An online forum is now available: visit the forum to see how it works and get involved.

Special

Drilldown: Resources

So far there are 355 resources in the database. See also: General information and Coronavirus resources.

The relevant pages (and summaries) are displayed at the bottom of this page.

Resources > Date: 2016

Showing below up to 15 results in range #1 to #15.

View (previous 250 | next 250) (20 | 50 | 100 | 250 | 500)

Resource Type Sentence Abstract Date
Alex Ruck Keene et al, Court of Protection Handbook: A User's Guide (2nd edn, LAG 2016) Book

Court of Protection book

2016
Christine Hutchinson and Neil Hickman, Focus on Social Work Law: Mental Health (Palgrave 2016) Book

Mental health law book

2016
Claire Barcham, The Pocketbook Guide to Mental Health Act Assessments (2nd edn, OUP 2016) Book

MHA book

2016
Claire Wills-Goldingham et al, Court of Protection Made Clear (Bath 2016) Book

Court of Protection book

2016
Jonathan Wilson, 'Mental health: update' (Legal Action, April 2016) Journal article

Case law update

Jonathan Wilson looks at decisions on how tribunals should approach unlawfulness, conditional discharge and deprivation of liberty, representatives, withdrawal of tribunal applications, appropriate treatment, guardianship, assessment of risk, and social circumstances reports.

2016-04-01
Law Society, Deprivation of Liberty: Collected Guidance (Law Society, 2016) Book

Book containing deprivation of liberty guidance

2016
Ministry of Justice, 'Transforming our justice system' (consultation from 15/9/16 to 27/10/16) Consultation

The main proposal relevant to the MHT is an amendment (a) providing that a tribunal panel in the First-tier Tribunal is to consist of a single member unless otherwise determined by the Senior President of Tribunals, and (b) removing the existing requirement to consider the arrangements that were in place before the tribunal transferred into the unified system.

Consultation proposals

The following three principles and aims are taken from the first, overview chapter. (1) Proportionate: (a) More use of case officers for routine tasks, (b) More decisions made 'on the papers', (c) More virtual hearings, (d) More cases resolved out of court. (2) Accessible: (a) Putting probate applications online, (b) Managing divorce online, (c) Digitising applications for Lasting Powers of Attorney. (3) Just: (a) Provide a system that works for everyone, (b) Continue to ensure open justice. In relation to LPAs, it states: "Allowing people to make arrangements for a time in the future when they may not be able to make decisions by themselves is a helpful but often emotionally stressful process. Applications have been partially digitised since 2014, resulting in fewer application forms being returned because of errors. We will build on this by making the system fully digital to deliver a quicker service."

Chapters 2-5 relate to Criminal, Civil, Family, and Tribunals. The following are the aims in relation to tribunals: (a) Streamlining procedures and encouraging a balanced approach, (b) Digitising the Social Security and Child Support Tribunal, (c) Simplifying panel composition, (d) Reforming employment tribunals. In relation to panel composition it states: "Another factor in taking a balanced, tailored approach to tribunal cases is making sure the panels that make decisions in tribunals are designed to best suit the circumstances of the case. Most tribunals currently reflect historic arrangements that may be out of date and do not tailor the expertise of the panel according to the case. We propose to revise the current arrangements for setting panel composition to make sure that that appropriate expertise is focussed on those cases that need it. We would welcome views on how best to achieve this – more details are available later in Chapter 7.3."

Chapter 6 states that views are invited on three specific elements: (a) Assisted digital facilities, (b) Online conviction and statutory fixed fine, and (c) Panel composition in the tribunals.

The following are extracts from chapter 7.3: "As we streamline the tribunals system, we need to be more tailored and flexible in the way that non legal members are used. Panel composition will remain a matter for the Senior President of Tribunals (SPT), but we want to move away from a blanket approach of using non-legal members regardless of whether their specialist expertise and knowledge is relevant or required. Instead, they should only be part of the panel where their presence is relevant to the case. ... The terms of the First-tier Tribunal and Upper Tribunal (Composition of Tribunal) Order 2008 allow the SPT to set the composition of tribunal panels in the unified system via Practice Statements. ... Some change has already been introduced by way of revised Practice Statements, and has not been shown to have any negative effects on decisions. ... We therefore propose to amend the First-tier Tribunal and Upper Tribunal (Composition of Tribunal) Order 2008 to give the SPT greater freedom to adopt a more proportionate and flexible approach to panel composition, by: (a) Providing that a tribunal panel in the First-tier Tribunal is to consist of a single member unless otherwise determined by the SPT, and (b) Removing the existing requirement to consider the arrangements that were in place before the tribunal transferred into the unified system. ... The use of multiple panel members in the unified tribunals currently costs the taxpayer around £21m per year in fees alone, with daily fees for each member ranging from £200 - £500, plus additional costs for travel and subsistence, training, appraisal and general administration. By using NLMs in a more tailored, flexible way, we can make sure that more people in the tribunals will benefit from their specialist expertise and knowledge, while delivering better value for the taxpayer."

