters==
*39 Essex Street, 'Court of Protection Newsletter' (issue 20, April 2012). The cases mentioned in this issue are: Austin v UK 39692/09 [2012] ECHR 459, [2012] MHLO 22, DD v Lithuania 13469/06 [2012] ECHR 254, [2012] MHLO 29, DL v A Local Authority [2012] EWCA Civ 253, [2012] MHLO 32, Long v Rodman [2012] EWHC 347 (Ch), [2012] MHLO 12, ZH v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis [2012] EWHC 604 (QB), [2012] MHLO 25, Seaton v Seddon [2012] EWHC 735 (Ch), [2012] MHLO 28, Coombs v Dorset NHS PCT [2012] EWHC 521 (QB), [2012] MHLO 13. Also mentioned are: CQC report on DOLS; Listing Deprivation of Liberty Safeguarding cases; COP Cases Online and all previous newsletters in one PDF document. See [[39 Essex Street COP Newsletter]]
*Mind, 'Legal enewsletter' (Issue 11, April 2012). This newsletter contains: (1) Articles: (a) Making best interests decisions under the Mental Capacity Act 2005, (b) Listening to experience - Mind's report into acute and crisis mental healthcare, (c) The right to life under Article 2 of the ECHR, (d) The right to independent living - is it working?; (2) Case reports: (a) SSJ v RB (2011) EWCA Civ 1608, (b) Cheshire West and Chester Council v P (2011) EWCA Civ 1257, (c) O'Cathail v Transport for London (2012) EWCA Civ 92; (3) Updates: (a) Discrimination news, (b) Section 117 MHA 1983 and the Health and Social Care Bill 2012, (c) Changes to mental health tribunal rules and procedure, (d) Care Quality Commission, (e) Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CPID) Toolkit, (e) Proposed DVLA changes: fitness to drive, (f) Court of Protection. See [[Mind (Charity)]]

==Articles==
*Irwin Mitchell Solicitors, 'Mother Proved Right As Son Freed From Padded Room Hell Makes Progress' (29/3/12). 'Court Anonymity Order Lifted Naming Wigan Borough Council As Local Authority Which Locked Up Her Autistic Son.' See [[Re C; C v Wigan Borough Council (2011) EWHC 1539 (Admin)]]
*Legal Action articles on the required content of social circumstances reports and responsible authority statements, reproduced by kind permission: (1) Christopher Curran, Malcolm Golightley and Phil Fennell, 'Social circumstances reports for mental health tribunals - Part 1' (Legal Action, June 2010); (2) Christopher Curran, Malcolm Golightley and Phil Fennell, 'Social circumstances reports for mental health tribunals - Part 1' (Legal Action, July 2010); (3) Christopher Curran, Phil Fennell and Simon Burrows, 'Responsible authority statements for mental health tribunals' (Legal Action, March 2012). See [[Tribunal Rules]]
*David Hewitt, 'Purpose alone can no longer determine if there is a deprivation of liberty' (Solicitors Journal, 16/4/12). This article argues that the reference in the Court of Appeal decision in Cheshire West to 'purpose' as being relevant to the objective element of deprivation of liberty is not supported by the subsequent ECtHR decision in Austin. See [[Cheshire West and Chester Council v P (2011) EWCA Civ 1257]]

==Events==
*The Mental Health Lawyers Association will be running their successful two-day course for membership of the Law Society's Mental Health Accreditation Scheme (formerly the MHRT panel) in Leeds on Monday 18/6/12 and Tuesday 19/6/12. Price: £300 (members); £390 (non-members); £250 (for third and subsequent members in a group). CPD: 12 SRA-accredited hours. See MHLA website for further details and booking form. See [[Events]]

==Jobs==
*Turning Point, a health and social care charity, has an opportunity for a part-time Mental Health Act Administrator (22.5 hours) at a new 28-person Independent Hospital in Mastin Moor, Chesterfield. The closing date for applications is 10/5/12. See [https://turningpoint.ppsworks.co.uk/apply/index1.php?online_ref=31Dl34M6 Turning Point website] for details and to apply. See [[Jobs]]

==Other==
*Westminster Hall debate on Litigation Friends (HC Deb, 21 March 2012, c244WH). See [[Official Solicitor]]

==Website==
*Mental Health Law Online was six years old on 19/4/12! Many thanks to all readers, contributors and subscribers.
*On 30/4/12 Mental Health Law Online contained [[Mental health case law|1175 categorised cases]]
*The April 2012 CPD questionnaire is now online. Obtain 12 accredited CPD points for £60. See [[CPD scheme]]
*Please subscribe to Mental Health Law Online's new discussion list. This is separate from the email updates list, which remains unchanged. The discussion list will cover all aspects of mental health law in England and Wales, from the Mental Health Act 1983 and the Mental Health Tribunal, to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Court of Protection. See [[Discussion]]
*Thanks to Barbara Rich of 5 Stone Buildings for the transcript for [[Re JC; D v JC (2012) MHLO 35 (COP)]]
*The following was asked on a discussion page on 2/4/12 (before the discussion list began). 'Does anyone know: if a CTO inadvertently lapses (i.e. is not renewed by accident) does the original section 3 which the CTO was suspending come back into being? I know if you discharge someone from the CTO that discharges from the section 3. If you revoke the CTO then the Section 3 will come back into being. But if the CTO just lapses does that also mean that the Section 3 that was suspended has lapsed by default as well? I don't know the answer but if anyone does that would be really helpful. Thanks'. The answer is that when the CTO expires the s3 ceases to have effect: see [[s20B]].
*The government have announced that from 1 April 2012, following the Court of Appeal decision in [[Cheshire West and Chester Council v P (2011) EWCA Civ 1257]] and the subsequent High Court decision in [[Re C; C v Blackburn and Darwen Borough Council (2011) EWHC 3321 (COP)]], the entire Mental Health Act 1983 will be repealed. The government spokesman, Avril Poisson, said: “Those subject to the Act lack capacity, as demonstrated by their inability to comply with voluntary inpatient treatment, and they should be treated equally to others who lack capacity. Recent case law on deprivation of liberty has shown that the relevant contrast when assessing ‘relative normality’ is not ‘the ordinary adult going about the kind of life which the able-bodied man or woman on the Clapham omnibus would normally expect to lead’ but rather ‘the kind of lives that people like X would normally expect to lead’ (Cheshire West, para 102). Periods of hospital inpatient treatment are normal, as an inevitable corollary of psychiatric disabilities: during those periods there are no realistic alternatives and no deprivation of liberty within the meaning of [[Article 5]] of the European Convention.” She said that the 29-year-old Act would be abolished with immediate effect because it is no longer fit for purpose, and that the “so-called” deprivation of liberty safeguards would also come under scrutiny. “When I use a word,” she said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less.” '''[Hope you enjoyed the April Fools' Day joke!]'''
*You can now receive monthly updates delivered automatically to your Kindle e-reader. See [[Kindle updates]]
*New caselaw category. See [[:Category:Statutory will cases]]
*See [[April 2012 chronology]] for this month's changes to the website in date order

[[Category:Updates]]

April 2012 chronology

2012-04-28T22:55:04Z

Jonathan: Created page with "See April 2012 update for a thematic summary of these changes. [Work in progress: up to 28/4/12 only.] *28/04/12 (25): Westminster Hall debate on Litigation Friends (HC ..."

See [[April 2012 update]] for a thematic summary of these changes.

[Work in progress: up to 28/4/12 only.]

*28/04/12 (25): Westminster Hall debate on Litigation Friends (HC Deb, 21 March 2012, c244WH). See [[Official Solicitor]]

*28/04/12 (24): Irwin Mitchell Solicitors, 'Mother Proved Right As Son Freed From Padded Room Hell Makes Progress' (29/3/12). 'Court Anonymity Order Lifted Naming Wigan Borough Council As Local Authority Which Locked Up Her Autistic Son.' See [[Re C; C v Wigan Borough Council (2011) EWHC 1539 (Admin)]]

*28/04/12 (23): HMCTS, 'Mental Health Tribunal Stakeholder Bulletin April 2012' (17/4/12). The following are the headings: Contacting the Tribunal; Reports Processing Team; Section 2 Cases; Scanned Reports; Password protection; Notification to the Tribunal of Patient Withdrawals and RC Discharges; HQ2 Questionnaire; FTT Mental Health Policy update; Clerking; Facilities for the Hearing impaired; Olympics and Paralympics 2012 and the potential impact; Relist Team; Customer Survey; Feedback. In relation to the new forms: '''Form CNL2''' ('Case Notification Letter 2'), which from May 2012 will be sent to the representative with the RC's report, demands that the representative complete '''Form HQ2''' ('Hearing Questionnaire 2'). HQ2 asks the following questions: (1) What is the Patient seeking from the tribunal, and what are the principal areas of dispute? (2) Do you intend to call an independent expert? If so, please give details. (3) What is your hearing time estimate? (4) Would this case benefit from pre-hearing review by a tribunal judge? If so, please say why (e.g. change of status under the Act, or recent hospital transfer). (5) Are there any other matters that you feel that the panel should know in order to dispose of this matter justly, fairly and without delay? (6) Does the patient need an interpreter? If so, please give details of language and dialect. See [[Mental Health Tribunal#Tribunal member and stakeholder email bulletin]]

*28/04/12 (22): 39 Essex Street, 'Court of Protection Newsletter' (issue 20, April 2012). The cases mentioned in this issue are: Austin v UK 39692/09 [2012] ECHR 459, [2012] MHLO 22, DD v Lithuania 13469/06 [2012] ECHR 254, [2012] MHLO 29, DL v A Local Authority [2012] EWCA Civ 253, [2012] MHLO 32, Long v Rodman [2012] EWHC 347 (Ch), [2012] MHLO 12, ZH v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis [2012] EWHC 604 (QB), [2012] MHLO 25, Seaton v Seddon [2012] EWHC 735 (Ch), [2012] MHLO 28, Coombs v Dorset NHS PCT [2012] EWHC 521 (QB), [2012] MHLO 13. Also mentioned are: CQC report on DOLS; Listing Deprivation of Liberty Safeguarding cases; COP Cases Online and all previous newsletters in one PDF document. See [[39 Essex Street COP Newsletter]]

*28/04/12 (21): LPA case. {{pagesummary|Re Drew (2012) MHLO 45 (LPA)}}

*28/04/12 (20): LPA case. {{pagesummary|Re Bloom (2012) MHLO 44 (LPA)}}

*28/04/12 (19): LPA case. {{pagesummary|Re Batchelor (2012) MHLO 43 (LPA)}}

*28/04/12 (18): CQC, 'CQC inspector dismissed for gross misconduct' (27/4/12). 'A CQC inspector has been dismissed for gross misconduct after an internal investigation revealed that the impartiality of their regulatory judgements had been seriously compromised. This came to light as a result of whistle-blowing information to the CQC. No additional detail can be provided as CQC has now referred this matter to the police.' See [[CQC]]

*28/04/12 (17): Criminal appeal. {{pagesummary|R v B (2012) EWCA Crim 770, (2012) MHLO 42}}

*28/04/12 (16): Immigration appeal with mental health aspect. {{pagesummary|R (HA (Nigeria)) v SSHD (2012) EWHC 979 (Admin), (2012) MHLO 41}}

*28/04/12 (15): Sentence appeal. {{pagesummary|R v Ahmed (2012) EWCA Crim 708, (2012) MHLO 40}}

*28/04/12 (14): Costs. {{pagesummary|R (Sutton) v Calderdale Council (2012) EWHC 637 (Admin), (2012) MHLO 39}}

*28/04/12 (13): Immigration appeal with mental health aspect. {{pagesummary|MM (Zimbabwe) v SSHD (2012) EWCA Civ 279, (2012) MHLO 38}}

*28/04/12 (12): Extradition case with mental health aspect. {{pagesummary|Republic of South Africa v Dewani (2012) EWHC 842 (Admin), (2012) MHLO 37}}

*28/04/12 (11): Southern Irish case. {{pagesummary|L v Clinical Director of St Patrick's University Hospital (2012) IEHC 15, (2012) MHLO 36}}

*28/04/12 (10): Southern Irish case from 2008. {{pagesummary|Han v President of the Circuit Court (2008) IEHC 160}}

*28/04/12 (9): HMCTS, 'T128: Options for your Tribunal Referral Hearing: Community Patients' (April 2012). This is the form which is sent to CTO patients inviting them to cancel their tribunal referral hearings. See [[Tribunal Procedure (Amendment) Rules 2012]]

*28/04/12 (8): New caselaw category. See [[:Category:Statutory will cases]]

*28/04/12 (7): Statutory will case. {{pagesummary|Re JC; D v JC (2012) MHLO 35 (COP)}} Transcript provided by Barbara Rich of 5 Stone Buildings

*28/04/12 (6): Updated guidance. HMCTS, 'Room Specification Recommendations for Tribunal Hearings' (March 2012). See [[Mental Health Tribunal]]

*28/04/12 (5): The LSC is consulting on their proposal to discontinue funding for the Specialist Support Service, as a result of conceding a judicial review of their decision to do so. The consultation runs until 11/5/12. The specialist support service for mental health is run by Scott Moncrieff Solicitors, and is available from Monday to Friday, 10am to 4pm, on 0844 800 3364. Related articles: Legal Aid Handbook Blog, 'LSC concede judicial review; specialist support reprieved' (1/3/12); Legal Aid Handbook Blog, 'Weekly round up' (1/4/12). See [[Consultations#Legal Services Commission]]

*28/04/12 (4): Sentence appeal case. {{pagesummary|R v Levey (2012) EWCA Crim 657, (2012) MHLO 34}}

*28/04/12 (3): Capacity/PI case. {{pagesummary|Dunhill v Burgin (2012) EWCA Civ 397, (2012) MHLO 33}}

*28/04/12 (2): Southern Irish case. {{pagesummary|Re JO'B; HSE v JO'B (2011) IEHC 73}}

*28/04/12 (1): Mind, 'Legal enewsletter' (Issue 11, April 2012). This newsletter contains: (1) Articles: (a) Making best interests decisions under the Mental Capacity Act 2005, (b) Listening to experience - Mind's report into acute and crisis mental healthcare, (c) The right to life under Article 2 of the ECHR, (d) The right to independent living - is it working?; (2) Case reports: (a) SSJ v RB (2011) EWCA Civ 1608, (b) Cheshire West and Chester Council v P (2011) EWCA Civ 1257, (c) O'Cathail v Transport for London (2012) EWCA Civ 92; (3) Updates: (a) Discrimination news, (b) Section 117 MHA 1983 and the Health and Social Care Bill 2012, (c) Changes to mental health tribunal rules and procedure, (d) Care Quality Commission, (e) Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CPID) Toolkit, (e) Proposed DVLA changes: fitness to drive, (f) Court of Protection. See [[Mind (Charity)]]

*26/04/12 (2): Turning Point, a health and social care charity, has an opportunity for a part-time Mental Health Act Administrator (22.5 hours) at a new 28-person Independent Hospital in Mastin Moor, Chesterfield. The closing date for applications is 10/5/12. See [https://turningpoint.ppsworks.co.uk/apply/index1.php?online_ref=31Dl34M6 Turning Point website] for details and to apply. See [[Jobs]]

*26/04/12 (1): New COP Practice Direction. {{pagesummary|COP Practice Direction: Preparation of Bundles}}

*25/04/12 (1): The Mental Health Lawyers Association will be running their successful two-day course for membership of the Law Society's Mental Health Accreditation Scheme (formerly the MHRT panel) in Leeds on Monday 18/6/12 and Tuesday 19/6/12. Price: £300 (members); £390 (non-members); £250 (for third and subsequent members in a group). CPD: 12 SRA-accredited hours. See MHLA website for further details and booking form. See [[Events]]

*24/04/12 (2): {{pagesummary|Health and Social Care Act 2012}}

*24/04/12 (1): {{pagesummary|Mental Health (Hospital, Guardianship and Treatment) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2012}}

*19/04/12 (2): Please subscribe to Mental Health Law Online's new discussion list. This is separate from the email updates list, which remains unchanged. The discussion list will cover all aspects of mental health law in England and Wales, from the Mental Health Act 1983 and the Mental Health Tribunal, to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Court of Protection. See [[Discussion]]

*19/04/12 (1): Mental Health Law Online is six years old today! Many thanks to all readers, contributors and subscribers.

*18/04/12 (2): Legal Action articles on the required content of social circumstances reports and responsible authority statements, reproduced by kind permission: (1) Christopher Curran, Malcolm Golightley and Phil Fennell, 'Social circumstances reports for mental health tribunals - Part 1' (Legal Action, June 2010); (2) Christopher Curran, Malcolm Golightley and Phil Fennell, 'Social circumstances reports for mental health tribunals - Part 1' (Legal Action, July 2010); (3) Christopher Curran, Phil Fennell and Simon Burrows, 'Responsible authority statements for mental health tribunals' (Legal Action, March 2012). See [[Tribunal Rules]]

*18/04/12 (1): David Hewitt, 'Purpose alone can no longer determine if there is a deprivation of liberty' (Solicitors Journal, 16/4/12). This article argues that the reference in the Court of Appeal decision in Cheshire West to 'purpose' as being relevant to the objective element of deprivation of liberty is not supported by the subsequent ECtHR decision in Austin. See [[Cheshire West and Chester Council v P (2011) EWCA Civ 1257]]

*10/04/12 (4): New version. {{pagesummary|Guidance Booklet: Reports for Mental Health Tribunals}}

*10/04/12 (3): Mark Hinchliffe, 'Important Notice' (29/3/12). This document describes the changes made by the [[Tribunal Procedure (Amendment) Rules 2012]] on 6/4/12. In relation to the tribunal's requirement, in CTO reference cases, for evidence from the RC about the patient's capacity to decide not to attend or be represented, it states: 'We do not see that this should present a difficulty or a conflict of interest. The Responsible Clinician, as an expert witness, has no "interest" one way or the other and, in any event, has a responsibility to assess capacity in many situations...' See [[Mental Health Tribunal#Messages from Deputy Chamber President]]

*10/04/12 (2): New Practice Direction on reports. {{pagesummary|Practice Direction: First-tier Tribunal Health Education and Social Care Chamber: Statements and Reports in Mental Health Cases}}

*10/04/12 (1): LSC, 'New Keycard 48 to be introduced from 9 April' (5/4/12). Keycard 48 reflects an increase in the standard dependants' allowances assessed for a partner or child living within the client's household; the new rates are applicable to new applications or further assessments made on or after 9 April 2012. Eligibility limits are unchanged. See [[Legal Aid News]]

*06/04/12 (1): Case (detained patient paying for treatment): transcript and neutral citation now available. {{pagesummary|Coombs v Dorset NHS PCT (2012) EWHC 521 (QB), (2012) MHLO 13}}

*05/04/12 (1): The following was asked on a discussion page on 2/4/12. 'Does anyone know: if a CTO inadvertently lapses (i.e. is not renewed by accident) does the original section 3 which the CTO was suspending come back into being? I know if you discharge someone from the CTO that discharges from the section 3. If you revoke the CTO then the Section 3 will come back into being. But if the CTO just lapses does that also mean that the Section 3 that was suspended has lapsed by default as well? I don't know the answer but if anyone does that would be really helpful. Thanks'. The answer is that when the CTO expires the s3 ceases to have effect: see [[s20B]].

*01/04/12 (1): The government have announced that from 1 April 2012, following the Court of Appeal decision in [[Cheshire West and Chester Council v P (2011) EWCA Civ 1257]] and the subsequent High Court decision in [[Re C; C v Blackburn and Darwen Borough Council (2011) EWHC 3321 (COP)]], the entire Mental Health Act 1983 will be repealed. The government spokesman, Avril Poisson, said: “Those subject to the Act lack capacity, as demonstrated by their inability to comply with voluntary inpatient treatment, and they should be treated equally to others who lack capacity. Recent case law on deprivation of liberty has shown that the relevant contrast when assessing ‘relative normality’ is not ‘the ordinary adult going about the kind of life which the able-bodied man or woman on the Clapham omnibus would normally expect to lead’ but rather ‘the kind of lives that people like X would normally expect to lead’ (Cheshire West, para 102). Periods of hospital inpatient treatment are normal, as an inevitable corollary of psychiatric disabilities: during those periods there are no realistic alternatives and no deprivation of liberty within the meaning of [[Article 5]] of the European Convention.” She said that the 29-year-old Act would be abolished with immediate effect because it is no longer fit for purpose, and that the “so-called” deprivation of liberty safeguards would also come under scrutiny. “When I use a word,” she said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less.” '''[Hope you enjoyed the April Fools' Day joke!]'''

[[Category:Updates]]

Re Drew (2012) MHLO 45 (LPA)

2012-04-28T20:55:01Z

Jonathan: Created page with "''The donor of a property and financial affairs LPA included the following guidance:" If my father is still alive then my trustees should continue with my contributions to his..."

''The donor of a property and financial affairs LPA included the following guidance:" If my father is still alive then my trustees should continue with my contributions to his care (my records make clear from which account) and assume my role in financial responsibility for him." [The reference to "trustees" should have been to "attorneys".] The court severed the provision on the ground that it contravened [[MCA 2005 s12|section 12 of the MCA 2005]]. The order recited that the case of [[Re Bloom (2012) MHLO 44 (LPA)|Bloom]] was distinguishable because in the present case the donor had no common law duty to make provision for her father's maintenance.'' [OPG summary - LPA case.]

==Note==
Summary from OPG section of Justice website.

'''Case title:''' Re Drew (an order of the Senior Judge made on 4 April)

'''Listed under heading:''' Severance of invalid restrictions relating to gifts

==External link==
Not on Bailii - no transcript

{{lpa-summary-link}}

[[Category:LPA cases - all]]
[[Category:LPA cases - severance of invalid restrictions relating to gifts]]
[[Category:Brief summary]]
[[Category:No transcript]]
[[Category:2012 cases]]

Re Bloom (2012) MHLO 44 (LPA)

2012-04-28T20:52:51Z

Jonathan: Created page with "''The donor of a property and financial affairs LPA included the following direction: "I direct my attorneys to use such of my capital and income as they shall at their discre..."

''The donor of a property and financial affairs LPA included the following direction: "I direct my attorneys to use such of my capital and income as they shall at their discretion deem necessary to make provision for my wife's maintenance and benefit." The Public Guardian asked the court to sever either the entire direction or just the words "and benefit". The court severed only the words "and benefit" on the ground that they contravened section 12 of the MCA 2005. The order recited that the donor had a common law duty to make provision for his wife's maintenance.'' [OPG summary - LPA case.]

==Note==
Summary from OPG section of Justice website.

'''Case title:''' Re Bloom (an order of the Senior Judge made on 16 March 2012)

'''Listed under heading:''' Severance of invalid restrictions relating to gifts

==External link==
Not on Bailii - no transcript

{{lpa-summary-link}}

[[Category:LPA cases - all]]
[[Category:LPA cases - severance of invalid restrictions relating to gifts]]
[[Category:Brief summary]]
[[Category:No transcript]]
[[Category:2012 cases]]

Re Batchelor (2012) MHLO 43 (COP)

2012-04-28T20:50:38Z

Jonathan: moved Re Batchelor (2012) MHLO 43 (COP) to Re Batchelor (2012) MHLO 43 (LPA)

''The donor of a property and financial affairs LPA included the following provision: "I would ask my attorneys to have regard to any separate guidance note which I may make from time to time and place with this Lasting Power of Attorney." On the application of the Public Guardian the provision was severed on the ground that it contravened the requirements of regulation 9 of the [[Lasting Powers of Attorney, Enduring Powers of Attorney and Public Guardian Regulations 2007]], which do not permit additions to be made to an LPA.'' [OPG summary - LPA case.]

==Note==
Summary from OPG section of Justice website.

'''Case title:''' Re Batchelor (an order of the Senior Judge made on 2 April 2012)

'''Listed under heading:''' Severance of restrictions incompatible with an LPA

==External link==
Not on Bailii - no transcript

{{lpa-summary-link}}

[[Category:LPA cases - all]]
[[Category:LPA cases - severance of restrictions incompatible with an LPA]]
[[Category:Brief summary]]
[[Category:No transcript]]
[[Category:2012 cases]]

R v B (2012) EWCA Crim 770, (2012) MHLO 42

2012-04-28T20:38:04Z

Jonathan:

''The appellant, an autistic young man who was prosecuted for voyeurism for looking into a swimming pool cubicle, was found by the judge to be unfit to be tried and by the jury to have committed the act charged against him. Voyeurism consists of, for the purpose of obtaining sexual gratification, observing another person doing a private act, knowing that the other person does not consent to being observed for sexual gratification (s67 [[Sexual Offences Act 2003]]). (1) Contrary to the judge's direction, the 'act' includes 'for the purpose of obtaining sexual gratification' (only the knowledge was part of the state of mind); hence, the jury's determination was unsafe and the appeal would be allowed. (2) The question of whether the jury should have had expert evidence on whether the appellant had committed the act was (although treated with some doubt) left open for argument in a future case. (3) A Sexual Offences Prevention Order could only be made 'for the purpose of protecting the public or any particular members of the public from serious sexual harm from the defendant'; (obiter) there was no proper basis for making this order. (4) Because of a gap in the legislation, there was no power to order a retrial, even if the court had wanted to: s16(4) [[Criminal Appeal Act 1968]] requires the court, when allowing such an appeal, to quash the finding and direct that a verdict of acquittal be recorded.''

==Other==
Judgment: 20/4/12

Hearing date : 9/3/12

Before: Aikens LJ, Blake J, Recorder of Redbridge

Alison Ginn (instructed by CPS) for the Respondent

Patricia May (instructed by Wheldon Law) for the Appellant

==External link==
{{bailii|(2012) EWCA Crim 770}}

[[Category:Unfitness and insanity cases‎ ]]
[[Category:Brief summary]]
[[Category:Transcript]]
[[Category:2012 cases]]

R (HA (Nigeria)) v SSHD (2012) EWHC 979 (Admin), (2012) MHLO 41

2012-04-28T18:33:48Z

Jonathan:

''(1) The claimant's immigration detention (firstly 1/5/10-5/7/10, then 5/11/10-15/12/10) had been unlawful; (2) the time it took to transfer him to hospital (i.e. 1/5/10-5/7/10) was manifestly unreasonable and unlawful; (3) the policy introduced on 26/8/10 in relation to detention of people with mental illness was unlawful in breach of the defendant's duties under s71 Race Relations Act 1976 and s49A [[Disability Discrimination Act 1995]]. (4) The circumstances of the claimant's detention breached [[Article 3]] during both periods.''

