Updates

If you have anything which is not yet on the internet (e.g. court results or transcripts) then please send it in (see Help page). As well as reading the website, you can keep up to date by subscribing to the CPD scheme, email updates, email discussion list, and the various other options listed at the top of each page.

Recent updates on website

For details of any news item, click on the relevant link below.

  • 19/08/19
    (2315)
    : Case (Pregnancy - OS out-of-hours representation). Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust v X [2019] EWCOP 35 — (1) Official Solicitor's lack of out-of-hours service: "... I invite the Official Solicitor to urgently review this position and consider putting in place arrangements that will ensure appropriate representation out of normal court hours for those individuals who are the subject of urgent applications that potentially involve serious medical treatment. ... [E]very effort must be made to issue such applications during normal court hours." (2) Pregnancy: "Having considered the submissions of the parties there is, in my judgment, in accordance with s 48 Mental Capacity Act 2005, reason to believe that X lacks capacity in relation to the matter, namely the medical intervention that may be necessary for X to give birth to a baby who is safe and well. On the evidence the court has from Dr Y, which I accept, his assessment is X is unable to reconcile her conflicting beliefs (on the one hand of wanting a natural birth and also wanting a live, well and safely born baby) in a way that she is able to balance the pros and cons. Additionally, there is, in my judgment, a real risk the position is unlikely to change and is more likely to deteriorate. He concluded X showed limited insight in relation to her previous mental ill- health. I have carefully considered the submissions on behalf of the Official Solicitor regarding capacity but looking at all the evidence and information available to the court I am satisfied the interim declaration should be made."
  • 16/08/19
    (2332)
    : Event. Edge Training: Liberty Protection Safeguards - London, 13/12/19 —"This one day course aims to provide a detailed analysis of the Liberty Protection Safeguards. The course considers the differences between DoLS and LPS and looks at what the new process will be and who will be affected." Steven Richards. Cost: £150 plus VAT. See Edge website for further details and booking information.
  • 16/08/19
    (2328)
    : Event. Edge Training: BIA Legal Update (Annual Refresher) - London, 8/11/19 —"This course aims to provide an essential update on case law in relation to the role of the BIA. Learning outcomes: (1) Consider the latest DoLS news, research and guidance; (2) Examine the latest case law relevant to DoLS and the BIA role; (3) Reflect on how the information covered affects BIA practice." Speaker: Aasya Mughal. Cost: £150.00 plus VAT. See Edge website for further details and booking information.
  • 16/08/19
    (2315)
    : LPS glossary. Edge Training, 'Liberty Protection Safeguards: Jargon Buster' (18/6/19) — Edge's summary of this document is as follows: "The Edge LPS Jargon Buster provides a detailed explanation of terms used in LPS such as ‘condition’ (used in a number of different ways), reviews, determinations and the relevant person (did you know the same term can relate to three different roles?)"
  • 16/08/19
    (2311)
    : Event. Edge Training: Best Interests Assessors Legal Update (Annual Refresher) - London, 16/9/19 —"This course aims to provide an essential update on case law in relation to the role of the BIA. Learning outcomes: (1) Consider the latest DoLS news, research and guidance; (2) Examine the latest case law relevant to DoLS and the BIA role; (3) Reflect on how the information covered affects BIA practice." Speaker: Aasya Mughal. Cost: £150.00 plus VAT. See Edge website for further details and booking information.
  • 16/08/19
    (2308)
    : Event. Edge Training: DOLS Mental Health Assessors Annual Refresher Course - London, 27/9/19 —"This refresher course has been designed to meet the needs of DoLS Mental Health Assessors. It will cover key topics that cause uncertainty or dilemmas for MH Assessors and go over the main basic requirements of this challenging role. Common Mental Health Act and DoLS interface issues will also be addressed such as the law around the provision of mental health treatment under DoLS." Speaker: Aasya Mughal. Cost: £195.00 plus VAT. See Edge website for further details and booking information.
  • 16/08/19
    (2306)
    : Event. Edge Training: Best Interests Assessors Legal Update (Annual Refresher) - London, 7/10/19 —"This course aims to provide an essential update on case law in relation to the role of the BIA. Learning outcomes: (1) Consider the latest DoLS news, research and guidance; (2) Examine the latest case law relevant to DoLS and the BIA role; (3) Reflect on how the information covered affects BIA practice." Speaker: Steven Richards. Cost: £150.00 plus VAT. See Edge website for further details and booking information.
