Judgment available on MHLO
The new database structure introduced in 2019 is more useful than this Category page: 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 |
|---|---|---|
| * 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 | Transcript, Judgment available on MHLO
|
| * Article 2 inquests and community patients Re Lee [2019] MHLO 73 (Coroner) — The coroner, following the Administrative Court decision that she had failed properly to address the Article 2 operational duty as set out in the Rabone case, in this decision sets out reasons for concluding that (a) the operational duty was not neither engaged nor breached. | 2020‑07‑30 14:41:12 | 2019 cases, Cases, Inquests, Judgment available on MHLO, Transcript
|
| * Conditional discharge and DOL MC v Cygnet Behavioural Health Ltd [2020] UKUT 230 (AAC) — (1) Although, following MM, the First-tier Tribunal has no power to impose conditions which would amount to a deprivation of liberty, it does have the power to coordinate its decision with the provision of an authorisation under the MCA, either by "the different hats approach" (the same judge sitting in the COP and the FTT) or "the ducks in a row approach" (adjournment or deferred conditional discharge). (2) This involves no Article 14 discrimination in favour of incapacitous restricted patients as, under SSJ guidance, the equivalent outcome can be reached for capacitous patients by using s17 leave. (3) The FTT had misunderstood the MM decision and had been wrong to refuse to defer conditional discharge for a standard authorisation to be put in place. (4) The UT discharged the patient subject to conditions of residence, supervision and compliance with "all aspects of the care package" (surprisingly, as the care package would amount to a deprivation of liberty), with permission to apply to the FTT for variation on a material change in circumstances (surprisingly, as the MHA sets out when an application may be made). | 2020‑07‑24 21:31:01 | 2020 cases, Cases, Deprivation of liberty, Discharge conditions, Judgment available on Bailii, Judgment available on MHLO, Transcript, Upper Tribunal decisions
|
| * 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 | 2020 cases, Cases, Change of status after application made, Judgment available on Bailii, Judgment available on MHLO, Transcript, Upper Tribunal decisions
|
| * Lawfulness and availability of treatment PM v Midlands Partnership NHS Foundation Trust [2020] UKUT 69 (AAC) — The tribunal had been wrong to find that appropriate medical treatment was "available" for a CTO patient for whom the lack of a SOAD certificate meant that two days after the hearing her treatment could not lawfully be given (unless she were to be recalled to hospital and the administration of her depot were to become immediately necessary). This was the case even though the treatment could have been given on the hearing date: the tribunal should look at the whole course of treatment, not merely a snapshot. | 2020‑04‑01 21:30:03 | 2020 cases, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Judgment available on MHLO, Powers, Transcript, Upper Tribunal decisions
|
| * Reviewing appointment of legal representative SB v South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust [2020] UKUT 33 (AAC) — The tribunal appointed a representative under Tribunal rule 11(7)(b) and later refused to put on record another representative who stated that he was acting on instructions. (1) The initial appointment was unlawful because Form 6b was deficient: the rubric did not mention the 14-day time limit for challenging a delegated decision under Tribunal rule 4. If it had done then the patient's attempt to have a new representative put on record might not have been made too late to be resolved before the hearing. (2) By basing its refusal to review the appointment purely on the appointed solicitor's objection, the tribunal had abdicated its decision-making responsibility and had not given sufficient weight to the presumption of capacity in the face of new evidence of instruction. (3) The decision of the tribunal panel in not discharging the patient was not flawed in any material respect. (4) Neither of the unlawful decisions were set aside as the patient had since been discharged. (5) No damages were awarded as the Upper Tribunal has no power to do so. | 2020‑02‑06 23:08:39 | 2020 cases, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Judgment available on MHLO, MHT capacity cases, Mind summary, Powers, Transcript, Upper Tribunal decisions
|
| * Proceeding in absence of solicitor and patient DA v Kent and Medway NHS and Social Care Partnership Trust [2019] UKUT 348 (AAC) — The tribunal refused to adjourn the case of a CTO patient who had not attended the hearing, then the solicitor left the hearing because she felt unable to represent the patient in those circumstances. (1) The tribunal's initial decision to proceed in the patient's absence referred to rule 39(1) (whether the party had been notified of the hearing or reasonable steps had been taken to notify the party of the hearing, and whether it was in the interests of justice to proceed with the hearing) and rule 39(2)(a) (whether the patient had decided not to attend the hearing or was unable to attend the hearing for reasons of ill health) but not rule 39(2)(b) (whether a rule 34 medical examination of the patient been carried out or was impractical or unnecessary). However, given the assumption that, as an expert tribunal, it will have got the law right, it was more likely than not that the tribunal decided it was impractical to carry out an examination. (2) The tribunal had not considered making an appointment under rule 11(7), but this was unnecessary as there was no indication that the patient had withdrawn her instructions or lacked capacity. (3) When the solicitor departed, it was incumbent upon the tribunal to make a fresh assessment under rule 39(1) as to whether it was in the interests of justice to proceed with the hearing. Its reasons did not mention the departure and it was unlikely that the tribunal had carried out such an assessment; even if it had done so, the lack of any explanation would have rendered the reasons inadequate. (4) The matter was remitted to the First-tier Tribunal for a re-hearing by a differently-constituted panel. | 2019‑11‑18 14:48:18 | 2019 cases, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Judgment available on MHLO, Powers, Transcript, Upper Tribunal decisions
|
| * ECHR and tribunal criteria Djaba v West London Mental Health NHS Trust [2018] MHLO 76 (SC) — On 15/3/18 the Supreme Court (Lady Hale, Lord Hodge, Lord Lloyd-Jones) refused Jasmin Djaba permission to appeal, giving brief reasons. | 2019‑05‑15 13:10:40 | 2018 cases, Cases, Judgment available on MHLO, Powers, Transcript, Upper Tribunal decisions
|
| * Residence and care Harrow CCG v IPJ [2018] EWCOP 44 — "The Court is asked to determine where AJ should live and how he should be cared for. The applicant CCG has proposed an extensive package of care at the family home, with (most of) the financial arrangements managed by a third party broker. JA's parents, who are the Second and Third Respondents, do not agree the proposals and seek the dismissal of the application. | 2019‑05‑10 21:18:53 | 2019 cases, Best interests, Cases, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, Transcript
|
| * MHT/Parole Board delay R (LV) v SSJ [2012] EWHC 3899 (Admin) — "This is a renewed application for permission to apply for judicial review challenging delay, it is said, on the part of the Secretary of State for Justice and the Parole Board in fixing a hearing of the Parole Board." | 2019‑03‑23 16:07:39 | 2012 cases, Cases, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, Prison law cases, Transcript
|
| [[]] — Extension:DynamicPageList (DPL), version 3.3.2: Error: No selection criteria found! You must use at least one of the following parameters: category, namespace, titlematch, linksto, uses, createdby, modifiedby, lastmodifiedby, or their 'not' variants Extension:DynamicPageList (DPL), version 3.3.2: Warning: No results. |
2019‑02‑04 23:30:49 | 2019 cases, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Judgment available on MHLO, Transcript, Unlawful detention cases
|
| * Australian case on capacity and ECT PBU v Mental Health Tribunal (2018) VSC 564 — Headnotes from judgment: (1) "ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – appeal – decisions of Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (‘VCAT’) that two persons with mental illness be compulsorily subjected to electroconvulsive treatment (‘ECT’) – determination that they lacked the capacity to give informed consent to or refuse treatment – whether VCAT properly interpreted and applied requirement that person be able to ‘use or weigh’ information relevant to decision – further requirement that there be no less restrictive way for the person to be treated – whether this requirement only met where treatment immediately needed to prevent serious deterioration in person’s health or serious self-harm or harm to another – ‘capacity to give informed consent’ – Mental Health Act 2014 (Vic) ss 68, 69, 70, 72, 93 and 96." (2) "HUMAN RIGHTS – two persons having mental disability found by VCAT to lack capacity to give informed consent to or refuse ECT – whether incompatible with human rights to self-determination, to be free of non-consensual medical treatment and to personal inviolability – assessing capacity compatibly with those rights and the right to health – applicable principles – dignity of risk – Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (Vic) ss 8(3), 10(c), 13(a), International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights art 12(1), Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities arts 12(4), 24." | 2019‑02‑04 14:50:50 | 2018 cases, Cases, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, Medical treatment cases
|
| * Prosecution of care home provider CQC v Hillgreen Care Ltd [2018] MHLO 50 — (1) The care home provider charged with failing between 1/4/15 and 1/12/15 to comply with the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014 by failing to provide care and treatment in a safe way for service users (reg 12) and failing to put in place, and operate effectively, systems and processes to protect service users from abuse, including sexual abuse (reg 13). The provider had known since 2004 that its resident XX posed risk a of causing sexual abuse. Following an allegation of anal rape of a woman in 2008 his care plan stated that he "identifies with both male and female around his sexual orientation" and that he "needs to be supported at all times and not to be left alone unsupervised when around other service users and when in the community". XX admitted to having sex with two other residents, neither of whom had capacity to consent: a female resident AA in April 2015 and a male resident YY on 1/11/18. The provider had not followed the care plan and the district judge concluded that "[t]he incident with YY could not have happened had there been an extra member of staff on duty to watch XX and where he went." It was found guilty of both charges and was fined £300,000. (2) The judgement states that the CQC's inspection of the care home and seizure of documents took place on 27/7/17: this is the same day as a critical article in the Times (Andrew Norfolk, 'CQC covered up suspected rape in care home' (Times, 27/7/17)). Information about the chronology can be found in the CQC's subsequent report (CQC, 'CQC publishes independent investigation into its regulation of 14 Colne Road' (press release, 13/6/18)). | 2018‑11‑17 22:44:00 | 2018 cases, Cases, Judgment available on MHLO, Miscellaneous, Transcript
|
| LB Richmond v W [2001] QB 370 — "These four appeals involve an important issue as to whether charges can be levied by local authorities in relation to accommodation provided by them under section 117 of the Mental Health Act 1983 to persons who have been discharged from detention under section 3 of that Act." | 2018‑05‑13 22:46:13 | 2000 cases, After-care, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, No summary, Transcript
|
| * Guidance on sentencing on appeal R v Thompson [2018] EWCA Crim 639 — "These four otherwise unconnected appeals have been listed together as each potentially raises an issue in relation to the effect of s11(3) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 which requires this court, on an appeal against sentence, to exercise its powers such that 'taking the case as a whole, the appellant is not more severely dealt with on appeal than he was dealt with by the court below'. Articulating the issue with reference to the specific sentences that may give rise to the issue, it is about the extent to which this court can substitute what is a standard determinate sentence with (i) a special custodial sentence for offenders of particular concern under s236A of the Criminal Justice Act 2003; (ii) an extended sentence under s226A or B of the 2003 Act; or (iii) a hospital order with restriction or hybrid order under s37 and 41 or 45A of the Mental Health Act 1983." | 2018‑04‑09 23:01:37 | 2018 cases, Cases, ICLR summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Judgment available on MHLO, Sentence appeal cases, Transcript
|