==External links==
{{bailii|(2012) EWHC 979 (Admin)}}

[http://ukhumanrightsblog.com/2012/04/23/irrational-inhuman-and-degrading-detention-of-a-mentally-ill-asylum-seeker-was-unlawful/ Karwan Eskerie, 'Irrational, inhuman and degrading: detention of a mentally ill asylum-seeker was unlawful' (UK Human Rights Blog, 23/4/12)]

[[Category:Repatriation cases]]
[[Category:Brief summary]]
[[Category:Transcript]]
[[Category:2012 cases]]

R v Ahmed (2012) EWCA Crim 708, (2012) MHLO 40

2012-04-28T18:22:13Z

Jonathan: Created page with "''The appellant was found unfit to plead, spent 35 years subject to s37/41, pleaded guilty to diminished responsibility manslaughter, was given an IPP sentence with a 63-month..."

''The appellant was found unfit to plead, spent 35 years subject to s37/41, pleaded guilty to diminished responsibility manslaughter, was given an IPP sentence with a 63-month tariff, and was transferred back to hospital under s47/49. (1) The appropriate minimum term was 39 months. (2) The appeal was adjourned to obtain medical evidence and for future consideration of whether a hospital order ought to have been imposed.''

==Transcript==
{{Transcript|R v Ahmed (2012) EWCA Crim 708, (2012) MHLO 40}}

==External link==
{{bailii|(2012) EWCA Crim 708|no}}

[[Category:Sentence appeal cases]]
[[Category:Brief summary]]
[[Category:Transcript]]
[[Category:2012 cases]]

R (Sutton) v Calderdale Council (2012) EWHC 637 (Admin), (2012) MHLO 39

2012-04-28T18:02:06Z

Jonathan:

''Costs judgment in mental health/community care judicial review: no order for costs.''

==External link==
{{bailii|(2012) EWHC 637 (Admin)}}

[[Category:Miscellaneous]]
[[Category:Brief summary]]
[[Category:Transcript]]
[[Category:2012 cases]]

MM (Zimbabwe) v SSHD (2012) EWCA Civ 279, (2012) MHLO 38

2012-04-28T17:54:37Z

Jonathan:

Immigration case. "In my view, the Upper Tribunal was diverted, by reason of the arguments advanced, from an important aspect of the case, namely, whether it was disproportionate to deport the appellant on the grounds of his previous convictions in the light of the evidence of the prognosis and the relationship between his mental illness and his offending. The judge never seems to have reached any clear conclusion based on an assessment of the risk of re-offending despite continued medication and support from his family here. If the correct view is that there is no realistic risk of further offending and the prognosis is excellent then it is difficult to see how it could be proportionate to deport this appellant. He has been in this country for 12 years and he has nothing to go back to save his grandmother and great-aunt, if they are still alive." [Summary required.]

==External link==
{{bailii|(2012) EWCA Civ 279}}

[[Category:Repatriation cases]]
[[Category:No summary]]
[[Category:Transcript]]
[[Category:2012 cases]]

Republic of South Africa v Dewani (2012) EWHC 842 (Admin), (2012) MHLO 37

2012-04-28T17:49:07Z

Jonathan: Created page with ""The appellant appeals against the decision of the Chief Magistrate, Senior District Judge Riddle, dismissing all the grounds on which those acting for him sought to oppose hi..."

"The appellant appeals against the decision of the Chief Magistrate, Senior District Judge Riddle, dismissing all the grounds on which those acting for him sought to oppose his extradition to South Africa to face the charge of murdering his wife and other related charges. Although we were provided with 80 authorities, the issues are specific to the appellant's mental state and the prison conditions in South Africa which would be applicable to him if extradited." [Summary required.]

==External link==
{{bailii|(2012) EWHC 842 (Admin)}}

[[Category:Repatriation cases]]
[[Category:No summary]]
[[Category:Transcript]]
[[Category:2012 cases]]

L v Clinical Director of St Patricks University Hospital (2012) IEHC 15, (2012) MHLO 36

2012-04-28T17:43:42Z

Jonathan:

''Unsuccessful claim for unlawful detention by 'voluntary patient' who was not allowed to leave hospital ward.''

==External links==
[http://www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IEHC/2012/H15.html Bailii]. Not on Bailii at time of writing

[http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/0125/1224310708610.html Mary Carolan, 'Voluntary mental patient not being held unlawfully' (Irish Times, 25/1/12)]. This article describes what seems like a Southern Irish 'Bournewood' case.

[http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2012/0209/1224311517820.html Mary Donnelly, '"Voluntary" psychiatric patients need protection' (Irish Times, 9/2/12)]. This article, following on from a Southern Irish High Court decision that a voluntary patient was not held unlawfully despite making several requests to leave the locked unit, argues that it is highly doubtful that the Southern Irish Mental Health Act 2001 would withstand scrutiny under the [[ECHR]], and that the statute contravenes the [[CRPD]].

[[Category:Southern Irish cases]]
[[Category:Brief summary]]
[[Category:Transcript]]
[[Category:2012 cases]]

Han v President of the Circuit Court (2008) IEHC 160

2012-04-28T17:37:10Z

Jonathan:

"In the relatively recent past, the applicant was involuntarily committed to a mental hospital under the Mental Health Act 2001. The detention was reviewed by a Mental Health Tribunal and affirmed as correct. The applicant then appealed to the Circuit Court. Before he could process that appeal, he became well and was discharged from the mental hospital. Deery J, the President of the Circuit Court, struck the matter out from the hearing list as, the applicant then being well, he considered the matter to be moot. The applicant now challenges this decision."

==External link==
[http://www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IEHC/2008/H160.html Bailii]

[[Category:Southern Irish cases]]
[[Category:No summary]]
[[Category:Transcript]]
[[Category:2008 cases]]

Re JC; D v JC (2012) MHLO 35 (COP)

2012-04-28T16:56:13Z

Jonathan: Amendment suggested by Barbara Rich

''JC's daughter D, who had been conceived following a post-marital rape of JC’s ex-wife and adopted by other parents very shortly after her birth, and who had never met or had any contact with JC, sought a statutory will giving her an equal share JC's £3.5m estate alongside his other children (A, B and C). (1) The criterion now for making statutory wills on behalf of adults who lack testamentary capacity is what is in their best interests rather than substituted judgment; however, best interests contains a strong element of substituted judgment. (2) The value of the 'balance sheet' approach is of doubtful effectiveness in statutory will applications, and in this case it was a struggle to identify benefits or disbenefits, but usually there is at least one factor of 'magnetic importance'. (3) In this case, the idea of being remembered with affection for having done the 'right thing' was of no assistance: 'JC has an appalling track record. He has spent his entire lifetime doing precisely "the wrong thing" in his relationships with others, and his malevolence is such that he would rejoice at being remembered by them with disaffection.' (4) A substituted judgment approach would lead to JC dying intestate, but it was in his best interests to make a will in order to appoint independent professional executors who are familiar with the background and can provide continuity in the administration of his estate before and after his death. (5) JC had poor relationships with his other children, but none at all with D: this factor was of 'magnetic importance' so the statutory will would be in favour of A, B and C only. (6) A, B and C would be allowed to decide the devolution of their shares of the estate if any of them predeceased JC, as it was unlikely that they would want their shares to go to each other. (7) The normal rule on costs (that in property and affairs cases the costs be paid by P) was not departed from.''

==Other==
Hearing: 25/1/12

Judgment: 26/3/12

Before: Senior Judge Lush

==Citations==
D v JC (by his litigation friend the Official Solicitor), JG (his deputy), A, B and C

Case no 11757467

==External link==
Not on Bailii at time of writing.

[[Media:Re JC; D v JC (2012) MHLO 35 (COP).pdf|Transcript]]

[[Category:Statutory will cases]]
[[Category:Brief summary]]
[[Category:Transcript]]
[[Category:2012 cases]]

R v Levey (2012) EWCA Crim 657, (2012) MHLO 34

2012-04-28T15:47:35Z

Jonathan: Created page with "''Tariff in life sentence for murder reduced from 24 years to 22 years, partly because the sentencing judge made insufficient allowance for the borderline personality disorder..."

''Tariff in life sentence for murder reduced from 24 years to 22 years, partly because the sentencing judge made insufficient allowance for the borderline personality disorder which played a significant part in the killing.''

==External link==
{{bailii|(2012) EWCA Crim 657|no}}

[[Media:R v Levey (2012) EWCA Crim 657, (2012) MHLO 34.pdf|Transcript]]

[[Category:Sentence appeal cases‎]]
[[Category:Brief summary]]
[[Category:Transcript]]
[[Category:2012 cases]]

Re JO'B; HSE v JO'B (2011) IEHC 73

2012-04-28T14:55:17Z

Jonathan: Created page with ""In these proceedings the Health Service Executive ('H.S.E.') seeks declarations that Mr. J. O'B. is a person who lacks capacity to make decisions in relation to his treatment..."

"In these proceedings the Health Service Executive ('H.S.E.') seeks declarations that Mr. J. O'B. is a person who lacks capacity to make decisions in relation to his treatment care and welfare; that Mr. O'B. is a person in need of an appropriate and continuous regime of clinical, medical and nursing treatment in an environment of therapeutic security, this being in his best welfare and interest; that the clinical, medical, nursing, therapeutic security, welfare services and treatment at the Central Mental Hospital (C.M.H.), Dundrum, are appropriate to his needs; and for an order directing the H.S.E. to detain Mr. O'B in the C.M.H., as well as seeking various ancillary reliefs. What makes this application very unusual, if indeed not entirely unique, is that it is agreed on all sides that Mr. O'B. is not suffering from a mental illness or mental disorder as that term is defined in s. 3 of the Mental Health Act 2001, and accordingly it is agreed that the provisions of that Act are of no application." [Summary required.]

==External link==
[http://www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IEHC/2011/H73.html Bailii]

[[Category:Southern Irish cases]]
[[Category:No summary]]
[[Category:Transcript]]
[[Category:2011 cases]]

Jobs

2012-04-26T16:49:52Z

Jonathan:

Job vacancies can be listed here for a small fee.

==Mental Health Act Administrator==
*Turning Point, a health and social care charity, has an opportunity for a part-time Mental Health Act Administrator (22.5 hours) at a new 28-person Independent Hospital in Mastin Moor, Chesterfield. The closing date for applications is 10/5/12. See [https://turningpoint.ppsworks.co.uk/apply/index1.php?online_ref=31Dl34M6 Turning Point website] for details and to apply.

Mental Health (Hospital, Guardianship and Treatment) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2012

2012-04-24T10:40:44Z

Jonathan: Created page with "These regulations amend the Mental Health (Hospital, Guardianship and Treatment) (England) Regulations 2008 by introducing a new form snappily entitled 'Form CTO12 - Regu..."

These regulations amend the [[Mental Health (Hospital, Guardianship and Treatment) (England) Regulations 2008]] by introducing a new form snappily entitled 'Form CTO12 - Regulation 28(1A) - Mental Health Act 1983 section 64C(4A) - certificate that community patient has capacity to consent (or if under 16 is competent to consent) to treatment and has done so (Part 4A consent certificate)'. This form will be for the Responsible Clinician to fill in, when the requirement for a SOAD certificate in these circumstances is removed by s299 [[Health and Social Care Act 2012]]. In force immediately after that section comes into force (on such day as the Secretary of State may by order appoint).

==External link==
{{si|2012|1118}}

[[Category:Mental Health Regulations]]

Health and Social Care Act 2012

2012-04-24T10:36:41Z

Jonathan: /* Amendments */

This Act will amend the Mental Health Act 1983 so that the 'certificate requirement' for the treatment of CTO patients who have capacity and consent can be met by the RC filling in a Part 4A certificate rather than requiring a SOAD to do so. It makes various other changes which are summarised on this page. The provisions which affect the MHA will come into force on such day as the Secretary of State may by order appoint.

==Amendments==
Section 299 (Certificate of consent of community patients to treatment) amends [[s64C]], [[s64E]], [[s64H]], [[s17B]], [[s61]] and [[s62A]], and inserts [[s64FA]].

The following changes have not been made to the text on MHLO yet:

*Section 38 (Approval functions) inserts s12ZA (Agreement for exercise of approval function: England), s12ZB (Requirement to exercise approval functions: England), s12ZC (Provision of information for the purposes of section 12ZA or 12ZB),

*Section 39 (Discharge of patients) amends s23, s24, schedule 1, and makes consequential changes to other Acts.

*Section 40 (After-care) amends s117.

*Section 41 (Provision of pocket money for in-patients) amends s122.

*Section 42 (Transfers to and from special hospitals), subject to saving provisions, repeals s123, amends s68A and s138, and repeals part of another Act.

*Section 43 (Independent mental health advocates) amends s130A, s130C, and another Act.

*Section 44 (Patients’ correspondence) amends s134.

*Section 45 (Notification of hospitals having arrangements for special cases) amends s140 and another Act.

*Section 185 (Independent advocacy services) amends s134.

*Section 217 (Approval of courses for approved mental health professionals) inserts s114ZA, amends s114 and s114A

*Schedule 5 part 1 paras 24ff amend s19, s23, s32, s39, s134, s139, s145, and makes consequential amendments to other Acts.

*Schedule 5 part 2 para 50 amends s139.

