Category

2016 cases


The old category structure used on this page is comprehensive as it contains every relevant case. The new database structure was introduced in 2019. It is more potentially useful than the old categorisation system: it includes all cases since January 2017, 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
* Ex turpi causa Henderson v Dorset Healthcare University NHS Foundation Trust [2016] EWHC 3275 (QB)"On 25th August 2010 Ms Henderson ('the Claimant') stabbed her mother to death. She was suffering from paranoid schizophrenia at the time, and her condition had recently worsened. It is common ground between the parties that this tragic event would not have happened but for the Defendant's breaches of duty in failing to respond in an appropriate way to the Claimant's mental collapse. The Claimant has now brought proceedings in the tort of negligence claiming general damages under various heads, special damages and future losses, and liability has been admitted. The Defendant's position is that all of the claims should be defeated on illegality or public policy grounds, and that binding authority of the Court of Appeal and House of Lords compels that outcome. ... In my view, there are three main questions for me to consider within the agenda circumscribed by the preliminary issue: (1) the correct interpretation of the sentencing remarks of Foskett J [in the Claimant's case], and the extent to which it is permissible, if at all, to go behind them; (2) whether there is binding authority of the Court of Appeal and House of Lords precluding some or all of these claims; and (3) if not, whether the law as accurately enunciated (there remains a dispute between the parties as to what it is) permits, or obviates, the maintenance of some or all of these claims. I frame the questions in this manner because it is the Defendant's submission that I am bound by the decision of the Court of Appeal in Clunis v Camden and Islington HA [1998] QB 978B and that of the House of Lords in Gray v Thames Trains Ltd [2009] 1 AC 1339B. If I were to uphold the Defendant's submission on stare decisis, the parties are agreed that I need not express a view on question (3) above on the hypothetical basis that I might be overruled. If, on the other hand, question (3) does properly arise for decision, the parties are agreed that the case should be listed for further argument on this point. ...I ... refuse to issue a certificate under section 12 of the Administration of Justice Act 1969. I also refuse permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal for the reason indicated under paragraphs 99 and 104 above." 2016‑12‑27 21:07:36 2016 cases, Cases, ICLR summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Miscellaneous cases


SSJ v Staffordshire County Council and SRK [2016] EWCA Civ 1317, [2016] MHLO 55 — "The issue in this case is whether, in order for the United Kingdom to avoid being in breach of Article 5(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights, it is necessary for a welfare order to be made by the Court of Protection pursuant to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 in a case where an individual, who lacks the capacity to make decisions about where to live and the regime of care, treatment and support that he should receive, is to be given such care, treatment and support entirely by private sector providers in private accommodation in circumstances which, objectively, are a deprivation of his liberty within the meaning of Article 5(1) of the Convention." 2016‑12‑27 20:47:27 2016 cases, Deprivation of liberty, ICLR summary, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript


* Ex turpi causa Henderson v Dorset Healthcare University NHS Foundation Trust [2016] EWHC 3032 (QB)"On 25 August 2010 the claimant killed her mother. ... She pleaded not guilty of murder, but guilty of manslaughter by reason of diminished responsibility. Those pleas were accepted. ... The claimant remains in detention pursuant to the Mental Health Act. Long before the manslaughter, the claimant had been diagnosed as suffering from paranoid schizophrenia. At the time, she was under the care of the Southbourne Community Mental Health Team, within the defendant NHS Trust. An inquiry later made findings critical of the defendant's conduct. The core criticism was of a failure to act in a timely manner when alerted by a health worker, Ms Loyne, to a significant deterioration in the claimant's condition. In this unusual personal injury claim the claimant seeks damages against the defendant for personal injury in the form of psychiatric harm, and for the consequences of killing her mother. Proceedings were issued on 22 August 2013. The defendant admitted liability for negligence. Judgment on liability in negligence, with damages to be assessed, was entered by consent as long ago as 12 May 2014. By an order of 17 February 2016 Master Cook directed the trial of preliminary issues which had been proposed by the defendant. That trial is listed to take place over 3 days in the week commencing 5 December 2016. The preliminary issues concern the extent to which the claimant's claims for damages are barred by the rule of law which prohibits a person from recovering damages for the consequences of their own illegality. ... It was on Monday 14 November 2016, seven working days before the start of the preliminary issue trial window, that the claimant's solicitors filed her application. It seeks permission to amend by adding (1) claims under the Human Rights Act 1998, alleging infringement of the claimant's rights under Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention, and (2) a claim for an extension of time for bringing those claims, pursuant to s 7(5)(b) of the HRA." 2016‑11‑27 00:24:59 2016 cases, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Miscellaneous cases


