The old category structure shown on this page is comprehensive as it contains every case. The new database structure introduced in 2019 contains fewer cases but is easier to search: 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|
|* Non-legal research by judge JG v Kent and Medway NHS and Social Care Partnership Trust  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."||2019‑08‑01 23:25:11||2019 cases, Bias, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii
|* COP bias Re M: A v Z  EWCOP 4 — "This matter concerns an appeal from the order of HHJ Roberts made on 18 July 2018 in Court of Protection (COP) proceedings concerning M. The appellants are M's mother and father in law who have the care of X, M's son age 12. ... Mr Simblet relies on four grounds of appeal: (1) There was apparent bias, in that the judge stated her intention in the exchange between the judge and the legal representatives, in the absence of the parties, to decide the application consistent with decisions made in different proceedings. (2) The judge wrongly felt constrained to reach a decision that would be consistent with a decision she had reached in different proceedings. (3) There was a material irregularity, in that the Judge took into account material from different proceedings, and the [paternal grandparents] within the COP proceedings were unable to properly know the case against them or that they had to meet. (4) In reaching her decision the judge failed to identify or give sufficient weight to factors that were relevant to M's best interests."||2018‑03‑12 22:55:33||2018 cases, Bias, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Other capacity cases
|Equilibrium Health Care v AK  UKUT 543 (AAC),  MHLO 101 — A tribunal medical member had referred the RC to the GMC in 2010 in relation to the RC's evidence at a tribunal. The RC argued, following the adjournment of a 2013 hearing, that this medical member should recuse himself because of bias. He was unsuccessful as there was no real possibility of bias, or actual bias, at either the 2010 hearing or the 2013 hearing. Obiter: decisions on recusal are best challenged after the proceedings are concluded.||2013‑11‑27 22:42:05||2013 cases, Bias, Brief summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Transcript, Upper Tribunal decisions
|Shulepova v Russia 34449/03  ECHR 1666 — (1) Violation of Article 5(4): Applicant not detained in accordance with a procedure prescribed by domestic law. (2) Violation of Article 6(1): By appointing the hospital's employees as psychiatric experts, the domestic courts placed the applicant at a substantial disadvantage, in breach of the principle of equality of arms.||2009‑04‑10 21:39:13||2008 cases, Bias, Brief summary, ECHR, Transcript
|McGrady, Re Application for Judicial Review  NIQB 15 — (1) The ability to disclose material to the representative on condition that it was not revealed to the patient was compatible with the Convention (obiter, since no decision had been taken on this yet). (2) The medical member's role is to form a provisional view on the patient's mental condition, rather than on the statutory criteria, and he discloses his conclusion during the hearing; if this approach is taken then there is no violation of Article 5(4), DN v Switzerland 27154/95  ECHR 235 distinguished.||2008‑11‑27 17:32:08||2003 cases, Bias, Brief summary, Miscellaneous, Northern Irish cases, Transcript
|DN v Switzerland 27154/95  ECHR 235 — The psychiatrist who sat as judge rapporteur on the Administrative Appeals Commission had, before the hearing, concluded that the patient should not be released; the patient had legitimate fears that the doctor had a preconceived opinion and was not acting impartially; this was reinforced because he was sole the psychiatric expert and the only person who had interviewed her; Article 5(4) having been breached, damages and costs were awarded||2008‑11‑27 16:59:00||2001 cases, Bias, Brief summary, ECHR, Transcript
|R (B) v South Region MHRT  EWHC 2356 (Admin) — Unsuccessful challenge to Tribunal's decision not to discharge from Broadmoor hospital.||2008‑10‑23 01:05:56||2008 cases, Bias, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Reasons, Transcript
|R (S) v MHRT  EWHC 2522 (Admin) — Medical member's role.||2008‑09‑12 16:36:24||2002 cases, Bias, No summary, Transcript
|R (RD) v MHRT  EWHC 781 (Admin) — (1) The communication by the medical member of a "very preliminary" view was lawful, even though it went to detainability and not merely to mental condition; (2) the reasons given for not discharging were adequate.||2007‑04‑18 22:08:05||2007 cases, Bias, Detailed summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Transcript
|R (M) v MHRT  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 (PD) v West Midlands and North West MHRT  EWHC 2469 (Admin) — No appearance of bias just becuase MHRT medical member was employed by same Trust as detained the patient.||2006‑04‑16 11:30:50||2003 cases, Bias, Detailed summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Transcript
|R (PD) v West Midlands and North West MHRT  EWCA Civ 311 — No appearance of bias when Tribunal medical member was employed by same Trust.||2006‑04‑15 19:44:26||2004 cases, Bias, Brief summary, Transcript
The following 12 pages are in this category.
- R (B) v South Region MHRT (2008) EWHC 2356 (Admin)
- R (M) v MHRT (2005) EWHC 2791 (Admin)
- R (PD) v West Midlands and North West MHRT (2003) EWHC 2469 (Admin)
- R (PD) v West Midlands and North West MHRT (2004) EWCA Civ 311
- R (RD) v MHRT (2007) EWHC 781 (Admin)
- R (S) v MHRT (2002) EWHC 2522 (Admin)
- Re M: A v Z (2018) EWCOP 4