November 2008 update: Difference between revisions

(New page: ==November 2008 summary== The following materials were added during November 2008. NB This is a work in progress: until the end of November please see Update. ===Bookshop=== *Amazon...)
 
No edit summary
Line 8: Line 8:
*Amazon [http://www.wikimentalhealth.co.uk/books/ Bookshop] (with selected mental health law books) added, and some links to recommended books added to articles.
*Amazon [http://www.wikimentalhealth.co.uk/books/ Bookshop] (with selected mental health law books) added, and some links to recommended books added to articles.


===New cases===
===Changes made on 3/11/08===
*{{pagesummary|R (IT) v SSJ (2008) EWHC 1707}}
*The majority of changes made by the [[Mental Health Act 2007]] took effect on 3/11/08. See [[Mental Health Act 2007 Overview]] for details of the amendments.
*{{pagesummary|RD v SSWP (2008) EWHC 2635 (Admin)}}
*The changes to the [[Mental Health Review Tribunal]] by the [[Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007]] also took effect on 3/11/08
*{{pagesummary|R (RJM) v SSWP (2008) UKHL 63}}
*The only MHA 2007 changes outstanding are:
*{{pagesummary|R (N) v Coventry City Council (2008) EWHC 2786 (Admin)}}
:*{{mha change|IMHA}}
*{{pagesummary|Renolde v France 5608/05 (2008) ECHR 1085}}
:*{{mha change|age appropriate}}
===Old cases added===
:*{{mha change|DOLS}}
*{{pagesummary|DN v Switzerland 27154/95 (2001) ECHR 235}}
:*{{mha change|organisation}} - some changes have been made but the rest have been overtaken by the TCEA 2007
*{{pagesummary|McGrady, Re Application for Judicial Review (2003) NIQB 15}}
*The following documents have been updated and/or issued (usually separately for England and Wales, in an enormous duplication of effort):
*{{pagesummary|Bensaid v UK 44599/98 (2001) ECHR 82}}
:*[[Mental Health Act 1983 Codes of Practice]]
*{{pagesummary|R (SSG) v Liverpool City Council (2002) EWHC 2803 (Admin)}}
:*[[Mental Health Regulations]] and various other items of [[Mental Health Act 2007 Overview#Secondary legislation - England |secondary legislation]]
*{{pagesummary|Stec v UK 65731/01 (2006) ECHR 393}}
:*[[Mental Health Act 1983 Statutory Forms]]
*{{pagesummary|Stec v UK 65731/01 (2005) ECHR 924}}
:*[[Reference Guide to the Mental Health Act 1983]]
===Transcripts now available===
:*[[Mental Health Act 1983 information leaflets]]
*{{pagesummary|LLBC v TG (2007) EWHC 2640 (Fam)}}
:*[[Mental Health Act Commission]] Guidance Notes and forms.
*{{pagesummary|R (B) v London Borough of Camden (2006) EWCA Civ 246}}
*Some secondary legislation under the [[Mental Capacity Act 2005]] also came into force... See [[Mental Capacity Act 2005 Overview#Deprivation of Liberty]]
*{{pagesummary|R (Care Principles Ltd) v MHRT; R (AL) v Care Principles Ltd (2006) EWHC 3194 (Admin)}}
 
