Dangerousness criterion: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 12:11, 22 April 2006

Whether the patient, if released/discharged, would be likely to act in a manner dangerous to himself or other persons.

Considered by:

in s3 cases, by the MHRT should the nearest relative make an application to the Tribunal having been barred from discharging the patient.

In the first and third cases, if the criterion is not met, the patient must be discharged. In the second case the managers retain the discretion not to discharge in exceptional circumstances: see R (Huzzey) v Riverside MH Trust [1998] EWHC 465 (Admin) which was applied in R (SR) v Huntercombe Maidenhead Hospital [2005] EWHC 2361 (Admin).

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 Whether the patient, if released/discharged, would be likely to act in a manner dangerous to himself or other persons.
-Considered by the [[RMO]] after the [[nearest relative]] has requested discharge; by the [[hospital managers]] should the RMO issue a [[barring order]]; and, in [[s3]] cases, by the [[MHRT]] should the nearest relative make an application to the Tribunal having been barred from discharging the patient.
+Considered by:
+* the [[RMO]] after the [[nearest relative]] has requested discharge.
+* the [[hospital managers]] should the RMO then issue a [[barring order]].
+* in [[s3]] cases, by the [[MHRT]] should the nearest relative make an application to the Tribunal having been barred from discharging the patient.
+In the first and third cases, if the criterion is not met, the patient must be discharged. In the second case the managers retain the discretion not to discharge in exceptional circumstances: see [[R (Huzzey) v Riverside MH Trust (1998) EWHC 465 (Admin)]] which was applied in [[R (SR) v Huntercombe Maidenhead Hospital (2005) EWHC 2361 (Admin)]].