Re L: K v LBX [2016] EWHC 2607 (Fam), [2016] MHLO 47 — "In essence, K says that this court should intervene because his son lacks capacity to be able to decide contact. More recently he has made an application to remove Miss O'Connell as a litigation friend for L. ... By the order I made on 15 November 2013, I found that L had capacity to decide about residence and care and I made orders under the inherent jurisdiction regulating what contact there should be between L and his father, as I considered him to be a vulnerable adult, he needed orders being made to ensure he retained his capacity... There is no evidence that L's capacity has changed." 2016‑11‑19 20:35:03 2016 cases, Inherent jurisdiction cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript


* ECHR and tribunal criteria JD v West London Mental Health NHS Trust [2016] UKUT 496 (AAC)"The patient in this case is held in conditions of exclusion and restraint that are exceptional and perhaps unique. He occupies a ‘super seclusion suite’ consisting of a room with a partition that can divide it into two. No one is allowed to enter without the partition in place, except nursing staff wearing personal protective equipment in order to administer his depot injections. He is only allowed out of the suite in physical restraints that restrict his circulation and under escort by a number of members of staff. ... The Secretary of State referred the patient’s case to the First-tier Tribunal on 28 July 2015. The hearing took place on 19 and 20 November 2015; the tribunal’s reasons are dated 23 November 2015. ... What the tribunal did not do was to deal expressly with the human rights argument put by Ms Bretherton on the patient’s behalf. On 7 January 2016, the tribunal gave permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal identifying as the issue: 'to what extent should the circumstances of the patient’s detention, and any possible breach of the European Convention as a result thereof, have any bearing on the First-tier Tribunal’s exercise of considering sections 72 and 73? Following from that, if the Tribunal is satisfied that the circumstances of a patient’s detention are a breach of the European Convention on Human Rights, how should that be reflected in the decisions that the First-tier Tribunal can lawfully make?'" 2016‑11‑12 00:09:27 2016 cases, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Powers, Upper Tribunal decisions


* After-care payments and double recovery Tinsley v Manchester City Council [2016] EWHC 2855 (Admin)"Thus there is a fundamental issue between the parties which they require the court to resolve, which is whether or not it is lawful for the defendant to refuse to provide after-care services to the claimant under s117 on the basis that he has no need of such provision because he is able to fund it himself from his personal injury damages. The claimant's position is that this is unlawful, and represents a thinly disguised attempt to charge through the back door in this particular category of cases when the House of Lords has confirmed in Stennett that it is impermissible to do so in any circumstances. The defendant's position is that to allow the claimant's deputy to claim the provision of after-care services on his behalf under s.117 would offend against the principle against double recovery which has been established in the decided cases in the personal injury field, most notably by the Court of Appeal in Crofton v NHSLA [2007] EWCA Civ 71B, [2007] 1 WLR 923B and Peters v East Midlands SHA [2009] EWCA Civ 145, [2010] QB 48B." 2016‑11‑11 23:52:42 2016 cases, After-care, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii


* After-care Richards v Worcestershire County Council [2016] EWHC 1954 (Ch)"The present proceedings were issued on 6 March 2015. They seek to recover sums totalling £644,645.87, which, it is said, were spent by Mr Richards' deputy on his behalf on providing him with care. The claim is based on section 117 of the 1983 Act. It is Mr Richards' case that section 117 applied when he was released from hospital in 2004 and that, accordingly, the defendants had a duty to provide him with after-care services. He contends that that duty extended to the provision of the various services which have thus far been paid for privately. ... There are essentially two issues to consider: (i) Is it in principle possible for Mr Richards to bring a restitutionary claim? (ii) If so, can the present claim be pursued otherwise than by way of judicial review?" 2016‑10‑12 22:36:23 2016 cases, After-care, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii


V v Associated Newspapers Ltd [2016] EWCOP 29, [2016] MHLO 42 — "As the Applicant indicated might be the case she makes an application that part of her costs be paid by the Respondents on an indemnity basis. The application has been made and resisted on written submissions." 2016‑10‑09 14:42:34 2016 cases, COP costs cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript


V v Associated Newspapers Ltd [2016] EWCOP 21, [2016] MHLO 41 — "The application before me is for a reporting restrictions order that extends beyond the period of the reporting restrictions order granted at the first hearing for directions in the case and was not altered by Macdonald J. By its terms it ended on C's death." 2016‑10‑09 14:39:52 2016 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Reporting restriction order cases, Transcript


M v Press Association [2016] EWCOP 34, [2016] MHLO 39 — "The hearing had taken place over four days in early November. On 2 November 2015 I made a reporting restriction order, prohibiting the identification of the first respondent and Mrs N in any press reporting 'during her lifetime'. I also decided that, for a period of seven days after her death, the injunction should continue. On 17 December 2015 the applicant, M, applied to vary the RRO to extend its duration until '14 days after the final judgment in the matter of V v Associated Newspapers Ltd' [2016] EWCOP 21M. In that case, to which I will refer below, Charles J was considering the scope and ambit of such Reporting Restriction Orders following the death of P. On 13 January 2016 I varied the order in the terms applied for, no party sought to contest it. On 16 December 2015 Mrs N died. On 25 April 2016 Charles J delivered the judgment in V (supra) and on 4 May 2016 M applied to vary the RRO to extend the duration 'until further order of the court'." 2016‑10‑09 13:55:42 2016 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Reporting restriction order cases, Transcript


R (Lee-Hirons) v SSJ [2016] UKSC 46, [2016] MHLO 38 — "A man is convicted of an offence. Satisfied that he is suffering from mental disorder, the court makes an order for his detention in hospital. Satisfied that it is necessary for the protection of the public, the court also makes a restriction order, which removes from the hospital the power to discharge him. In due course a tribunal directs his discharge from hospital on conditions. Afterwards, however, the Secretary of State for Justice (“the Minister”) exercises his power to recall the man to hospital, where he is subject to renewed detention. This appeal is about the explanation for the recall which the law requires the Minister to provide to the man both at the time of his recall and soon afterwards." 2016‑10‑07 21:15:28 2016 cases, ICLR summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Ministry of Justice cases, Transcript


Staffordshire County Council v SRK [2016] EWCOP 27, [2016] MHLO 36 — "This case concerns an individual SRK who was severely injured in a road traffic accident. The effects of those injuries are that (a) he lacks capacity to make decisions on the regime of care, treatment and support that he should receive (SRK's care regime), and (b) applying the approach in Cheshire West (see Surrey County Council v P and others; Cheshire West and Chester Council v P and another [2014] UKSC 19M, [2014] AC 896B), SRK's care regime creates, on an objective assessment, a deprivation of liberty. SRK was awarded substantial damages that were paid to his property and affairs deputy (the third Respondent IMTC). He lives at a property that has been bought and adapted for him. His regime of care and support there is provided by private sector providers. The damages funded that purchase and adaptation and fund that regime of care. The issue is whether this situation on the ground is a deprivation of liberty that has to be authorised by the Court of Protection (the COP) by it making a welfare order. The test that the COP would apply in making such an order is whether SRK's care regime is the least restrictive available option to best promote his best interests. The same test applies to the decision makers on the ground. It is common ground that at present SRK's care regime satisfies that test." 2016‑09‑25 21:18:42 2016 cases, Deprivation of liberty, ICLR summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Transcript


Re W (Medical Treatment: Anorexia) [2016] EWCOP 13, [2016] MHLO 35 — "In this case, Miss W, a young woman aged 28, has suffered from a severe and enduring eating disorder for 20 years, with physical, social and psychological consequences of the kind described above. In this judgment I will call her W. Since the age of 11, she has had six admissions for inpatient treatment, spread between five units around the country and amounting to about 10 years in total. Her current admission has lasted for 2½ years and yet, despite the most intensive support, she is barely eating and is losing weight at the rate of 500 g – 1 kg per week. She now weighs less than 30 kg and her BMI is 12.6. If she continues to lose weight at this rate, she will die. ... The outcome is that, accepting the unanimous professional view, I approve the plan of the Health Board. This is that W should now be discharged into the community with a closely thought-out package of support for her and her family. Given W's fragile condition, it is a plan that has only been arrived at after the most anxious consideration by her care team. It will at first seem counterintuitive that someone so ill should be discharged from hospital. The conventional assumption is that hospital treatment is likely to bring benefits, but the evidence has persuaded me that in this case that is not so. The outcome is to some extent in accordance with W's wishes, which I will describe below." 2016‑09‑25 20:53:00 2016 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Medical treatment cases, No summary, Transcript