==See also==
{{pagesummary|Mental Health (Hospital, Guardianship and Treatment) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2012}}

==Explanatory notes to s299==
'''Supervised community treatment'''

'''Section 299 – Certificate of consent of community patients to treatment'''

1517. This section amends the rules in the Mental Health Act 1983 (the 1983 Act) aboutthe treatment of patients on supervised community treatment. In particular, it changesthe circumstances in which their treatment has to be approved by a second opinionappointed doctor (SOAD), appointed (in England) by the CQC or (in Wales) by theHealthcare Inspectorate Wales on behalf of the Welsh Ministers. The effect of thechanges is that approval by a SOAD will not generally be necessary if the patient isconsenting to the treatment in question.

1518. Supervised community treatment was introduced into the 1983 Act by the MentalHealth Act 2007. Patients who have been detained in hospital for treatment for their mental disorder may be discharged by their responsible clinician from detention on tosupervised community treatment by means of a community treatment order, providedthe relevant criteria are met (see section 17A of the 1983 Act). While on a community treatment order, supervised community treatment patients (referred to in the Act as“community patients”) remain liable to recall to hospital for further treatment, if necessary.

1519. One of the criteria for putting patients on to supervised community treatment is that it isnecessary for their own health or safety, or for the protection of others, that they receive medical treatment for their mental disorder. However, supervised community treatmentpatients may not (in general) be treated against their will unless they are recalled tohospital by their responsible clinician.

1520. The rules on treating supervised community treatment patients for mental disorder(unless recalled to hospital) are set out in Part 4A of the 1983 Act. They differ depending on whether the patient has the capacity, or (in the case of a child under 16) thecompetence, to consent to the treatment. (For the purposes of these explanatory notes,“capacity” will be used to include competence.)

1521. In brief, patients who have the capacity to consent to treatment may not be treatedunless they do, in fact, consent. In addition, whether or not the patient has the capacity to consent, certain treatments could previously only be given if they had been approvedas appropriate by a SOAD. This is known as the “certificate requirement”, becauseapproval had to be given by the SOAD on a “Part 4A certificate” in a form set out in regulations by the Secretary of State in England, or by the Welsh Ministers in Wales.

1522. A SOAD’s Part 4A certificate was generally required for medication (after the patienthas been on supervised community treatment for one month) and for electro-convulsive therapy. In the 1983 Act, these are known respectively as “section 58 type treatment”and “section 58A type treatment”, after the sections of the Act which set out the ruleson when the treatments in question may be given to detained patients. In emergencies,certificates are not required where the treatment is immediately necessary.

1523. It is the rules about these certificates which are changed by this section.

1524. The section amends sections 64C and 64E of the 1983 Act so that, if the patient consentsto the treatment in question, the approved clinician in charge of the treatment willsatisfy the certificate requirement by issuing their own Part 4A certificate stating thatthe patient consents to the treatment and has the capacity to do so. This new approvedclinician’s Part 4A certificate is now sufficient to meet the certificate requirement solong as the patient continues to consent and has capacity to do so. But it is still possibleto meet the certificate requirement by means of a Part 4A SOAD certificate instead.

1525. This new rule does not apply to electro-convulsive therapy for patients under 18 (nor toany other treatments for such patients which are in future added to section 58A by orderof the Secretary of State in England, or the Welsh Ministers in Wales). That is because,unless it is an emergency, treatments covered by section 58A may not be given to anypatient under 18 (whether or not they are otherwise subject to the 1983 Act) withoutthe approval of a SOAD.

1526. The section also inserts a new section 64FA into the 1983 Act to make clear that asupervised community treatment patient who has consented to treatment may at anytime withdraw that consent. The new section also sets out what happens if a patient whohas consented to treatment subsequently loses the capacity to do so. In both cases, thepatient will be treated as having withdrawn consent to the treatment in question. This,in turn, means that any approved clinician’s Part 4A certificate relating to the treatmentwould no longer be valid, and a SOAD’s Part 4A certificate would be required instead.

1527. However, new section 64FA(5) provides that treatment may continue whilst a newcertificate is being sought, if the approved clinician thinks that stopping the treatmentwould cause serious suffering to the patient. This might allow treatment to continue inthe case of a patient who has lost capacity to consent, but it does not allow treatmentto continue against the wishes of a patient who still has capacity to consent, unless the patient were recalled to hospital. That is because there is no legal authority to give thetreatment even if a SOAD’s Part 4A certificate has been obtained.

1528. The section makes some further amendments to the 1983 Act to reflect the fact thatthere are now two different types of Part 4A certificate. It amends section 64H to enable
the Secretary of State in England, and the Welsh Ministers in Wales, to set out differentforms for the different Part 4A certificates in regulations. It amends section 17B sothat the power in section 17E, to recall a supervised community treatment patient tohospital for examination with a view to a Part 4A certificate, will continue (as before)to apply only to a SOAD’s Part 4A certificate. It also amends section 61 to provide thatthe Care Quality Commission and the Welsh Ministers retain the power to withdraw aSOAD’s Part 4A SOAD certificate, but are not able to withdraw an approved clinician’scertificate.

1529. The rules on treating detained patients are in Part 4 of the 1983 Act. For the most part,detained patients may be given treatment for mental disorder without their consent, evenif they have capacity to refuse it (although this does not apply to electro-convulsivetherapy unless it is an emergency). However, sections 58 and 58A set out circumstancesin which detained patients may not be given medication or electro-convulsive therapy unless it has been approved by a SOAD on a certificate, or an approved clinician hasissued a certificate saying that the patient consents to the treatment (and has the capacityto do so).

1530. In general, supervised community treatment patients recalled to hospital are subject tothe same rules as detained patients, although section 62A provides that a new certificateunder section 58 or 58A is not required if the treatment has already been expresslyapproved by a SOAD on a Part 4A certificate.

1531. This section extends the exception in section 62A to approved clinicians’ Part 4Acertificates. In other words, a new certificate under section 58 or 58A is not requiredif the treatment in question is already covered by an approved clinician’s Part 4Acertificate, provided that the patient continues to consent to the treatment (and still hasthe capacity to do so).

1532. Section 62A also provides that, even if the treatment has not been expressly approvedby a SOAD’s Part 4A certificate, it may be continued while a new SOAD certificate issought, if the approved clinician in charge thinks stopping the treatment would causethe patient serious suffering. This section adds a new section 62A(6A) which extendsthat to include cases where (either before or during recall) the patient withdraws consentto treatment to which an approved clinician’s Part 4A certificate applies, or losescapacity to consent to it. As amended, section 62A will allow an approved clinician tocontinue giving medication to a patient who has withdrawn consent if they considerthat its discontinuance would cause serious suffering to the patient, but it does notallow electro-convulsive therapy to be given against such a patient’s will (because it isnot possible to obtain a SOAD certificate authorising electro-convulsive therapy for adetained patient who has capacity to consent, but is refusing to do so).

1533. None of these changes affects the ability to give medication or electro-convulsivetherapy without a certificate in emergencies, where it is immediately necessary.

==External link==
{{act|2012|7}}

MHA 1983 s64FA

2012-04-24T10:01:37Z

Jonathan: Created page with "{{mha-toc|p=Part 4A}} {{mha changes|no}} {{related cases}} {{see also}} == Law == {{:s64FA text}}"

{{mha-toc|p=Part 4A}}
{{mha changes|no}}

{{related cases}}
{{see also}}

== Law ==

{{:s64FA text}}

S64FA text

2012-04-24T09:58:09Z

Jonathan: Created page with "<div class="text"> '''Withdrawal of consent''' [64FA.—(1) Where the consent of a patient to any treatment has been given as mentioned in section 64C(2)(a) above for the pur..."

<div class="text">
'''Withdrawal of consent'''

[64FA.—(1) Where the consent of a patient to any treatment has been given as mentioned in section 64C(2)(a) above for the purposes of section 64B or 64E above, the patient may at any time before the completion of the treatment withdraw his consent, and those sections shall then apply as if the remainder of the treatment were a separate form of treatment.

(2) Subsection (3) below applies where—

:(a) the consent of a patient to any treatment has been given as mentioned in section 64C(2)(a) above for the purposes of section 64B or 64E above; but

:(b) before the completion of the treatment, the patient loses capacity or (as the case may be) competence to consent to the treatment.

(3) The patient shall be treated as having withdrawn his consent and section 64B or (as the case may be) section 64E above shall then apply as if the remainder of the treatment were a separate form of treatment.

(4) Without prejudice to the application of subsections (1) to (3) above to any treatment given under the plan of treatment to which a patient has consented, a patient who has consented to such a plan may at any time withdraw his consent to further treatment, or to further treatment of any description, under the plan.

(5) This section shall not preclude the continuation of any treatment, or of treatment under any plan, pending compliance with section 58, 58A, 64B or 64E above if the approved clinician in charge of the treatment considers that the discontinuance of the treatment, or of treatment under the plan, would cause serious suffering to the patient.]<ref>This section will be inserted by s299 [[Health and Social Care Act 2012]] when it is in force</ref>

'''Prospective amendment'''

<references/>
</div>
__NOEDITSECTION__

Discussion

2012-04-18T15:59:52Z

Jonathan:

<div style="border:1px solid black"><anyweb myheight=1050>http://www.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/discussion</anyweb></div>

Dunhill v Burgin (2012) EWCA Civ 397

2012-04-13T07:40:18Z

Jonathan: moved Dunhill v Burgin (2012) EWCA Civ 397 to Dunhill v Burgin (2012) EWCA Civ 397, (2012) MHLO 33

''(1) In deciding whether the claimant had capacity to settle a claim for £12,500 (at hearing it would have been worth at least £800,000) the question was not whether she had capacity to enter into that settlement but whether she had capacity to litigate. (2) On the facts, she had lacked capacity, and the compromise would never have been approved by the court.''

==Related judgments==
[[Dunhill v Burgin (2012) EWCA Civ 397]]
*[[Dunhill v Burgin (2011) EWHC 464 (QB)]]

==External link==
{{bailii|(2012) EWCA Civ 397|no}}

Draft judgment (approved by the court for handing down subject to editorial corrections) available on Lawtel and Westlaw

[[Category:Other capacity cases]]
[[Category:Brief summary]]
[[Category:No transcript]]
[[Category:2012 cases]]

Practice Direction: First-tier Tribunal Health Education and Social Care Chamber: Statements and Reports in Mental Health Cases

2012-04-10T20:09:18Z

Jonathan:

This Practice Direction relates to the contents of reports required for mental health cases. It supersedes [[Practice Direction: Health Education and Social Care Chamber: Mental Health Cases]] and reflects changes made by the [[Tribunal Procedure (Amendment) Rules 2012]]. In force 6/4/12.

==See also==
Legal Action articles on the required content of social circumstances reports and responsible authority statements, on [[Tribunal Rules]] page.

==External link==
[[:File:HESC Statements and Reports in MH Cases April 2012.pdf|Practice Direction: First-tier Tribunal Health Education and Social Care Chamber: Statements and Reports in Mental Health Cases]]

[[Category:Tribunal legislation]]
[[Category:Tribunal resources]]

Kindle updates

2012-04-09T11:21:09Z

Jonathan:

<anyweb myheight="560">http://www.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/lists/?p=subscribe&id=2</anyweb>

CPD

2012-04-09T11:03:11Z

Jonathan:

<anyweb myheight="850">http://www.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/cpd/</anyweb>

File not found

2012-04-04T22:13:22Z

Jonathan: Created page with "Sorry - you have tried to view a file that does not exist. Return to Main Page."

Sorry - you have tried to view a file that does not exist.

Return to [[Main Page]].

