MHA 1983 s63
For details, see Compulsory treatment.
Changes made by Mental Health Act 2007
- Additional safeguards for ECT introduced in new s58A 3/11/08
- Responsible Clinician/Approved Clinician replaces Responsible Medical Officer 3/11/08
Any cases with a hyperlink to this legislation will automatically be added here. There may be other relevant cases without a hyperlink, so please check the mental health case law page.
- B v Croydon Health Authority  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.
- Nottinghamshire Healthcare NHS Trust v RC  EWHC 1136 (COP),  MHLO 20 — A detained patient with a severe personality disorder was self-harming by cutting and had to be mechanically restrained to prevent this. (1) He had made an advance decision, apparently with capacity to do so, refusing blood transfusions because of his religious beliefs: the court ruled that this was valid and applicable, but only on an interim basis since the document did not state that it was signed by the maker and the witness in each other's presence. (2) The Responsible Clinician accepted that a blood transfusion would be medical treatment for mental disorder under s63 MHA 1983, and therefore the advance decision could be overridden; however, because the patient's wishes were religious, she did not want to impose treatment: the Trust therefore sought the protection of a court declaration that her decision was lawful. (3) The court was unwilling to make the declaration, without hearing both sides of the argument, because of the importance of the issues (including the right to ..→
- R (B) v Ashworth Hospital Authority  UKHL 20 — A patient detained for treatment under the Mental Health Act 1983 could be treated compulsorily under s 63 of that Act for any disorder from which he suffered, and not only for the particular form of disorder from which he was classified as suffering under the application or order which authorised his detention.
- R (Brady) v Dr Collins  EWHC 639 (Admin) — (1) The hunger strike was a manifestation or symptom of the patient's personality disorder, and the commencement of force-feeding was justified under s63 as medical treatment for mental disorder; even if s63 did not apply, the patient lacked capacity and the doctors had acted in what they lawfully believed was his best interests; (2) The appropriate test when considering challenges to compulsory treatment under s63 was the "super-Wednesbury" test [caution: the law has since changed]
Cases from the new database whose pages contain a link to this page:
|Norfolk and Suffolk NHS Foundation Trust v HJ  EWFC 92||MCA treatment for MHA patient||HJ was detained under MHA 1983 s3 but treatment under restraint for her constipation could not be provided under MHA 1983 s63. The trust asked the court to authorise deprivation of liberty; the judge in email correspondence expressed doubts; subsequently the trust and Official Solicitor changed their minds and agreed that the treatment did not involve deprivation of liberty. The judge decided: (1) The following principles apply: (a) only in exceptional cases will something amount to a further deprivation of liberty of someone already lawfully deprived of liberty; (b) this is because the usual position is that Article 5(1)(e) is not in principle concerned with suitable treatment or conditions; (c) the test is whether there is an unacceptable element of arbitrariness in the actions taken by a state body. (2) Applying that approach, proper and lawful exercise of clinical judgment will, save in exceptional circumstances, lack arbitrariness and will not amount to deprivation of residual liberty; partly that is because the trust owe a common law duty of care to the patient to provide appropriate treatment (the patient cannot be deprived of liberty by actions that the trust are required to take). (3) The MCA 2005 s4 best interests process, MCA 2005 s6 restraint limitations, MHA framework and Mental Health Units (Use of Force) Act 2018 requirements are a sufficient procedural framework for Article 8 purposes and do not need to be supplemented by a court order.|
[The chapter/paragraph numbers which appear below (if any) refer to the 2008 versions of the Code of Practice and Reference Guide.]
- Reference Guide to the Mental Health Act 1983, 16. Medical treatment for patients in hospital, etc (Part 4) [Note that the chapter number relates to the old Reference Guide] — paragraph 16.15
- Mental Health Act 1983 Code Of Practice for England, 23. Medical treatment under the Act
Treatment not requiring consent
63. The consent of a patient shall not be required for any medical treatment given to him for the mental disorder from which he is suffering[, not being a form of treatment to which section 57, 58 or 58A above applies,] if the treatment is given by or under the direction of the [approved clinician in charge of the treatment].
- Mental Health Act 2007 Cite error: Invalid
<ref>tag; name "MHA" defined multiple times with different content