R v Chiles [2012] EWCA Crim 196, [2012] MHLO 10

The judge should not have should not have taken into account her concerns about the future of the NHS (she had said, 'I cannot be confident in the current fluctuating state of the NHS that the security that the public needs to be protected from you will be ensured unless there is an another government department which has input into the issue of your release and that is what I will achieve by the section 41 order') but there was ample material to justify the conclusion that a restriction order was necessary for the protection of the public from serious harm.

External links

Possible Bailii link (not there when checked last night, but might have appeared since)