| * Tribunal reasons M v An NHS Trust [2017] MHLO 39 (UT) — "[T]he tribunal's decision was made in error of law, but not [set aside]. In my grant of permission, I identified two possible errors of law. ... One of those errors was that the tribunal's reasons might be inadequate for being 'long on history and evidence but short on discussion.' ... There is, in truth, only one thing that really has to be said about the quality of reasons, which is that they must be adequate. Everything else is merely application of that principle to the circumstances of a particular case. ... [T]he second possible error [is] that the 'tribunal's reasoning shows that it was confused about its role and the [relevance] of a community treatment order'. ... [T]he reasons at least leave open the possibility that the tribunal may have strayed outside its proper remit. ... The first three sentences read: 'A cardinal issue of this application is whether the patient should be discharged from hospital by a CTO. This issue involves knowledge of the nature of a CTO. A CTO may only be imposed by the patient's RC ...' It may be that the judge did not express himself clearly, but that passage appears to begin by suggesting, and to continue by denying, that the tribunal had power to make Mr M subject to an order or was being asked to approve that course. The judge did then make a distinction between discharge from hospital and discharge from the liability to be detained. So it is possible that his reference to 'discharge from hospital by a CTO' may have been intended, not as a direction about the tribunal's powers on the application, but as a statement of how the responsible clinician envisaged Mr M's eventual progress. This interpretation would be consistent with what the tribunal said later ... In view of Mr M's current status [he had been discharged], I do not have to decide whether those reasons do or do not show that the tribunal misdirected itself. I limit myself to saying that it is risky if reasons can be read in a way that indicates a misdirection. ... Given that Mr M is no longer liable to be detained, I can see no need to venture outside the appropriate role of the Upper Tribunal in mental health cases and state, even in the form of a narrative declaration, that the tribunal should have exercised its power to discharge him. That is why I have exercised my power to refuse to set aside the tribunal's decision regardless of any error of law that it may have made." | 2018‑01‑27 22:25:39 | 2017 cases, Cases, Judgment available on MHLO, Reasons, Transcript, Upper Tribunal decisions
|
| * Discharge from DOLS P v A Local Authority [2015] EWCOP 89 — "This is an application by P (the Applicant) acting through his litigation friend, the Official Solicitor, for an order under section 21A of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) discharging the standard authorisation made on 24 June 2015 which authorises a deprivation of liberty in his current accommodation (the placement)." | 2016‑11‑24 23:48:11 | 2015 cases, Cases, Deprivation of liberty, Judgment available on Bailii, Judgment available on MHLO, Transcript
|
| Lucia Benyu v Solicitors Regulation Authority [2015] EWHC 4085 (Admin), [2015] MHLO 137 — "This is the adjourned hearing of the Appellant's appeal brought pursuant to section 49 of the Solicitors Act 1974 against the order of the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal ('SDT') dated 3/10/14, striking the Appellant off the Roll of Solicitors and ordering her to pay costs in the sum of £48,000. The decision followed a full three day hearing at which the Appellant was represented by experienced counsel, although she has indicated that she has now made a complaint against that counsel. The SDT found the Appellant to have been dishonest to the criminal standard. But it went on to say that the seriousness of her misconduct was such that it would have struck her off even if it had not made such a finding. ... The Appellant acted in person at the substantive appeal hearing. She has not attended for the hand down of this judgment, although she is fully on notice of it. She invites the court to the set aside the SDT's order; or, alternatively, to strike her off with no dishonesty attached." | 2016‑08‑27 22:27:41 | 2015 cases, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, No summary, SRA decisions, Transcript
|
| * Freezing order continued Lord Chancellor v John Blavo [2016] EWHC 126 (QB), [2016] MHLO 6 — There was a strongly arguable case that John Blavo was party to an arrangement whereby false claims were submitted to the LAA in many thousands of cases, there was evidence of a less than scrupulous approach to his duty of disclosure to the Court, and evidence of a recent attempt improperly to put property beyond the reach of the Lord Chancellor. Taking these matters together there was a real risk that any judgment would go unsatisfied because of disposal of assets. Given the sums of money involved and the admitted financial difficulties it was just and convenient in all the circumstances to continue the freezing order. (The precursor to the official investigation was an audit during which 49 files were passed to the LAA's counter-fraud team, whose conclusions included: "In respect of 42 of these 49 files HMCTS have confirmed that they have no record of there having been tribunal proceedings either in respect of the individual client or on the date when the file indicates...Following this, the LAA made inquiries of the NHS on a selection of files among the 42 that had no tribunal hearing and the NHS confirmed that they have no records relating to 16 of the clients... After completing this analysis the Applicant undertook a further comparison of all mental health tribunal claims against the HMCTS system. As a result of this analysis, it was found that the Company had submitted a total of 24,658 claims for attendance at tribunals of which 1485 (6%) tribunals were recorded by HMCTS as having taken place... After visiting the Company's Head Office and requesting documentation from the Company and the Respondent, the LAA team used an electronic sampling tool to randomly select 144 cases for further investigation, across the last three complete financial years. Only 3% could be evidenced from HMCTS records...") | 2016‑02‑02 15:46:47 | 2016 cases, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Judgment available on MHLO, Miscellaneous, Transcript
|
| R v Fletcher [2015] EWCA Crim 2007, [2015] MHLO 133 — The appellant unsuccessfully sought a restricted hospital order in place of an IPP sentence. | 2016‑01‑28 17:18:26 | 2015 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, Sentence appeal cases, Transcript
|
| * Conditional discharge and DOL SSJ v KC [2015] UKUT 376 (AAC) — (1) A conditional discharge may include conditions which will, on an objective assessment, give rise to a deprivation of liberty, if that deprivation of liberty is authorised under the MCA. (2) (Obiter) The same conditions would be lawful for a patient with capacity who gives real consent since this would mean there is no Article 5 deprivation of liberty. | 2015‑07‑15 22:54:29 | 2015 cases, Cases, Deprivation of liberty, Discharge conditions, Judgment available on Bailii, Judgment available on MHLO, Transcript, Upper Tribunal decisions
|
| K v Hospital Managers of the Kingswood Centre [2014] EWHC 2271 (Admin), [2014] MHLO 101 — Service of nearest relative's order for discharge of s3 patient. | 2014‑11‑02 23:17:08 | 2014 cases, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, No summary, Other NR cases, Transcript
|
| Bostridge v Oxleas NHS Foundation Trust [2014] EWCA Civ 1005, [2014] MHLO 85 — The judge had awarded only nominal damages because the patient had suffered no loss as a result of his unlawful detention. The Court of Appeal gave permission to appeal, stating as follows: "Mr Drabble submits that in approaching the matter as he did the judge fell into error because the decisions of the Supreme Court in Lumba and Kambadzi do not establish that only nominal damages follow where there was a complete absence of statutory authority for a detention. To the contrary, Mr Drabble argues, there is a distinction between an unlawful detention where there was no threshold power to detain and detention which is unlawful on other grounds despite there having been lawful authority to detain in the first place. Moreover, Mr Drabble continues, the Act reflects the particular importance of compliance with the procedural requirements for lawful detention and it is simply no answer to the appellant's claim to say that he could have been detained had the appropriate procedures been followed. What is more, says Mr Drabble, the appellant has lost the protection of the rights and procedures which Parliament has provided in the Act for vulnerable persons such as him. That, he says, is a real not a nominal loss. I have been persuaded that these are points which merit consideration by this court, both because an appeal would have a reasonable prospect of success and because the appeal raises a point of principle, namely the approach to be adopted where a person responsible for an unlawful detention was not in a position lawfully to detain the subject without ensuring that an important condition precedent had been fulfilled, the condition precedent being compliance with the safeguards contained in section 3 of the Act. Further, in the circumstances of this case, compliance with those safeguards was not a matter which lay wholly within the power of the respondent." | 2014‑08‑06 21:56:14 | 2014 cases, 39 Essex Street summary, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, Transcript, Unlawful detention cases
|
| AB v LM [2013] EWHC 1234 (COP), [2013] MHLO 139 — "I find on paying close attention to Dr P's advice, but also considering the contribution of Dr G, that Lisa does possess the abilities required to lead to the conclusion that she has capacity to make decisions about whether or not to have sexual relations. She is somebody who has been full to sexually active in the past; she has had children; she understands the rudiments of the sexual act; she has a basic understanding of issues of contraception and the risks of sexually transmitted diseases. The area in which she is weakest is her ability to understand the implications for herself should she become pregnant. Pregnancy for Lisa would be an extremely serious state of affairs; there can be no doubt about that. But her weakness in that respect does not, for me, lead to the conclusion that her capacity is absent; it argues for her to receive continued safeguarding and help, advice and explanation as and when the question of sexual activity might become a reality." | 2014‑02‑15 23:55:00 | 2013 cases, Capacity to consent to sexual relations, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, No summary, Transcript
|
| R v Yusuf (Nadia Ali) [2013] EWCA Crim 2077, [2013] MHLO 137 — The appellant sought a restricted hospital order in place of an IPP sentence, but was unsuccessful as her medical evidence addressed the current situation rather than the situation at the time of sentencing. | 2013‑12‑30 22:38:44 | 2013 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, Sentence appeal cases, Transcript
|
| R v Anderson (Darren Gabriel) [2013] EWCA Crim 2212, [2013] MHLO 134 — Appellant sought restricted hospital order, in place of IPP and s45A hybrid order, but was unsuccessful. | 2013‑12‑30 21:55:03 | 2013 cases, Brief summary, Hybrid order cases, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, Transcript
|
| Re L (A Child) [2013] EWCA Civ 1557, [2013] MHLO 133 — Mother unsuccessfully sought permission to appeal against Court of Protection order (a) that her son lacked capacity in relation to welfare matters, and (b) that it was in his best interests to remain at his current placement for at least a year and finish at the existing school (as opposed to living with the mother and attending a school near her, or moving to a residential home near the mother and have some education in her area). | 2013‑12‑30 16:29:47 | 2013 cases, Best interests, Brief summary, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, Transcript
|
| R v Odiowei [2013] EWCA Crim 2253, [2013] MHLO 131 — The appellant sought a restricted hospital order in place of a life sentence, relying on two recent medical reports which were critical of previous reports. The matter was adjourned for six weeks to obtain responses from the previous reports' authors. | 2013‑12‑30 14:46:12 | 2013 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, Life sentence cases, Transcript
|
| R v G (A) [2013] EWCA Crim 2256, [2013] MHLO 130 — Unsuccessful appeal against restriction order. [Summary required.] | 2013‑12‑30 14:35:21 | 2013 cases, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, No summary, Restriction order cases, Transcript
|
| R v Fry (David George) [2013] EWCA Crim 2337, [2013] MHLO 126 — Unsuccessful appeal against conviction. Summary from judgment: "The central complaints are that his legal team (a) failed to ensure that he was mentally and/or emotionally able to decide whether or not on give evidence; (b) failed to ensure that he properly understood that an adverse inference might be drawn by the jury if he did not give evidence; (c) failed to ensure that he properly understood that if he did not give evidence the jury would have no account from him as to the allegation made by SB, given that he had declined to answer questions during his police interview about those allegations; (d) failed to make the judge aware of his mental difficulties before she decided whether or not the jury should be directed that they might, subject to various conditions, draw an adverse inference from his failure to give evidence; (e) failed to place evidence of his mental condition before the jury to explain his failure to give evidence; and (f) in the circumstances to which we have referred gave him flawed advice not to give evidence." | 2013‑12‑30 11:15:21 | 2013 cases, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, No summary, Other criminal law cases, Transcript
|
| R (Muaza) v SSHD [2013] EWHC 3764 (Admin), [2013] MHLO 112 — "These two cases raise common issues over the lawfulness of the exercise by the Secretary of State for the Home Department of her powers of detention in respect of immigration detainees whose refusal to take food and fluids causes them life threatening physical conditions, and over whether there comes a stage at which such a detainee's continued detention after the refusal to take food or fluids involves a breach of rights under Articles 2 and 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights." [Summary required.] | 2013‑12‑15 13:54:35 | 2013 cases, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, No summary, Repatriation cases, Transcript
|
| Re Devillebichot (deceased) [2013] EWHC 2867 (Ch), [2013] MHLO 107 — The testator had capacity to make his will and (although subject to persuasion) had not been under undue influence. | 2013‑12‑12 20:30:22 | 2013 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, Other capacity cases, Transcript