  • 16/08/19
    (2304)
    : Event. Edge Training: Mental Capacity and Best Interests Assessments (Advanced) - London, 1/11/19 —"This course considers practice issues under the Mental Capacity Act such as record keeping, disputes, unwise decisions and balancing risk. The course also conveniently disseminates the body of court judgments that apply to mental capacity assessments and best interests. It looks at some of the more complex cases around special issues in assessing capacity such as risk taking, contact, serious treatment, residence, vulnerable people and the inherent jurisdiction. The judgments used are selected to be most useful to health and social care staff and will provide a practical knowledge base they can refer to in daily practice." Speaker: Aasya Mughal. Cost: £150.00 plus VAT. See Edge website for further details and booking information.
  • 16/08/19
    (2300)
    : Event. Edge Training: Sexual relations, contraception, marriage and restricting contact: Article 8 and the MCA - London, 29/11/19 —"This one day course is designed to enable participants to understand mental capacity in these sensitive areas. Participants will gain awareness of the relevant case law in relation to capacity and (where relevant) best interests decision making. Guidance will be offered on the steps to take where an individual lacks capacity to consent in these areas, to ensure that they are adequately safeguarded, and legal obligations are met." Speaker: Steven Richards. Cost: £150.00 plus VAT. See Edge website for further details and booking information.
  • 13/08/19
    (2121)
    : Event. Northumbria University: The Legal Research Agenda for Medicine, Capacity and Mental Health: A Gap Analysis - Newcastle, 2/9/19 —"A Northumbria University Law School and North East Court of Protection Practitioners Association event, funded by the Society of Legal Scholars. The all day event will critically explore research gaps domestically and internationally in medical and mental health legislation and related practices. An overarching purpose of this research event is to effect advantageous change to the position of practitioners and patients in the medical and mental health context, including those involved in the criminal justice system. Speakers include leading academics and practitioners well placed to describe the shortcomings of the current legal system that they work within. Full details are contained in the programme." Free Admission. Register online to confirm your place and to access the full programme of events.
  • 13/08/19
    (2108)
    : Event. PELT: Advanced course for Mental Health Act Administrators - Hoylake, 11/9/19 —"This course assumes basic knowledge and experience and will examine the many demands of job and provide some effective and legal coping mechanisms. In addition to the MHA, the Code and the Regulations the course will analyse the relevance and implications of case law. It will also look at how the MCA and DoLs dovetail into the MHA. The course will enable a group of experienced MHAAs to get together and share both the demands of the job and some solutions." Price: £125 plus VAT (£150). See Peter Edwards Law Training website for further details and booking information.
  • 13/08/19
    (2106)
    : Event. PELT: Introduction to the MHA - Hoylake, 16/10/19 —"The basic course is for all those who need an understanding of the MHA and Code and how it works in practice. It is aimed at all those whose work involves working with those detained, or who may be detained, under the MHA." Price: £125 plus VAT (£150). See Peter Edwards Law Training website for further details and booking information.
  • 13/08/19
    (2105)
    : Event. PELT: Introduction to MCA and DOLS - Hoylake, 29/10/19 —"Intensive introduction to all those who need a basic understanding of the MCA and DOLS. Identifying the ‘decision maker’ as the person responsible for the outcome of that particular decision is the key to lawful decision making on behalf of those who lack capacity. Realising that depriving a person of their liberty removes the legal protection given to decision makers unless the deprivation is ‘prescribed by law’ catches many people out." Price: £125 plus VAT (£150). See Peter Edwards Law Training website for further details and booking information.
  • 13/08/19
    (2103)
    : Event. PELT: Depriving Children and Young People of their Liberty Lawfully - Hoylake, 20/11/19 —"Supreme Court Re D (Parents authorising DoL?) Where do new LPS fit in? DoLs start at 18. MCA 16. MHA no minimum age for detention. How to lawfully deprive a C or YP of their liberty requires great care. What is a DoL and where does parental responsibility fit? The course looks at the complex inter relationship between the MCA, MHA and Children Act. When should a child or young person be sectioned? What alternatives are there? Where does s.25 Children Act (secure accommodation) fit in?" Price: £125 plus VAT (£150). See Peter Edwards Law Training website for further details and booking information.