March 2012 update

2012-03-31T14:47:20Z

Jonathan:

*Alternative formats: '''[[Media:MHLO Monthly Update March 2012.pdf|PDF]]''' | '''[[Media:MHLO Monthly Update March 2012.mobi|Kindle]]'''

==Cases==
*{{pagesummary|Coombs v Dorset NHS PCT (2012) MHLO 13 (QBD)}}
*{{pagesummary|Crawford v Suffolk MH Partnership NHS Trust (2012) EWCA Civ 138, (2012) MHLO 14}}
*{{pagesummary|DD v Lithuania 13469/06 (2012) ECHR 254, (2012) MHLO 29}}
*{{pagesummary|DL v A Local Authority (2012) EWCA Civ 253, (2012) MHLO 32}}
*{{pagesummary|JB v MHTS (2012) MHLO 17 (ScotSC)}}
*{{pagesummary|R (Broadway Care Centre Ltd) v Caerphilly County Borough Council (2012) EWHC 37 (Admin), (2012) MHLO 26}}
*{{pagesummary|R (NM) v LB Islington (2012) EWHC 414 (Admin), (2012) MHLO 11}}
*{{pagesummary|R (W) v Dr Larkin (2012) EWHC 556 (Admin), (2012) MHLO 23}} Transcript provided by Tim Baldwin of Garden Court Chambers
*{{pagesummary|R v Chiles (2012) EWCA Crim 196, (2012) MHLO 10}}
*{{pagesummary|R v Dowds (2012) EWCA Crim 281, (2012) MHLO 18}}
*{{pagesummary|R v Lucas (2012) EWCA Crim 182, (2012) MHLO 16}}
*{{pagesummary|Re Forrest (2012) MHLO 20 (LPA)}}
*{{pagesummary|Re H (2012) MHLO 21 (LPA)}}
*{{pagesummary|Re Ian Brady (2012) MHLO 19 (FTT)}}
*{{pagesummary|Re Lane (2012) MHLO 15 (LPA)}}
*{{pagesummary|Re Taylor (2012) MHLO 24 (EPA)}}
*{{pagesummary|Reynolds v UK 2694/08 (2012) ECHR 437, (2012) MHLO 30}}
*{{pagesummary|Seaton v Seddon (2012) EWHC 735 (Ch), (2012) MHLO 28}}
*{{pagesummary|Wirral MBC v Salisbury Independent Living Ltd (2012) EWCA Civ 84, (2012) MHLO 27}}
*{{pagesummary|X v MHRT for NI (2012) NIQB 1, (2012) MHLO 31}}
*{{pagesummary|ZH v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis (2012) EWHC 604 (QB), (2012) MHLO 25}}
*Transcript only: {{pagesummary|A London Borough v VT (2011) EWHC 3806 (COP)}}
*Transcript only: {{pagesummary|Austin v UK 39692/09 (2012) ECHR 459, (2012) MHLO 22}}
*Transcript only: {{pagesummary|EB v RC (2011) EWHC 3805 (COP)}}
*Transcript only: {{pagesummary|Re JDS; KGS v JDS (2012) EWHC 302 (COP), (2012) MHLO 4}}

==Mental Health Tribunal==
*Senior President of Tribunals, 'Senior President of Tribunals' Annual Report' (February 2012). This report contains the following in relation to the mental health jurisdiction: (1) A periodic digest of common errors, arising in 'review' decisions (First-tier appeals on points of law), is issued so that members can 'learn from the experience of colleagues who are faced with difficult legal questions': this digest is available to legal, medical and lay members, but surprisingly not to patients, their representatives or the public. (2) There was a 3% increase in receipt of cases from 2009-10 to 2010-11, mostly due to CTOs, changes in status, and increased use of s2. (3) The 'continuing improvement' and 'excellent progress' by the secretariat, and the duty judge scheme, has led to improved case management and reduced the adjournment rate within two years from 20% to 7%. (4) The AH case on publicity and the RB case on discharge conditions are noted as interesting cases. (5) Use of secure email will be encouraged. (6) Twelve salaried tribunal judges were appointed to the Restricted Patients Panel in 2011. See [[Mental Health Tribunal]]
*The text of the Tribunal Procedure Rules have been amended to reflect the changes which take effect on 6/4/12. See [[Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Health, Education and Social Care Chamber) Rules 2008]]
*{{pagesummary|Tribunal Procedure (Amendment) Rules 2012}}
*Tribunal Procedure Committee, 'Response to consultation on proposed amendments to the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Health, Education and Social Care Chamber) Rules 2008 (SI 2008/2699) (1 June 2011 – 29 August 2011)' (February 2012). See [[Consultations#Mental Health Tribunal]]

==Court of Protection==
*Court of Protection, 'Listing Deprivation of Liberty Safeguarding cases' (15/3/12). From 15/3/12, it is no longer necessary for DOLS cases to be heard by High Court judges. The full text is as follows: 'The President and the Judge in Charge of the Court of Protection have determined that it is no longer necessary for all cases where the issue of Deprivation of Liberty Safeguarding is raised to be heard by a High Court Judge. The judges at the issuing court based in the Thomas More building of the Royal Courts of Justice will consider whether the issues raised in the case appear to require the consideration of a High Court Judge and allocate the case to the appropriate level of judge accordingly. The question of allocation may be reconsidered if and when further information relevant to the issue arises. If the judges at Thomas More, or their colleagues in any court on reconsideration of the appropriate level of judge to hear the case, are unclear on whether the case should be heard by a High Court judge, they should seek guidance from the Family Division Liaison Judge for the circuit which will be hearing the case. This change regarding the listing of Deprivation of Liberty Safeguarding cases has immediate effect.' See [[Court of Protection]]
*HMCTS, 'Court of Protection: Listing Policy - information for court users' (September 2011). See [[Court of Protection]]
*Official Solicitor, 'Official Solicitor: Court of Protection: Acceptance of Appointment as Litigation Friend' (21/2/12). This document sets out the OS's general acceptance criteria (evidence of lack of capacity, no-one else suitable and willing to act, funding available) and the new dispensation in relation to health and welfare cases (refusal to act 'in any except the most urgent cases, namely serious medical treatment cases and section 21A appeals, other than those brought by the relevant person's representative' and a waiting list for cases to be accepted). In relation to the OS's reaching 'the limit of his resources' in regard to health and welfare cases, a distinction is drawn between money (which has not reached the limit) and staffing levels (which have). See [[Official Solicitor]]
*Updated guidance. {{pagesummary|Court of Protection Guidance: Applications to the Court of Protection in relation to tenancy agreements}}

==Care Quality Commission==
*CQC, 'The operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards in England, 2010/11' (March 2012). Key findings: '(1) 8,982 applications to deprive a person of their liberty were processed, of which 50 per cent were authorised. (2) Many services have developed good practice on the use of the safeguards, especially in involving people and their families in the decision-making process, but some were confused as to when restraints or restrictions on a person amounted to a deprivation of liberty. (3) Between a third and a quarter of care homes had not provided their staff with training on the safeguards, and in some cases only the manager had received training. (4) Most hospitals had held some training, but the proportion of staff involved ranged between 20-100 per cent.' See also: CQC, 'Summary: The operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards in England, 2010/11' (March 2012); Lucy Series, 'CQC's second monitoring report on the deprivation of liberty safeguards' (Small Places blog, 27/3/12). See [[CQC]]
*Department of Health, 'Performance and Capability Review - Care Quality Commission' (gateway ref 17277, 23/2/12). See [[CQC]]

==Legal Services Commission==
*LSC, 'Accreditation contribution scheme update' (28/3/12). From 2/4/12 the LSC will reduce the amount it contributes to the costs of mental health panel membership by 50% to £73.44; from 1/4/13 there will be no contribution at all. In recent weeks the Law Society's accreditation fees doubled to £500 plus VAT. See [[Legal Aid News]]
*LSC, 'Headline intentions for future tenders' (February 2012). The main points are: (1) To implement scope changes in April 2013, the LSC plans to tender for face-to-face contracts over the next year in the following areas: Family; Asylum (including residual non-asylum work); Housing and Debt; Housing Possession Court Duty Schemes. (2) Existing contracts will amended, not terminated, in the following areas: Community Care; Mental Health; Actions Against the Police; Public Law. (3) Contracts for categories being removed from scope will be terminated. (4) Crime contracts will not be re-tendered before 2015. (5) A tender exercise for mediation work will be carried out to increase provision. (6) The telephone gateway (operator service and specialist telephone advice) plans, which are set out in detail, apply to community care but not mental health. (7) All supervisors in Public Law Children work may have to be Children Panel members, but there are no other changes to accreditation planned. (8) All providers must hold either SQM or Lexcel. See [[Legal Aid News]]
*Sir Bill Callaghan, LSC Chairman, 'The Future of Legal Aid' (Speech to Liverpool Law Society, 8/2/12). This speech suggested that the matter-start system will be abolished in the next contract: 'The ongoing administration of new matter start allocations is now attracting particular attention because it takes a great deal of effort for both providers and LSC staff. The removal of a fixed allocation of new matter starts is one idea that has been put to us by representative bodies. Fixed allocations mean that more popular providers often run out of work and are refused an increase while other providers in the area have unused matter starts. A more open competition at client level would be one way of dealing with this issue and we think it should improve the quality of provision and client care. What we’re talking about here is licensing civil contract work rather than simply allocating a fixed number of new matter starts. There is still a lot discussion to be had about the detail of how this will work. But we envisage introducing this approach in April 2013 at the same time as the LSC is abolished and the new Executive Agency takes over.' See [[Legal Aid News]]
*Legal Aid Handbook, 'LSC concede judicial review; specialist support reprieved' (1/3/12). The LSC conceded a JR claim brought by the Public Law Project of the decision, made without consultation, to abolish the specialist support service. Instead of the contracts expiring in March 2012 they will be extended until 30/6/12 pending a consultation process. The mental health specialist support service, run by Scott Moncrieff Solicitors, can be called on 0844 800 3364 from Monday to Friday 10am to 4pm. See [[Legal Aid News]]

==Newsletters==
*39 Essex Street, 'Court of Protection Newsletter' (issue 18, February 2012). The cases mentioned in this issue are: Re L; K v LBX [2012] EWCA Civ 79, [2012] MHLO 7, Wychavon District Council v EM (HB) [2012] UKUT 12 (AAC), [2012] MHLO 5, Crawford v Suffolk MH Partnership NHS Trust [2012] EWCA Civ 138, Broadway Care v Caerphilly CBC [2012] EWHC 37 (Admin), Salisbury Independent Living Ltd v Wirral MBC [2012] EWCA Civ 84. See [[39 Essex Street COP Newsletter]]
*Bevan Brittan, 'Patient privacy and the use of mobile phones in hospitals' (15/2/12). See [[Article 8]]
*Anthony Collins Solicitors, 'Tenants lacking mental capacity signing tenancy agreements' (23/2/12). This briefing summarises the ''Wychavon'' case and sets out the consequences for housing providers. See [[Wychavon District Council v EM (HB) (2012) UKUT 12 (AAC), (2012) MHLO 5]]

==Articles==
*Sarah Cassidy, 'Foster parents told to stay away from "autistic" man' (Independent, 11/2/12). See [[Settled cases and forthcoming judgments]] (Re GR)
*Anna Raccoon, 'Rotten Borough? - the Vicious Borough of Hillingdon' (20/3/12). Mark Neary's application for occasional respite care in the form of a carer staying overnight was rejected: respite care is only available at the Positive Behaviour Unit (at which his son was unlawfully deprived of his liberty for a year). See [[Re Steven Neary; LB Hillingdon v Steven Neary (2011) EWHC 1377 (COP)]]
*Owen Bowcott, 'Autistic teenager wins damages from police after being restrained' (Guardian, 14/3/12). See [[ZH v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis (2012) EWHC 604 (QB), (2012) MHLO 25]]
*Neil Munro, 'Rabone v Pennine Care NHS Trust – some scattered reflections' (Mental Health and Mental Capacity Law Blog, 7/3/12). This article concludes: 'If risk averse mental health services take Rabone to heart we may be looking at a situation where all patients regardless of legal situation are subject to a very high degree of de facto control over their movements in order to avert even a small likelihood that they may leave the hospital and kill themselves.' See [[Rabone v Pennine Care NHS Foundation Trust (2012) UKSC 2, (2012) MHLO 6]]
*John O'Donnell, 'Defining Liberty' (Solicitors Journal, 14/2/12). See [[SSJ v RB (2011) EWCA Civ 1608]]
*David Lock, 'Best Interest decision-making in the Court of Protection' (28/2/12). See [[Court of Protection]]
*Local Government Lawyer, 'Supreme Court decides not to review key 1997 community care resources ruling' (20/2/12). See [[R (KM) v Cambridgeshire CC (2011) EWCA Civ 682]]
*Owen Bowcott, 'Human rights groups call for end to surgical castration of sex offenders' (Guardian, 22/2/12). This article relates to the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture's call for voluntary surgical castration in Germany to be discontinued. In the UK only voluntary chemical castration is permitted, under s57 MHA 1983. See also: Council of Europe, 'Council of Europe anti-torture Committee publishes report on Germany' (press release, 22/2/12). See [[MHA 1983 s57]]
*Peter Bartlett, 'Sex, Dementia, Capacity and Care Homes' (2010) 31 Liverpool Law Rev 137. Abstract: 'This paper addresses the appropriate legal and policy approach to sexual conduct involving people with dementia in care homes, where the mental capacity of one or both partners is compromised. Such conduct is prohibited by sections 34–42 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, but this article asks whether this blanket prohibition is necessarily the appropriate response. The article considers a variety of alternative responses, eventually arguing that clearer guidance regarding prosecution should be issued.' See [[Capacity to consent to sexual relations]]
*Wesley Johnson, 'Ian Brady to face mental health tribunal in public' (Independent, 10/3/12). See [[Re Ian Brady (2012) MHLO 19 (FTT)]]
*Press articles about Supreme Court decision in ''Rabone'' case: Matthew Hill, 'Rabone and the rights to life of voluntary mental health patients' (UK Human Rights Blog, 12/2/12); Kirsten Sjøvoll, 'Case Comment: Rabone & Anor v Pennine Care NHS Trust (2012) UKSC 2' (UKSC Blog, 15/2/12); Nigel Poole, 'Protecting the vulnerable' (Local Government Lawyer, 15/2/12); BBC News, 'Suicidal woman failed by Stockport mental health trust' (8/2/12). See [[Rabone v Pennine Care NHS Foundation Trust (2012) UKSC 2, (2012) MHLO 6]]
*Mary Donnelly, '"Voluntary" psychiatric patients need protection' (Irish Times, 9/2/12). This article, following on from a Southern Irish High Court decision that a voluntary patient was not held unlawfully despite making several requests to leave the locked unit, argues that it is highly doubtful that the Southern Irish Mental Health Act 2001 would withstand scrutiny under the ECHR, and that the statute contravenes the CRPD. See [[DOLS#Other links]]
*Thomas Hammarberg, 'Rights-based approach needed in new law on legal capacity' (Irish Times, 1/3/12). This article argues that reform of the Southern Irish Lunacy Act 1871 should comply with the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. See [[CRPD]]
*Mithran Samuel, 'Many deprived of liberty without safeguards, warn experts' (29/2/12). This article discusses deprivation of liberty in supported living, and the Official Solicitor's view that the Court of Appeal decisions in Cheshire and P & Q meant protections for people 'had gone backwards'. See [[DOLS#Other links]]