|
| R v Edgington [2013] EWCA Crim 2185, [2013] MHLO 102 — The appellant had been sentenced to life imprisonment for murder and attempted murder, with a minimum term of 37 years. (1) Appeal against conviction dismissed, as the judge was not wrong to prevent counsel from re-examining the defence expert on whether she would 'as a matter of practice ... ever be released' from a hospital order. (2) Appeal against sentence dismissed as it was not manifestly excessive. | 2013‑12‑03 14:57:56 | 2013 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, Sentence appeal cases, Transcript
|
| R (Z) v Camden and Islington NHS Foundation Trust [2013] EWCA Civ 1425, [2013] MHLO 100 — Unsuccessful challenge to (1) detention under s2 (a subsequent tribunal decision to discharge was consistent with a lawful initial detention) and (2) decision not to hold hospital managers' hearing (it was reasonable to wait a few days for the tribunal). | 2013‑11‑19 23:10:58 | 2013 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, Miscellaneous, Transcript
|
| * MHT/PB delay R (LV) v SSJ [2013] EWCA Civ 1086 — The applicant had been given an IPP sentence then transferred to hospital under s47/49. On 12/12/11 the MHT decided she met the criteria for conditional discharge. The dossier reached the Parole Board on 29/3/12, and the hearing was arranged for 12/3/13. She claimed a breach of Article 5(4) during: (a) the period before the dossier was ready, when no judicial body was responsible for supervising her progress and the potentiality for release, and (b) the subsequent long period until the Parole Board met. The Court of Appeal gave permission to apply for judicial review (being simpler than giving permission to appeal the High Court's refusal of permission to apply for judicial review). | 2013‑08‑30 21:58:45 | 2013 cases, Cases, Deprivation of liberty, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, Prison law cases, Transcript
|
| R (JG) v LSC [2013] EWHC 804 (Admin), [2013] MHLO 76 — Payment for expert evidence. | 2013‑08‑12 22:27:59 | 2013 cases, Detailed summary, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, Miscellaneous, Transcript
|
| AM v West London MH NHS Trust [2013] EWCA Civ 1010, [2013] MHLO 73 — The tribunal twice refused to adjourn in circumstances where there was relatively little in the social circumstances report about aftercare on discharge, the author of the report did not attend the hearing, and the social worker who did attend could not provide any further relevant information. The Upper Tribunal decided that this 'did not affect the tribunal’s ability to give Mr M a fair hearing and to deal with his case fairly and justly' and that the patient 'had not yet progressed to the point where the issue of aftercare that was actually available would arise'. The Court of Appeal refused permission to appeal. | 2013‑08‑10 02:03:26 | 2013 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, Powers, Transcript
|
| A Local Authority v HS [2013] EWHC 2410 (COP), [2013] MHLO 58 — "These applications for costs against the local authority are made by the Official Solicitor on behalf of the First Respondent and by the Third Respondent, HLS, who is the brother of the First Respondent." [Summary required.] | 2013‑08‑01 21:49:35 | 2013 cases, COP costs cases, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, No summary, Transcript
|
| Re Joan Treadwell (Deceased); OPG v Colin Lutz [2013] EWHC 2409 (COP), [2013] MHLO 57 — "This judgment concerns an application by the Public Guardian to enforce a security bond in respect of unauthorised gifts made by the late Mrs Joan Treadwell’s deputy for property and affairs, Colin Lutz." [Summary required.] | 2013‑08‑01 21:43:03 | 2013 cases, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, No summary, Other capacity cases, Transcript
|
| Re Clarke [2013] EWCA Civ 811, [2013] MHLO 52 — On 14/1/13 Mr Clarke had been committed to prison for 3 months by HHJ Pelling QC for breach of injunctions prohibiting him from publicising matters to do with this Court of Protection case; as a result he decided to remain in Spain and wished to appeal the committal. (1) There was no merit in his separate appeal against an earlier costs order, so permission to appeal was refused. (2) His request for the costs appeal to be adjourned and considered alongside the future appeal against committal (the delay on this being because it took until June to obtain a transcript) was rejected as this would merely complicate matters. | 2013‑07‑15 19:47:06 | 2013 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, Other capacity cases, Transcript
|
| Bialek v Circuit Court in Warsaw Poland [2013] EWHC 930 (Admin), [2013] MHLO 39 — Extradition case with psychiatric element. [Summary required.] | 2013‑05‑05 13:31:07 | 2013 cases, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, No summary, Repatriation cases, Transcript
|
| R (Z) v Whittington Hospital [2013] EWHC 358 (Admin), [2013] MHLO 29 — "The claimant, Mrs Z, who very ably represented herself, was sectioned under the Mental Health Act shortly after giving birth to her first baby after a prolonged and very difficult labour. ... Miss Z says that looking at the reasons that were given at the time, which are recorded in a document signed by both doctors (Form A3, that is the formal sectioning document) the reasons that are there recorded are insufficient reasons to warrant her detention under the Mental Health Act." [Summary required.] | 2013‑03‑28 11:33:06 | 2013 cases, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, MHLR summary, Miscellaneous, Transcript
|
| R v Caress [2013] EWCA Crim 218, [2013] MHLO 27 — "In the circumstances, there is no reason to believe that the diagnosis at the time of sentence was wrong or that sentence [a restricted hospital order] was passed on a wrong factual basis. If, as appears to be the case, the diagnosis has now changed that is a matter that should be dealt with by the Mental Health Tribunal, rather than by late appeal against sentence." [Summary required.] | 2013‑03‑27 23:44:43 | 2013 cases, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, MHLR summary, Sentence appeal cases, Transcript
|
| Pender v DPP [2013] EWHC 2598 (Admin) — An ASBO was imposed with a 'no begging' condition. A Crown Court appeal, based on uncontradicted medical evidence (that the appellant suffered learning difficulties, schizophrenia and severe nicotine addiction, and that begging was the manifestation of nicotine addiction), was unsuccessful. The Court of Appeal allowed an appeal by way of case stated, because the judge had failed to set out the factual basis for her factual conclusion (which was contrary to the medical evidence) that the appellant had been capable of complying with the ASBO. | 2013‑03‑26 17:42:34 | 2013 cases, Brief summary, Criminal law capacity cases, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, No transcript
|
| DO v LBH [2012] EWHC 4044 (Admin), [2012] MHLO 165 — "I have before me listed two applications for permission to bring judicial review proceedings and/or for directions against a local authority (LBH) and another interested party, ostensibly in the name of DO, by his sister (EC), the applicant as his Litigation Friend in one of the applications and by both as claimants in respect of the other. ... EC may not agree with the order being made in the Court of Protection proceedings but that does not justify, in my judgment, proceeding by way of judicial review rather than by application or appeal in the Court of Protection proceedings." [Summary required.] | 2013‑03‑25 23:05:31 | 2012 cases, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, No summary, Other capacity cases, Transcript
|
| Re P (abortion) [2013] EWHC 50 (COP), [2013] MHLO 1 — (1) The solicitor who was one of P's deputies queried whether P had capacity in relation to whether to continue with her pregnancy or have an abortion. (2) Hedley J held that she manifestly lacked litigation capacity but did have capacity in relation to continuing the pregnancy. (3) Generally courts and health officials should not try to decide whether P would be able to bring up a child but should instead concentrate solely on whether the pregnancy itself is in her best interests (the reasoning being that once a child is born, if the mother does not have the ability to care for a child, society has perfectly adequate processes to deal with that). (4) The judge also stated that '[t]he purpose of [mental capacity legislation] is not to dress an incapacitated person in cotton wool but to allow them to make the same mistakes that all other human beings are able to make and not infrequently do'. [Summary based on press article; judgment now available.] | 2013‑01‑25 11:36:58 | 2013 cases, Best interests, Brief summary, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, Transcript
|
| R v Fletcher [2012] EWCA Crim 2777, [2012] MHLO 161 — IPP sentence quashed and a restricted hospital order substituted in its place: the judge had not properly been informed as to the appellant's mental state, because the original reports focussed on mental illness (which the appellant did not suffer from) rather than learning disability (which he did). | 2013‑01‑07 16:47:26 | 2012 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, Sentence appeal cases, Transcript
|
| Re L; The NHS Trust v L [2012] EWHC 2741 (COP), [2012] MHLO 159 — The Trust sought a declaration that it was not in the best interests of L to be the subject of forcible feeding or medical treatment notwithstanding that in the absence of such nutrition and treatment she would inevitably die. The court declared (to paraphrase) that: (1) L lacked capacity to litigate and to make decisions in relation to the serious medical treatment at issue, specifically, (a) nutrition and hydration, and (b) dextrose for hypoglycaemic episodes. (2) L had capacity to make decisions as to anti-biotic treatment, analgesia and treatment of her pressure sores. (3) In L's best interests, the clinicians were permitted: (a) to provide nutrition and hydration and medical treatment where L complies; (b) to administer dextrose solution to L despite her objections where immediately necessary to save life; (c) not to provide L with nutrition and hydration with which she does not comply (all reasonable steps to gain L's co-operation having been taken); (d) to provide palliative care in the terminal stage of L's illness. | 2012‑12‑23 00:30:19 | 2012 cases, Best interests, Brief summary, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, Transcript
|
| R v Channer [2012] EWCA Crim 1667, [2012] MHLO 157 — IPP sentence with minimum term of 23 months quashed and restricted hospital order substituted in its place. | 2012‑12‑21 01:00:13 | 2012 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, Sentence appeal cases, Transcript
|
| R v Searles [2012] EWCA Crim 2685, [2012] MHLO 156 — Custodial sentence of two years' detention in a young offender institution quashed and unrestricted hospital order substituted in its place. | 2012‑12‑21 00:44:16 | 2012 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, Sentence appeal cases, Transcript
|
| R v Searles [2012] EWCA Crim 1839, [2012] MHLO 155 — Criminal appeal adjourned for second medical report in relation to the making of a hospital order. | 2012‑12‑21 00:40:54 | 2012 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, Sentence appeal cases, Transcript
|
| Southend-on-Sea BC v Armour [2012] EWHC 3361 (QB), [2012] MHLO 152 — The recorder's decision to refuse to grant a possession order (on the basis that by the time of the delayed hearing possession was no longer appropriate because there had been full compliance with the terms of the tenancy for the 12 months prior to the hearing) was upheld on appeal. | 2012‑12‑20 23:49:50 | 2012 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, Miscellaneous, Transcript
|
| R (O) v SSHD [2012] EWHC 2899 (Admin), [2012] MHLO 149 — Another immigration case with mental health background. [Summary required.] | 2012‑12‑20 23:26:25 | 2012 cases, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, No summary, Repatriation cases, Transcript
|
| R (BA) v LB Hillingdon [2012] EWHC 3050 (Admin), [2012] MHLO 148 — "This is a claim for interim relief brought on behalf of BA by his litigation friend, the official solicitor, against the London Borough of Hillingdon and Hillingdon National Health Service Primary Care Trust. The relief sought is first, an order that the claimant be provided with community care services under section 117 of the Mental Health Act 1983 against both defendants and/or section 21 of the National Assistance Act 1948 against the first defendant, and secondly an order that the defendants jointly carry out assessments of his need of community care services under section 47 of the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990." [Summary required.] | 2012‑12‑20 21:57:39 | 2012 cases, After-care, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, No summary, Transcript
|
| R v Jenkin [2012] EWCA Crim 2557, [2012] MHLO 141 — Having pleaded guilty to GBH with intent (for gouging his girlfriend's eyes out), the appellant was sentenced to life imprisonment with a six-year minimum term, combined with a hospital direction and limitation direction under s45A MHA 1983. He appealed against sentence, arguing for a restricted hospital order or alternatively an IPP sentence. (1) A hospital order means that 'release is dependent on the responsible authority being satisfied that the defendant no longer presents any danger which arises from his medical condition': this would be inadequate as, irrespective of his delusional disorder, the appellant posed a significant risk of serious harm to the public. (2) A life sentence should be reserved for those cases where the culpability of the offender is particularly high or the offence itself particularly grave (R v Kehoe): both those limbs were met in this case. (3) The s45A hybrid order was appropriate as the criteria were met and the disorder was treatable, but when treatment is no longer necessary the risk to the public required that he be released from hospital to prison and for the Parole Board to make the release decision. | 2012‑12‑20 00:00:12 | 2012 cases, Brief summary, Hybrid order cases, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, Transcript