*{{pagesummary|R (O) v MHRT (2006) EWHC 2659 (Admin)}}
*{{pagesummary|R (T) v Nottinghamshire Healthcare NHS Trust (2006) EWHC 800 (Admin)}}
*{{pagesummary|R (SSHD) v MHRT, re BR (2005) EWCA Civ 1616}}
===Primary legislation added (new and old)===
===Primary legislation added (new and old)===
*{{pagesummary|UK Borders Act 2007}}
*{{pagesummary|UK Borders Act 2007}}
Line 45: Line 42:
*{{pagesummary|Mental Health Act 2007 (Commencement No. 9) Order 2008}}
*{{pagesummary|Mental Health Act 2007 (Commencement No. 9) Order 2008}}
*{{pagesummary|Social Security (Hospital In-Patients) Regulations 2005}}
*{{pagesummary|Social Security (Hospital In-Patients) Regulations 2005}}
===Changes made on 3/11/08===
*The majority of changes made by the [[Mental Health Act 2007]] took effect on 3/11/08. See [[Mental Health Act 2007 Overview]] for details of the amendments.
*The changes to the [[Mental Health Review Tribunal]] by the [[Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007]] also took effect on 3/11/08
*The only MHA 2007 changes outstanding are:
:*{{mha change|IMHA}}
:*{{mha change|age appropriate}}
:*{{mha change|DOLS}}
:*{{mha change|organisation}} - some changes have been made but the rest have been overtaken by the TCEA 2007
*The following documents have been updated and/or issued (usually separately for England and Wales, in an enormous duplication of effort):
:*[[Mental Health Act 1983 Codes of Practice]]
:*[[Mental Health Regulations]] and various other items of [[Mental Health Act 2007 Overview#Secondary legislation - England |secondary legislation]]
:*[[Mental Health Act 1983 Statutory Forms]]
:*[[Reference Guide to the Mental Health Act 1983]]
:*[[Mental Health Act 1983 information leaflets]]
:*[[Mental Health Act Commission]] Guidance Notes and forms.
*Some secondary legislation under the [[Mental Capacity Act 2005]] also came into force... See [[Mental Capacity Act 2005 Overview#Deprivation of Liberty]]
===Other documents===
===Other documents===
*Second edition of DH's Mental Capacity Act 2005 [[Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards]] newsletter
*Second edition of DH's Mental Capacity Act 2005 [[Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards]] newsletter
Line 70: Line 50:
*Frequently Asked Questions about the Mental Health Act 2007 published by DH... See [[Mental Health Act 2007 Overview#Resources]]
*Frequently Asked Questions about the Mental Health Act 2007 published by DH... See [[Mental Health Act 2007 Overview#Resources]]


===New cases===
*{{pagesummary|R (IT) v SSJ (2008) EWHC 1707}}
*{{pagesummary|RD v SSWP (2008) EWHC 2635 (Admin)}}
*{{pagesummary|R (RJM) v SSWP (2008) UKHL 63}}
*{{pagesummary|R (N) v Coventry City Council (2008) EWHC 2786 (Admin)}}
*{{pagesummary|Renolde v France 5608/05 (2008) ECHR 1085}}
*{{pagesummary|R (F) v SSJ (2008) EWHC 2912 (Admin)}}
===Old cases added===
*{{pagesummary|DN v Switzerland 27154/95 (2001) ECHR 235}}
*{{pagesummary|McGrady, Re Application for Judicial Review (2003) NIQB 15}}
*{{pagesummary|Bensaid v UK 44599/98 (2001) ECHR 82}}
*{{pagesummary|R (SSG) v Liverpool City Council (2002) EWHC 2803 (Admin)}}
*{{pagesummary|Stec v UK 65731/01 (2006) ECHR 393}}
*{{pagesummary|Stec v UK 65731/01 (2005) ECHR 924}}
*{{pagesummary|Morley v UK 16084/03 (2004)}}
*{{‎pagesummary|Morsink v The Netherlands 48865/99 (2004) ECHR 197}}
*{{‎pagesummary|Brand v The Netherlands 49902/99 (2004) ECHR 196}}
*{{‎pagesummary|‎Edwards v UK 46477/99 (2002) ECHR 303}}
*{{‎pagesummary|‎Rutten v The Netherlands 32605/96 (2001) ECHR 482}}
===Transcripts now available===
*{{pagesummary|LLBC v TG (2007) EWHC 2640 (Fam)}}
*{{pagesummary|R (B) v London Borough of Camden (2006) EWCA Civ 246}}
*{{pagesummary|R (Care Principles Ltd) v MHRT; R (AL) v Care Principles Ltd (2006) EWHC 3194 (Admin)}}
*{{pagesummary|R (O) v MHRT (2006) EWHC 2659 (Admin)}}
*{{pagesummary|R (T) v Nottinghamshire Healthcare NHS Trust (2006) EWHC 800 (Admin)}}
*{{pagesummary|R (SSHD) v MHRT, re BR (2005) EWCA Civ 1616}}
===Website information===
===Website information===
*Each [[Mental Health Act 1983]] section now has a link to the relevant chapters of the [[Reference Guide to the Mental Health Act 1983]] and [[Mental Health Act 1983 Code Of Practice for England]]
*Each [[Mental Health Act 1983]] section now has a link to the relevant chapters of the [[Reference Guide to the Mental Health Act 1983]] and [[Mental Health Act 1983 Code Of Practice for England]]

