R (Ashworth) v MHRT; R (H) v Ashworth [2001] EWHC Admin 901

JR of MHRT discharge: immediate discharge when no aftercare available; decision irrational; reasons inadequate. JR of subsequent re-sectioning: lawful, considering Brandenburg CA decision; legal advice on lawfulness of MHRT decision relevant; stay ineffective when discharge was immediate.

Related cases

See Court of Appeal judgment in this case: R (Ashworth) v MHRT; R (H) v Ashworth [2002] EWCA Civ 923


69. In general, in a case in which after-care is essential, and satisfaction of the discharge criteria depends on the availability of suitable after-care and accommodation, as in H’s case, a tribunal should not direct immediate discharge at a time when no after-care arrangements are in place and there is no time for them to be put in place. The Tribunal should consider whether to exercise its power under section 72(3A) to recommend that the RMO should make a supervision application. If it considers that to be inappropriate (and it should be borne in mind that the previous unwillingness of an RMO to make an application may not persist in the face of the Tribunal’s views) or unnecessary, and there is uncertainty as to the putting in place of the after-care arrangements on which satisfaction of the discharge criteria depends, the tribunal should adjourn pursuant to rule 16 to enable them to be put in place, indicating their views and giving appropriate directions: c.f. Ex parte Hall [2000] 1 WLR 1323Not on Bailii!, per Kennedy LJ at 1352D.

External links