|
| G v DPP [2012] EWHC 3174 (Admin), [2012] MHLO 140 — At the Youth Court it had been argued that the case should be stayed since it would be an abuse of the court's process to proceed to an adjudication when the appellant was unfit to plead, to participate in his trial and to instruct his defence. Having heard medical evidence from both sides, the District Judge declined to stay the proceedings, arranged for the appointment of an intermediary and accepted the intermediary's advice as to the way in which the appellant should be assisted during the course of the hearing; he found the charge proved. This was an appeal by way of case stated in relation to the appellant's conviction at the Youth Court. (1) The High Court set out the rules for appeals and commented that the way in which the appeal had been prepared is was lamentable. (2) The District Judge had correctly followed the guidance (from DPP v P) for proceedings in the Youth Court in which capacity is relevant. (3) The defence expert confused the propriety of a prosecution with the ability to understand the nature of proceedings and communicate instructions and the District Judge was entitled to disagree with her. | 2012‑12‑19 23:22:42 | 2012 cases, Brief summary, Criminal law capacity cases, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, Transcript
|
| AG's reference (no 60 of 2012) sub nom R v Edwards [2012] EWCA Crim 2746, [2012] MHLO 135 — "This is a case which presented to the judge an intractable but by no means unknown sentencing problem. ... The intractable difficulty presented by this defendant and by, sadly, a number of others is this: he has a variety of personality disorders, but the doctors all report that there is no medical treatment available." [Summary required.] | 2012‑12‑19 18:49:07 | 2012 cases, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, No summary, Sentence appeal cases, Transcript
|
| R v Tudor [2012] EWCA Crim 1507, [2012] MHLO 127 — Following receipt of a psychiatric report which did not recommend a hospital order, the trial judge was entitled to impose an IPP sentence without adjourning for a second psychiatrist's report. | 2012‑12‑17 01:15:24 | 2012 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, Sentence appeal cases, Transcript
|
| Lacki v Poland [2012] EWHC 1747 (Admin), [2012] MHLO 120 — Extradition and mental health. [Summary required.] | 2012‑12‑17 00:23:01 | 2012 cases, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, No summary, Repatriation cases, Transcript
|
| R (C) v SSHD [2012] EWHC 801 (Admin), [2012] MHLO 118 — Mental health and immigration. [Summary required.] | 2012‑12‑16 22:32:41 | 2012 cases, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, No summary, Repatriation cases, Transcript
|
| A, B and C v X, Y and Z [2012] EWHC 2400 (COP), [2012] MHLO 112 — The court considered X's capacity to marry, make a will or power of attorney, manage affairs, and litigate. (1) X did not lack capacity to marry. The basis for this assessment was correctly stated in Sheffield as follows: (a) it is not enough that someone appreciates that he or she is taking part in a marriage ceremony or understands its words; (b) he or she must understand the nature of the marriage contract; (c) this means that he or she must be mentally capable of understanding the duties and responsibilities that normally attach to marriage; (d) that said, the contract of marriage is in essence a simple one, which does not require a high degree of intelligence to comprehend, and the contract of marriage can readily be understood by anyone of normal intelligence. (2) The judge did not make a general declaration that X lacked testamentary capacity, but qualified this by saying that (a) there would be increasingly many times when X lacked such capacity, and (b) any will now made, if unaccompanied by contemporary medical evidence asserting capacity, might be seriously open to challenge. (3) The same observations applied to X's capacity to revoke or create lasting or enduring powers of attorney. (4) X lacked capacity to manage his own affairs: although a snapshot of X's condition at certain times would reveal an ability to manage his affairs, the general concept of managing affairs is an ongoing act and relates to a continuous state of affairs whose demands may be unpredictable and may occasionally be urgent. (5) X also lacked capacity to litigate: this required separate consideration because the time frame involved is different to managing affairs on the one hand, or making a will or granting power of attorney on the other. The basis for this assessment was stated in Masterman-Lister: 'whether the party to the legal proceedings is capable of understanding, with the assistance of proper explanation from legal advisers and experts in other disciplines as the case may require, the issues on which his consent or decision is likely to be necessary in the course of those proceedings'. (6) No finding was sought in relation to capacity to decide on contact, and the judge thought 'the idea that this distinguished elderly gentleman’s life should be circumscribed by contact provisions as though he was a child in a separated family' to be deeply unattractive. (7) There should be (a) a greater emphasis on judicial continuity in the COP, and (b) a pre-hearing review in any case estimated to last three days or more. | 2012‑11‑12 22:59:02 | 2012 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, LPA cases - all, LPA cases - capacity to make an LPA, Other capacity cases, Transcript
|
| R v Petrolini [2012] EWCA Crim 2055, [2012] MHLO 105 — The appellant had unsuccessfully argued diminished responsibility at trial, but subsequently it became apparent that he had indeed been in the prodromal stage of schizophrenia at the time of the offence. The Court of Appeal (1) granted an extension of time of 16 years and 16 months, (2) quashed the conviction for murder and substituted for it a verdict of manslaughter by reason of diminished responsibility, and (3) made a restricted hospital order in place of the 16-year-tariff life sentence. The hospital order was made for admission to Broadmoor, but the intention was that the patient would remain in Carstairs hospital in Scotland. | 2012‑10‑27 20:24:11 | 2012 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, Life sentence cases, Transcript
|
| R (RW) v SSJ [2012] EWHC 2082 (Admin), [2012] MHLO 87 — The responsible clinician and tribunal were of the view in March 2011 that the patient required continued treatment in detention in hospital, and the tribunal recommended transfer from Broadmoor to a medium secure unit; in June the RC sought permission for trial leave to a MSU, with return to prison being the planned consequence if it were unsuccessful; trial leave in September was unsuccessful and, that month, the Secretary of State remitted the patient to prison on the RC's advice. (1) There had been new information since the tribunal which put a different complexion on the case, namely the unsuccessful trial leave, so the Secretary of State was entitled to take at face value the RC's new opinion that the patient did not require treatment in hospital for mental disorder. (2) It was not necessary for the Secretary of State to consider that lack of treatment in prison might breach Article 3 or require almost immediate re-transfer to hospital; the correct approach was to consider the remission request when made, and consider transfer to hospital later if necessary. (3) Permission to amend the grounds to challenge the alleged ongoing failure to transfer under s47 was refused, but the judge directed that if a fresh application were made within six weeks that the permission application be referred to him. | 2012‑09‑01 00:21:12 | 2012 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, Ministry of Justice, Transcript
|
| R v Fletcher [2012] EWCA Crim 1550, [2012] MHLO 86 — Permission granted to appeal, on fresh evidence, against IPP and argue that restricted hospital order should have been imposed. [Summary required.] | 2012‑08‑31 23:03:22 | 2012 cases, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, No summary, Sentence appeal cases, Transcript
|
| Re HA [2012] EWHC 1068 (COP), [2012] MHLO 67 — "This case comes before me for directions today. The person whose best interests have to be considered by the court is a HA. The Official Solicitor now acts for her as her litigation friend and in that capacity has continued an application under s.21A of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (the Act) that was instigated before his appointment." [Summary required.] | 2012‑06‑23 14:28:12 | 2012 cases, Deprivation of liberty, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, No summary, Transcript
|
| GP v Derby City Council [2012] EWHC 1451 (Admin), [2012] MHLO 58 — The claimant applied for a writ of habeas corpus, challenging the AMHP's decision not to consult the nearest relative (under s11) before making a s3 application. The AMHP's evidence was that, having tried to telephone the NR on five or six occasions, he dispensed with consultation because nursing staff were anxious about the patient's presentation and needed him on s3 to move him to a psychiatric intensive care unit. (1) The question which arises on an application of this sort is whether the AMHP's decision was plainly wrong, or whether it was within the range of appropriate decisions available. (2) In the circumstances his decision was unlawful, in particular because: (a) the notes showed that the claimant had essentially been stable (and, in the event, had not been transferred to the PICU for over two weeks after the s3 began); and (b) the s3 assessment finished about 4.30pm and the s2 was due to expire at midnight, so to drive about 30 minutes to the NR's house would not have taken a disproportionate amount of time. (3) The judge added that: (a) the position would have been different if admission to the PICU would only be possible if the patient were on s3, and if there had been a spiralling and acute deterioration of condition coupled with evidence of significant risk to nursing staff, and (b) s11 provides constitutional protection for those that are faced with detention under the Mental Health Act and there is a heavy duty on those who carry out these tasks to ensure that those statutory provisions are complied with. | 2012‑06‑21 22:26:23 | 2012 cases, Brief summary, Consulting NR, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, Transcript
|
| EM v SC [2012] EWHC 1518 (COP), [2012] MHLO 56 — "This is an application made by the Official Solicitor on behalf of the Applicant EM, for the discharge of the latest of a series of standard authorisations made on 16 January 2012 pursuant to the Mental Capacity Act 2005. The effect of the standard authorisation is to deprive EM of his liberty and oblige him to live at a nursing home, RH, rather than at the home which he had shared with his wife and son for many years." [Summary required.] | 2012‑06‑21 21:25:21 | 2012 cases, Deprivation of liberty, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, No summary, Transcript
|
| Re G [2012] EWCA Civ 431, [2012] MHLO 52 — The local authority issued proceedings under the court's inherent jurisdiction in relation to a 30-year-old with Downs Syndrome history who was in the exclusive care of her mother. This decision relates to an unsuccessful appeal against case management orders. [Summary required.] | 2012‑05‑05 22:07:35 | 2012 cases, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, No summary, Other capacity cases, Transcript
|
| R v Parkins [2012] EWCA Crim 856, [2012] MHLO 50 — The sentencing judge had not been wrong to impose a restriction order contrary to the medical recommendations. | 2012‑05‑05 13:44:51 | 2012 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, Restriction order cases, Transcript
|
| Verlander v Rahman [2012] EWHC 1026 (QB), [2012] MHLO 49 — Personal injury quantum judgment including the following issues: (1) whether and to what extent the claimant's disabilities were due to frontal lobe brain damage (and are now incapable of significant improvement) or due depression or psychological factors (which may well improve over time); (2) whether the claimant had capacity to manage her properties and affairs. | 2012‑05‑05 13:28:22 | 2012 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, Other capacity cases, Transcript
|
| LB Haringey v FG (No. 2) [2011] EWHC 3933 (COP) — "There are many issues that have arisen in this case, but now the critical welfare issue is whether or not H should be returned home to live with her mother. This is an outcome sought by the mother, but opposed both by the Local Authority and by the Official Solicitor as litigation friend to H." [Summary required.] | 2012‑05‑05 12:50:54 | 2011 cases, Best interests, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, No summary, Transcript
|
| LB Haringey v FG (No. 1) [2011] EWHC 3932 (COP) — "In this case there are a number of matters: does H have capacity to conduct litigation; does she have capacity to decide where she should live, or capacity to decide where she should be educated, or capacity to decide on the extent of the contact and relationship she should have with her natural family; capacity to deal with her financial affairs, or to enter into what has been described as a tenancy agreement, and capacity in a sense to judge her own best interests in those respects?" [Summary required.] | 2012‑05‑05 12:50:35 | 2011 cases, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, No summary, Other capacity cases, Transcript
|
| B v B [2010] EWHC 543 (Fam) — "This is an application by the Official Solicitor for an order that Mr B do pay the Official Solicitor’s costs, on an indemnity basis, of acting on behalf of Mr B as his guardian ad litem, until the Official Solicitor was discharged by order of 19th August 2009." [Summary required.] | 2012‑05‑05 12:41:58 | 2010 cases, COP costs cases, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, No summary, Transcript