The questions in chapter 7.3 in relation to the last element are: (a) "Question 7: Do you agree that the SPT should be able to determine panel composition based on the changing needs of people using the tribunal system? Please state your reasons." (b) "Question 8: In order to assist the SPT to make sure that appropriate expertise is provided following the proposed reform, which factors do you think should be considered to determine whether multiple specialists are needed to hear individual cases? Please state your reasons and specify the jurisdictions and/or types of case to which these factors refer."

Government response

In the consultation document it was proposed to amend the First-tier Tribunal and Upper Tribunal (Composition of Tribunal) Order 2008 to give the Senior President of Tribunals (SPT) "greater freedom to adopt a more proportionate and flexible approach to panel composition", by (a) providing that a tribunal panel in the First-tier Tribunal is to consist of a single member unless otherwise determined by the SPT; and (b) removing the existing requirement to consider the arrangements that were in place before the tribunal transferred into the unified system.

Following the consultation, the government will proceed with proposal (b) as the existing requirement is "an unnecessary restriction to the SPT to base decisions on what is the most appropriate and proportionate approach", but will not proceed with proposal (a) because of concerns arising from "the assumption that this will apply in all cases" (although it appears that this concession is not intended to make any difference in practice). To this end, the Order will be amended so that that "the SPT may provide that a panel should consist of one, two or three members, as required, in order to determine the matters before the tribunal justly and fairly". The consultation response envisages that the SPT will consult with both the tribunal judiciary and wider stakeholders before making any changes to panel composition.

Links

2016-09-15
Practice Statement: Delegation of Functions to Registrars, Tribunal Case Workers and Authorised Tribunal Staff on or after 8 July 2016 (7/7/16) Practice Statement

Delegation of tribunal functions

Supersedes Practice Statement: Delegation of Functions to Staff and to Registrars on or after 27 April 2015 [2015] MHLO 36.

2016-07-07
RCPsych and Tribunals Judiciary, 'A Guide to Mental Health Tribunals for Young People' (11/2/16) Tribunal guidance

MHT guidance for young people

This document contains a simplified description of the tribunal process for civil sections.

2016-02-11
Richard Jones, Mental Capacity Act Manual (7th edn, Sweet and Maxwell 2016) Book

MCA book

2016
Richard Jones, Mental Health Act Manual (19th edn, Sweet and Maxwell 2016) Book

MHA book

2016
Robert Brown, The Approved Mental Health Professional's Guide to Mental Health Law (4th edn, Sage 2016) Book

Mental health law book

2016
SRA, 'Ethics guidance: Disclosure of client's confidential information' (5/2/16) Document

This guidance deals with Outcome 4.1 of the SRA Code of Conduct 2011, which is that "you keep the affairs of clients confidential unless disclosure is required or permitted by law or the client consents", to which there are no exceptions (in contrast with the previous SRA Code). The status of this guidance is described as follows: "This advice does not form part of the SRA Handbook and is not mandatory, but the SRA may have regard to it when exercising its regulatory functions. This guidance is intended to highlight that where you disclose client information, your justification for doing so will be taken into consideration for conduct purposes. In some limited circumstances, the justification is likely to result in us deciding to take no regulatory action as a result." Circumstances in which disclosure may be justified for conduct purposes are described under the following headings: (1) Where a client has indicated their intention to commit suicide or serious self harm; (2) Preventing harm to children or vulnerable adults; (3) Preventing the commission of a criminal offence.

2016-02-05
Tony Zigmond and Nick Brindle, A Clinician's Brief Guide to the Mental Health Act (4rd edn, RCPsych Publications 2016) Book

MHA book

2016
Upper Tribunal case summary document (January 2016) Document

This is a document issued to tribunal judges as guidance. The summary of PJ v A Local Health Board [2015] UKUT 480 (AAC), [2015] MHLO 63 (in relation to the tribunal's role when faced with an ECHR breach) effectively rephrases as correct the position found to be unlawful by the Upper Tribunal (whose decision has since been overturned on appeal). The summary of WH v Partnerships in Care [2015] UKUT 695 (AAC), [2015] MHLO 132 (in relation to the appropriate medical treatment test applying to the detaining hospital only) appears to contradict the ratio of the Upper Tribunal decision. See the case law pages for further details.

January 2016

View (previous 250 | next 250) (20 | 50 | 100 | 250 | 500)