Sign up for MHLO on the Subscriptions page: you can sign up for free email updates, the email discussion list, the online forum and the CPD scheme (which provides 12 hours for £60 and is suitable for lawyers and non-lawyers).

Online forum | Latest topic on forum: Section 29 displacement - reinterview/reassessment needed?

Category

Coronavirus 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
* Coronavirus vaccination SS v London Borough of Richmond upon Thames [2021] EWCOP 31(1) SS lacked capacity, owing to dementia, to decide whether to take a coronavirus vaccination, but consistently and volubly opposed it. (2) If she had capacity she should most likely would have refused: previously she had always attended to her medical welfare but resisted vaccinations. (3) It would not be in her best interests to persuade her by lying that her dead father had requested she take the vaccination. (4) It would not be in her best interests to administer it by force (sedation and restraint), as best interests requires evaluating welfare in a sense broader than merely epidemiological: SS would look to the carers to help, and they would not be able to intervene, which likely would dismantle the tentative trust that had been established over the months. 2021‑05‑23 14:20:18 2021 cases, Cases, Coronavirus cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Medical treatment cases


* Coronavirus vaccination NHS Tameside and Glossop CCG v CR [2021] EWCOP 19CR lacked capacity in relation to the coronavirus vaccination and it was not possible to determine his wishes and feelings. The Court of Protection decided it was in his best interests to have the vaccination, based on the orthodox view of its benefits, and rejecting family members' objections. The relief sought by the CCG was granted, although physical intervention was not authorised. 2021‑04‑11 22:41:06 2021 cases, Cases, Coronavirus cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Medical treatment cases


* Reasonable excuse to leave home NG v Hertfordshire County Council [2021] EWCOP 2The issue in this appeal was whether NG’s mother and step-father had a reasonable excuse to leave their homes to provide care to NG, pursuant to regulation 6(2)(d) of the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) Regulations 2020. 2021‑01‑29 22:55:16 2021 cases, Cases, Coronavirus cases, Judgment available on Bailii


* Coronavirus vaccination Re E (Vaccine): LB Hammersmith and Fulham v W [2021] EWCOP 7Mrs E's adult son objected to her receiving a coronavirus vaccine. The Court of Protection decided that it would be in her best interests, having regard to factors including the following: (a) when she had capacity she had received the swine flu and influenza vaccinations; (b) she currently wanted "whatever is best for me"; (c) she was at risk of death from coronavirus because she was in her 80s, suffered from diabetes, lived in a care home which recently had coronavirus, and found social distancing difficult to understand; the vaccine would reduce the risk of death. 2021‑01‑29 22:32:25 2021 cases, Cases, Coronavirus cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Medical treatment cases


* "Personally seen" and "personally examined" require physical presence Devon Partnership NHS Trust v SSHSC [2021] EWHC 101 (Admin)In this case the Trust sought declarations that the s12 requirement that a medical practitioner must have "personally examined" a patient before completing a medical recommendation and the s11 requirement that an AMHP must have "personally seen" the patient before making an application (both requirements being in relation to s2, 3, 4 and 7) could be met by remote means, as suggested in NHS, 'Legal guidance for mental health, learning disability and autism, and specialised commissioning services supporting people of all ages during the coronavirus pandemic' (v2, 19/5/20). (1) The High Court agreed to give an advisory opinion on statutory construction in this exceptional case, as there was a real (not hypothetical or academic) question, the Trust had a real interest in it, and the court had heard proper argument. (2) The High Court decided that both phrases require the physical attendance of the person in question on the patient, because of the following six considerations: (a) in this country, powers to deprive people of their liberty are generally exercised by judges and where, exceptionally, statute authorises administrative detention the powers are to be construed particularly strictly; (b) splitting up the compound phrases into individual words fails to capture their true import as understood when enacted; (c) Parliament understood the medical examination as necessarily involving physical presence (confirmed by the word "visiting" used elsewhere, and the fact that psychiatric assessment may involve a multi-sensory assessment); (d) it is not appropriate to apply an "updating construction", as the words were intended to be restrictive and circumscribed, and when enacted were understood as connoting physical presence; (e) medical examinations should ideally be carried out face-to-face (the Code of Practice and guidance both state this is preferable), and it is for Parliament to weigh up the competing interests (namely the need to ensure that administrative deprivations of liberty are properly founded on objective evidence and the need to maintain the system of MHA detention given the exigencies of the pandemic); (f) interpretation by the court would be applicable immediately and may remain in force for some time after the end of the current pandemic, but modification by Parliament could involve ongoing judgement on whether to bring them into force and whether to make them time limited. 2021‑01‑23 22:35:32


* Video tribunal hearing set aside Re D [2020] MHLO 51 (FTT)(1) The decision in this case was set aside because it was not clear whether or not the patient had a reasonable opportunity to hear all the evidence that was given at the hearing: it was not possible to be sure that the patient had a fair hearing. (2) The patient's microphone had been muted for much of the time after giving her evidence at the outset because she "would not stop talking", but this did not amount to exclusion under Tribunal rule 38. [First-tier tribunal decisions are useful but not binding.] 2020‑10‑20 21:42:23 2020 cases, Cases, Coronavirus cases, First-tier Tribunal decisions, Judgment available on MHLO, Neutral citation unknown or not applicable, Other Tribunal cases, Transcript


* Remote pre-hearing examinations are practicable Re C [2020] MHLO 48 (FTT)(1) A salaried tribunal judge initially refused to allow a pre-hearing examination (PHE) because the coronavirus Pilot Practice Direction states: "During the Covid-19 pandemic it will not be 'practicable' under rule 34 of the 2008 Rules for any PHE examinations to take place, due to the health risk such examinations present." (2) Having treated the rule 46 application for permission to appeal as a rule 6 challenge, a different salaried tribunal judge decided that: (a) the practice direction is subordinate to the rules and overriding objective; (b) in video-enabled hearings with a full panel a PHE is practicable by that means; (c) hearings and PHEs should be conducted remotely as, even if the hospital would allow access, the tribunal will not put its members at risk of contracting or spreading coronavirus; (d) in this case, the PHE would take place by video link on the morning of the hearing. [First-tier Tribunal decisions are not binding.] 2020‑09‑03 23:37:18 2020 cases, Cases, Coronavirus cases, First-tier Tribunal decisions, Judgment available on MHLO, Neutral citation unknown or not applicable, Powers, Transcript


* Direction for postponement of CTO hearing set aside Re B [2020] MHLO 18 (FTT)The initial decision indefinitely to postpone a CTO patient's hearing (in accordance with Mental Health Tribunal, 'Order and directions for all community patients who are subject to a CTO or conditional discharge and who have applied or been referred to the tribunal for the duration of the Pilot Practice Direction' (26/3/20)) was set aside by the First-tier Tribunal. 2020‑04‑30 10:45:25 2020 cases, CTO cases, Cases, Coronavirus cases, First-tier Tribunal decisions, Judgment available on MHLO, Neutral citation unknown or not applicable