Revision as of 10:19, 29 November 2008

November 2008 summary

The following materials were added during November 2008.

NB This is a work in progress: until the end of November please see Update.

Bookshop

  • Amazon Bookshop (with selected mental health law books) added, and some links to recommended books added to articles.

Changes made on 3/11/08

  • The following documents have been updated and/or issued (usually separately for England and Wales, in an enormous duplication of effort):

Primary legislation added (new and old)

From 25/11/08, s1 of this Act inserts s64L, which applies MHA 1983 s35, into the Family Law Act 1996.

LEGISLATION DATABASE

Full text: Legislation.gov.uk

Type: UK Public General Act🔍

Year: 2007🔍

Number: 20

Subject: Legislation amending MHA 1983🔍

What links here:

 §

When in force, this Act amends the MHA 1983, mainly by replacing references to "counsel" and "solicitor" with "authorised person" (and defining that term).

Amendments

Sch 21 paras 53-60 amend s35, s36, s38, s52, s54, s55 and s78. The changes replace references to "counsel" and "solicitor" with "authorised person" and define that type of person as "a person who, for the purposes of the Legal Services Act 2007, is an authorised person in relation to an activity which constitutes the exercise of a right of audience (within the meaning of that Act".

LEGISLATION DATABASE

Full text: Legislation.gov.uk

Type: UK Public General Act🔍

Year: 2007🔍

Number: 29

Subject: Legislation amending MHA 1983🔍

What links here:

 §

Secondary legislation etc - Tribunal

Secondary legislation - Other

Other documents

New cases

  • R (IT) v SSJ (2008) EWHC 1707 — Click on link to view page.§
  • RD v SSWP [2008] EWHC 2635 (Admin) — Click on link to view page.§
  • R (RJM) v SSWP [2008] UKHL 63Social welfare payments come within the scope of Article 1 Protocol 1; homelessness is an "other status" under Article 14; depriving the homeless of disability premiums was justified; the Court of Appeal is free (but not obliged) to follow an ECtHR decision rather than a previous inconsistent CA decision, but (absent wholly exceptional circumstances) must follow any previous House of Lords decision.§
  • R (N) v Coventry City Council [2008] EWHC 2786 (Admin) — "This case concerns the assessment by Coventry City Council of the claimant's needs under section 47 of the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 and its decision to refuse him support under section 21 of the National Assistance Act 1948. It turns, in particular, on the meaning of "care and attention" in section 21, as interpreted by the House of Lords recently, and the ambit of Article 3 ECHR in the context of community care legislation." (para 1)§
  • Renolde v France 5608/05 [2008] ECHR 1085The authorities failed to comply with their positive obligation to protect the detainee's right to life, in violation of Article 2, partly because they did not monitor his compliance with anti-psychotic medication. A penalty of 45 days' detention in a punishment cell breached Article 3 (inhuman and degrading treatment and punishment).§
  • R (F) v SSJ [2008] EWHC 2912 (Admin)The medical opinions were based on old assessments and were at best ambigious as to the treatability test; so the decision to transfer under s47 MHA 1983 was Wednesbury unreasonable, and the subsequent detention was unlawful under domestic law and Article 5; (obiter) the decision would not have been ultra vires; based on subsequent reports, the decision would not be quashed, as if the defendant had sough to clarify the medical opinions the decision would have been lawful. [Caution.]§

