Mental health case law
All 2169 cases on this site are structured into categories and (where appropriate) sub-categories. Of these cases, 396 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|
|* Caesarean - severe criticism of Trust University Hospitals Dorset NHS Foundation Trust v Miss K  EWCOP 40 — (1) The application should have been made significantly earlier than the day before the proposed caesarean, and judicial criticism of delay felt like "a waste of breath" as it had been made so often. The OS had been instructed the same day, and was unable to form a view on best interests, rendering her role effectively a "tick box exercise". (2) The OS was "appalled" at the evidence of the consultant obstetrician, who decided that Miss K had capacity on 10/6/21 when she chose a caesarean on the basis that she could hold and keep safe her baby earlier, when in fact it had been decided on 20/5/21 that the local authority would take the baby so that when she woke up there would be no baby. (3) The court decided that a planned caesarean, having been taken from PICU to obstetric unit by force if necessary, was in Miss K's best interests. In the event no force was necessary.||2021‑06‑19 13:59:53||2021 cases, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Medical treatment cases
|* DOLS scrutiny Re YC  EWCOP 34 — "This appeal raises an important question about how supervisory bodies should evidence their scrutiny of requests for authorisation of deprivation of liberty."||2021‑06‑10 13:03:03||2021 cases, Cases, Deprivation of liberty, Judgment available on Bailii
|* Fitness to plead in confiscation proceedings Ihenacho v London Borough of Croydon  EWCA Crim 798 — The appellant had dishonestly made welfare benefits claims, was deemed to have benefitted in the sum of £590,316.08, and a confiscation order equalling her realisable assets of £283,214.90 was made. She argued that fresh psychiatric evidence showed she had been unfit to plead at the time of the confiscation hearing so the matter should be reconsidered, and without the s10 Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 assumptions (assumptions to be made in case of criminal lifestyle). The Court of Appeal admitted the fresh evidence but held that it had not been shown on the balance of probabilities that she was not fit to plead at the relevant time.||2021‑05‑30 08:32:42||2021 cases, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Unfitness and insanity cases
|* Non-treatment of anorexia A Midlands NHS Trust v RD  EWCOP 35 — The Trust had decided not to treat RD's anorexia compulsorily under the MHA (even though that might, in the short term, prevent her death) and applied to the Court of Protection for legal protection. The court decided she lacked the relevant capacity and that further compulsory treatment was not in her best interests ("I am removing any threat of compulsion or compulsory admission to hospital under the Mental Health Act from RD"). The declarations were made under the inherent jurisdiction (as well as the MCA) since questions involving the MHA involve public law matters, in particular that doctors have to take into account the safety of the public.||2021‑05‑30 08:12:58||2021 cases, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Medical treatment cases
|* Coronavirus vaccination SS v London Borough of Richmond upon Thames  EWCOP 31 — (1) SS lacked capacity, owing to dementia, to decide whether to take a coronavirus vaccination, but consistently and volubly opposed it. (2) If she had capacity she should most likely would have refused: previously she had always attended to her medical welfare but resisted vaccinations. (3) It would not be in her best interests to persuade her by lying that her dead father had requested she take the vaccination. (4) It would not be in her best interests to administer it by force (sedation and restraint), as best interests requires evaluating welfare in a sense broader than merely epidemiological: SS would look to the carers to help, and they would not be able to intervene, which likely would dismantle the tentative trust that had been established over the months.||2021‑05‑23 14:20:18||2021 cases, Cases, Coronavirus cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Medical treatment cases
|* Agoraphobia and pregnancy A NHS Foundation Trust v An Expectant Mother  EWCOP 33 — The expectant mother's severe agoraphobia meant she might not be able to travel to hospital even if that became medically necessary. The court decided that: (1) she lacked capacity to make decisions about the location of the delivery of her baby; (2) it was in her best interests to be taken to hospital for a planned delivery, using force and involving deprivation of liberty if necessary; (3) she had capacity to choose between induced labour and Caesarean section, and between local and general anaesthetic.||2021‑05‑21 19:49:53||2021 cases, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Medical treatment cases
|* Immigration, capacity and marriage Navaraththinam v Entry Clearance Officer Colombo  UKAITUR HU135462019 — The appellant challenged the judge's rejection of his appeal against entry clearance refusal. The Upper Tribunal held that: (1) the judge's comments on the sponsor's capacity were consistent with the presumption of capacity (despite misgivings); (2) in any event, the judge came to her conclusions on the genuineness and subsistence of the appellant's marriage (which began with a foreign ceremony in which the sponsor had given her commication via emojis and continued without any romantic relationship) without factoring into that what she had concluded or failed to conclude about capacity.||2021‑05‑21 19:33:20||2021 cases, Capacity to consent to sexual relations cases, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Repatriation cases
|* Anorexia A Mental Health Trust v ER  EWCOP 32 — (1) The parties agreed that ER lacked capacity to make decisions about her anorexia or the litigation, and the judge, having explored her doubts in detail, ultimately came to the same view. (2) It was not in ER's best interests to be forced to accept treatment or inpatient admission, given her renal failure and extreme dislike of eating disorder units and psychiatric hospitals. (3) More support in the community, in particular moving to a supported living placement where she could have dialysis and more support and company, would be in her best interests, and the local authority and CCG were joined as parties and directed to give evidence of proposals for extra support.||2021‑05‑21 10:53:02||2021 cases, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Medical treatment cases
|* Removing all conditions of discharge DA v Central and North West London NHS Foundation Trust  UKUT 101 (AAC) — Judicial summary: "On an application under s.75 by a conditionally discharged restricted patient who has to date been subject to conditions there is nothing intrinsically irrational in removing the conditions while maintaining the liability to recall: R(SH) v MHRT M and R(SC) v MHRT M applied. Nor was there anything irrational in the particular circumstances of this case where the First-tier Tribunal retained liability to recall as a safety net and (though the point was not fully argued) dispensed with the conditions with a view to the patient strengthening his case before a subsequent tribunal. However, the First-tier Tribunal’s reasons failed to meet the legal standard of adequacy, lacking findings as to the likelihood of the appellant becoming unwell and failing to explain why a less restrictive option supported by evidence in some detail from the treating professionals was rejected."||2021‑05‑17 22:29:52||2021 cases, Absolute or conditional discharge cases, Cases, Judgment available offline, Judgment available on Bailii, Upper Tribunal decisions
|* Removal of family member from home A Local Authority v TA  EWCOP 22 — GA was an 87-year-old woman who lacked capacity to make decisions about her residence, health, or care needs owing to severe and deteriorating dementia. Living with her was her son TA (a controlling presence), daughter XA (visiting to assist TA), and son HA (believed to have schizophrenia). The court ordered TA and XA to leave the home, so that GA could receive social and medical care at home and have contact with other members of the family, and authorised GA's deprivation of liberty there. The court also prevented TA from returning within 100 yds, ordered him not to use GA's Motability car and not to publish information on the internet, limited his correspondence with the local authority and Official Solicitor, and made a civil restraint order for a period of two years. Committal proceedings brought by the local authority were to be considered at a future hearing.||2021‑05‑16 08:31:29||2021 cases, Cases, Deprivation of liberty, Judgment available on Bailii, Other capacity cases
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.