  • 13/08/19
    (2102)
    : Event. PELT: Mental Health Act Masterclass - Legal Update - Hoylake, 27/11/19 —This course will allow practitioners to reflect on and update their practice by ensuring they have an up to date understanding of the law. The contents of the course will be up to date and reflect any changes or significant developments which affect lawful practice. To include relationship between MHA and LPS. Price: £125 plus VAT (£150). See Peter Edwards Law Training website for further details and booking information.
  • 13/08/19
    (2100)
    : Event. PELT: Introduction to using COP including s21A Appeals - Hoylake, 28/11/19 —The Court of Protection has a very wide ambit potential touching the lives of many vulnerable people. It is now the place where deprivation of liberty safeguards and procedures are authorised or challenged and where arguments about capacity or adult protection and best interests are resolved. It is essential that all those working with vulnerable people / safeguarding have an understanding of how to access and use the Court. In certain circumstances there is a legal obligation on authorities to apply to the Court. Price: £125 plus VAT (£150). See Peter Edwards Law Training website for further details and booking information.
  • 13/08/19
    (2056)
    : Event. PELT: COP/MCA Masterclass - Legal Update - Hoylake, 12/12/19 —Reviews recent developments in Court of Protection cases. It will include the latest CoP cases on deprivation of liberty, capacity, health and welfare, legal aid and treatment and what practitioners can learn from these cases that will promote effective and lawful practice. The developing role of ALRs and how can they be utilised and what will be the implications for litigation friends and IMCAs? Price: £125 plus VAT (£150). See Peter Edwards Law Training website for further details and booking information.
  • 10/08/19
    (2218)
    : Case (Serious medical treatment - delay in making application). Royal Bournemouth and Christchurch Hospitals NHSFT v SE [2018] EWCOP 45 — "Whilst, of course, it is understood emergencies do arise, in this case the emergency was due to the failure to have any effective system in place for securing legal advice for clinicians in the Trusts. I hope that the procedures now put in place (as set out at the end of this judgment) will be replicated elsewhere to avoid this situation happening again. ... [H]er best interests will be met by this court endorsing the Order that has been agreed and giving the applicants permission to be able to carry out the procedures set out in paragraph 4, namely the amputation of her right leg ...
  • 10/08/19
    (2204)
    : Case (Failure to carry out DOLS assessments). Staffordshire County Council (18 004 809) [2019] MHLO 41 (LGSCO) — LGSCO decision: "The Council has acted with fault in deciding not to assess low and medium priority Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards applications. The Council is also taking too long to deal with urgent applications. This is causing a potential injustice to the thousands of people in its area who are being deprived of their liberty without the proper checks that the restrictions they are subject to are in their best interests." The final sentence of the conclusion states: "[I]t is not acceptable that the only way low and medium priority applications are resolved is because the people involved move away or die."
  • 09/08/19
    (0038)
    : Summary of Blavo case. Paul Bracchi, 'How DID they let this legal aid lawyer con us all out of £22m?' (Daily Mail, 11/1/19) — The following quotation is from this detailed article: "In another ludicrous example, investigators found that the mental health facility in question had closed (in 2008) and burnt down (in 2010), so was not operational at the time the tribunal supposedly took place. The officials who checked this nonsense must have wondered if the person who put it on paper was a solicitor or a comedian."
  • 01/08/19
    (2320)
    : Case (Non-legal research by judge). JG v Kent and Medway NHS and Social Care Partnership Trust [2019] UKUT 187 (AAC)Judicial summary from gov.uk website: "Mental Health First-tier Tribunal - Judicial Bias - Apparent bias - Breach of Natural Justice - Procedural Irregularity. Where a First-tier Tribunal judge undertook non-legal research by accessing a court of appeal judgment in respect of the appellant, did this lead to a presumption of bias and automatic disqualification? Did it lead to a conclusion of a real possibility of bias? Whether so doing amounts to a procedural irregularity leading to a breach of natural justice in that it rendered the hearing unfair. In the circumstances appertaining there can be no presumption of bias leading to automatic disqualification. On the facts of the case there was no real possibility of bias. Undertaking the non-legal research was a procedural irregularity but on the facts the hearing was not unfair."