Old cases added

  • DN v Switzerland 27154/95 [2001] ECHR 235The psychiatrist who sat as judge rapporteur on the Administrative Appeals Commission had, before the hearing, concluded that the patient should not be released; the patient had legitimate fears that the doctor had a preconceived opinion and was not acting impartially; this was reinforced because he was sole the psychiatric expert and the only person who had interviewed her; Article 5(4) having been breached, damages and costs were awarded§
  • McGrady, Re Application for Judicial Review [2003] NIQB 15(1) The ability to disclose material to the representative on condition that it was not revealed to the patient was compatible with the Convention (obiter, since no decision had been taken on this yet). (2) The medical member's role is to form a provisional view on the patient's mental condition, rather than on the statutory criteria, and he discloses his conclusion during the hearing; if this approach is taken then there is no violation of Article 5(4), DN v Switzerland 27154/95 [2001] ECHR 235 distinguished.§
  • Bensaid v UK 44599/98 [2001] ECHR 82 — The deportation to Algeria of a patient suffering from schizophrenia did not breach Articles 3, 8 or 13
  • R (SSG) v Liverpool City Council [2002] EWHC 2803 (Admin) — Click on link to view page.§
  • Stec v UK 65731/01 [2006] ECHR 393 — Judgment of Grand Chamber. State benefits, Article 1 of Protocol No 1 & Article 14
  • Stec v UK 65731/01 [2005] ECHR 924 — Admissibility decision. State benefits, Article 1 of Protocol No 1 & Article 14
  • Morley v UK 16084/03 (2004) — Click on link to view page.§
  • Morsink v The Netherlands 48865/99 [2004] ECHR 197Transfer from prison to a clinic was delayed for over 15 months; immediate transfer was not expected but, on the facts, the delay breached Article 5(1) and damages were awarded.§
  • Brand v The Netherlands 49902/99 [2004] ECHR 196Transfer from prison to a clinic was delayed for 14 months; immediate transfer was not expected but, on the facts, the delay breached Article 5(1) and damages were awarded.§
  • ‎Edwards v UK 46477/99 [2002] ECHR 303Christopher Edwards was killed by a prison cellmate, Richard Linford; both suffered from schizophrenia. (1) The duty under Article 2 to protect life could extend to taking preventive operational measures to protect an individual against criminal acts of another, where the authorities knew (or ought to have known) of a real and immediate risk to the life of an identified individual. Information was available identifying Linford as posing such a risk. The failure to pass on this information, and the inadequate screening of Linford, amounted to a breach of Article 2. (2) No inquest was held, and the trial did not involve witness evidence. The private inquiry which was held (a) had no power to compel witnesses, and (b) was held in private, with the parents unable to participate to the extent necessary to safeguard their interests: Article 2 was breached in this respect. (3) There was no appropriate domestic means of determining whether the authorities failed to protect the right to life or of obtaining compensation, so Article 13 (effective remedy) was breached.§
  • ‎Rutten v The Netherlands 32605/96 [2001] ECHR 482The decision to renew the patient's confinement order was taken after the order had expired, but under domestic law there was nothing requiring release in these circumstances; under Convention law the detention was not arbitrary, being based on a court order and expert evidence, so there was no violation of Article 5(1); however, the lawfulness of detention was not decided speedily, so there was a violation of Article 4(4); this finding constituted just satisfaction.§

Transcripts now available

Website information

  • Legal Aid page updated (NB there is still a lot of work to do on this page)
  • New pages added for
  • New categories created: