Mental health case law
All 2144 cases on this site are structured into categories and (where appropriate) sub-categories. Of these cases, 406 have so far been added to a new database structure which allows for more powerful searches.
As well as searching the new database, this will find results from the older pages and directly from BAILII.
Alternatively, you can browse the database cases using filters including Subject, Date, Judges, Parties and Court at Special:Drilldown/Cases.
Click ▼ and ► to browse the category tree. Click a category name to see summaries of its cases. Click a case name for details of that case.
The following are the most recently-added 2021 cases:
|Case and summary||Date added||Categories|
|* Appeal against murder conviction R v Hunnisett  EWCA Crim 265 — The appellant wanted a murder conviction and 18-year-tariff life sentence quashed, and substituted with manslaughter on the ground of diminished responsibility and s45A hybrid order (presumably still with a life sentence), on the basis of fresh evidence (a prosecution psychiatrist had changed her mind) but the Court of Appeal refused to admit this evidence.||2021‑04‑14 20:40:24||Judgment available on Bailii, Cases, 2021 cases, Diminished responsibility cases
|* Norwegian probate case Rokkan v Rokkan  EWHC 481 (Ch) — This Chancery case discussed MCA 2005 sch 2 para 8. The preliminary issues decided were: (1) Whether the Defendants are subject to any obligation, enforceable in England and Wales, to distribute the estate of the Deceased pursuant to the principles of the Norwegian law of deferred probate; (2) Whether, on the assumption that the Deceased lacked capacity to manage her property and affairs at the relevant time, the transfers from the Den Norske Bank in Bergen to the Lloyds Bank in England caused the specific legacy at clause 5 of the Deceased's will, executed on 11 September 2012, to fail.||2021‑04‑14 20:28:39||Judgment available on Bailii, Cases, 2021 cases, Testamentary capacity cases
|* Compulsory caesarean X NHS Foundation Trust v Ms A  EWCOP 17 — The court decided that Ms A lacked capacity to conduct proceedings or to make decisions regarding birth (she wanted a vaginal birth), obstetric care and post-operative management, and that it was in her best interests to be transferred to another hospital for an elective caesarean section, or to receive an emergency caesarean section if necessary before then, using force if necessary.||2021‑04‑14 20:10:33||Judgment available on Bailii, Cases, 2021 cases, Medical treatment cases
|* Compulsory admission for caesarean East Lancashire Hospitals NHS Trust v GH  EWCOP 18 — At an out-of-hours hearing the Court of Protection declared that GH, having gone into labour at home and suffered an obstructed labour, by reason of her acute agoraphobia and anxiety lacked capacity to decide whether to agree to be admitted to hospital for obstetric treatment and a possible emergency caesarean section, and that it was in her best interests to be conveyed from her home to hospital for treatment by ambulance, forcibly if necessary. In the end she gave birth to a healthy baby boy at home before the court decision could be implemented.||2021‑04‑14 20:00:55||Judgment available on Bailii, Cases, 2021 cases, Medical treatment cases
|* Coronavirus vaccination NHS Tameside and Glossop CCG v CR  EWCOP 19 — CR lacked capacity in relation to the coronavirus vaccination and it was not possible to determine his wishes and feelings. The Court of Protection decided it was in his best interests to have the vaccination, based on the orthodox view of its benefits, and rejecting family members' objections. The relief sought by the CCG was granted, although physical intervention was not authorised.||2021‑04‑11 22:41:06||Judgment available on Bailii, Cases, 2021 cases, Medical treatment cases
|* Section 37/41 or s45A R v Lall  EWCA Crim 404 — The Attorney General unsuccessfully sought leave to refer the s37/41 sentence to the Court of Appeal as being unduly lenient, arguing that the correct order should have been life imprisonment with a s45A direction.||2021‑04‑11 21:42:45||Judgment available on Bailii, Cases, 2021 cases, Hybrid order cases
|* Travel, contact, internet London Borough of Greenwich v EOA  EWCOP 20 — Decisions were made on EOA's capacity to make decisions in relation to:(a) foreign travel; (b) contact with his family and others; (c) social media and Internet usage.||2021‑04‑11 21:38:36||Judgment available on Bailii, Cases, 2021 cases, Other capacity cases
|* Best interests and care Re AB: X Council v BB  EWCOP 21 — "The issue that I have to decide is what is in AB's best interests regarding the care that she should receive because there is no dispute about where she should live or the contact that she should have with others. At the moment she is living in a care home (F House), having moved there in March 2020 when she was granted bail in the criminal proceedings. The arrangements for her accommodation have previously been found by me to amount to a deprivation of liberty and no party disputes this. At the last hearing I noted that the agreed aim was for AB to return home (9CC) and a recital on the Court order reflects this (D171). The detailed dispute that I need to determine about AB's care is which of two proposals designed to support her returning home should be pursued in her best interests."||2021‑04‑11 21:24:49||
|* Parental consent for puberty blockers AB v CD  EWHC 741 (Fam) — The two issues in this case (an application by XY's mother that she and the father have the ability in law to consent on behalf of XY to the administration of hormone treatment to suppress puberty) were: (1) Do the parents retain the legal ability to consent to the treatment? (2) Does the administration of puberty blockers fall into a "special category" of medical treatment by which either: (a) an application must be made to the Court before they can be prescribed? (b) as a matter of good practice an application should be made to the Court?||2021‑04‑11 21:19:47||Judgment available on Bailii, Cases, 2021 cases, Medical treatment cases
|* Ordinary residence and s117 R (Worcestershire County Council v SSHSC  EWHC 682 (Admin) — The patient was detained under s3 in Worcestershire (Area 1), discharged to residential care in Swindon (Area 2), detained again under s3 in Swindon and discharged again. The DHSC argued that Worcestershire retained s117 responsibility throughout, based on three propositions: (a) the patient remains ordinarily resident in Area 1, applying R (Cornwall Council v SSH  UKSC 46; (b) in the alternative, "immediately before being detained" in s117 means "immediately before being first detained"; (c) in the further alternative, Area 1's duty continued throughout the second detention. The High Court rejected all three propositions (in relation to the third, noting that a s117 duty continues until a s117(2) decision, even during a second detention, but that the continuation does not affect the position upon leaving hospital).||2021‑03‑23 00:10:36||2021 cases, After-care, Cases, Community care, Judgment available on MHLO, Transcript, Judgment available on Bailii
If you have been involved in a case not listed here, or have a transcript that is not yet on Bailii, then please get in touch. See Help page for contact details.