2005 cases

The old category structure shown on this page is comprehensive as it contains every case. The new database structure was introduced in 2019. It is more potentially useful than the old categorisation system: it includes all cases from 2019, but only a minority of older cases: see Special:Drilldown/Cases. The pages below are initially ordered according to the dates on which they were added to the site (most recent first). The order can be changed by clicking on the symbol beside a column heading: click on the symbol beside "Page and summary" for alphabetical order; click beside "Categories" for the order in which the cases were reported. Click on the arrow symbol again to reverse the order. Click on a page name to view the relevant page. Asterisks mark those cases which have been added to the new database structure.

Case and summary Date added Categories
Bunting v W [2005] EWHC 1274 (Ch) — "By the Application the Receiver seeks an order against the Respondent, to whom I shall refer as ("Mr W") that the accounts he delivered in his capacity as Receiver of M for the year ending 21st April 1994 and thereafter annually until year ending 21st April 2002 be re-opened or set aside. The application further seeks an order that Mr W deliver fresh accounts verified by affidavit, identifying (amongst other matters) the funds or assets of M used directly or indirectly for the personal benefit of Mr W or his family; that the Receiver be given permission to raise objections and further inquiries as to whether or not Mr W is to be entitled to charge remuneration for the services of himself and his wife in caring for or attending on M and an order that he should pay into the Court of Protection such sums as may be found due on taking the accounts and inquiries. In the event that there is a jurisdictional impediment to an order for payment into court the Receiver seeks an order authorising her pursuant to section 96(1) (i) of MHA 1983 to make an application to the High Court pursuant section 139(2) MHA, 1983 for leave to bring proceedings against Mr W to recover the sums found due on taking the accounts and inquiries." 2017‑11‑26 01:16:02 2005 cases, Deputyship cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript

Hirst v UK (No 2) 74025/01 [2005] ECHR 681The blanket restriction on voting, which applies to all convicted prisoners in prison irrespective of the length of their sentence, the nature or gravity of their offence, or their individual circumstances, is unlawful. 2010‑11‑03 07:40:34 2005 cases, Brief summary, Miscellaneous, Transcript

Re LC [2005] ScotSC 19/5/05A sheriff may dispense with intimation, or notification, of an application for Guardianship where such intimation "would be likely to pose a serious risk to the health of the adult". It was held that it was insufficient for the medical practitioners to simply repeat the words which appear in the statute and that concise and articulate reasons should be given in order that the court has proper information on which to form a view. 2010‑10‑30 14:42:39 2005 cases, No summary, Scottish cases, Transcript

Re FB (Incapacity Application) [2005] ScotSC 26An application for guardianship was sought and granted. The court held that the first question it was to consider was whether the respondent was incapable in relation to decisions about, or of acting to safeguard his interests in, his personal welfare, as a consequence of the mental disorder, and whether this was likely to continue to be so. It was held that this meant much more than just being incapable of making decisions but also being incapable of understanding decisions in relation to his interests in his personal welfare or of acting to safeguard or promote those interests. The next question to consider was whether there was any other means provided by or under the Act which would be sufficient to enable the respondent's interests in his personal welfare to be safeguarded. Finally, the court held that the next question to be considered was whether the interests could be safeguarded otherwise than by guardianship order. 2010‑10‑29 18:27:41 2005 cases, Brief summary, Scottish cases, Transcript

E v Channel Four [2005] EWHC 1144 (Fam) — In these proceedings the Official Solicitor, joined by St Helens Borough Council, seeks an interim injunction to restrain the broadcasting by Channel Four Television Corporation of a film and the publication by the Sunday Times of an article about E. She is a woman of 32, who they assert lacks the capacity to consent to what Channel Four and the Sunday Times are proposing. They invoke the inherent jurisdiction of the court. [Summary required.] 2010‑10‑29 18:25:07 2005 cases, Best interests, No summary, Transcript

Re SA; A Local Authority v MA [2005] EWHC 2942 (Fam) — "This case raises novel questions about the court's inherent jurisdiction in relation to vulnerable adults. I have before me a vulnerable young woman who has just turned eighteen and has therefore attained her majority. While she was still a child the court had exercised its inherent parens patriae and wardship jurisdictions to protect her from the risk of an unsuitable arranged marriage. The question is whether I have jurisdiction to continue that protection now she is an adult." [Summary required.] 2010‑07‑20 21:32:14 2005 cases, Best interests, No summary, Transcript

