MP v Mersey Care NHS Trust [2011] UKUT 107 (AAC)

CTO and deferred discharge The Tribunal panel discharged a s47 patient, deferred for six weeks for after-care arrangements, and also stated in para 9 of its decision that it 'would also invite Mr P's care team to consider whether to implement a community treatment order'. A CTO was then made; however, when the panel's decision to discharge the s47 took effect it also discharged the CTO. On the responsible authority's application under Tribunal rule 45, a salaried tribunal judge reviewed and set aside the panel's decision (on the basis that, by directing discharge, the panel had frustrated its intention that there be a CTO) and remitted the case to a fresh panel. The patient appealed, but the relevant decisions were excluded from the appeal jurisdiction so the appeal was treated as a JR application. The Upper Tribunal decided: (1) Where (as here) the panel find any of the statutory criteria not met, there is no power under s72(3A) to recommend a CTO: rather, there is a positive duty to discharge. (2) Para 9 was not expressed as a recommendation; the word 'also' showed that it did not form the basis of the reasoning; in so far as there is an inconsistency (between discharge and a recommendation), it is para 9 which should be given no weight; (3) The review decisions were quashed and a declaration made that the panel's decision be reactivated.

Case numbers

JR/2381/2010 and HM/2336/2010


Full judgment: BAILII


  • CTO cases🔍
  • Upper Tribunal decisions🔍

Date: 15/3/21🔍

Court: Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber)🔍



Citation number(s):

What links here:

Published: 30/3/11 21:14

Cached: 2024-07-25 01:15:06