May 2018 chronology
See May 2018 update for a thematic summary of these changes.
- 22/05/18 (1): Event. Edge Training: BIA Legal Update Course (Annual Refresher) - London, 15/6/18 — This course aims to provide an essential update on case law in relation to the role of the BIA. Learning outcomes: consider the latest DoLS news, research and guidance; examine the latest case law relevant to DoLS and the BIA role; reflect on how the information covered affects BIA practice. Speaker: Aasya Mughal. Cost: £140 plus VAT. See Edge website for further details and booking information
- 22/05/18 (2): Inherent jurisdiction case. Mazhar v Lord Chancellor  EWHC 2536 (Fam) — "This is a claim brought under sections 6, 7(1)(a), 8(1) and 9(1)(c) of the Human Rights Act 1998 against the Lord Chancellor in respect of a judicial act. The act in question is an order made by a High Court judge, Mr Justice Mostyn, who was the Family Division out of hours applications judge on the late evening of Friday, 22 April 2016. The order was made on the application of Birmingham Community Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust. It was an urgent, without notice, out of hours application made in respect of the claimant, Mr Aamir Mazhar. ... Mr Mazhar seeks to argue that the inherent jurisdiction cannot be used to detain a person who is not of unsound mind for the purposes of article 5(1)(e) of the Convention and that a vulnerable person's alleged incapacity as a result of duress or undue influence is not a basis to make orders in that jurisdiction that are other than facilitative of the person recovering, retaining or exercising his capacity. His removal and detention were accordingly unlawful and in breach of article 5. He also seeks to argue that his article 6 rights were engaged such that the absence of any challenge by the judge to his capacity and/or the evidence of the NHS Trust and the absence of any opportunity to challenge those matters himself or though his family or representatives before the order was executed was an unfair process. He says that his article 8 right to respect for family and private life was engaged and that the order was neither necessary nor in accordance with the law. ... The consequence is that I have come to the conclusion that there is nothing in the HRA (taken together with either the CPR or the FPR) that provides a power in a court or tribunal to make a declaration against the Crown in respect of a judicial act. Furthermore, the HRA has not modified the constitutional principle of judicial immunity. Likewise, the Crown is not to be held to vicariously liable for the acts of the judiciary with the consequence that the claim for a declaration is not justiciable in the Courts of England and Wales. A claim for damages against the Crown is available to Mr Mazhar for the limited purpose of compensating him for an article 5(5) breach but the forum for such a claim where the judicial act is that of a judge of the High Court cannot be a court of co-ordinate jurisdiction. On the facts of this case, the only court that can consider a damages claim is the Court of Appeal. If Mr Mazhar wants to pursue his challenge to the order of Mostyn J he must do so on appeal."
- 22/05/18 (1): Best interests/transparency case. PW v Chelsea and Westminster Hospital NHS Foundation Trust  EWCA Civ 1067 — "Two central criticisms are made of the judgment below, and the judge's determination of best interests. First, that the judge failed to appreciate and therefore give any or any adequate weight to RW's wishes and feeling. These were, contrary to her findings, ascertainable; they pointed to the fact that he was a "fighter", to the value he ascribed to life and to his desire to "hold fast to it" no matter how "poor" or "vestigial" in nature it was. Secondly, the judge overstated the risk that having the NG tube in place would pose for RW at home and the burden this would place on him, in circumstances where the dedicated care his sons could provide would remove or mitigate that risk. In the result, and in any event, it is submitted the judge's overall analysis of what was in RW's best interests failed adequately to address the relevant issues and evidence, and was a flawed one. In my view neither criticism is well-founded." Another aspect of this case related to the transparency order/reporting restrictions.
- 18/05/18 (1): Law Society panel concerns cont'd. On 8/5/18 the Head of Accreditations responded to a further email to say that the Law Society is currently reviewing its requirements and, in order to provide clarity for its members, hopes to send information suitable for publication in June. See Law Society mental health accreditation scheme - CPD requirements
- 10/05/18 (4): Listing news. The appeal in MM (not PJ) will be heard by the Supreme Court on 26/7/18 (source: email from MM's solicitor, Donald Tiong of Bison Solicitors, 10/5/18). See SSJ v MM; Welsh Ministers v PJ  EWCA Civ 194
- 10/05/18 (3): Event. MHLA: Panel course - London, 25/6/18 and 26/6/18 — The Mental Health Lawyers Association is an approved provider of the two-day course which must be attended by prospective members of the Law Society’s mental health accreditation scheme. Price: £300 (MHLA members); £390 (non-members); £270 (group discount). See MHLA website for further details and booking information.
- 10/05/18 (2): Event. MHLA: Legal Aid supervision - London, 7/6/18 — This course is aimed at experienced supervisors looking to refresh their skills, or those considering applying for supervisor status, and will cover the Legal Aid Agency supervisor standards and procedures. Cost: £150 (MHLA members); £195 (non-members). See MHLA website for further details and booking information.
- 10/05/18 (1): Event. CCJHR and IMHLA: Annual Conference 2018 - Cork, 12/5/18 — The Centre for Criminal Justice & Human Rights (School of Law, University College Cork) and the Irish Mental Health Lawyers Association are holding their Annual Conference on Mental Health Law and Capacity Law from 10 am to 2 pm. Cost: €120 (€50 for NGOs, academics, devilling barristers and trainee solicitors, and free for students). See UCC website for further details and booking information.
- 06/05/18 (2): MHT document. HMCTS, 'Minimum requirements for tribunal hearings to be held in hospitals' (11/4/18) — This document states that "[a] hearing room is as essential to a psychiatric hospital as an operating theatre is to a surgical hospital" and that if hospitals do not adhere to the minimum requirements or obtain a written exemption then the tribunal "may consider holding its judicial hearings elsewhere". The main headings are (1) Minimum standards of safety and security, and (2) Minimum requirements for facilities and amenities.
- 06/05/18 (1): MHT letter. Mark Hinchliffe and Zoe Blake, 'Letter to all Hospitals regarding our Minimum Requirements' (11/4/18) — This is a covering letter for HMCTS, 'Minimum requirements for tribunal hearings to be held in hospitals' (11/4/18).