MM v WL Clinic (2016) UKUT 37 (AAC): Difference between revisions
(Created page with "''Charles J refused permission to appeal his earlier decision (the main point of which was that, for the purposes of Article 5, a restricted patient with the capacity to do so...") |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
{{bailii|(2016) UKUT 37 (AAC)}} | {{bailii|(2016) UKUT 37 (AAC)}} | ||
[[Media:MM Court of Appeal permission granted 9 Mar 2016.pdf|Court of Appeal grant of permission]]. On 9/3/16 the Court of Appeal granted permission because "[T]he appeal raises important points of principle which ought to be considered by this court and on which there is a real prospect of success" and directed that the hearing of the appeal be expedited. | |||
[[Category:Upper Tribunal decisions]] | [[Category:Upper Tribunal decisions]] | ||
Revision as of 15:36, 12 March 2016
Charles J refused permission to appeal his earlier decision (the main point of which was that, for the purposes of Article 5, a restricted patient with the capacity to do so can give a valid and effective consent to conditions of a conditional discharge that when implemented will, on an objective assessment, create a deprivation of liberty). The Secretary of State can seek permission from the Court of Appeal.
Related judgments
External link
OSSCSC. Judgment.
...
Court of Appeal grant of permission. On 9/3/16 the Court of Appeal granted permission because "[T]he appeal raises important points of principle which ought to be considered by this court and on which there is a real prospect of success" and directed that the hearing of the appeal be expedited.
The following categories (in blue boxes) can be clicked to view a list of other pages in the same category: