Cover - Annual Review 2021.jpg


Change of status 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
* Change in status - s47/49 to s37/41 CS v Elysium Healthcare [2021] UKUT 186 (AAC)The patient applied to the MHRT for Wales while subject to a s47/49 restricted transfer direction; then the Court of Appeal quashed the underlying Imprisonment for Public Protection sentence, replacing it with a s37/41 restricted hospital order; then the MHRT decided that following the change in status it lacked jurisdiction to consider the application. The Upper Tribunal set aside the MHRT's decision, on the basis that the patient had remained a restricted patient throughout, and remade it accordingly. Elysium Healthcare was criticised for its "lamentable" failure to comply with case management directions, which delayed proceedings (as did the Upper Tribunal's own inefficient administration). 2021‑08‑24 22:18:07 Judgment available on Bailii

* Change from s3 to s37 during tribunal proceedings GM v Dorset Healthcare University NHS Foundation Trust [2020] UKUT 152 (AAC)The First-tier Tribunal had been right to strike out proceedings arising from a s3 reference when the patient was subsequently made subject to a s37 hospital order. It would be contrary to statutory policy if the tribunal were to retain jurisdiction under an application or reference that was made before the date of the hospital order. 2020‑06‑25 20:55:05

* Change in status - s3 to guardianship AD'A v Cornwall Partnership NHS Foundation Trust [2020] UKUT 110 (AAC)When the patient had been transferred from s3 detention to s7 guardianship, the tribunal had been wrong to strike out her case for want of jurisdiction. The tribunal's jurisdiction arose from the s3 application, and none of the subsequent changes (including a new right to apply to tribunal, different tribunal powers, and different parties) affected that jurisdiction. 2020‑04‑12 21:40:41

* CTO reference hearings PS v Camden and Islington NHS Foundation Trust [2011] UKUT 143 (AAC)The Tribunal's policy was that a reference made under s68(7) (triggered by the revocation of a CTO) would be treated as having lapsed if the patient subsequently was placed on a new CTO (see Guidance: References made under section 68(7) Mental Health Act 1983 (updated 22/9/10)). When the patient's representative argued that the case should be heard, the Tribunal treated that letter as the patient's own application. (1) The policy was unlawful: (a) whether the reference has lapsed depends on the nature of the reference, which is a matter of statutory interpretation, so neither the overriding objective nor the policy is relevant; (b) the subject matter of a reference under s68(7) (the duty to consider the s72 criteria) is not related to the circumstances that trigger it (the revocation of the CTO) so survives the change in circumstances; (c) the policy was inconsistent with s68(3)(c) (no six-month reference if revocation reference has been made) which would not be necessary if the revocation reference lapses. (2) The power to treat a letter as a Tribunal application is only appropriately exercised for the applicant's advantage, not potential detriment; it is not permissible to override an unequivocal indication by the solicitor to the opposite effect, especially if to do so would deprive the patient of the chance to make an application later should discharge not be obtained on the reference. (3) If the hospital managers had been represented, the judge would have wanted to know why it took 12 days to complete the simple referral form. (4) The Tribunal Procedure Committee will be consulting on rule changes to make it easier to handle CTO revocation cases in which the patient does not 'co-operate': in the meantime, the judge suggested that proceedings could be stayed, or hearings conducted in patients' absence. 2011‑04‑16 13:06:11

KF v Birmingham and Solihull Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust [2010] UKUT 185 (AAC) — Various issues including (1) what should happen where an appeal from a First-tier Tribunal's substantive decision on a s2 application is overtaken by events and (2) whether a s3 reference to the First-tier Tribunal lapse once a CTO is made. 2010‑06‑18 23:19:22 2010 cases, Change of status cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript, Upper Tribunal decisions

AA v Cheshire and Wirral Partnership NHS Foundation Trust [2009] UKUT 195 (AAC)An application made while a patient is detained under section 2 or 3 does not lapse when the patient is made subject to a CTO, as s72(1) (powers of tribunals) should be given a literal construction. Preliminary points: (1) Discussion on Law Society guidance and cases where client lacks full capacity. The Upper Tribunal has no power to appoint a litigation friend or equivalent, and the OS's powers and duties apply to court proceedings not tribunals; in any event, justice did not require a litigation friend as the potential "best interests" argument was argued by other parties. (2) It was not unlawful for a First-tier Tribunal judge to consider an application for permission to appeal from, or a review of, his own decision. 2009‑10‑13 18:13:45 2009 cases, Brief summary, Change of status cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Transcript, Upper Tribunal decisions

R (MN) v MHRT [2008] EWHC 3383 (Admin)Tribunal application made under s70 when patient subject to s47/49 (restricted transfer direction) lapses when s49 (restriction direction) lapses; to avoid delay, the application can be treated as if it were an application under s69(2)(a). 2008‑12‑22 22:41:33 2008 cases, Change of status cases, Detailed summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Transcript

R (M) v South Thames MHRT [1997] EWHC Admin 797Tribunal application made while under s2 does not fall if the patient is subsequently placed under s3; patient maintains his separate right to apply under while s3. 2006‑04‑20 20:45:23 1997 cases, Change of status cases, Detailed summary, Judgment available offline, Judgment missing from Bailii, 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