|
| R v Ahmed [2012] EWCA Crim 708, [2012] MHLO 40 — The appellant was found unfit to plead, spent 35 years subject to s37/41, pleaded guilty to diminished responsibility manslaughter, was given an IPP sentence with a 63-month tariff, and was transferred back to hospital under s47/49. (1) The appropriate minimum term was 39 months. (2) The appeal was adjourned to obtain medical evidence and for future consideration of whether a hospital order ought to have been imposed. | 2012‑04‑28 18:22:13 | 2012 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, Sentence appeal cases, Transcript
|
| R v Levey [2012] EWCA Crim 657, [2012] MHLO 34 — Tariff in life sentence for murder reduced from 24 years to 22 years, partly because the sentencing judge made insufficient allowance for the borderline personality disorder which played a significant part in the killing. | 2012‑04‑28 15:47:35 | 2012 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, Sentence appeal cases, Transcript
|
| R (W) v Dr Larkin [2012] EWHC 556 (Admin), [2012] MHLO 23 — A warrant for the claimant's transfer to prison was issued on the RC's advice in the context of Broadmoor's DSPD unit being about to close on 29/3/12. (1) It is not unlawful for an RC to tick both the 'no longer requires treatment in hospital for mental disorder' and the 'no effective treatment for his disorder can be given in the hospital to which he has been removed' boxes on the s50 proforma. (2) There was no evidence that the views expressed on the form were not those of the RC or that he had subordinated his clinical judgment to expediency or national strategies. (3) No relief would have been granted even had there been unlawfulness: the claimant had to leave Broadmoor, no MSU would then take him, so he had to return to prison in any event. | 2012‑03‑20 22:07:58 | 2012 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, Miscellaneous, Transcript
|
| R v SCL [2012] EWCA Crim 182, [2012] MHLO 16 — The renewed application for extension of time (the delay being caused by the appellant pondering negative legal advice before deciding to appeal anyway) in which to apply for leave to appeal against restriction order was refused, as there was ample material to justify the restriction order. | 2012‑03‑05 20:47:40 | 2012 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, Restriction order cases, Transcript
|
| R v Chiles [2012] EWCA Crim 196, [2012] MHLO 10 — The judge should not have should not have taken into account her concerns about the future of the NHS (she had said, 'I cannot be confident in the current fluctuating state of the NHS that the security that the public needs to be protected from you will be ensured unless there is an another government department which has input into the issue of your release and that is what I will achieve by the section 41 order') but there was ample material to justify the conclusion that a restriction order was necessary for the protection of the public from serious harm. | 2012‑03‑01 22:27:40 | 2012 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, Restriction order cases, Transcript
|
| R v Stead [2012] EWCA Crim 92, [2012] MHLO 9 — The appellant, who had been sentenced to ten years' detention in a young offender institution together with an indefinite Sexual Offences Prevention Order, successfully argued for the imposition of a hybrid order under MHA 1983 s45A. | 2012‑02‑09 23:55:27 | 2012 cases, Brief summary, Hybrid order cases, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, Transcript
|
| R v Nottingham MHRT, ex p Secretary of State for the Home Department (Thomas) [1988] MHLO 1 — The Tribunal has no power to adjourn to give an opportunity for the patient's condition to improve or to see if an improvement already made is sustained. | 2012‑02‑09 15:01:22 | 1988 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on MHLO, No transcript, Powers
|
| Re M [2011] EWHC 3590 (COP) — Under MCA 2005 s63 and schedule 3, which incorporates the Hague Convention on the International Protection of Adults 2000 into domestic law, the High Court recognised and gave effect to an order of the Southern Irish High Court which required M's transfer to and treatment at an English psychiatric hospital. | 2012‑02‑04 17:51:15 | 2011 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, Other capacity cases, Transcript
|
| Re S (Adult Patient) (Inherent Jurisdiction: Family Life); Sheffield City Council v S [2002] EWHC 2278 (Fam) — Dispute between a local authority and S‘s father, DS, as to where S should live: prior to the events which precipitated the proceedings, S had always lived at home with DS. [Summary required.] | 2011‑12‑10 13:00:54 | 2002 cases, Best interests, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, No summary, Transcript
|
| R (Baisden) v Leicester City Council [2011] EWHC 3219 (Admin) — Section 117 and accommodation. [Summary required.] | 2011‑12‑08 21:20:37 | 2011 cases, After-care, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, No summary, Transcript
|
| R v Shah [2011] EWCA Crim 2333 — Following a special verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity, a restricted hospital order was imposed; an appeal, relying on post-sentence medical evidence, was made against the restriction order. (1) In exceptional cases the court can consider good progress after sentencing, but in this case the task was to decide whether, on the material before him on the date of sentence, the judge's sentence was wrong in principle or manifestly excessive: it was not. (2) The sentence provides a mechanism for release by a Tribunal from the restriction order and the full rigour therefore of the hospital order [this is incorrect], so the appeal court should not taken over the function of that body. | 2011‑11‑21 23:00:06 | 2011 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, Restriction order cases, Transcript
|
| R v Goucher [2011] EWCA Crim 2473 — On appeal, the restriction order was quashed: the judge had applied the correct test (whether it was necessary to protect the public from serious harm) but, as confirmed by a psychiatric report prepared for the appeal, he had got the answer wrong. [Summary based on All ER (D) report.] | 2011‑11‑21 20:08:44 | 2011 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, Restriction order cases, Transcript
|
| R v Heaney [2011] EWCA Crim 2682 — The appellant had been convicted of two offences under MCA 2005 s44 and sentenced to consecutive 3- and 6-month sentences of imprisonment; on appeal, these were ordered to be served concurrently. The court took into account that 'neither of the victims in fact sustained any distress or injury and they were very short incidents', that the consequences for the appellant had been grave because she had lost her career, that she was a middle-aged woman with two young daughters, and that she was of previous good character. | 2011‑11‑21 18:27:21 | 2011 cases, Brief summary, Criminal law capacity cases, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, Other capacity cases, Transcript
|
| R v Lavender [2011] EWCA Crim 2420 — (1) On the material before the sentencing judge, there was nothing wrong in principle with an extended sentence. (2) However, given the recent psychiatric evidence, it was now arguable that the option of a hospital order with or without a restriction order needed to be considered, so leave to appeal was given and a representation order was granted. | 2011‑11‑14 21:15:03 | 2011 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, Sentence appeal cases, Transcript
|
| R (Smith) v LB Camden [2011] EWCA Civ 1207 — Unsuccessful application for permission for second appeal against strike-out of claim for want of compliance with s139. (The claim was for damages of £100 billion for wrongful removal from his flat and for being forced to live in various mental health institutions where he claimed to have been assaulted many times.) | 2011‑11‑14 21:06:37 | 2011 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, Transcript, Unimportant cases
|
| R v Clark [2011] EWCA Crim 2516 — The defendant appealed against a sentence of 56 months' imprisonment for GBH (financial worries had led him to decide to kill his wife and himself). The sentencing guidelines could never have been intended to apply to such an exceptional case; the sentence was replaced with a community rehabilitation order with a mental health treatment requirement. | 2011‑11‑14 20:55:09 | 2011 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, Sentence appeal cases, Transcript
|
| Re GM; FP v GM and A Health Board [2011] EWHC 2778 (COP) — This was an application for a DOLS standard authorisation to be discharged, thus permitting GM, on discharge from hospital, to return to his home rather than be sent to an EMI home. (1) For there to be an order preventing GM from returning home (in practice, permanently) it would have to be 'so contrary to his interests to return that the court must not even contemplate seriously a placement' at home. (2) Factors in favour of a return home included: the 'emotional dimension'; GM's short life expectancy, and the fact that a move to EMI accommodation would be permanent; and Article 8 considerations. (3) Factors against were: the probability of a lesser quality of physical care at home; the risk of risk of breakdown and conflict; and the risk of deterioration, for instance in sleep pattern. (4) The DOLS authorisation was discharged. (5) As GM was ready for discharge from hospital, and the decision would have permanent effect, Hedley J decided the issue in one day in January instead of waiting for a five-day hearing in May (before a DJ) or October (before a High Court judge). He commented that 'it seems to me that it is absolutely essential that the Court of Protection establishes a practice that these interim cases must be dealt with quickly, and, having regard to the demands on the system generally, proportionately, that is to say almost certainly without detailed oral evidence.' | 2011‑10‑26 23:07:59 | 2011 cases, Best interests, Brief summary, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, Transcript
|
| Re S; D v R (the deputy of S) [2010] EWHC 3748 (COP) — Costs judgment in Court of Protection: (1) up to the December 2009 hearing, because the proceedings had been necessary, the normal rule that costs were to be paid by S's estate was to apply, but (2) from that point onwards, because of her conduct of proceedings, Mrs D was to bear her own costs, plus 75% of the Deputy's costs on the standard (not indemnity) basis. | 2011‑10‑16 22:10:15 | 2010 cases, Brief summary, COP costs cases, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, Transcript
|
| R v Abdi [2011] EWCA Crim 2179 — Unsuccessful appeal against s41 restriction order. | 2011‑10‑13 22:43:27 | 2011 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, Restriction order cases, Transcript
|
| Magritz v Public Prosecutors Office Bremen [2011] EWHC 1861 (Admin) — In relation to the claimant's extradition, where the sentence was for him to be 'placed in a psychiatric hospital for an indefinite period of time': (1) section 25 of the Extradition Act 2003 (the purpose of which is to protect a requested person whose physical or mental health is so poor that the act of extradition would be oppressive or unjust) was not engaged; and (2) there would be no breach of Article 3, Article 5 or Article 8. | 2011‑08‑22 22:04:18 | 2011 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, Repatriation cases, Transcript
|
| R v Louka [2010] EWCA Crim 2015 — Appeal against sentence. [Summary required.] | 2011‑08‑09 20:06:02 | 2010 cases, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, No summary, Sentence appeal cases, Transcript
|
| R (Francis) v West Midlands Probation Board [2010] EWCA Civ 955 — Permission to appeal in relation to two issues granted: (1) 'The first concerns the relationship between the Parole Board, the Probation Service acting through one or more of its regional boards, MAPPA, and the prisoner who is serving a life sentence, when it comes to considering his life after release'; (2) 'The second issue concerns the rights of the appellant and Ms Kemp under Article 8'. [Summary required.] | 2011‑08‑09 19:55:49 | 2010 cases, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, No summary, Prison law cases, Transcript
|
| Re DU; A NHS Trust v DU [2009] EWHC 3504 (Fam) — It was in DU’s best interests to be permitted to return to Nigeria subject to the making of practicable arrangements. [Official summary available.] | 2011‑07‑31 21:39:08 | 2009 cases, Best interests, Brief summary, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, Transcript
|
| R v Hopkins; R v Priest [2011] EWCA Crim 1513 — Prosecution under MCA 2005 s44. [Summary required.] | 2011‑07‑18 22:30:54 | 2011 cases, Criminal law capacity cases, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, No summary, Other capacity cases, Transcript
|
| R v Goucher [2011] EWCA Crim 1456 — The hearing of an application for an extension of time and for permission to appeal against a restricted hospital order was adjourned in order to obtain evidence from the new Responsible Clinician. | 2011‑06‑22 20:01:22 | 2011 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, Restriction order cases, Transcript
|
| B v Croydon Health Authority [1995] Fam 133 — (1) Medical treatment for mental disorder under s63 includes treatment of the symptoms of the disorder (as well as the disorder itself) and includes a range of acts ancillary to the core treatment; (2) on the facts, nasogastric feeding was treatment ancillary to treatment for psychopathic disorder. | 2011‑05‑29 15:05:04 | 1995 cases, Brief summary, Challenges to compulsory treatment, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, Transcript
|
| A Council v X [2011] EWHC B10 (COP) — Direct contact between X, a 94 year old lady who lacked capacity due to advanced dementia, and her daughter Y was no longer in X's best interests. | 2011‑05‑26 21:15:23 | 2011 cases, Best interests, Brief summary, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii
|