M v B [2005] EWHC 1681 (Fam) — Injunction granted to prevent P being taken to Pakistan for arranged marriage. [Summary required.] 2010‑05‑01 23:31:38 2005 cases, Best interests, No summary, Transcript

MK (Mental Illness, Articles 3 and 8) Pakistan (2005) UKIAT 00075 — Consideration of the approach to the availability of treatment and the assessment of Article 3 and 8 cases in an immigration context. [Summary required.] 2010‑04‑11 20:34:29 2005 cases, No summary, Repatriation cases, Transcript

Re McDougall or Muldoon (Guardianship Order) [2005] ScotSC 6 — "This is an application under the Adults with Incapacity (Scotland) Act 2000, in which the Applicant, Paul Muldoon, seeks an order under section 57 of the Act appointing him as guardian with powers relating to both the welfare of, and the property and financial affairs of, his mother, Mrs Mona McDougall or Muldoon (hereafter, "the adult"). The welfare powers sought are (a) to decide where the adult should live, (b) to have access to confidential documents, and (c) to consent to, or withhold consent to, medical treatment." [Summary required.] 2009‑11‑30 22:49:14 2005 cases, No summary, Other capacity cases, Scottish cases, Transcript

R (Burke) v General Medical Council [2005] EWCA Civ 1003 — Artificial nutrition and hydration. 2009‑04‑12 21:57:46 2005 cases, Best interests, No summary, Transcript

R (Fitzpatrick) v MHRT (2005) CO/2778/2004Delay between deferred conditional discharge and eventual absolute discharge; Tribunal conceded judicial review against conditional discharge decision made without hearing, but disputed damages; damages of £4000 awarded by judge (frustration and distress, probability of earlier discharge). 2009‑04‑12 20:13:37 2005 cases, Detailed summary, No transcript, Tribunal delay

R v Reid [2005] EWCA Crim 392 — Appeal against life sentence refused (the appellant would have preferred a restricted hospital order). 2009‑04‑11 16:16:05 2005 cases, Life sentence cases, No summary, Transcript

R v Bainton [2005] EWCA Crim 3572Two-year sentence quashed and substituted with same sentence suspended for two years: there were exception circumstances as the combination of physical, emotional and sexual abuse had reduced the appellant to a condition where it was difficult to resist the coercion of her husband. 2009‑04‑11 16:10:27 2005 cases, Brief summary, Sentence appeal cases, Transcript

Shenkel v The Netherlands 62015/00 [2005] ECHR 935(1) Violation of Article 5(1): Failure, in breach of domestic law, to draw up an official record of Court of Appeal hearing which rejected the appeal against continued detention. (2) Violation of Article 5(4): Delay of 17 months before determination of Court of Appeal case. 2009‑04‑10 21:33:51 2005 cases, Brief summary, ECHR, Transcript, Tribunal delay

Romanov v Russia 63993/00 [2005] ECHR 933(1) Violation of Article 3: The applicant's conditions of detention, in particular the severe overcrowding and its detrimental effect on the applicant's well being, combined with the length of the period during which the applicant was detained in such conditions, amounted to degrading treatment. (2) Violation of Article 5(3): the length of the proceedings (and detention on remand) was attributable neither to the complexity of the case nor to the conduct of the applicant but to the lack of diligence and expedition on the part of court. (3) Violation of Article 6(1) and (3)(c): In view of what was at stake for the applicant the District Court could not, if the trial was to be fair, determine his case without a direct assessment of the applicant's evidence, and the presence of the applicant's lawyer could not compensate for his absence. 2009‑04‑10 21:23:57 2005 cases, Brief summary, ECHR, Transcript

Nakach v The Netherlands 5379/02 [2005] ECHR 445The practice of the Arnhem Court of Appeal, which had upheld the applicant's continued detention, not to keep official records of hearings (on the basis that no appeal could be made from that court) breached domestic law and therefore breached Article 5(1) 2009‑04‑10 14:55:00 2005 cases, Brief summary, ECHR, Transcript

Gorshkov v Ukraine 67531/01 [2005] ECHR 936Although a detained patient's case was regularly reviewed on an automatic basis, the patient had no right to initiate proceedings and was not a party to them; there therefore had been a breach of Article 5(4) 2009‑04‑10 13:05:43 2005 cases, Brief summary, ECHR, ECHR deprivation of liberty cases, Transcript

R (Webb-Johnson) v DPP [2005] EWHC 3123 (Admin)The District Judge had been wrong to proceed to hear the case in the absence of the claimant (who had mental health problems); the conviction was quashed and a retrial ordered 2009‑01‑17 23:04:04 2005 cases, Brief summary, Other criminal law cases, Transcript