==Parole Board==
*19/03/12 (4): {{pagesummary|Parole Board Rules 2011}}

==Statistics==
*Ministry of Justice, 'Annual statistics on Multi-agency public protection arrangements (MAPPA) eligible offenders' (16/3/12). Summary: 'This annual publication presents the number of MAPPA eligible offenders in England and Wales, and information related to these offenders, including a summary of the information provided in the MAPPA reports published by each of the areas.' See [[MAPPA]]
*NHSIC, 'Routine Quarterly Mental Health Minimum Dataset Reports, Final Q1 and Provisional Q2 2011/12 summary statistics and related information' (28/2/12). See [[Statistics#NHS Information Centre - Other]]

==Miscellaneous==
*LGO, 'Fact Sheet S1: Complaints about adult care services' (updated 1/3/12); LGO, 'Fact Sheet S3: Complaints about councils that arrange and fund residential care placements' (updated 1/3/12). See [[Local Government Ombudsman]]
*Royal College of Psychiatrists, 'CR171: Independent Advocacy for People with Mental Disorder' (February 2012). This document contains the following chapters: (1) Introduction and context; (2) Definition of independent advocacy; (3) Key principles in individual advocacy; (4) How do advocates work?; (5) Different types of advocacy; (6) Statutory advocacy; (7) Advocacy and equality; (8) Advocacy in different clinical areas; (9) Myth busting; (10) Useful contacts. See [[RCPsych]]
*Anna Nilsson, 'Who gets to decide? Right to legal capacity for persons with intellectual and psychosocial disabilities' (Council of Europe, CommDH/IssuePaper(2012)2, 20/2/12). This paper sets out the following recommendations: (1) Ratify the UN CRPD and its Optional Protocol. (2) Review existing legislation on legal capacity in the light of current human rights standards and with particular reference to Article 12 CRPD. The review should identify and remedy possible flaws and gaps depriving persons with disabilities of their human rights in relation to legislation concerning, inter alia, guardianship, voting rights and compulsory psychiatric care and treatment. (3) Abolish mechanisms providing for full incapacitation and plenary guardianship. (4) Ensure that persons with disabilities enjoy the rights to property, including the right to inherit property and to control their own financial affairs, to family life, to consent to or reject medical interventions, to vote, to associate freely and to access justice on an equal basis with others. No one should be automatically deprived of these rights because of an impairment or disability or due to being subjected to guardianship. (5) Review judicial procedures to guarantee that a person who is placed under guardianship has the possibility to take legal proceedings to challenge the guardianship or the way it is administrated as long as guardianship regimes still remain valid. (6) End 'voluntary' placements of persons in closed wards and social care homes against the person’s will but with the consent of guardians or legal representatives. Placement in closed settings without the consent of the individual concerned should always be considered a deprivation of liberty and subjected to the safeguards established under Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights. (7) Develop supported decision-making alternatives for those who want assistance in making decisions or communicating them to others. Such alternatives should be easily accessible for those in need and provided on a voluntary basis. (8) Establish robust safeguards to ensure that any support provided respects the person receiving it and his or her preferences, is free of conflict of interests and is subject to regular judicial review. The individual concerned should have the right to participate in any review proceedings along with the right to adequate legal representation. (9) Create a legal obligation for governmental and local authorities, the judiciary, health care, financial, insurance and other service providers to provide reasonable accommodation to persons with disabilities who wish to access their services. Reasonable accommodation includes the provision of information in plain language and the acceptance of a support person communicating the will of the individual concerned. (10) Involve persons with intellectual and psychosocial disabilities and the organisations representing them actively in the process of reforming legislation on legal capacity and developing supported decision-making alternatives. See [[CRPD]]
*Mind, 'Mind welcomes Health Bill amendment which protects vital aftercare for people who have been sectioned' (1/3/12); Hansard, HL Deb 29/2/12, vol 725 col 1364: transcript of House of Lords debate, in which the government agree to the proposed amendment. The only changes to s117 MHA 1983 to be made by clause 39 Health and Social Care Bill 2010-12 will relate to the change from Primary Care Trusts to clinical commissioning groups. See [[Mind (Charity)]]

==Other jurisdictions==
===Scotland===
*Mental Welfare Commission for Scotland, 'An investigation into the response by statutory services and professionals to concerns raised in respect of Mr and Mrs D' (January 2012). This investigation into alleged abuse of powers of attorney concludes with recommendations for the council, NHS Board, Office of the Public Guardian, Law Society of Scotland, and the Scottish Government. See [[Mental Welfare Commission for Scotland]].

===Wales===
*CSSIW and HIW, 'Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards: Annual Monitoring Report for Health and Social Care' (February 2012). An information brief and table of statistics is also available. For a discussion of this report, see Mithran Samuel, 'Latest on the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards in Wales' (Community Care Adult Care Blog, 13/2/12). See [[DOLS#HIW and CSSIW]]

==Website==
*On 31/3/12 Mental Health Law Online contained [[Mental health case law|1160 categorised cases]]
*Thanks to Tim Baldwin of Garden Court Chambers for the transcript of [[R (W) v Dr Larkin (2012) EWHC 556 (Admin), (2012) MHLO 23]] and to Alex Ruck Keene of 39 Essex Street Chambers for the transcript of [[Re JDS; KGS v JDS (2012) EWHC 302 (COP), (2012) MHLO 4]]
*The March 2012 CPD questionnaire is now online. Obtain 12 accredited CPD points for £60. See [http://www.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/cpd/ CPD scheme]
*You can now receive monthly updates delivered automatically to your Kindle e-reader. See [http://www.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/lists/ Kindle updates]
*The Mental Health Law Online Annual Review 2011 is now available (a) online, (b) as a PDF download and (c) in Kindle format. It contains all news which appeared in the monthly updates for 2011. See [[Annual Review 2011]]
*The CPD questionnaire for March 2012 is now online. Obtain 12 accredited CPD points from your desk for £60. See [http://www.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/cpd/ CPD scheme]
*See [[March 2012 chronology]] for this month's changes to the website in date order

[[Category:Updates]]

March 2012 chronology

2012-03-31T13:45:27Z

Jonathan:

See [[March 2012 update]] for a summary of these changes.

*30/03/12 (1): The March 2012 CPD questionnaire is now online. Obtain 12 accredited CPD points for £60. See [http://www.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/cpd/ CPD scheme]

*28/03/12 (6): CQC, 'The operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards in England, 2010/11' (March 2012). Key findings: '(1) 8,982 applications to deprive a person of their liberty were processed, of which 50 per cent were authorised. (2) Many services have developed good practice on the use of the safeguards, especially in involving people and their families in the decision-making process, but some were confused as to when restraints or restrictions on a person amounted to a deprivation of liberty. (3) Between a third and a quarter of care homes had not provided their staff with training on the safeguards, and in some cases only the manager had received training. (4) Most hospitals had held some training, but the proportion of staff involved ranged between 20-100 per cent.' See also: CQC, 'Summary: The operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards in England, 2010/11' (March 2012); Lucy Series, 'CQC's second monitoring report on the deprivation of liberty safeguards' (Small Places blog, 27/3/12). See [[CQC]]

*28/03/12 (5): LSC, 'Accreditation contribution scheme update' (28/3/12). From 2/4/12 the LSC will reduce the amount it contributes to the costs of mental health panel membership by 50% to £73.44; from 1/4/13 there will be no contribution at all. In recent weeks the Law Society's accreditation fees doubled to £500 plus VAT. See [[Legal Aid News]]

*28/03/12 (4): Case transcript. {{pagesummary|A London Borough v VT (2011) EWHC 3806 (COP)}}

*28/03/12 (3): Case transcript. {{pagesummary|EB v RC (2011) EWHC 3805 (COP)}}

*28/03/12 (2): Neutral citation available. {{pagesummary|Re JDS; KGS v JDS (2012) EWHC 302 (COP), (2012) MHLO 4}}

*28/03/12 (1): Case summary. {{pagesummary|DL v A Local Authority (2012) EWCA Civ 253, (2012) MHLO 32}}

*24/03/12 (5): Case summary. {{pagesummary|X v MHRT for NI (2012) NIQB 1, (2012) MHLO 31}}

*24/03/12 (4): Sarah Cassidy, 'Foster parents told to stay away from "autistic" man' (Independent, 11/2/12). See [[Settled cases and forthcoming judgments]] (Re GR)

*24/03/12 (3): Case summary. {{pagesummary|Reynolds v UK 2694/08 (2012) ECHR 437, (2012) MHLO 30}}

*24/03/12 (2): Case transcript. {{pagesummary|DD v Lithuania 13469/06 (2012) ECHR 254, (2012) MHLO 29}}

*24/03/12 (1): Case summary. {{pagesummary|Seaton v Seddon (2012) EWHC 735 (Ch), (2012) MHLO 28}}

*23/03/12 (3): Anna Raccoon, 'Rotten Borough? - the Vicious Borough of Hillingdon' (20/3/12). Mark Neary's application for occasional respite care in the form of a carer staying overnight was rejected: respite care is only available at the Positive Behaviour Unit (at which his son was unlawfully deprived of his liberty for a year). See [[Re Steven Neary; LB Hillingdon v Steven Neary (2011) EWHC 1377 (COP)]]

*23/03/12 (2): Owen Bowcott, 'Autistic teenager wins damages from police after being restrained' (Guardian, 14/3/12). See [[ZH v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis (2012) EWHC 604 (QB), (2012) MHLO 25]]

*23/03/12 (1): Case summary. {{pagesummary|ZH v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis (2012) EWHC 604 (QB), (2012) MHLO 25}}

*22/03/12 (4): Senior President of Tribunals, 'Senior President of Tribunals' Annual Report' (February 2012). This report contains the following in relation to the mental health jurisdiction: (1) A periodic digest of common errors, arising in 'review' decisions (First-tier appeals on points of law), is issued so that members can 'learn from the experience of colleagues who are faced with difficult legal questions': this digest is available to legal, medical and lay members, but surprisingly not to patients, their representatives or the public. (2) There was a 3% increase in receipt of cases from 2009-10 to 2010-11, mostly due to CTOs, changes in status, and increased use of s2. (3) The 'continuing improvement' and 'excellent progress' by the secretariat, and the duty judge scheme, has led to improved case management and reduced the adjournment rate within two years from 20% to 7%. (4) The AH case on publicity and the RB case on discharge conditions are noted as interesting cases. (5) Use of secure email will be encouraged. (6) Twelve salaried tribunal judges were appointed to the Restricted Patients Panel in 2011. See [[Mental Health Tribunal]]

*22/03/12 (3): Court of Protection, 'Listing Deprivation of Liberty Safeguarding cases' (15/3/12). From 15/3/12, it is no longer necessary for DOLS cases to be heard by High Court judges. The full text is as follows: 'The President and the Judge in Charge of the Court of Protection have determined that it is no longer necessary for all cases where the issue of Deprivation of Liberty Safeguarding is raised to be heard by a High Court Judge. The judges at the issuing court based in the Thomas More building of the Royal Courts of Justice will consider whether the issues raised in the case appear to require the consideration of a High Court Judge and allocate the case to the appropriate level of judge accordingly. The question of allocation may be reconsidered if and when further information relevant to the issue arises. If the judges at Thomas More, or their colleagues in any court on reconsideration of the appropriate level of judge to hear the case, are unclear on whether the case should be heard by a High Court judge, they should seek guidance from the Family Division Liaison Judge for the circuit which will be hearing the case. This change regarding the listing of Deprivation of Liberty Safeguarding cases has immediate effect.' See [[Court of Protection]]

*22/03/12 (2): Case summary. {{pagesummary|Re Taylor (2012) MHLO 24 (EPA)}}

*22/03/12 (1): Neil Munro, 'Rabone v Pennine Care NHS Trust – some scattered reflections' (Mental Health and Mental Capacity Law Blog, 7/3/12). This article concludes: 'If risk averse mental health services take Rabone to heart we may be looking at a situation where all patients regardless of legal situation are subject to a very high degree of de facto control over their movements in order to avert even a small likelihood that they may leave the hospital and kill themselves.' See [[Rabone v Pennine Care NHS Foundation Trust (2012) UKSC 2, (2012) MHLO 6]]

*20/03/12 (1): Case summary. {{pagesummary|R (W) v Dr Larkin (2012) EWHC 556 (Admin), (2012) MHLO 23}} Transcript provided by Tim Baldwin of Garden Court Chambers

*19/03/12 (20): Case transcript. {{pagesummary|Austin v UK 39692/09 (2012) ECHR 459, (2012) MHLO 22}}

*19/03/12 (19): John O'Donnell, 'Defining Liberty' (Solicitors Journal, 14/2/12). See [[SSJ v RB (2011) EWCA Civ 1608]]

*19/03/12 (18): Case summary. {{pagesummary|Re H (2012) MHLO 21 (LPA)}}

*19/03/12 (17): Case summary. {{pagesummary|Re Forrest (2012) MHLO 20 (LPA)}}

*19/03/12 (16): David Lock, 'Best Interest decision-making in the Court of Protection' (28/2/12). See [[Court of Protection]]

