MC v Cygnet Behavioural Health Ltd [2020] UKUT 230 (AAC)

Conditional discharge and DOL (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), to take effect on a specified future date (which s73 does not permit), and with permission to apply to the FTT for variation on a material change in circumstances (presumably only before conditional discharge).


Thanks for Richard Jones for providing the written judgment.


Full judgment: BAILII
Download here


  • Deprivation of liberty🔍
  • Discharge conditions cases🔍
  • Upper Tribunal decisions🔍

Date: 16/7/20🔍

Court: Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber)🔍




  • MC🔍
  • Cygnet Behavioural Health Ltd🔍
  • Secretary of State for Justice🔍

Citation number(s):

What links here:

Published: 24/7/20 21:31

Cached: 2024-04-25 11:57:27