R (TP) v West London Youth Court [2005] EWHC 2583 (Admin)The Youth Court judge was not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the claimant would be unable effectively to participate in the proceedings because of his low intellectual ability, so decided not to stay the proceedings for abuse of process; the claimant's judicial review application (on standard of proof, reasons and Article 6 grounds) failed. 2009‑01‑17 23:01:32 2005 cases, Brief summary, Other criminal law cases, Transcript

Jones v Isleworth Crown Court [2005] EWHC 662 (Admin)Although the offender had not caused serious harm in the past, and the medical evidence did not recommend a restriction order, the judge was right to impose restrictions on the admission order under Schedule 1 Criminal Procedure (Insanity and Unfitness to Plead) Act 1991 on the basis that there was a risk of serious harm to the public, because of the history of paranoid schizophrenia with violent command auditory hallucinations and an escalation of violent offending. 2009‑01‑17 22:57:21 2005 cases, Brief summary, Restriction order cases, Transcript

Hasani v Blackfriars Crown Court [2005] EWHC 3016 (Admin)If an accused person is found to be unfit to plead under s4 Criminal Procedure (Insanity) Act 1964 but becomes fit to plead before he is dealt with under 5, the court is not required to follow the procedures in sections 4A and 5 (which would probably lead to an absolute discharge); instead, a second s4 hearing should take place and if appropriate the necessary order for arraignment made. 2009‑01‑17 22:48:03 2005 cases, Brief summary, Transcript, Unfitness and insanity cases

IH v UK 17111/04 (2005)The delay following the deferred conditional discharge decision did not breach Article 5(1), since if no psychiatric supervision could be found then continued detention was the only option, Johnson v UK 22520/93 [1997] ECHR 88 distinguished; the House of Lords had been right in concluding that the Tribunal's inability to reconsider the case in light of the inability to achieve the conditions disclosed a breach of Article 5(4); however, since the domestic court had acknowledged the breach, IH was no longer a "victim" of a violation of Article 5(4); therefore no issues arose under Article 5(5) and, in any event, there is no absolute right to compensation, and the Lords' decision not to award damages was not arbitrary or unreasonable. The application was inadmissible. 2008‑11‑29 13:36:53 2005 cases, Brief summary, Deprivation of liberty, ECHR, Transcript

Stec v UK 65731/01 [2005] ECHR 924 — Admissibility decision. State benefits, Article 1 of Protocol No 1 & Article 14. 2008‑11‑24 00:16:09 2005 cases, ECHR, No summary, Transcript, Welfare benefits cases

Re MB [2005] EWCA Civ 1293 — No permission to appeal (Part VII case) 2008‑09‑13 07:01:52 2005 cases, No summary, Permission hearings, Transcript

Narey v HM Customs and Excise [2005] EWHC 784 (Admin) — s5 CPIA 1964. 2008‑09‑12 17:33:22 2005 cases, No summary, Transcript, Unfitness and insanity cases

R v IA [2005] EWCA Crim 2077 — Life sentence or s37/41. 2008‑09‑12 17:11:52 2005 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Life sentence cases, No summary, Transcript

Kolanis v UK 517/02 [2005] ECHR 411 — Conditional discharge/Article 5. 2008‑09‑12 16:54:36 2005 cases, After-care, ECHR, No summary, Transcript

R (Taylor) v Dr Haydn-Smith [2005] EWHC 1668 (Admin) — Challenge to compulsory treatment. 2008‑02‑22 15:30:03 2005 cases, Challenges to compulsory treatment, No summary, Transcript

R (MH) v Secretary of State for the Department of Health [2005] UKHL 60Mental disorder — Mental health review tribunal — Discharge of patient — Detained patient incompetent to apply for own discharge — Extension of detention pending determination of approved social worker's application to displace nearest relative — Whether statutory scheme incompatible with patient's Convention right to liberty — Mental Health Act 1983, ss 2, 29(4) — Human Rights Act 1998, Sch 1, Pt I, art 5(4). The scheme for the review of a patient's detention under the 1983 Act was capable of being operated so as to give practical effect to the patient's right, guaranteed by art 5(4) of the European Convention on Human Rights, to take proceedings to have the lawfulness of her detention speedily decided by a court and for review thereafter at reasonable intervals. 2007‑07‑17 17:47:41 2005 cases, Detailed summary, Displacement, Transcript