| R (WG) v Local Authority A [2010] EWHC 2608 (Admin) — Judicial review of failure to assess under s47 NHSCCA 1990. Claim stayed for three months, during which the local authority was to carry out the assessment and the claimant was to provide her identity to the court. | 2011‑04‑30 21:35:23 | 2010 cases, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, No summary, No transcript, Unimportant cases
|
| R (Monday) v SSHD [2010] EWHC 3079 (Admin) — There was no prospect (for psychiatric reasons) of deportation of the claimant within a reasonable period, so ongoing detention would be unlawful. | 2011‑04‑30 20:03:48 | 2010 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, Repatriation cases, Transcript
|
| R v Chowdhury [2011] EWCA Crim 936 — The judge imposed a restriction order (contrary to the medical recommendations) because of the serious nature of the offence and his concerns about previous non-compliance. The Court of Appeal were willing to quash the restriction order if the appellant made the following undertakings: to surrender his Bangladeshi passport; not to apply for another Bangladeshi passport; to surrender his UK passport; not to apply for another UK passport; not to apply for any other travel documents; and to give irrevocable instructions that such documents are not to be returned to him without the written consent of his treating psychiatrist. | 2011‑04‑30 17:31:33 | 2011 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, Restriction order cases, Transcript
|
| * 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 (as amended)). 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 | Cases, Judgment available on MHLO, Change of status after application made
|
| R (G) v South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust [2011] EWHC 747 (Admin) — The claimant sought judicial review of the NHS Trust and the Met police in relation to a proposed visit to his home. (1) A civil restraint order had been made after the JR application was made: so he did not need leave of the High Court to have the claim considered on the papers; however, he did need leave for this renewed application for permission. (2) On the merits, permission would have been refused because (a) it is not the function of the court to review operational decisions such as this, and (b) the claimant had not been detained so the points regarding the MHA were academic. (3) In any event, the civil restraint order was thoroughly appropriate and would not be discharged. | 2011‑04‑10 19:41:25 | 2011 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, Transcript, Unimportant cases
|
| R v O [2011] EWCA Crim 376 — Life sentence quashed and s37/41 restricted hospital order substituted. The life sentence had been passed in the context of confusion about bed availability, and the lack of a second s37 recommendation. There was utility in making the Appellant a patient rather than a prisoner because: (1) it was manifestly the right order to make on all the evidence; (2) there were advantages in terms of treatment; (3) it had advantages to the Appellant in terms of benefits; (4) it would best ensure the protection of the public. | 2011‑04‑09 16:54:58 | 2011 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, Life sentence cases, Transcript
|
| V v R [2011] EWHC 822 (QB) — Litigation capacity. The experts agreed that, as a result of her impulsive nature, V lacked capacity to manage her financial affairs; however, they disagreed on whether she had litigation capacity. The critical future decisions would be in connection with settlement offers (including the global value of the claim, provisional damages and periodical payments) albeit in the conext of the common understanding that she would not have unfettered access to the money. V would have difficulties in weighing the evidence and making decisions, but they could be ameliorated, if not entirely overcome, by the careful and structured support that the statute contemplates: the decisions would be made in the presence of her mother and lawyers; there was no suggestion that V would be left to make decisions on her own. On balance she did not lack capacity to ligitate. | 2011‑04‑09 15:14:40 | 2011 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, Other capacity cases, Transcript
|
| R (Woods) v Rochdale MBC [2009] EWHC 323 (Admin) — Unsuccessful JR of alleged failure to comply with obligations under the NHS and Community Care Act 1990 to assess the claimant's needs and to provide the resources to meet those needs. [Summary required.] | 2011‑03‑30 22:01:47 | 2009 cases, Community care, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, No summary, Transcript
|
| Re P; A Local Authority v PB [2011] EWHC 502 (COP) — (1) The judge's view was that in exercising a welfare or best interests jurisdiction (whether under the Children Act, under the inherent jurisdiction, or under the MCA) the court is choosing between available options; a point then arises whether the COP can add to the available options (by application of public law and HRA tests in the private law proceedings) or whether judicial review is necessary; these jurisdictional issues should be addressed well before a case comes on for final hearing, so that the relevant authority does not refuse to provide the services after the court has decided that they are in P's best interests; in this case there may be a further hearing to decide the issue. (2) At an appropriate stage in most COP welfare cases, a direction along the following lines should be given (paraphrased) - Each party shall serve a document on the other setting out (a) the facts he asks the court to find, the disputed facts he asserts the court need not determine, and the findings that he invites the court to find by reference to the former facts; (b) the investigations he has made of alternative care and thence the alternatives he asserts should be considered (and by whom the relevant services should be provided); (c) by reference to (a) and (b), the factors he asserts the court should take into account; (d) the relief sought and why he asserts the factors support the granting of that relief; (e) the relevant issues of law. (3) Procedural/substantive fairness did not require overnight contact at the mother's home before the final hearing, and this would not be in P's best interests | 2011‑03‑29 21:24:38 | 2011 cases, Best interests, Brief summary, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, Transcript
|
| Re CW; A Primary Care Trust v CW [2010] EWHC 3448 (COP) — (1) Medical treatment is of no benefit to a person in a persistent vegetative state because he is not sentient and has no prospect of recovery; whether the withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment measures is in P's best interests depends on whether the diagnosis of PVS is correct; if it is correct then the provision of any treatment is futile and cannot be in his best interests. (2) CW was in a persistent vegetative state with no prospect of recovery; it was in his best interests for artificial nutrition and hydration to be withheld, which could be done lawfully; it was in his best interests to receive treatment and nursing care to ensure that he retains the greatest dignity possible until death. | 2011‑03‑02 17:44:09 | 2011 cases, Best interests, Brief summary, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, Transcript
|
| Haworth v Cartmel and HMRC [2011] EWHC 36 (Ch) — Disability Discrimination Act, and lack of capacity, used to annul bankruptcy order. | 2011‑02‑24 20:51:39 | 2011 cases, Detailed summary, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, Other capacity cases, Transcript
|
| Massie v H [2011] EWCA Civ 115 — The general rule is that an appeal shall lie from a decision of a county court to the High Court. One exception is for final decisions in Part 7 CPR multi-track cases, which go to the Court of Appeal. (1) This exception does not apply in nearest relative displacement cases under s29 MHA as the application is made under Part 8 CPR; no other exception applied. (2) The court declared that it lacked jurisdiction and that a previous consent order was therefore a nullity. (3) Because of the passage of time and costs involved, rather than abandon the matter or simply transfer it to the High Court, the case was transferred to the High Court for one of the Court of Appeal judges to consider it as a High Court judge there and then. | 2011‑02‑17 23:12:22 | 2011 cases, Brief summary, Displacement, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, Transcript
|
| Re HM; PM v KH [2010] EWHC 3279 (Fam) — PM sentenced to 4 months' imprisonment for contempt of court. [Summary required.] | 2011‑01‑06 20:07:06 | 2010 cases, Best interests, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, No summary, Transcript
|
| Re RK; YB v BCC [2010] EWHC 3355 (COP) — (1) Given the terms of s20(8) Children Act 1989 (that any person with parental responsibility may at any time remove the child) the provision of accommodation to a child under s20(1), (3), (4) or (5) will not ever give rise to a deprivation of liberty within the terms of Article 5. If the child is being accommodated under the auspices of a care order, interim or full, or if the child has been placed in secure accommodation under s25, then the position might be different. (2) In any event: (a) the objective element of deprivation of liberty was not remotely close to being met on the facts; (b) the subjective element was not met, as the parents had consented on RK's behalf; (c) RK's placement was at the behest of her parents and could not be imputed to the state. [Detailed summary to follow.] | 2011‑01‑04 23:38:25 | 2010 cases, Brief summary, Deprivation of liberty, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, Transcript
|
| R (Khela) v Brandon MH Unit [2010] EWHC 3313 (Admin) — This renewed application for permission to judicially review a Tribunal decision and to quash the RC's previous diagnosis was dismissed and the claim found to be totally without merit. | 2010‑12‑19 21:51:16 | 2010 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, Transcript, Unimportant cases
|
| R v Oakley [2010] EWCA Crim 2419 — Sentencing for diminished responsibility manslaughter. [Summary required.] | 2010‑10‑27 23:30:50 | 2010 cases, Diminished responsibility cases, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, No summary, Transcript
|
| Re SA; FA v Mr A [2010] EWCA Civ 1128 — Court of Protection case. [Summary to follow.] | 2010‑10‑18 23:16:05 | 2010 cases, Best interests, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, No summary, Transcript
|
| Grant v MHRT (1986) The Times 28/4/86 — The Tribunal has no power to make statutory recommendations under s72(3) in restricted cases. | 2010‑10‑11 22:20:00 | 1986 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on MHLO, No transcript, Powers
|
| An NHS Foundation Trust v D [2010] EWHC 2535 (COP) — (1) D lacked the capacity to decide on medical treatment for her prolapsed uterus, as she held the delusional belief that her condition was normal and did not require treatment. (2) It was in D's best interests to receive surgery, as if untreated her condition could be life-threatening. (3) The proposed restraint and deprivation of liberty (including a general aesthetic six days before the surgery) was authorised, if absolutely necessary, as being in her best interests. (Summary based on press articles.) | 2010‑10‑05 23:09:07 | 2010 cases, Best interests, Brief summary, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, Transcript
|
| BB v AM [2010] EWHC 1916 (Fam) — (1) BB was not ineligible to be deprived of her liberty within the meaning of Case E of MCA 2005 sch 1A as the psychiatric evidence was that the criteria under s2 or s3 MHA were not made out. (2) In relation to whether or not there was a deprivation of liberty: on one hand (a) BB was under sedation; staff exercised control over her care, movements, assessments and treatments; staff also exercised control over her residence and the contacts she had with other people; her family were hostile to her placement; the court was refusing to sanction the discharge of BB into the care of her parents pending the conclusion of investigations being carried out by the police; on the other hand (b) BB was apparently happy where she was; she had a degree of freedom within the hospital; in addition if she asked to leave, she was allowed to do so, although only under the supervision of accompanying staff; in conclusion (c) she was being deprived of her liberty as she was away from her family, in an institution under sedation in circumstances in which her contact with the outside world was strictly controlled, her capacity to have free access to her family was limited, now by court order, and her movements were under the strict control and supervision of hospital staff. | 2010‑08‑09 22:57:10 | 2010 cases, Deprivation of liberty, Detailed summary, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, Transcript
|
| Re MN [2010] EWHC 1926 (Fam) — Whether (and, if so, according to what criteria) the Court of Protection should recognise and enforce an order of a court of competent jurisdiction in California requiring the return of MN to that state. (1) The basis of jurisdiction is habitual residence: the key to that decision is whether the agent (like an English deputy) had authority to remove MN to England. (2) If she had, then MN is likely habitually resident in England and the English court has jurisdiction. The Californian order could only be enforced if indicated by a full best interests enquiry on the evidence. (3) If she did not have the authority, then MN remains habitually resident in California and its courts should exercise primary jurisdiction. The Californian order would likely be recognised and enforced, unless the carrier or the independent doctor advised otherwise; the best interests enquiry would be confined to the journey; however, a full best interests jurisdiction could be adopted at the invitation of the Californian court. | 2010‑08‑09 22:39:36 | 2010 cases, Detailed summary, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, Other capacity cases, Transcript
|
