Sign up for MHLO on the Subscriptions page: you can sign up for free email updates, the email discussion list, the online forum and the CPD scheme (which provides 12 hours for £60 and is suitable for lawyers and non-lawyers).

Online forum | Latest topic on forum: Section 29 displacement - reinterview/reassessment needed?

R (Gisagara) v Upper Tribunal [2021] EWHC 300 (Admin) [2021] EWHC 300 (Admin)

Timing of CTO discharge The RC's evidence to the MHT was that the CTO criteria were met, and that a CTO was an "essential precondition" to discharge as otherwise the patient would not accept medication; she had granted s17 leave while the CTO was being arranged. When the MHT did not discharge him from s3, the patient argued that: (a) the discharge criteria mirror the admission criteria, s3(2)(c) requires detention, and the tribunal had failed to determine whether he was detained or merely liable to be detained; (b) the CTO criteria are incompatible with the detention criteria. In this application for permission to judicially review the Upper Tribunal's refusal of permission to appeal, the Administrative Court decided that: (a) in relation to the principle that the discharge criteria mirror the admission criteria, there was no conflict of authority (the Court of Appeal had repeatedly agreed with the House of Lords on this despite the CA decision to the contrary never having been overruled) so there was no important point of principle; (b) neither was there an arguable case. Permission was therefore refused.


Full judgment: BAILII


Date: 16/2/21🔍

Court: High Court (Administrative Court)🔍



  • R🔍
  • Sam Gisagara🔍
  • Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber)🔍
  • Camden and Islington NHS Foundation Trust🔍

Citation number(s):

What links here:
  • No pages link to this page

Published: 18/2/21 00:13

Cached: 2021-07-31 21:54:15