Seal v Chief Constable of South Wales Police [2005] EWCA Civ 586Mental disorder — Practice — Leave to bring proceedings — Claim by patient for damages against police officers — Failure to obtain leave to bring proceedings — Whether proceedings rendered nullity — Whether subsequent grant of leave permissible — Mental Health Act 1983, s139(2). It was a mandatory requirement to seek leave from the High Court under s 139(2) of the Mental Health Act 1983 to bring civil proceedings for actions purported to be done under that Act. Failure to seek leave rendered the proceedings a nullity. 2007‑07‑17 17:26:22 2005 cases, Detailed summary, Miscellaneous, Transcript

Ward v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis [2005] UKHL 32Mental disorder — Place of safety order — Validity of detention — Warrant naming health professionals to accompany constable — Named persons absent when warrant executed — Whether warrant and execution valid — Whether power in magistrate to specify names — Mental Health Act 1983 (as amended by Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, s 119(1)(2), Sch 7, Pt I), s 135(1). A condition imposed by a magistrate issuing a warrant under s135 of the Mental Health Act 1983 specifying named persons to accompany the constable executing the warrant had been invalid. 2007‑02‑07 21:08:18 2005 cases, Detailed summary, Miscellaneous, Transcript

R (E) v Bristol City Council [2005] EWHC 74 (Admin) — Section 11 and practicability of informing NR. 2007‑02‑07 20:40:36 2005 cases, Consulting NR, No summary, Transcript

Storck v Germany 61603/00 [2005] ECHR 406 — Breach of Arts 5, 8 for detention in private clinic. This case is taken as the source of the three-fold analysis of Article 5 deprivation of liberty, which was summarised in Cheshire West and Chester Council v P [2014] UKSC 19 as follows: "... what is the essential character of a deprivation of liberty? ... three components can be derived from Storck ..., confirmed in Stanev ..., as follows: (a) the objective component of confinement in a particular restricted place for a not negligible length of time; (b) the subjective component of lack of valid consent; and (c) the attribution of responsibility to the state." 2007‑02‑07 20:30:02 2005 cases, ECHR, ECHR deprivation of liberty cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript

R (SSHD) v MHRT, re CH [2005] EWHC 746 (Admin)No discernible reasons given for preferring patient's evidence to RMO's; material reason given in subsequent witness statement which had not originally been recorded. 2007‑02‑06 18:20:26 2005 cases, Brief summary, Reasons, Transcript

R (AN) v MHRT [2005] EWCA Civ 1605MHRT should apply the standard of proof on the balance of probabilities to all the issues it has to determine. 2007‑02‑06 18:16:51 2005 cases, Brief summary, Burden and standard of proof, Transcript

R (M) v MHRT [2005] EWHC 2791 (Admin)There was no appearance of bias where the sentencing judge, who had imposed the hospital order with restrictions, heard the subsequent MHRT appeal; the patient knew the relevant facts and unequivocally decided not to object at the time, so had waived his right to object 2006‑12‑27 12:24:56 2005 cases, Bias, Detailed summary, Transcript

R (East London and the City MH NHS Trust) v MHRT, re IH [2005] EWHC 2329 (Admin)The Tribunal failed properly to deal with s72(2)(a) when directing discretionary discharge; should have adjourned for information to satisfy itself that appropriate aftercare would be in place; and failed to consider their s72(2) power to recommend transfer. 2006‑12‑23 11:27:16 2005 cases, Detailed summary, Judgment missing from Bailii, Reasons, Transcript

R (SSHD) v MHRT, re BR [2005] EWCA Civ 1616MHRT granted absolute discharge without considering conditional discharge criteria; High Court quashed decision, so patient became detained restricted patient again; Home Office refused to grant s17 leave until next MHRT; Court of Appeal partially quashed MHRT decision but declared patient entitled to be conditionally discharged pending MHRT determination of appropriate discharge type. 2006‑05‑03 21:33:30 2005 cases, Absolute or conditional discharge, Detailed summary, Transcript

* Change of status - s3 to s25A R (SR) v MHRT [2005] EWHC 2923 (Admin)MHRT application appealing against s3 falls when patient subsequently made subject to s25A; fresh application required. 2006‑04‑19 19:00:27 2005 cases, Cases, Change of status after application made, Judgment available on Bailii

R (SC) v MHRT [2005] EWHC 17 (Admin)(1) In deciding not to discharge, Tribunal can consider disorders other than the those from which the patient is classified as suffering. (2) Section 75 is compatible with ECHR even though it includes no express criteria for consideration. The judge gave guidance on matters which the tribunal will need to consider. 2006‑04‑13 22:10:35 2005 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Other classification cases, Reasons, Transcript