| Gale v Gale [2010] EWHC 1575 (Ch) — The 2002 and 2004 codicils to a will were forgeries; also, the testatrix did not have testamentary capacity at the time of the 2004 codicil; in any event, neither was signed on the date it purported to be signed but was backdated from a time when the testatrix did not retain testamentary capacity. | 2010‑08‑07 11:43:42 | 2010 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, Other capacity cases, Transcript
|
| R v Matthews [2010] EWCA Crim 1936 — The trial judge had wanted to impose a hospital order under s37 and restriction order under s41 but could not as no hospital bed was available, despite several adjournments; given the risk to the public, the judge had no alternative but to pass a sentence of imprisonment for public protection. The extension of time sought exceeded two years nine months. There was no merit in the application and accordingly the application for leave and the application to extend permission to apply out of time were refused. | 2010‑08‑05 22:21:34 | 2010 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, Life sentence cases, Transcript
|
| R v MB [2010] EWCA Crim 1684 — (1) It was unfair to try the appellant, who was unfit to plead, with a co-defendant who made allegations against him in an attempt to exculpate herself, so the finding that he had committed the acts charged against him was unsafe. (2) This successful appeal meant that he had to be acquitted and that, because of a lacuna in the law, the Secretary of State now had no power to remit him for trial on the basis that he had become fit to plead. | 2010‑07‑23 06:42:29 | 2010 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, Transcript, Unfitness and insanity cases
|
| HBCC v LG [2010] EWHC 1527 (Fam) — It was in the best interests of an elderly lady suffering from dementia to remain at a residential home, rather than be returned home to live with her daughter (who was assisted by a McKenzie Friend, whose role was the subject of consideration by the Court) | 2010‑07‑21 11:24:31 | 2010 cases, Best interests, Brief summary, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, Transcript
|
| Re HM; PM v KH [2008] EWHC 2824 (Fam) — It was in the best interests of a young lady without capacity to determine questions of treatment, care and medical treatment to reside at a specialist placement rather than with her father. | 2010‑07‑20 16:47:50 | 2008 cases, Best interests, Detailed summary, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, Transcript
|
| R v Patsalosavvis [2010] EWCA Crim 1383 — The appellant had received a restricted hospital order for making bomb hoax calls; the restriction order was quashed. | 2010‑07‑10 18:13:43 | 2010 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, No transcript, Restriction order cases
|
| R v Hutchinson [2010] EWCA Crim 1364 — IPP quashed and, based on new evidence, replaced with restricted hospital order. | 2010‑07‑10 17:48:40 | 2010 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, No transcript, Sentence appeal cases
|
| * Appeal against restriction order R v Osker [2010] EWCA Crim 955 — Successful appeal against restriction order. | 2010‑05‑06 23:12:32 | 2010 cases, Cases, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, Restriction order cases, Transcript
|
| LB Enfield v SA [2010] EWHC 196 (Admin) — (1) Hearsay evidence is admissible in the Court of Protection. (2) This includes hearsay from a witness who is incompetent by reason of mental disability; however, this lack of competence is an important factor when evaluating the weight to be attached to the evidence. (3) Where P has been interviewed by police in an ABE interview, the DVD should be disclosed to the parties: in general, it would be justified for the Court of Protection to make a "specific disclosure" order under r133(3) requiring "full and frank disclosure" of all relevant material. (4) Where there are extant COP proceedings then, in the absence of an absolutely pressing emergency, any question of interviewing P must be subject to a direction of the judge; initially it may be raised without notice to a party about whom allegations relate, but P's litigation friend should always be given notice. (5) Once findings of fact have been made the case is part heard and the trial should not resume before a different judge. | 2010‑04‑15 20:50:12 | 2010 cases, Best interests, Brief summary, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, Transcript
|
| Bath and North East Somerset Council v AJC [1999] MHLR 184 — As a Tribunal order for discharge had not been challenged, it had to be given effect, despite the local authority’s view that it was invalid: the purported renewal was therefore of no effect. [MHLR.] | 2010‑02‑26 22:21:02 | 1999 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, MHLR summary, Miscellaneous, Transcript
|
| R (Southall) v Dudley PCT [2009] EWHC 1780 (Admin) — The defendant elected to go to a more expensive home for a continuing care package than the one that the PCT offered. The PCT entered into a contract with the care home operator at the lower rate, which would have been appropriate for the other care home on the same overall site, and the patient funded the difference. The patient then challenged the legality of this top up. The Court found that the PCT's refusal to pay in full for the claimant's continuing care package at the more expensive home was reasonable, and that the arrangement was lawful. There was no breach of article 8 in the patient having to choose between making a payment of top-up fees or having to move to the less expensive care home. The claim for Judicial Review was therefore dismissed. | 2009‑12‑23 22:20:48 | 2009 cases, Brief summary, Community care, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, Transcript
|
| Re GC [2008] EWHC 3402 (Fam) — (1) The principle governing State intervention under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 is the same as under the Children Act 1989, namely that the State does not interfere in the private family life of an individual unless the continuance of that private family life is clearly inconsistent with the welfare of the person whose best interests the court is required to determine. (2) The closer the person is to having capacity the more weight his views are to be given. (3) Contrary to the professional evidence, it was in GC's best interests to return home as an interim measure: this decision was reached having regard to (a) the concept of least intervention, (b) GC's consistently-expressed wishes and feelings, (c) a finding that a trial at home was necessary and now was the best time, and (d) the importance of the emotional, as opposed to physical, component of best interests to very elderly (or young) people. | 2009‑08‑15 21:13:49 | 2008 cases, Best interests, Brief summary, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, Transcript
|
| Re OT [2009] EWHC 633 (Fam) — OT, a nine-month-old baby, required continuous ventilation to live, and sometimes required further intensive medical treatment; the trust wanted to discontinue ventilation and treatment on the basis of the distressing and futile nature of the treatment; the parents wanted all steps to be taken to sustain life. (1) Although the application itself was made in an emergency as a result of a sudden deterioration in the child's condition, the parents had a fair opportunity to prepare their case both before and during the hearing; there was therefore no flaw in the process breaching Convention rights. (2) The provision or withdrawal of treatment for a child without parental consent, save in exceptional cases, is unlawful without a court declaration.* (3) Declarations were made permitting the clinicians to treat OT according to their clinical discretion (including not escalating treatment) and to cease ventilation immediately. | 2009‑05‑21 22:42:02 | 2009 cases, Best interests, Brief summary, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, Transcript
|
| R v LB Richmond, ex p Watson [1999] EWHC Admin 749 — Claimants' accommodation must be provided under section 117(2) and not under s21 National Assistance Act 1948; s117 not a gateway section; it follows that the Respondents are not entitled to charge the Applicants for their accommodation. | 2009‑04‑11 20:50:30 | 1999 cases, After-care, Brief summary, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, MHLR summary, Transcript
|
| Manchester City Council v MI [1999] EWCA Civ 1689 — The test for the displacement of a nearest relative is objective; the Court of Appeal will not interfere with factual findings that were open to the trial judge. [MHLR.] | 2009‑04‑11 19:24:50 | 1999 cases, Brief summary, Displacement, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, MHLR summary, Transcript
|
| A v A Health Authority [2002] EWHC 18 (Fam) — The nature of the case determined the court in which a case concerning the welfare of children or incompetent adults should be litigated: the review of a decision of a public authority by way of JR in the Admin Court; best interests cases in the Family Division. In best interests proceedings the court cannot compel a public authority to exercise its public law functions in a certain way. | 2008‑12‑30 22:08:33 | 2002 cases, Best interests, Detailed summary, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, Transcript
|
| Re A (Medical Treatment: Male Sterilisation) [2000] 1 FLR 549, (2000) 1 FCR 193 — It would not be in the best interests of A, who lacked capacity to make the decision, to be sterilised, while the current level of supervision continued; best interests are not limited to best medical interests but encompass medical, emotional and all other welfare issues. | 2008‑12‑30 20:30:38 | 2000 cases, Best interests, Detailed summary, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, Transcript
|
| * Capacity to consent to sexual activity R v C [2008] EWCA Crim 1155 — If the complainant consented to sexual activity against her inclination because she was frightened of the defendant, even if her fear was irrational and caused by her mental disorder, it did not follow that she lacked the capacity to choose whether to agree to sexual activity. [Overturned on appeal.] | 2008‑12‑14 22:51:05 | 2008 cases, Capacity to consent to sexual relations, Cases, Criminal law capacity cases, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, Transcript
|
| KC v City of Westminster Social and Community Services Department [2007] EWHC 3096 (Fam) — Muslim marriage where groom lacked capacity was not recognised in English law. | 2008‑12‑14 21:17:04 | 2007 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, Other capacity cases, Transcript
|
| R (S) v Broadmoor Special Hospital Authority [1998] EWCA Civ 160 — Broadmoor's random and routine search policy was lawful. | 2008‑10‑15 20:17:39 | 1998 cases, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, Miscellaneous, No summary, Transcript
|
| R (S) v Broadmoor Special Hospital Authority [1997] EWHC Admin 875 — Broadmoor's random and routine search policy was lawful. | 2008‑10‑15 20:15:23 | 1997 cases, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, Miscellaneous, No summary, Transcript
|
| R (S) v Collins [1997] EWCA Civ 2019 — Challenge to compulsory treatment. | 2008‑09‑13 06:18:33 | 1997 cases, Challenges to compulsory treatment, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, No summary, Transcript
|
| R (L) v Bournewood Community and Mental Health NHS Trust [1997] EWHC Admin 850 — Bournewood gap. | 2008‑09‑13 06:08:05 | 1997 cases, Deprivation of liberty, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, No summary, Transcript
|
| * Residence for s117 purposes R v MHRT, ex p Hall [1999] EWHC Admin 351 — The provisions of s117 Mental Health Act 1983 are designed to ensure that there is always an aftercare authority, being the place where the patient resided before detention or, if there was no such residence, the place where the patient was to be sent on release; the duty as to aftercare included the provision of information to a Tribunal and so arose before discharge. [MHLR.] | 2008‑09‑12 16:09:40 | 1999 cases, After-care, Cases, Discharge conditions, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, MHLR summary
|
| * Release date R (Evans) v Brockhill Prison [1996] EWHC Admin 234 — "These applications concern a third situation: where a defendant spends time in custody awaiting trial for more than one offence, and is on conviction sentenced to concurrent or overlapping terms of custody. To what extent is account to be taken, in assessing the term of custody to be served in pursuance of the sentence in that situation, of time spent in custody (otherwise than for some unrelated reason) before the sentences were imposed?" | 2008‑09‑12 15:48:16 | 1996 cases, Cases, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, Prison law cases, Transcript
|
| R v SSHD, ex p Harry [1998] EWHC Admin 420 — Home Secretary not obliged to follow MHRT recommendations as to transfer of restricted patient to lower security; can look further afield for information and advice; but had to act in a procedurally fair manner, which he had not done | 2007‑02‑06 18:39:07 | 1998 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, Ministry of Justice, Transcript
|
| R (Stewart) v Managers of the NW London MH NHS Trust [1997] EWCA Civ 2201 — Part II (civil) and Part III (criminal) powers can co-exist and operate independently of each other. "If he were discharged by the tribunal it would be a discharge in relation to his liability to detention under Section 3 which would in no way affect the Secretary of State’s powers to recall him as a restricted patient" | 2007‑02‑06 18:37:46 | 1997 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, Ministry of Justice, Transcript
|
| * Dangerousness criterion and hospital managers R v Riverside Mental Health Trust, ex p Huzzey [1998] EWHC Admin 465 — Managers must consider dangerousness criterion when reviewing detention after RMO's barring order, and in almost all circumstances discharge if not satisfied of that criterion. | 2006‑04‑15 19:46:53 | 1998 cases, Cases, Hospital managers hearings, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, Other NR cases, Transcript
|
Article titles
The following 152 pages are in this category.