Re CS (Termination of Pregnancy) [2016] EWCOP 10, [2016] MHLO 34 — "This is an application by a Hospital Trust for orders in respect of a young woman, who I will refer to as CS, who is said to lack capacity and in respect of whom the Trust seeks an order that it would be in her best interests to undergo surgery terminating her current pregnancy. This hearing is being conducted in the Court of Protection in open court in accordance with the Rules but subject to a reporting restriction order which I made earlier this afternoon." 2016‑08‑31 21:30:24 2016 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Medical treatment cases, No summary, Transcript


Re Clarke [2016] EWCOP 11, [2016] MHLO 33 — "In 2012, I gave three judgments in this matter. ... A written application has now been made by Mr Michael Clarke on 3 September 2015 to vary the order of 9 October 2012 so as to allow the sale of Mrs Clarke’s Blackpool property. There has also been a request by Ms Angela Wilde and Mr Kevin Clarke for access to the property in order to inspect and maintain it, but no application has been issued, despite time being allowed. The application and request are both opposed." 2016‑08‑31 21:17:47 2016 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Other capacity cases, Transcript


The NHS Acute Trust v C [2016] EWCOP 17, [2016] MHLO 32 — "The applicant Trusts provide obstetric and psychiatric care and services to the respondent, C. They have made applications for an order (i) in the Court of Protection to permit the applicants to undertake various steps and measures in respect of C's forthcoming labour; and (ii) a reporting restrictions order." 2016‑08‑31 20:59:57 2016 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Medical treatment cases, No summary, Transcript


PJV v Assistant Director Adult Social Care Newcastle City Council [2016] EWCOP 7, [2016] MHLO 28 — "I am pleased record that the parties addressed these points [(i) the imposition of a term in a trust directed to the risk that a perpetrator would benefit from the award, (ii) the terms of the appointment of a deputy, (iii) the declaratory relief granted and the discharge of the Deputy, and (iv) the Peters undertaking and a restriction on the powers of the trustees]. I attach in Parts 1 and 2 of the Schedule hereto (i) the wording for the appointment of a deputy that was agreed, and (ii) the terms of the trust that were agreed (anonymised save for the identity of the original trustee). I also record that, as the appointment of the deputy was discharged, it was agreed that there was no need for a Peters undertaking. It seems to me that the agreed wording for the appointment of a deputy should be a useful precedent or starting point in other cases." (CICA case.) 2016‑08‑29 21:22:12 2016 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Other capacity cases, Transcript


WBC v Z [2016] EWCOP 4, [2016] MHLO 27 — "The central issue which arises in this case is whether risks taken by a 20-year old young woman with autism represent 'unwise' decision-making, or evidence her lack of capacity." 2016‑08‑29 21:02:08 2016 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Other capacity cases, Transcript


North Yorkshire County Council v MAG [2016] EWCOP 5, [2016] MHLO 26 — "I have had little difficulty in reaching the conclusion that the applications for permission should be granted and the appeals allowed. ... This appears to be a case in which DJ Glentworth uncharacteristically appears to have allowed her understandable concern about MAG's living circumstances, and her palpable frustration at what she saw as NYCC's tardiness in resolving his accommodation issues, to distract her from following a clear path to outcome. The result is one which I consider is unsupportable, and wrong. Picking six key themes from the arguments, I divide my discussion of the judgment into the following sub-headings: (i) Did the judge ask herself the correct question(s)? (ii) The effect of Re MN on these facts; (iii) Has there has been a breach of Article 5? (iv) Taking a decision which MAG could not take for himself; (v) No alternative option; impermissible pressure; (vi) The factual findings." 2016‑08‑29 19:29:12 2016 cases, Deprivation of liberty, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript


Al-Jeffery v Al-Jeffery (Vulnerable adult, British citizen) [2016] EWHC 2151 (Fam), [2016] MHLO 25 — "There are two applications before the court. One asks the court to make a statutory forced marriage protection order. The other asks the court to make orders, including mandatory orders, in the exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court to make orders protective of vulnerable adults. ... She now claims that she is being seriously ill-treated by her father and being kept under constraint by him in his flat; and that she is being prevented by him from leaving Saudi Arabia and travelling to Wales or England, which she wishes to do, and is, in the eyes of the law of Wales and England, fully entitled freely to do. ... The father, against whom I [am] asked to make an order, is not a British citizen and owes no allegiance to our Sovereign or this state. Neither of them are present here. Neither of them have lived here for several years. Both of them are citizens of Saudi Arabia and both of them currently live there. There have, indeed, already been recent legal proceedings between them there. Should I, nevertheless, attempt to help her by making the essential order which she seeks for her return here; or should I appreciate that that would be exorbitant and, in my judicial discretion, decline to do so? That is the essential issue and dilemma in this case." 2016‑08‑27 09:09:22 2016 cases, Capacity to consent to sexual relations cases, Inherent jurisdiction cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript


Jimoh Adun of Nieko Solicitors (SRA decision: control of practice) [2016] MHLO 23(1) The SRA decided on 15/7/15 (decision published 24/7/15) that Mr Adun's practising certificate for 2014/2015 would be subject to the following conditions: "(a) Mr Adun is not to be a recognised sole practitioner, manager or owner of any authorised body or authorised non-SRA firm; (b) Mr Adun shall immediately inform any actual or prospective employer and relevant authorised body's authorised signatory and/or organisation contact of these conditions and the reasons for their imposition." (2) Reasons: "Jimoh Adun is subject to Regulation 3 of the SRA Practising Regulations 2011. He was the sole manager and owner of the firm Nieko Solicitors, which was subject to an intervention decision dated 5 December 2014. The grounds for intervention were abandonment of practice and that the intervention was necessary to protect the interests of clients (former or potential) of Mr Adun. The SRA had been advised that he was being investigated by the Legal Aid Agency. His conduct is currently being investigated by the SRA." 2016‑07‑30 22:46:06 2016 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available offline, Neutral citation unknown or not applicable, No transcript, SRA decisions


R v Orr [2016] EWCA Crim 889, [2016] MHLO 21 — "The appeal concerns the definition of 'fitness to plead' and the process engaged by the trial judge in the instant trial which proceeded after he found the defendant 'unfit to be cross examined'. ... Once the issue of fitness to plead has been raised it must be determined. In this case, the judge explicitly found that the appellant had been fit to participate in his trial up to the point of cross examination and thereby implicitly determined that the appellant was no longer able to fully participate in his trial within the 'Pritchard' refined criteria. In these circumstances, the procedure to be adopted was clearly set out by section Criminal Procedure (Insanity) Act 1964, 4A. We agree with the submission that this is a statutory mandatory requirement which cannot be avoided by the court's general discretion to order proceedings otherwise, however beneficial to the defendant they may appear. It follows that, in this case, the jury should not have been allowed to return a verdict, other than a verdict of acquittal if they were not satisfied on the evidence already given in the trial that the appellant did the act charged against him. The appeal against conviction must be allowed." 2016‑07‑09 21:55:06 2016 cases, ICLR summary, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript, Unfitness and insanity cases


McDonald v McDonald [2016] UKSC 28, [2016] MHLO 20 — "This appeal raises three questions. The first is whether a court, when entertaining a claim for possession by a private sector owner against a residential occupier, should be required to consider the proportionality of evicting the occupier, in the light of section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 and article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The second question is whether, if the answer to the first question is yes, the relevant legislation, in particular section 21(4) of the Housing Act 1988, can be read so as to comply with that conclusion. The third question is whether, if the answer to the first and second questions is yes, the trial judge would have been entitled to dismiss the claim for possession in this case, as he said he would have done. ... The appellant, Fiona McDonald, is aged 45 and, sadly, she has had psychiatric and behavioural problems since she was five. ... In those circumstances, her parents, who are technically the respondents to this appeal, decided to buy a property for her to occupy. ... However, owing to financial difficulties which they unfortunately encountered in their business, they failed to meet all the [loan] interest as it fell due. ... the Receivers served a notice ... indicating that they would be seeking possession of the property." 2016‑06‑20 21:53:27 2016 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Miscellaneous cases, No summary, Transcript


