R (S) v MHRT (2002) EWHC 2522 (Admin): Difference between revisions
m (Text replacement - "Category:Bias" to "Category:Bias cases") |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Case | |||
|Date=2002/11/27 | |||
= | |NCN=[2002] EWHC 2522 (Admin) | ||
|Court=High Court (Administrative Court) | |||
|Judges=Stanley Burnton | |||
|Parties=S, Mental Health Review Tribunal, Secretary of State for Health, Department of Health | |||
|Sentence=Medical member's role and Article 5 | |||
|Summary=The patient unsuccessfully argued that the requirement in old [[Rule 11]] that a tribunal member "shall examine the patient... to form an opinion of the patient's mental condition" prior to the tribunal hearing, and the medical member's role in proceedings, was incompatible with Article 5(4). The judge concluded that "[i]f an otherwise impartial and independent member of a tribunal has a preconceived concluded opinion, or if he expresses himself in such a way as to give rise to reasonable apprehension that he has a preconceived concluded opinion, he lacks the necessary impartiality, but not otherwise." | |||
[[ | |Subject=Bias cases | ||
|News=No | |||
|RSS pubdate=2022-2-9 11:42:05 AM | |||
}} | |||
Latest revision as of 11:42, 9 February 2022
Medical member's role and Article 5 The patient unsuccessfully argued that the requirement in old Rule 11 that a tribunal member "shall examine the patient... to form an opinion of the patient's mental condition" prior to the tribunal hearing, and the medical member's role in proceedings, was incompatible with Article 5(4). The judge concluded that "[i]f an otherwise impartial and independent member of a tribunal has a preconceived concluded opinion, or if he expresses himself in such a way as to give rise to reasonable apprehension that he has a preconceived concluded opinion, he lacks the necessary impartiality, but not otherwise."
The following categories (in blue boxes) can be clicked to view a list of other pages in the same category: