R (SR) v MHRT (2005) EWHC 2923 (Admin): Difference between revisions

Latest revision as of 20:35, 27 November 2021

Change of status - s3 to s25A MHRT application appealing against s3 falls when patient subsequently made subject to s25A; fresh application required.

Facts

SR applied to MHRT when detained under section 3. The evening before the hearing he was placed under section 25A.

The MHRT cancelled the hearing, stating that, because of SR's changed status, it no longer had jurisdiction to hear the case.

SR contended that the hearing should go ahead, relying upon R (M) v South Thames MHRT [1997] EWHC Admin 797 in which Collins J held that an application made under s2 ought to be heard when the patient had subsequently been placed under s3.

The Regional Chairman replied, stating that the issues and discharge criteria involved with s25A were not sufficiently similar to those with s3 (in contrast with the similarity between s2 and s3).

Decision

The Tribunal was right to cancel the hearing, and a separate application would be required to challenge the s25A:

The correct interpretation of the provisions of the Act meant that the Tribunal had taken the correct approach.
M could be distinguished since s72(1) treats s2 and s3 applications as being of the same kind, whereas a separate subsection s72(4A) applies to s25A.
Lastly, this judgment is consistent with the statutory guidance (i.e. the supplement to the Code of Practice).

Claim dismissed.

Other

This decision was not followed in AD'A v Cornwall Partnership NHS Foundation Trust [2020] UKUT 110 (AAC).

See MHA 1983 s25A for more information on supervised discharge.

Judge: Stanley Burnton J

Fenella Morris (instructed by Hodge Jones & Allen) for the Claimant

Charles Bourne (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) for the Defendant

CASES DATABASE

Full judgment: BAILII

Subject(s):

Change of status cases🔍

Date: 14/12/05🔍

Court: High Court (Administrative Court)🔍

Cited by:

AD'A v Cornwall Partnership NHS Foundation Trust [2020] UKUT 110 (AAC)

Judge(s):

Stanley Burnton🔍

Parties:

SR🔍
Mental Health Review Tribunal🔍

Citation number(s):

[2005] EWHC 2923 (Admin)^B

What links here:

Published: 19/4/06 19:00

Cached: 2025-06-22 16:56:34

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-MHRT application made when under section 3 falls once discharged under section 25a.
+{{Case
+|Date=2005/12/14
+|NCN=[2005] EWHC 2923 (Admin)
+|Court=High Court (Administrative Court)
+|Judges=Stanley Burnton
+|Parties=SR, Mental Health Review Tribunal
+|Sentence=Change of status - s3 to s25A
+|Summary=MHRT application appealing against [[s3]] falls when patient subsequently made subject to [[s25A]]; fresh application required.
+|Detail=== Facts ==
+SR applied to MHRT when detained under section 3. The evening before the hearing he was placed under section 25A.
-== Facts ==
+The MHRT cancelled the hearing, stating that, because of SR's changed status, it no longer had jurisdiction to hear the case.
-SR applied to MHRT when detained under section 3. The Tribunal hearing was cancelled once she was discharged under s25a. SR argued that the hearing should go ahead.
+SR contended that the hearing should go ahead, relying upon [[R (M) v South Thames MHRT (1997) EWHC Admin 797]] in which Collins J held that an application made under [[s2]] ought to be heard when the patient had subsequently been placed under s3.
+The Regional Chairman replied, stating that the issues and discharge criteria involved with s25A were not sufficiently similar to those with s3 (in contrast with the similarity between s2 and s3).
 == Decision ==
+The Tribunal was right to cancel the hearing, and a separate application would be required to challenge the s25A:
+* The correct interpretation of the provisions of the Act meant that the Tribunal had taken the correct approach.
+* M could be distinguished since [[s72]](1) treats s2 and s3 applications as being of the same kind, whereas a separate subsection s72(4A) applies to s25A.
+* Lastly, this judgment is consistent with the statutory guidance (i.e. the supplement to the Code of Practice).
 Claim dismissed.
-== External links ==
+== Other ==
+This decision was not followed in [[AD'A v Cornwall Partnership NHS Foundation Trust (2020) UKUT 110 (AAC)]].
+See [[MHA 1983 s25A]] for more information on supervised discharge.
+Judge: Stanley Burnton J
+Fenella Morris (instructed by Hodge Jones & Allen) for the Claimant
-[http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2005/2923.html Bailii]
+Charles Bourne (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) for the Defendant
+|Subject=Change of status cases
+|News=No
+|RSS pubdate=2020/04/12 09:50:03 PM
+}}