R v Ahmed [2016] EWCA Crim 670, [2016] MHLO 19 — "Saber Ahmed 31, was tried for murder in the Crown Court at Birmingham in 2006 before HHJ Matthews and a jury. On 3 August 2006 he was acquitted of murder and convicted of manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility. On 20 October 2006 HHJ Matthews sentenced him to life imprisonment with a minimum term of 3 years and 6 months, less 462 days spent on remand. The judge recommended deportation. ... We are satisfied that in all the circumstances of this case it is appropriate to impose a hospital order with a restriction order. This is no reflection on the sentencing judge who passed the only sentence available to him on the evidence at the time. We quash the life sentence and we impose orders under Sections 37 and 41 of the Mental Health Act 1983, the latter without limit of time. To that extent the appeal is allowed." 2016‑06‑11 20:34:39 2016 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Life sentence cases, No summary, Transcript


Home Office (Central government) (2016) UKICO FS50618706, [2016] MHLO 18 — "The complainant has requested information about police powers under Section 136 of the Mental Health Act to detain mentally disordered persons found in public places. By the date of this notice the Home Office had not responded to the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that by failing to respond to the request, the Home Office breached sections 1(1) and 10(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the Home Office to take the following steps. to ensure compliance with the legislation: Issue a response to the request under the FOIA by either complying with section 1(1) or issuing a valid refusal notice. The Home Office must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of the Act and may be dealt with as a contempt of court." The request was: "What qualifies a constable to take decisions regarding the mental health of a member of the public, and how is this not a breach of human rights. This is a particularly important request in the context that police forces are unlawfully detaining innocent members of the public by use of this Act." 2016‑05‑26 13:02:00 2016 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Miscellaneous cases, No summary, Transcript


Re P (Huntingdon's disease patient at Royal Liverpool and Broadgreen University Hospitals NHS Trust) [2016] MHLO 13This case involved a man in his 30s in the advanced stages of Huntington’s disease who had repeatedly pulled out a feeding tube attached to his stomach. The Trust applied for a ruling on what treatment would be in his best interests. Having heard evidence from a consultant neurologist (who said that it would not be right, and would be futile, to re-insert the feeding tube), and other evidence, including from relatives, Hayden J concluded that the tube should not be reinserted, even though this would hasten the man’s death. (Summary based on Press Association article.) 2016‑05‑01 20:16:08 2016 cases, Best interests, Brief summary, Neutral citation unknown or not applicable, Transcript


R (O) v SSHD [2016] UKSC 19, [2016] MHLO 12 — "The appellant, O, is a woman of Nigerian nationality, aged 38. In November 2003, with her son, then aged three, she illegally entered the UK. In July 2008 she pleaded guilty to offences of cruelty towards her son, who had returned to live in Nigeria, and the court sentenced her to 12 months' imprisonment and recommended that she be deported. On 8 August 2008 her sentence came to an end, whereupon the respondent, the Home Secretary, detained her - at first pending the making of a deportation order and then, following the making of such an order, pending her deportation pursuant to it. O's detention, which was at the Immigration Removal Centre at Yarl's Wood in Bedfordshire, continued until 6 July 2011 when, pursuant to a grant of bail on 1 July 2011, she was released. It follows that O was detained at Yarl's Wood for almost three years. The court knows nothing about her circumstances after 6 July 2011 but infers that she has not, or not yet, been deported. ... In the present proceedings, which - chronologically - encompass her fourth claim for judicial review, O challenges the lawfulness of the later period of her detention, namely from 22 July 2010, and in particular from say 4 March 2011, until 6 July 2011. The object of the present proceedings has never been to secure her release, which had already occurred at the time of their issue. The object has been to secure a declaration that the detention was unlawful and, perhaps in particular, an award of substantial damages for false imprisonment. ... O has the misfortune to have suffered for many years from serious mental ill-health. So the appeal requires this court to consider the Home Secretary's policy relating to the detention of the mentally ill pending deportation; and perhaps also to identify the criterion by which the court should determine a complaint that she has failed to implement some aspect of her policy relating to it. Furthermore the Home Secretary is obliged to conduct monthly reviews of whether a person's detention pending deportation should continue. There were, as the Court of Appeal held, defects in the Home Secretary's conduct of the monthly reviews of O's detention between March and July 2011. ... [W]ere O's claim for judicial review permitted to proceed, the result in all likelihood would be a declaration that her detention from 4 March 2011 to 6 July 2011 was unlawful and an award to her of damages in the sum of £1. ... I would dismiss the appeal." 2016‑04‑28 13:48:52 2016 cases, ICLR summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Repatriation cases, Transcript