R (AL) v SSHD [2005] EWCA Civ 2The Secretary of State's powers to continue the recall of a patient who had originally been detained following an acquittal of murder on grounds of insanity and pursuant to s 5(1)(a) of the 1964 Act, but was recalled pursuant to s 42(3) of the 1983 Act, differed from such powers as were granted under s 37 of the 1983 Act. 2006‑04‑13 22:03:15 2005 cases, Detailed summary, ICLR summary, Other classification cases, Transcript

R (B) v Dr SS [2005] EWHC 86 (Admin) — This was the first of two JRs involving the same parties. Challenge to compulsory treatment. 2006‑04‑13 21:55:38 2005 cases, Challenges to compulsory treatment, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript

R (O) v West London MH NHS Trust [2005] EWHC 604 (Admin)Hospital managers are under a common law duty to provide both oral and written reasons at the time of the decison; the decision is legally defective if the reasons are inadequate; this defect cannot be cured by later evidence giving a proper explanation of the reasons; the supplementary evidence was more than mere elucidation so was not accepted. 2006‑04‑13 21:53:23 2005 cases, Detailed summary, Hospital managers hearings, Transcript

Lewis v Gibson [2005] EWCA Civ 587 — Appeal of interim s29 displacement order. Appeal dismissed. 2006‑04‑13 21:45:04 2005 cases, Displacement, No summary, Transcript

R (B) v Dr Haddock [2005] EWHC 921 (Admin) — Challenge to compulsory administration of medication. Claim dismissed. 2006‑04‑13 21:39:18 2005 cases, Challenges to compulsory treatment, No summary, Transcript

R (B) v Camden London Borough Council [2005] EWHC 1366 (Admin)(1) Claimant unsuccessfully sought damages for breach of statutory duty under s117 causing delay after deferred conditional discharge. (2) A person who 'may be in need of such services' under s47 NHSCCA 1990 is a person 'who may be in need at the time, or who may be about to be in need': (a) this includes the situation after a deferred conditional discharge decision; (b) obiter, the judge inclined to the view that it also includes a patient who may reasonably be considered to be liable to have such an order made in an impending tribunal hearing. 2006‑04‑13 21:36:31 2005 cases, After-care, Brief summary, Transcript

R (B) v Dr SS [2005] EWHC 1936 (Admin) — This was the second of two JRs involving the same parties. Challenge to compulsory treatment. 2006‑04‑12 21:16:00 2005 cases, Challenges to compulsory treatment, Detailed summary, Transcript

R (Munjaz) v Ashworth Hospital Authority [2005] UKHL 58The Code of Practice is guidance rather than instruction, but must not be departed from in the absence of cogent reasons; the Ashworth seclusion policy, although deviating from the standards in the Code of Practice, was lawful. 2006‑04‑12 20:55:53 2005 cases, Brief summary, Miscellaneous, Transcript

R (SSHD) v MHRT, re BR [2005] EWHC 2468 (Admin)For restricted patients, Tribunals should consider appropriateness of liability to recall even if not satisfied that there is any detainable mental disorder. 2006‑04‑12 20:49:45 2005 cases, Absolute or conditional discharge, Brief summary, Transcript

* Hospital managers and dangerousness R (SR) v Huntercombe Maidenhead Hospital [2005] EWHC 2361 (Admin)Usually the managers should discharge if they disagree with the RMO's barring report, but there can be exceptions; they have an unfettered discretion. 2006‑04‑12 20:26:38 2005 cases, Cases, Hospital managers hearings, Judgment available on Bailii, Other NR cases

R (B) v Ashworth Hospital Authority [2005] UKHL 20A patient detained for treatment under the Mental Health Act 1983 could be treated compulsorily under s 63 of that Act for any disorder from which he suffered, and not only for the particular form of disorder from which he was classified as suffering under the application or order which authorised his detention. 2006‑04‑12 20:01:41 2005 cases, Detailed summary, ICLR summary, Other classification cases, Transcript

R (DJ) v MHRT; R (AN) v MHRT [2005] EWHC 587 (Admin)The correct standard of proof, where one applies, for the MHRT to apply is the civil standard. 2006‑04‑10 20:17:44 2005 cases, Brief summary, Burden and standard of proof, Judgment available on Bailii, Transcript

Article titles

The following 55 pages are in this category.