  • 01/08/19
    (2257)
    : MHCS targets. HMPPS, 'Mental Health Casework Section and NHS England - joint performance management framework and target timescales 2019/20' (1/8/19) — This document presents target timescales for the Mental Health Casework Section to consider key decisions for restricted patients. The targets, measured in calendar days from receipt of application to decision issued, are: (1) prison transfer, 5 days; (2) remission to prison, 7 days; (3) hospital transfer - trial leave from high to medium secure, 28 days; (4) hospital transfer - downgrade in security, excluding high to medium, 28 days; (5) hospital transfer, level, 14 days; (6) hospital transfer, upgrade, 7 days; (7) community leave, escorted day, 28 days; (8) community leave, unescorted day, 35 days; (9) community leave, overnight, 35 days; (10) community leave, long-term escorted leave, 35 days; (11) conditional discharge, 28 days; (12) absolute discharge, 28 days; (13) recall, same day. Compassionate and medical leave have not been included in this set of targets; where cases are urgent, they remain at 24 hours.
  • 01/08/19
    (0046)
    : Event. Edge Training: BIA Legal Update (Annual Refresher) - London, 16/12/19 —This course aims to provide an essential update on case law in relation to the role of the BIA. Learning outcomes: (1) Consider the latest DoLS news, research and guidance; (2) Examine the latest case law relevant to DoLS and the BIA role; (3) Reflect on how the information covered affects BIA practice Speaker: Steven Richards. Cost: £150.00 plus VAT. See Edge website for further details and booking information.
  • 01/08/19
    (0043)
    : Event. Edge Training: MCA and Tenancy Agreements - London, 16/12/19 —This course will consider how staff should assess mental capacity in relation to tenancy agreements and the key case law in this area. It will also consider the legal validity of tenancy agreements signed by, or on behalf of, those lacking capacity; and when people lacking capacity may be placed without a tenancy agreement being in place. Speaker: Aasya Mughal. Cost: £150.00 plus VAT. See Edge website for further details and booking information.
  • 01/08/19
    (0041)
    : Event. Edge Training: 2019 AMHP Conference - London, 6/12/19 —We are pleased to announce that booking for the 2019 AMHP conference is now open. This one-day conference explores issues relevant to AMHP practice. The full list of Speakers and Programme will be confirmed closer to the date. Cost: £150.00 plus VAT (group discount available). See Edge website for further details and booking information.
  • 01/08/19
    (0039)
    : Event. Edge Training: DOLS MH Assessors Annual Refresher Course - London, 2/12/19 —This refresher course has been designed to meet the needs of DoLS Mental Health Assessors. It will cover key topics that cause uncertainty or dilemmas for MH Assessors and go over the main basic requirements of this challenging role. Common Mental Health Act and DoLS interface issues will also be addressed such as the law around the provision of mental health treatment under DoLS. Speaker: Aasya Mughal. Cost: £195.00 plus VAT. See Edge website for further details and booking information.
  • 01/08/19
    (0037)
    : Event. Edge Training: Hoarding and the Law - London, 29/11/19 —This one-day interactive course for mental health and social care professionals reviews the different manifestations of hoarding and the possible origins of this behaviour, and then considers a range of possible responses under the law and where each one might be appropriate. Speaker: Simon Foster. Cost: £150.00 plus VAT. See Edge website for further details and booking information.
  • 01/08/19
    (0035)
    : Event. Edge Training: DOL, Children and Young People - London, 25/11/19 —This course aims to update staff working with children, young people and those in transition with the latest case law and developments in relation to deprivation of liberty. The course will consider these developments and the impact on practice. It examines the Supreme Court ruling on deprivation of liberty and considers practical issues in its application for children and young people. Speaker: Dawn Revell. Cost: £150.00 plus VAT. See Edge website for further details and booking information.
  • 01/08/19
    (0033)
    : Event. Edge Training: DOLS Authorised Signatories Training - London, 18/11/19 —This course aims to provide guidance on the role of signatories and to update designated signatories in relation to the latest case law around their specific role within the DOLS procedures. Please note: this course is not designed for BIAs but specifically the role of local authority managers acting as authorised signatories. Speaker: Steven Richards. Cost: £150.00 plus VAT. See Edge website for further details and booking information.
  • 01/08/19
    (0025)
    : Event. Edge Training: BIA Report Writing - London, 8/11/19 —This course is targeted specifically at qualified Best Interests Assessors (BIAs) and aims to provide them with the knowledge and skills needed to ensure robust and legally defensible assessments under the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguarding (DoLS). Speaker: Piers McNeil. Price: £150 plus VAT. See Edge website for further details and booking information.