*19/03/12 (15): HMCTS, 'Court of Protection: Listing Policy - information for court users' (September 2011). See [[Court of Protection]]

*19/03/12 (14): Case summary. {{pagesummary|Wirral MBC v Salisbury Independent Living Ltd (2012) EWCA Civ 84, (2012) MHLO 27}}

*19/03/12 (13): Case summary. {{pagesummary|R (Broadway Care Centre Ltd) v Caerphilly County Borough Council (2012) EWHC 37 (Admin), (2012) MHLO 26}}

*19/03/12 (12): Department of Health, 'Performance and Capability Review - Care Quality Commission' (gateway ref 17277, 23/2/12). See [[CQC]]

*19/03/12 (11): Local Government Lawyer, 'Supreme Court decides not to review key 1997 community care resources ruling' (20/2/12). See [[R (KM) v Cambridgeshire CC (2011) EWCA Civ 682]]

*19/03/12 (10): Owen Bowcott, 'Human rights groups call for end to surgical castration of sex offenders' (Guardian, 22/2/12). This article relates to the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture's call for voluntary surgical castration in Germany to be discontinued. In the UK only voluntary chemical castration is permitted, under s57 MHA 1983. See also: Council of Europe, 'Council of Europe anti-torture Committee publishes report on Germany' (press release, 22/2/12). See [[MHA 1983 s57]]

*19/03/12 (9): Ministry of Justice, 'Annual statistics on Multi-agency public protection arrangements (MAPPA) eligible offenders' (16/3/12). Summary: 'This annual publication presents the number of MAPPA eligible offenders in England and Wales, and information related to these offenders, including a summary of the information provided in the MAPPA reports published by each of the areas.' See [[MAPPA]]

*19/03/12 (8): Peter Bartlett, 'Sex, Dementia, Capacity and Care Homes' (2010) 31 Liverpool Law Rev 137. Abstract: 'This paper addresses the appropriate legal and policy approach to sexual conduct involving people with dementia in care homes, where the mental capacity of one or both partners is compromised. Such conduct is prohibited by sections 34–42 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, but this article asks whether this blanket prohibition is necessarily the appropriate response. The article considers a variety of alternative responses, eventually arguing that clearer guidance regarding prosecution should be issued.' See [[Capacity to consent to sexual relations]]

*19/03/12 (7): Mental Welfare Commission for Scotland, 'An investigation into the response by statutory services and professionals to concerns raised in respect of Mr and Mrs D' (January 2012). This investigation into alleged abuse of powers of attorney concludes with recommendations for the council, NHS Board, Office of the Public Guardian, Law Society of Scotland, and the Scottish Government. See [[Mental Welfare Commission for Scotland]].

*19/03/12 (6): Bevan Brittan, 'Patient privacy and the use of mobile phones in hospitals' (15/2/12). See [[Article 8]]

*19/03/12 (5): To deal with a backlog of news items, 'quick links' will appear on the Update page until they have been summarised, uploaded and added to the relevant part of the website.

*19/03/12 (4): {{pagesummary|Parole Board Rules 2011}}

*19/03/12 (3): The text of the Tribunal Procedure Rules have been amended to reflect the changes which take effect on 6/4/12. See [[Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Health, Education and Social Care Chamber) Rules 2008]]

*19/03/12 (2): {{pagesummary|Tribunal Procedure (Amendment) Rules 2012}}

*19/03/12 (1): Tribunal Procedure Committee, 'Response to consultation on proposed amendments to the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Health, Education and Social Care Chamber) Rules 2008 (SI 2008/2699) (1 June 2011 – 29 August 2011)' (February 2012). See [[Consultations#Mental Health Tribunal]]

*12/03/12 (2): Wesley Johnson, 'Ian Brady to face mental health tribunal in public' (Independent, 10/3/12). See [[Re Ian Brady (2012) MHLO 19 (FTT)]]

*12/03/12 (1): {{pagesummary|Re Ian Brady (2012) MHLO 19 (FTT)}}

*05/03/12 (23): LSC, 'Headline intentions for future tenders' (February 2012). The main points are: (1) To implement scope changes in April 2013, the LSC plans to tender for face-to-face contracts over the next year in the following areas: Family; Asylum (including residual non-asylum work); Housing and Debt; Housing Possession Court Duty Schemes. (2) Existing contracts will amended, not terminated, in the following areas: Community Care; Mental Health; Actions Against the Police; Public Law. (3) Contracts for categories being removed from scope will be terminated. (4) Crime contracts will not be re-tendered before 2015. (5) A tender exercise for mediation work will be carried out to increase provision. (6) The telephone gateway (operator service and specialist telephone advice) plans, which are set out in detail, apply to community care but not mental health. (7) All supervisors in Public Law Children work may have to be Children Panel members, but there are no other changes to accreditation planned. (8) All providers must hold either SQM or Lexcel. See [[Legal Aid News]]

*05/03/12 (22): {{pagesummary|R v Dowds (2012) EWCA Crim 281, (2012) MHLO 18}}

*05/03/12 (21): CSSIW and HIW, 'Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards: Annual Monitoring Report for Health and Social Care' (February 2012). An information brief and table of statistics is also available. For a discussion of this report, see Mithran Samuel, 'Latest on the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards in Wales' (Community Care Adult Care Blog, 13/2/12). See [[DOLS#HIW and CSSIW]]

*05/03/12 (20): {{pagesummary|JB v MHTS (2012) MHLO 17 (ScotSC)}}

*05/03/12 (19): {{pagesummary|R v Lucas (2012) EWCA Crim 182, (2012) MHLO 16}}

*05/03/12 (18): Press articles about Supreme Court decision in ''Rabone'' case: Matthew Hill, 'Rabone and the rights to life of voluntary mental health patients' (UK Human Rights Blog, 12/2/12); Kirsten Sjøvoll, 'Case Comment: Rabone & Anor v Pennine Care NHS Trust (2012) UKSC 2' (UKSC Blog, 15/2/12); Nigel Poole, 'Protecting the vulnerable' (Local Government Lawyer, 15/2/12); BBC News, 'Suicidal woman failed by Stockport mental health trust' (8/2/12). See [[Rabone v Pennine Care NHS Foundation Trust (2012) UKSC 2, (2012) MHLO 6]]

*05/03/12 (17): Sir Bill Callaghan, LSC Chairman, 'The Future of Legal Aid' (Speech to Liverpool Law Society, 8/2/12). This speech suggested that the matter-start system will be abolished in the next contract: 'The ongoing administration of new matter start allocations is now attracting particular attention because it takes a great deal of effort for both providers and LSC staff. The removal of a fixed allocation of new matter starts is one idea that has been put to us by representative bodies. Fixed allocations mean that more popular providers often run out of work and are refused an increase while other providers in the area have unused matter starts. A more open competition at client level would be one way of dealing with this issue and we think it should improve the quality of provision and client care. What we’re talking about here is licensing civil contract work rather than simply allocating a fixed number of new matter starts. There is still a lot discussion to be had about the detail of how this will work. But we envisage introducing this approach in April 2013 at the same time as the LSC is abolished and the new Executive Agency takes over.' See [[Legal Aid News]]

*05/03/12 (16): Mary Donnelly, '"Voluntary" psychiatric patients need protection' (Irish Times, 9/2/12). This article, following on from a Southern Irish High Court decision that a voluntary patient was not held unlawfully despite making several requests to leave the locked unit, argues that it is highly doubtful that the Southern Irish Mental Health Act 2001 would withstand scrutiny under the ECHR, and that the statute contravenes the CRPD. See [[DOLS#Other links]]

*05/03/12 (15): Case summary. {{pagesummary|Re Lane (2012) MHLO 15 (LPA)}}

*05/03/12 (14): Official Solicitor, 'Official Solicitor: Court of Protection: Acceptance of Appointment as Litigation Friend' (21/2/12). This document sets out the OS's general acceptance criteria (evidence of lack of capacity, no-one else suitable and willing to act, funding available) and the new dispensation in relation to health and welfare cases (refusal to act 'in any except the most urgent cases, namely serious medical treatment cases and section 21A appeals, other than those brought by the relevant person's representative' and a waiting list for cases to be accepted). In relation to the OS's reaching 'the limit of his resources' in regard to health and welfare cases, a distinction is drawn between money (which has not reached the limit) and staffing levels (which have). See [[Official Solicitor]]

*05/03/12 (13): Updated guidance. {{pagesummary|Court of Protection Guidance: Applications to the Court of Protection in relation to tenancy agreements}}

*05/03/12 (12): Anna Nilsson, 'Who gets to decide? Right to legal capacity for persons with intellectual and psychosocial disabilities' (Council of Europe, CommDH/IssuePaper(2012)2, 20/2/12). This paper sets out the following recommendations: (1) Ratify the UN CRPD and its Optional Protocol. (2) Review existing legislation on legal capacity in the light of current human rights standards and with particular reference to Article 12 CRPD. The review should identify and remedy possible flaws and gaps depriving persons with disabilities of their human rights in relation to legislation concerning, inter alia, guardianship, voting rights and compulsory psychiatric care and treatment. (3) Abolish mechanisms providing for full incapacitation and plenary guardianship. (4) Ensure that persons with disabilities enjoy the rights to property, including the right to inherit property and to control their own financial affairs, to family life, to consent to or reject medical interventions, to vote, to associate freely and to access justice on an equal basis with others. No one should be automatically deprived of these rights because of an impairment or disability or due to being subjected to guardianship. (5) Review judicial procedures to guarantee that a person who is placed under guardianship has the possibility to take legal proceedings to challenge the guardianship or the way it is administrated as long as guardianship regimes still remain valid. (6) End 'voluntary' placements of persons in closed wards and social care homes against the person’s will but with the consent of guardians or legal representatives. Placement in closed settings without the consent of the individual concerned should always be considered a deprivation of liberty and subjected to the safeguards established under Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights. (7) Develop supported decision-making alternatives for those who want assistance in making decisions or communicating them to others. Such alternatives should be easily accessible for those in need and provided on a voluntary basis. (8) Establish robust safeguards to ensure that any support provided respects the person receiving it and his or her preferences, is free of conflict of interests and is subject to regular judicial review. The individual concerned should have the right to participate in any review proceedings along with the right to adequate legal representation. (9) Create a legal obligation for governmental and local authorities, the judiciary, health care, financial, insurance and other service providers to provide reasonable accommodation to persons with disabilities who wish to access their services. Reasonable accommodation includes the provision of information in plain language and the acceptance of a support person communicating the will of the individual concerned. (10) Involve persons with intellectual and psychosocial disabilities and the organisations representing them actively in the process of reforming legislation on legal capacity and developing supported decision-making alternatives. See [[CRPD]]

*05/03/12 (11): Anthony Collins Solicitors, 'Tenants lacking mental capacity signing tenancy agreements' (23/2/12). This briefing summarises the ''Wychavon'' case and sets out the consequences for housing providers. See [[Wychavon District Council v EM (HB) (2012) UKUT 12 (AAC), (2012) MHLO 5]]

*05/03/12 (10): Case summary. {{pagesummary|Crawford v Suffolk MH Partnership NHS Trust (2012) EWCA Civ 138, (2012) MHLO 14}}

*05/03/12 (9): NHSIC, 'Routine Quarterly Mental Health Minimum Dataset Reports, Final Q1 and Provisional Q2 2011/12 summary statistics and related information' (28/2/12). See [[Statistics#NHS Information Centre - Other]]

*05/03/12 (8): Mind, 'Mind welcomes Health Bill amendment which protects vital aftercare for people who have been sectioned' (1/3/12); Hansard, HL Deb 29/2/12, vol 725 col 1364: transcript of House of Lords debate, in which the government agree to the proposed amendment. The only changes to s117 MHA 1983 to be made by clause 39 Health and Social Care Bill 2010-12 will relate to the change from Primary Care Trusts to clinical commissioning groups. See [[Mind (Charity)]]

*05/03/12 (7): Thomas Hammarberg, 'Rights-based approach needed in new law on legal capacity' (Irish Times, 1/3/12). This article argues that reform of the Southern Irish Lunacy Act 1871 should comply with the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. See [[CRPD]]

*05/03/12 (6): Mithran Samuel, 'Many deprived of liberty without safeguards, warn experts' (29/2/12). This article discusses deprivation of liberty in supported living, and the Official Solicitor's view that the Court of Appeal decisions in Cheshire and P & Q meant protections for people 'had gone backwards'. See [[DOLS#Other links]]

*05/03/12 (5): Royal College of Psychiatrists, 'CR171: Independent Advocacy for People with Mental Disorder' (February 2012). This document contains the following chapters: (1) Introduction and context; (2) Definition of independent advocacy; (3) Key principles in individual advocacy; (4) How do advocates work?; (5) Different types of advocacy; (6) Statutory advocacy; (7) Advocacy and equality; (8) Advocacy in different clinical areas; (9) Myth busting; (10) Useful contacts. See [[RCPsych]]

*05/03/12 (4): Case summary. {{pagesummary|Coombs v Dorset NHS PCT (2012) MHLO 13 (QBD)}}

*05/03/12 (3): LGO, 'Fact Sheet S1: Complaints about adult care services' (updated 1/3/12); LGO, 'Fact Sheet S3: Complaints about councils that arrange and fund residential care placements' (updated 1/3/12). See [[Local Government Ombudsman]]

