Dangerousness criterion: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
* in [[s3]] cases, by the [[MHRT]] should the nearest relative make an application to the Tribunal having been barred from discharging the patient. | * 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 | 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]] which was applied in [[R (SR) v Huntercombe Maidenhead Hospital (2005) EWHC 2361]]. | ||
Revision as of 21:58, 24 April 2006
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.
- 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 which was applied in R (SR) v Huntercombe Maidenhead Hospital (2005) EWHC 2361.