  • 01/08/19
    (0020)
    : Event. Edge Training: Liberty Protection Safeguards - London, 4/10/19 —This one day conference will go through the new rules; how to prepare and plan ahead and will also consider the concerns and challenges which will need to be addressed. A central focus of the conference will be the rights of vulnerable incapacitated people and how front line staff can ensure they are best protected under the new rules. Speakers: Anselm Eldergill (Court of Protection Judge); Dr Lucy Series (Researcher, Cardiff Law School); Steven Richards (Edge Director & Author of the DoLS Handbook); Ian Brownhill (Court of Protection Barrister); Mr E (Carer of HL in the Bournewood judgment). Chair: Aasya F Mughal (Edge Director & Author of the DoLS Handbook). Cost: £155 plus VAT (10% group discount). See Edge website for further details and booking information.
  • 26/07/19
    (2140)
    : Case (Oral tribunal decision). PAA v SSHD [2019] UKUT 13 (IAC)The UT's summary of this judgment is as follows: "(1) In accordance with rule 29(1) the First-tier Tribunal may give a decision orally at a hearing. (2) If it does so, that is the decision on the appeal, and the effect of Patel v SSHD [2015] EWCA Civ 1175! is that there is no power to revise or revoke the decision later. The requirement to give written reasons does not mean that reasons are required in order to perfect the decision. (3) If the written decision, when issued, is inconsistent with the oral decision, both decisions, being decisions of the Tribunal, stand until set aside by a court of competent jurisdiction; but neither party is entitled to enforce either decision until the matter has been sorted out on appeal. (4) In such a case, as in any other, time for appealing against the decision given at the hearing runs, under rule 33 (2) and (3), from the date of provision of the written reasons, however inappropriate the reasons may appear to be, subject to any successful application for extension of time." Rule 41(1) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Health, Education and Social Care Chamber) Rules 2008 is the same as rule 29(1) of the immigration and asylum rules cited above.
  • 26/07/19
    (2016)
    : Case (Immigration tribunal - fair hearing, litigation friends). AM (Afghanistan) v SSHD [2017] EWCA Civ 1123In this judgment the Court of Appeal gave guidance on the general approach to be adopted in FTT and UT immigration and asylum cases to the fair determination of claims for asylum from children, young people and other incapacitated or vulnerable persons whose ability to effectively participate in proceedings may be limited. In relation to litigation friends, despite there being no provision in the tribunal rules for litigation friends, the court decided that: "[T]here is ample flexibility in the tribunal rules to permit a tribunal to appoint a litigation friend in the rare circumstance that the child or incapacitated adult would not be able to represent him/herself and obtain effective access to justice without such a step being taken. In the alternative, even if the tribunal rules are not broad enough to confer that power, the overriding objective in the context of natural justice requires the same conclusion to be reached."
  • 17/07/19
    (1523)
    : New policy for contacting nearest relative — On 14/6/19 the tribunal secretariat wrote to tribunal users as follows: "Following the feedback from some of our users. From Monday the 17 June the Tribunal will use the information provided on the Statement of Information about a patient objecting to their nearest relative being contacted in precedence to that provided on the application form. It is therefore vital that questions 14 and 15 on the form are fully completed. If we do receive forms which are unclear or the questions haven’t been answered then these will be returned to the mental health authority." See Form T132: In-patient: Statement of information about the patient.
  • 17/07/19
    (1028)
    : Case (Reinstatement). JS v SLAM NHS Foundation Trust [2019] UKUT 172 (AAC) — (1) Reinstatement: "As there is no right to reinstatement, the tribunal has a discretion whether or not to reinstate the party’s ‘case’. It must, like all discretions, be exercised judicially and that involves complying with the overriding objective of the tribunal’s rules of procedure, which is ‘to enable the Tribunal to deal with cases fairly and justly’ (rule 2(1)). ... Considered methodically, the factors that the tribunal should take into account neatly divide into three. First, the tribunal should consider whether there is anything to undermine either the patient’s application to withdraw or the tribunal’s consent. Just to give some examples, the application may have been based on a misunderstanding of the facts or the law. Or there may be an issue whether the patient had capacity or gave informed consent. Or the tribunal’s reasons for consenting may have been defective. Second, there may have been a change of circumstances that makes it appropriate to agree to reinstatement. Third, the tribunal will have to consider any other factors that may be relevant under the overriding objective. These will include: (a) the reasons given in support of the application, whatever they may be; (b) any prejudice to the patient in refusing consent; (c) any detriment to the other parties if consent is given; (d) any prejudice to other patients if consent is given; and (d) any impact that reinstatement might have on the operation of the tribunal’s mental health jurisdiction system as a whole." (2) Respondent status: "[T]he Trust was properly named as a respondent on the appeal to the Upper Tribunal ... The Trust was the responsible authority and, as such, a party to the proceedings in the First-tier Tribunal ... On appeal by the patient to the Upper Tribunal, everyone else who was a party before the First-tier Tribunal became a respondent ... That is standard procedure in appeal generally. The Trust’s letter shows a confusion between an appeal and a judicial review. In the latter, the tribunal is the respondent, and others may be interested parties."