*05/03/12 (2): 39 Essex Street, 'Court of Protection Newsletter' (issue 18, February 2012). The cases mentioned in this issue are: Re L; K v LBX [2012] EWCA Civ 79, [2012] MHLO 7, Wychavon District Council v EM (HB) [2012] UKUT 12 (AAC), [2012] MHLO 5, Crawford v Suffolk MH Partnership NHS Trust [2012] EWCA Civ 138, Broadway Care v Caerphilly CBC [2012] EWHC 37 (Admin), Salisbury Independent Living Ltd v Wirral MBC [2012] EWCA Civ 84. See [[39 Essex Street COP Newsletter]]

*05/03/12 (1): Legal Aid Handbook, 'LSC concede judicial review; specialist support reprieved' (1/3/12). The LSC conceded a JR claim brought by the Public Law Project of the decision, made without consultation, to abolish the specialist support service. Instead of the contracts expiring in March 2012 they will be extended until 30/6/12 pending a consultation process. The mental health specialist support service, run by Scott Moncrieff Solicitors, can be called on 0844 800 3364 from Monday to Friday 10am to 4pm. See [[Legal Aid News]]

*04/03/12 (1): You can now receive monthly updates delivered automatically to your Kindle e-reader. See [http://www.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/lists/ Kindle updates]

*03/03/12 (2): The following are available in Kindle format: (1) Annual Review 2011, from Amazon; (2) February 2012 update, from this website. See [[Annual Review 2011]] and [[February 2012 update]]

*03/03/12 (1): The Mental Health Law Online Annual Review 2011 is now available online and as a PDF download. It contains all news which appeared in the monthly updates for 2011. See [[Annual Review 2011]]

*02/03/12 (2): The PDF version of the February 2012 update is now available to download. See [[February 2012 update]]

*02/03/12 (1): The CPD questionnaire for February 2012 is now online. Obtain 12 accredited CPD points from your desk for £60. See [http://www.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/cpd/ CPD scheme]

*01/03/12 (2): Case summary. {{pagesummary|R (NM) v LB Islington (2012) EWHC 414 (Admin), (2012) MHLO 11}}

*01/03/12 (1): Case summary. {{pagesummary|R v Chiles (2012) EWCA Crim 196, (2012) MHLO 10}}

[[Category:Updates]]

A London Borough v VT (2011) EWHC 3806 (COP)

2012-03-28T22:42:02Z

Jonathan: Created page with ""The primary matters on which decisions need to be made by the court are: (1) Should ST live at L (or possibly some other care home type accommodation in London) or in his pro..."

"The primary matters on which decisions need to be made by the court are: (1) Should ST live at L (or possibly some other care home type accommodation in London) or in his property at X, Nigeria; (2) If ST remains at L, is he being deprived of his liberty and, if he is being so deprived, does that remain appropriate; (3) Should ST's property and affairs deputy be AT or Mr G, the current interim independent professional deputy?" [Summary required.]

==External link==
{{bailii|[2011] EWHC 3806 (COP)}}

[[Category:Deprivation of liberty]]
[[Category:No summary]]
[[Category:Transcript]]
[[Category:2011 cases]]

EB v RC (2011) EWHC 3805 (COP)

2012-03-28T22:29:55Z

Jonathan: Created page with ""This is an application by the applicant, IB, for the removal of the respondent as his mother's deputy for property and affairs. There is also a counter-application by the res..."

"This is an application by the applicant, IB, for the removal of the respondent as his mother's deputy for property and affairs. There is also a counter-application by the respondent, RC, for orders that the applicant sign letters of authority in relation to two bank accounts that are held in the joint names of EB and the applicant." [Summary required.]

==External link==
{{bailii|[2011] EWHC 3805 (COP)}}

[[Category:Other capacity cases]]
[[Category:No summary]]
[[Category:Transcript]]
[[Category:2011 cases]]

DL v A Local Authority (2012) EWCA Civ 253, (2012) MHLO 32

2012-03-28T21:52:47Z

Jonathan: /* External link */

''The local authority brought proceedings under the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction to protect his parents from DL; these proceedings could not have been brought under the [[MCA 2005]] as the parents did not lack capacity under that Act; DL argued that the MCA, by establishing a comprehensive scheme for adults, had displaced the inherent jurisdiction. (1) The inherent jurisdiction of the High Court in relation to vulnerable adults survives the implementation of the MCA 2005, which only relates to adults who lack capacity as defined in the Act. (2) The absence of any express provision in relation to the inherent jurisdiction implies that it continues to be available, as 'the great safety net', where the Act does not apply; in any event, there is a strong policy justification, the protection of vulnerable adults, for this conclusion. (3) The jurisdiction is in part aimed at enhancing or liberating the autonomy of a vulnerable adult whose autonomy has been compromised by a reason other than mental incapacity because they are (a) under constraint; or (b) subject to coercion or undue influence; or (c) for some other reason deprived of the capacity to make the relevant decision or disabled from making a free choice, or incapacitated or disabled from giving or expressing a real and genuine consent.''

==Related judgments==
*[[DL v A Local Authority (2012) EWCA Civ 253, (2012) MHLO 32]]
**[[A Local Authority v DL (2011) EWHC 1022 (Fam)]]
***[[A Local Authority v DL (2010) EWHC 2675 (Fam)]]

==ICLR==
{{ICLR|DL v A Local Authority (2012) EWCA Civ 253, (2012) MHLO 32}}

==Other==
Judgment: 28/3/12

Hearing: 16/1/12

==External links==
{{bailii|(2012) EWCA Civ 253}}

[http://cases.iclr.co.uk/nxt/gateway.dll/WLR%20Dailies/WLRD%202011/wlrd2012-101 ICLR]

[[Media:Solicitors Journal - Martha Spurrier - The great safety net.pdf|Martha Spurrier, 'The great safety net' (Solicitors Journal, 2/4/12)]]. Reproduced by kind permission

[[Category:Other capacity cases]]
[[Category:Brief summary]]
[[Category:Transcript]]
[[Category:2012 cases]]

X v MHRT for NI (2012) NIQB 1, (2012) MHLO 31

2012-03-24T15:50:12Z

Jonathan:

''In previous judicial review proceedings, X had established that in NI where there is a mandatory duty to discharge it cannot lawfully be deferred. He now sought to bring a negligence and false imprisonment claim against the Tribunal and the Trust for his detention during a six-week deferral period. To sue the Tribunal he required leave of the High Court (under Article 133 [[Mental Health (Northern Ireland) Order 1986]], the equivalent of [[s139]]): the test is whether on the materials immediately available to the court the complaint deserves fuller investigation. Leave was refused because there had been a difficult question of statutory construction and no bad faith or lack of reasonable care.''

==External link==
[http://www.bailii.org/nie/cases/NIHC/QB/2012/1.html Bailii]

[[Category:Northern Irish cases]]
[[Category:Brief summary]]
[[Category:Transcript]]
[[Category:2012 cases]]

Reynolds v UK 2694/08 (2012) ECHR 437, (2012) MHLO 30

2012-03-24T15:14:48Z

Jonathan: Created page with "''(1) A voluntary in-patient killed himself by breaking and jumping out of a sixth-floor window: the court held that there was an arguable claim that an operational duty under..."

''(1) A voluntary in-patient killed himself by breaking and jumping out of a sixth-floor window: the court held that there was an arguable claim that an operational duty under [[Article 2]] arose to take reasonable steps to protect him from a real and immediate risk of suicide and that that duty was not fulfilled. (2) There were no domestic civil proceedings available to his mother to establish any liability and compensation due as regards the non-pecuniary damage suffered by her on her son’s death, and therefore there was a violation of [[Article 13]] in conjunction with Article 2. In particular: (a) neither the inquest nor the internal inquiry were an effective remedy; (b) the HRA claim under Article 2 was struck out by the county court because of domestic case law at that time which required gross negligence; (c) the mother had no prospect of obtaining adequate compensation for non-pecuniary damage under the Fatal Accidents Act 1976 (she was not a dependent) or the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1934 (death was instantaneous); (d) the lack of adequate compensation would itself reduce access to the civil remedy, as the legal aid 'cost/benefit analysis' would not be met and legal fees were unaffordable. (3) It was not necessary to examine the same complaint under Article 2 alone. (4) €7000 compensation was awarded.''

==External link==
{{bailii|(2012) ECHR 437}}

[[Category:Miscellaneous]]
[[Category:Inquests]]
[[Category:Brief summary]]
[[Category:Transcript]]
[[Category:2012 cases]]

DD v Lithuania 13469/06 (2012) ECHR 254, (2012) MHLO 29

2012-03-24T14:22:45Z

Jonathan:

Breach of [[Article 5]](4) and [[Article 6]](1) in relation to involuntary admission to a psychiatric institution.

==External links==
{{bailii|(2012) ECHR 254}}

[http://www.mentalhealthandcapacitylaw.wordpress.com/2012/03/22/d-d-v-lithuania/ Neil Munro, 'D.D. v Lithuania' (Mental Health and Mental Capacity Law Blog, 22/3/12)]. Detailed summary.

[[Category:ECHR deprivation of liberty cases]]
[[Category:ECHR]]
[[Category:Detailed summary]]
[[Category:Transcript]]
[[Category:2012 cases]]

Seaton v Seddon (2012) EWHC 735 (Ch), (2012) MHLO 28

2012-03-24T14:10:16Z

Jonathan: Created page with "''Chancery case partly involving, in relation to the fourth claimant, consideration of the effect of mental incapacity on statutory limitation periods. (1) If a claimant is un..."

''Chancery case partly involving, in relation to the fourth claimant, consideration of the effect of mental incapacity on statutory limitation periods. (1) If a claimant is under one disability (minority) when the cause of action accrued, and subsequently under a second overlapping disability (mental incapacity), the limitation period does not run until he is no longer under the second disability. (2) The question of disability for the purpose of limitation should be determined under the law as it stood when the proceedings were commenced (in this case: whether he was 'of unsound mind [meaning that he] by reason of mental disorder within the meaning of the Mental Health Act 1983, is incapable of managing or administering his property and affairs' rather than the new test of whether he 'lacks capacity (within the meaning of the Mental Capacity Act 2005) to conduct legal proceedings'. (3) On the facts, the fourth claimant was not 'of unsound mind'; hence he would not meet the new test either.

==Other==
Before: Roth J

Judgment: 23/03/2012

Hearing dates: 14th, 15th and 21st November 2011

John BRISBY QC, Tim LUDBROOK and Michael SMITH (instructed by Edwin Coe LLP) for the Claimants

Joanna SMITH QC (instructed by Clyde & Co LLP) for the 1st to 5th Defendants

==External link==
{{bailii|(2012) EWHC 735 (Ch)}}

[[Category:Other capacity cases‎]]
[[Category:Brief summary]]
[[Category:Transcript]]
[[Category:2012 cases]]

Wirral MBC v Salisbury Independent Living Ltd (2012) EWCA Civ 84, (2012) MHLO 27

2012-03-24T13:29:37Z

Jonathan: Created page with "''In Housing Benefit cases, a landlord cannot exercise an independent right of appeal to the First Tier Tribunal against a decision of the Local Authority other than in the ca..."

''In Housing Benefit cases, a landlord cannot exercise an independent right of appeal to the First Tier Tribunal against a decision of the Local Authority other than in the cases for which specific provision is made by the subordinate legislation.''

==See also==
Discussed in [[39_Essex_Street_COP_Newsletter#March_2012|39 Essex Street, 'Court of Protection Newsletter' (issue 18, February 2012)]].

==External link==
{{bailii|(2012) EWCA Civ 84}}

[[Category:Miscellaneous]]
[[Category:Brief summary]]
[[Category:Transcript]]
[[Category:2012 cases]]

R (Broadway Care Centre Ltd) v Caerphilly County Borough Council (2012) EWHC 37 (Admin), (2012) MHLO 26

2012-03-24T13:23:51Z

Jonathan: Created page with "''The Claimant unsuccessfully sought permission to challenge the decision of the Defendant local authority to terminate its contract to provide care for elderly dementia suffe..."

''The Claimant unsuccessfully sought permission to challenge the decision of the Defendant local authority to terminate its contract to provide care for elderly dementia sufferers.''

==See also==
Discussed in [[39_Essex_Street_COP_Newsletter#March_2012|39 Essex Street, 'Court of Protection Newsletter' (issue 18, February 2012)]].

==External link==
{{bailii|(2012) EWHC 37 (Admin)}}

[[Category:Miscellaneous]]
[[Category:Brief summary]]
[[Category:Transcript]]
[[Category:2012 cases]]

Capacity to consent to sexual relations

2012-03-24T12:43:12Z

Jonathan: /* External link */

See the case law links for details of this area of law.

==Case law==
*[[:Category:Capacity to consent to sexual relations]]

==External link==
*[[:File:Bartlett - Sex, Dementia and Care Homes - Liverpool Law Review.pdf|Peter Bartlett, 'Sex, Dementia, Capacity and Care Homes' (2010) 31 Liverpool Law Rev 137]]. Abstract: 'This paper addresses the appropriate legal and policy approach to sexual conduct involving people with dementia in care homes, where the mental capacity of one or both partners is compromised. Such conduct is prohibited by sections 34–42 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, but this article asks whether this blanket prohibition is necessarily the appropriate response. The article considers a variety of alternative responses, eventually arguing that clearer guidance regarding prosecution should be issued.'

[[Category:Miscellaneous articles]]