A
- A Council v X (2011) EWHC B10 (COP)
- A Local Authority v HS (2013) EWHC 2410 (COP), (2013) MHLO 58
- A v A Health Authority (2002) EWHC 18 (Fam)
- A, B and C v X, Y and Z (2012) EWHC 2400 (COP), (2012) MHLO 112
- AB v LM (2013) EWHC 1234 (COP), (2013) MHLO 139
- AD'A v Cornwall Partnership NHS Foundation Trust (2020) UKUT 110 (AAC)
- AG's reference (no 60 of 2012) sub nom R v Edwards (2012) EWCA Crim 2746, (2012) MHLO 135
- AM v West London MH NHS Trust (2013) EWCA Civ 1010, (2013) MHLO 73
- An NHS Foundation Trust v D (2010) EWHC 2535 (COP)
- AR v West London NHS Trust (2020) UKUT 273 (AAC)
B
- B v B (2010) EWHC 543 (Fam)
- B v Croydon Health Authority (1995) Fam 133
- Bath and North East Somerset Council v AJC (1999) MHLR 184
- BB v AM (2010) EWHC 1916 (Fam)
- Bialek v Circuit Court in Warsaw Poland (2013) EWHC 930 (Admin), (2013) MHLO 39
- Bostridge v Oxleas NHS Foundation Trust (2014) EWCA Civ 1005, (2014) MHLO 85
D
E
G
H
K
L
- Lacki v Poland (2012) EWHC 1747 (Admin), (2012) MHLO 120
- LB Enfield v SA (2010) EWHC 196 (Admin)
- LB Haringey v FG (No. 1) (2011) EWHC 3932 (COP)
- LB Haringey v FG (No. 2) (2011) EWHC 3933 (COP)
- LB Richmond v W (2001) QB 370
- Lord Chancellor v John Blavo (2016) EWHC 126 (QB), (2016) MHLO 6
- Lucia Benyu v Solicitors Regulation Authority (2015) EWHC 4085 (Admin), (2015) MHLO 137
M
P
R
- R (BA) v LB Hillingdon (2012) EWHC 3050 (Admin), (2012) MHLO 148
- R (Baisden) v Leicester City Council (2011) EWHC 3219 (Admin)
- R (C) v SSHD (2012) EWHC 801 (Admin), (2012) MHLO 118
- R (Evans) v Brockhill Prison (1996) EWHC Admin 234
- R (Francis) v West Midlands Probation Board (2010) EWCA Civ 955
- R (G) v South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust (2011) EWHC 747 (Admin)
- R (JG) v LSC (2013) EWHC 804 (Admin), (2013) MHLO 76
- R (Khela) v Brandon MH Unit (2010) EWHC 3313 (Admin)
- R (L) v Bournewood Community and Mental Health NHS Trust (1997) EWHC Admin 850
- R (LV) v SSJ (2012) EWHC 3899 (Admin)
- R (LV) v SSJ (2013) EWCA Civ 1086
- R (Monday) v SSHD (2010) EWHC 3079 (Admin)
- R (Muaza) v SSHD (2013) EWHC 3764 (Admin), (2013) MHLO 112
- R (O) v SSHD (2012) EWHC 2899 (Admin), (2012) MHLO 149
- R (RW) v SSJ (2012) EWHC 2082 (Admin), (2012) MHLO 87
- R (S) v Broadmoor Special Hospital Authority (1997) EWHC Admin 875
- R (S) v Broadmoor Special Hospital Authority (1998) EWCA Civ 160
- R (S) v Collins (1997) EWCA Civ 2019
- R (Smith) v LB Camden (2011) EWCA Civ 1207
- R (Southall) v Dudley PCT (2009) EWHC 1780 (Admin)
- R (Stewart) v Managers of the NW London MH NHS Trust (1997) EWCA Civ 2201
- R (W) v Dr Larkin (2012) EWHC 556 (Admin), (2012) MHLO 23
- R (WG) v Local Authority A (2010) EWHC 2608 (Admin)
- R (Woods) v Rochdale MBC (2009) EWHC 323 (Admin)
- R (Z) v Camden and Islington NHS Foundation Trust (2013) EWCA Civ 1425, (2013) MHLO 100
- R (Z) v Whittington Hospital (2013) EWHC 358 (Admin), (2013) MHLO 29
- R v Abdi (2011) EWCA Crim 2179
- R v Ahmed (2012) EWCA Crim 708, (2012) MHLO 40
- R v Anderson (Darren Gabriel) (2013) EWCA Crim 2212, (2013) MHLO 134
- R v C (2008) EWCA Crim 1155
- R v Caress (2013) EWCA Crim 218, (2013) MHLO 27
- R v Channer (2012) EWCA Crim 1667, (2012) MHLO 157
- R v Chiles (2012) EWCA Crim 196, (2012) MHLO 10
- R v Chowdhury (2011) EWCA Crim 936
- R v Clark (2011) EWCA Crim 2516
- R v Edgington (2013) EWCA Crim 2185, (2013) MHLO 102
- R v Fletcher (2012) EWCA Crim 1550, (2012) MHLO 86
- R v Fletcher (2012) EWCA Crim 2777, (2012) MHLO 161
- R v Fletcher (2015) EWCA Crim 2007, (2015) MHLO 133
- R v Fry (David George) (2013) EWCA Crim 2337, (2013) MHLO 126
- R v G (A) (2013) EWCA Crim 2256, (2013) MHLO 130
- R v Goucher (2011) EWCA Crim 1456
- R v Goucher (2011) EWCA Crim 2473
- R v Heaney (2011) EWCA Crim 2682
- R v Hopkins; R v Priest (2011) EWCA Crim 1513
- R v Hutchinson (2010) EWCA Crim 1364
- R v Jenkin (2012) EWCA Crim 2557, (2012) MHLO 141
- R v Lavender (2011) EWCA Crim 2420
- R v LB Richmond, ex p Watson (1999) EWHC Admin 749
- R v Levey (2012) EWCA Crim 657, (2012) MHLO 34
- R v Louka (2010) EWCA Crim 2015
- R v Matthews (2010) EWCA Crim 1936
- R v MB (2010) EWCA Crim 1684
- R v MHRT, ex p Hall (1999) EWHC Admin 351
- R v Nottingham MHRT, ex p Secretary of State for the Home Department (Thomas) (1988) MHLO 1
- R v O (2011) EWCA Crim 376
- R v Oakley (2010) EWCA Crim 2419
- R v Odiowei (2013) EWCA Crim 2253, (2013) MHLO 131
- R v Osker (2010) EWCA Crim 955
- R v Parkins (2012) EWCA Crim 856, (2012) MHLO 50
- R v Patsalosavvis (2010) EWCA Crim 1383
- R v Petrolini (2012) EWCA Crim 2055, (2012) MHLO 105
- R v Riverside Mental Health Trust, ex p Huzzey (1998) EWHC Admin 465
- R v SCL (2012) EWCA Crim 182, (2012) MHLO 16
- R v Searles (2012) EWCA Crim 1839, (2012) MHLO 155
- R v Searles (2012) EWCA Crim 2685, (2012) MHLO 156
- R v Shah (2011) EWCA Crim 2333
- R v SSHD, ex p Harry (1998) EWHC Admin 420
- R v Stead (2012) EWCA Crim 92, (2012) MHLO 9
- R v Thompson (2018) EWCA Crim 639
- R v Tudor (2012) EWCA Crim 1507, (2012) MHLO 127
- R v Yusuf (Nadia Ali) (2013) EWCA Crim 2077, (2013) MHLO 137
- Re A (Medical Treatment: Male Sterilisation) (2000) 1 FLR 549, (2000) 1 FCR 193
- Re C (2020) MHLO 48 (FTT)
- Re Clarke (2013) EWCA Civ 811, (2013) MHLO 52
- Re CW; A Primary Care Trust v CW (2010) EWHC 3448 (COP)
- Re D (2020) MHLO 51 (FTT)
- Re Devillebichot (deceased) (2013) EWHC 2867 (Ch), (2013) MHLO 107
- Re DU; A NHS Trust v DU (2009) EWHC 3504 (Fam)
- Re E (2020) MHLO 52 (FTT)
- Re G (2012) EWCA Civ 431, (2012) MHLO 52
- Re GC (2008) EWHC 3402 (Fam)
- Re GM; FP v GM and A Health Board (2011) EWHC 2778 (COP)
- Re HA (2012) EWHC 1068 (COP), (2012) MHLO 67
- Re HM; PM v KH (2008) EWHC 2824 (Fam)
- Re HM; PM v KH (2010) EWHC 3279 (Fam)
- Re Joan Treadwell (Deceased); OPG v Colin Lutz (2013) EWHC 2409 (COP), (2013) MHLO 57
- Re L (A Child) (2013) EWCA Civ 1557, (2013) MHLO 133
- Re L; The NHS Trust v L (2012) EWHC 2741 (COP), (2012) MHLO 159
- Re Lee (2019) MHLO 73 (Coroner)
- Re M (2011) EWHC 3590 (COP)
- Re MN (2010) EWHC 1926 (Fam)
- Re OT (2009) EWHC 633 (Fam)
- Re P (abortion) (2013) EWHC 50 (COP), (2013) MHLO 1
- Re P; A Local Authority v PB (2011) EWHC 502 (COP)
- Re RK; YB v BCC (2010) EWHC 3355 (COP)
- Re S (Adult Patient) (Inherent Jurisdiction: Family Life); Sheffield City Council v S (2002) EWHC 2278 (Fam)
- Re S; D v R (the deputy of S) (2010) EWHC 3748 (COP)
- Re SA; FA v Mr A (2010) EWCA Civ 1128