  • 17/07/19
    (1010)
    : Case (Immigration detention). R (ASK) v SSHD [2019] EWCA Civ 1239 — "These appeals raise important issues concerning the powers of the Respondent Secretary of State to detain those who suffer from mental health conditions pending removal from the United Kingdom. In each case, the Appellant is a foreign national who satisfied the statutory criteria for detention pending removal, but who suffered from mental illness such that it is said that, for at least some of the period he was detained, he was not only unfit to be removed and/or detained in an immigration removal centre ("IRC"), but did not have mental capacity to challenge his detention and/or engage with the procedures to which he was subject as a detainee. As a result, it is submitted that, in detaining each Appellant, the Secretary of State acted unlawfully in one or more of the following ways. ..."
  • 08/07/19
    (2225)
    : Case (Death - wishes and feelings). Royal Bournemouth and Christchurch Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust v TG [2019] EWCOP 21 — "I am being asked to take today an irreversible decision that will lead inevitably to death sooner rather than later and probably within minutes or seconds of the tube being removed. I am being asked to do so in the face of what I find are the wishes and feelings of TG. ... I have come to the clear decision that it is in the patient's best interests that intubation should continue. I recognise that this places a huge burden on the treating team. It is against their advice and their wishes and of course also those of Dr Newman but I remind myself constantly, this is her life and her wishes as I have found them to be and nobody else's. It may be that if the position were to remain the same in six months' time or no successful tracheostomy had been carried out that different considerations might apply but I am not looking at the future, I am looking at things as they are now and for those reasons I reach my decision and refuse the application."
  • 08/07/19
    (2206)
    : Case (Jehovah's Witness - blood transfusion). Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust v DE [2019] EWCOP 19 — "The only issue during the hearing was the degree to which DE's wishes and feelings would be overborne by a decision to allow a blood transfusion, in the light of her being a Jehovah's Witness; and therefore whether there was a disproportionate interference in DE's article 8 rights. However, the evidence even at the oral hearing was that although DE described herself as a Jehovah's Witness she was not someone for whom those beliefs were central to her personality or sense of identity. During the oral hearing I did not get any sense that she would feel deeply upset if an order was made in the form sought, or that she would feel a deep conflict with her religious beliefs. As such she was someone who was in a quite different decision from B in Jackson J's decision, where his religious beliefs were fundamental to B's sense of who he was. The other stark contrast with that case is that DE had been completely clear that she did not want to die. She is also significantly younger than was B."
  • 06/07/19
    (2225)
    : Case (Litigation friend). LJ v Mercouris [2019] EWHC 1746 (QB) — "The essential questions are: (1) Does Mr [J] lack capacity within the meaning of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. (2) Is the court satisfied that Mrs [J] satisfies the conditions in Rule 21.4 (3). This requirement is incorporated by Rule 21.6 (5). The main function of a litigation friend appears to be to carry on the litigation on behalf of the Claimant and in his best interests. However, part of the reasoning for imposing a requirement for a litigation friend appears also to be for the benefit of the other parties. This is not just so that there is a person answerable to the opposing party for costs."
  • 04/07/19
    (2242)
    : Case (Summary of MH sentencing guidance - life sentence replaced with s37/41). R v Fisher [2019] EWCA Crim 1066Having summarised the Sentencing Council's Definitive Guideline for Manslaughter (in force 1/11/18) and the relevant available disposals under the MHA, the Court of Appeal revoked sentences of imprisonment and replaced the life sentence with a s37/41 restricted hospital order.

Update archive