* Immigration detention R (VC) v SSHD [2016] EWHC 273 (Admin), [2016] MHLO 7Repatriation case with mental health background. "There are two strands to the contentions made by the Claimant in this claim, as argued before me: (1) a challenge to the lawfulness of his detention on the basis that it was in breach of (a) the Defendant's policy on detaining the mentally ill which, had it been applied lawfully, would have precluded the Claimant's detention; (b) Hardial Singh principle 3 because from 31 October 2014 there was no realistic prospect of the Claimant's removal within a reasonable timescale; and (c) Hardial Singh principle 2 because the Claimant was detained for an unreasonable length of time. (2) a challenge to the treatment of the Claimant in detention on the basis that it was: (a) in violation of Article 3 ECHR; (b) contrary to the Mental Capacity Act 2005; (c) discriminatory, contrary to the Equality Act 2010; and (d) procedurally unfair." 2016‑02‑17 21:59:28 2016 cases, Cases, ICLR summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Repatriation cases


Birmingham City Council v D [2016] EWCOP 8, [2016] MHLO 5(1) A parent cannot consent to the confinement (i.e. the objective element of Article 5 deprivation of liberty) of a child who has attained the age of 16. (2) The confinement was imputable to the state despite the accommodation being provided under s20 Children Act 1989, as the local authority had taken a central role; in any event, even if D's confinement were a purely private affair the state would have a positive obligation under Article 5(1) to protect him. (3) The judge did not resile from his previous judgment that D's parents could consent to his confinement in hospital when he was under 16. 2016‑01‑31 23:02:21 2016 cases, Brief summary, Deprivation of liberty, ICLR summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Transcript


R (C) v SSJ [2016] UKSC 2, [2016] MHLO 2(1) There is no presumption of anonymity in proceedings which are about the compulsory powers of detention, care and treatment under the 1983 Act: in each case the judge must decide whether or not anonymity is necessary in the interests of the patient. (2) On the facts, an anonymity order was necessary in the interests of this particular patient. Extracts from judgment: "The first issue before us is whether there should be a presumption of anonymity in civil proceedings, or certain kinds of civil proceedings, in the High Court relating to a patient detained in a psychiatric hospital, or otherwise subject to compulsory powers, under the Mental Health Act 1983 (“the 1983 Act”). The second issue is whether there should be an anonymity order on the facts of this particular case. ... The question in all these cases is that set out in CPR 39.2(4): is anonymity necessary in the interests of the patient? It would be wrong to have a presumption that an order should be made in every case. There is a balance to be struck. The public has a right to know, not only what is going on in our courts, but also who the principal actors are. This is particularly so where notorious criminals are involved. They need to be reassured that sensible decisions are being made about them. On the other hand, the purpose of detention in hospital for treatment is to make the patient better, so that he is no longer a risk either to himself or to others. That whole therapeutic enterprise may be put in jeopardy if confidential information is disclosed in a way which enables the public to identify the patient. It may also be put in jeopardy unless patients have a reasonable expectation in advance that their identities will not be disclosed without their consent. In some cases, that disclosure may put the patient himself, and perhaps also the hospital, those treating him and the other patients there, at risk. The public’s right to know has to be balanced against the potential harm, not only to this patient, but to all the others whose treatment could be affected by the risk of exposure. ... I conclude that an anonymity order is necessary in the interests of this particular patient. His regime before he left hospital, involving escorted leave in the community, demonstrated the need for anonymity and the case is even stronger now (as foreseen in R (M) v Parole Board). Without it there is a very real risk that the progress he has made during his long years of treatment in hospital will be put in jeopardy and his re-integration in the community, which was an important purpose of his transfer to hospital, will not succeed. I would therefore allow this appeal and maintain the anonymity order in place." 2016‑01‑27 23:45:15 2016 cases, Anonymisation cases, Brief summary, ICLR summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Transcript


Article titles

The following 60 pages are in this category.