R (SR) v MHRT (2005) EWHC 2923 (Admin): Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
(headnote) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
MHRT application made when under | MHRT application made when under [[s3]] falls when subsequently made subject to [[s25A]]; fresh application required. | ||
== Facts == | == Facts == | ||
SR applied to MHRT when detained under section 3. The | 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 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 == | == 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. (Feel free to read that part of the judgment in detail and summarise it.) | |||
* 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. | Claim dismissed. | ||
== Other == | |||
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 | |||
== External links == | == External links == | ||
[http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2005/2923.html Bailii] | [http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2005/2923.html Bailii] | ||
__NOTOC__ | |||
Revision as of 19:33, 20 April 2006
MHRT application made when under s3 falls when 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 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. (Feel free to read that part of the judgment in detail and summarise it.)
- 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
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
External links