R (Z) v Camden and Islington NHS Foundation Trust [2013] EWCA Civ 1425, [2013] MHLO 100
Unsuccessful challenge to (1) detention under s2 (a subsequent tribunal decision to discharge was consistent with a lawful initial detention) and (2) decision not to hold hospital managers' hearing (it was reasonable to wait a few days for the tribunal).
Related judgments
R (Z) v Camden and Islington NHS Foundation Trust [2013] EWCA Civ 1425, [2013] MHLO 100
Transcript
Case No: C1/2013/0326
Neutral Citation Number: [2013] EWCA Civ 1425
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
(MS GERALDINE ANDREWS QC)
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Date: 17 October 2013
Before:
LORD JUSTICE SULLIVAN
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Between:
THE QUEEN ON THE APPLICATION OF Z
Applicant
- and -
CAMDEN AND ISLINGTON NHS FOUNDATION TRUST( SUED AS THE
WHITTINGTON HOSPITAL) & ANR Respondent
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
(DAR Transcript of
WordWave International Limited
A Merrill Communications Company
165 Fleet Street, London EC4A 2DY
Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7831 8838
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The Applicant appeared in person
The Respondent did not appear and was not represented
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Judgment
(As Approved by the Court)
Crown Copyright
Lord Justice Sullivan:
1. This is a renewed application for permission to appeal against the order
dated 4 February 2013 of Geraldine Andrews QC, sitting as a Deputy High Court
Judge, refusing the claimant's application for permission to apply for judicial
review of a decision to section her under section 2 of the Mental Health Act
following the birth of her baby. She was sectioned on 6 March 2012, but after a
hearing before the Mental Health Review Tribunal on 20 March 2012 she was
released.
2. The claimant's basic submission is that she was not suffering from a
mental disorder of any kind, and she says that she has the evidence to
demonstrate that. The difficulty she faces in judicial review proceedings is
that, as I have sought to explain, they are not an opportunity to argue about
the merits of the decision. They are simply an opportunity to contend that the
decision was unlawful. In support of her contention that she was not suffering
from a mental disorder, the claimant points to the first ground for the
tribunal's decision, which says:
"The tribunal is not satisfied that the patient is suffering from mental
disorder or from mental disorder of a nature or degree which warrants the
patient's detention in a hospital for assessment (or for assessment followed by
medical treatment) for at least a limited period."
She submits that in the light of that finding that she was not suffering from
mental disorder. It simply was not open to the doctors on 6 March to have
concluded that she was.
3. The difficulty with that submission is that fails to read the tribunal's
decision as a whole. If one does so, it is perfectly clear that the tribunal
was not saying that she was not suffering from a mental disorder. It was saying
that she was not suffering from a mental disorder of a nature or degree which
warranted continued detention. Moreover, the tribunal expressly stated in
respect of the original detention on 6 March:
"We fully understand why, given [the claimant's] history and apparent
presentation on 6th March, s.2 was considered appropriate. Given the history of
psychosis, the residual delusional beliefs and the risk of post-partum
psychosis, the decision to place her on section cannot be criticised."
4. In the light of that conclusion, there is simply no prospect whatsoever
of the claimant being able to establish that the doctors' decision of 6 March to
section her was unlawful. The tribunal was able to reach a different conclusion
(a) because it had more evidence before it and (b) because it had the benefit of
hindsight, and in particular information as to whether there had been any
deterioration in the claimant's condition. It is not in the least uncommon for
a patient to be sectioned and for it then to be concluded at the tribunal stage
that detention is unnecessary, either because the patient does not suffer from
any mental disorder at all or because the disorder is not of such a degree as to
warrant their detention either in their own interests or in the interests of
someone else. That is the whole purpose of the tribunal process. It is able to
examine matters with the benefit of more evidence, a fuller investigation,
moreover an investigation with the benefit of a degree of hindsight that those
carrying out the initial section process will not have had.
5. So, for those short reasons, it seems to me that the principal ground of
challenge is fairly described as being wholly without any legal (I emphasise
legal) merit.
6. There was a further point raised: that is to say, the claimant's husband
had asked for her case to be reviewed. There was a challenge to the lawfulness
of the decision not to review, but again that challenge has no prospect
whatsoever of succeeding, because as I have mentioned the review hearing was due
to take place on 20 March, and it was eminently reasonable, rather than
reviewing the case, to say we will wait for the tribunal hearing, which by that
stage was a matter of a few days away.
7. So, for those short reasons, this renewed application for permission to
appeal against the Deputy Judge's decision to refuse permission to apply for
judicial review must be dismissed.
External link
Possible Bailii link (not there when checked last night, but might have appeared since)