Category:Discharge conditions cases
The pages below are initially ordered according to the dates on which they were added to the site (most recent first). The order can be changed by clicking on the symbol beside a column heading: click on the symbol beside "Page and summary" for alphabetical order; click beside "Categories" for the order in which the cases were reported. Click on the arrow symbol again to reverse the order. Click on a page name to view the relevant page.
| Page and summary | Date added to site | Categories |
|---|---|---|
| Re E [2020] MHLO 52 (FTT) — {{Case
|Date=2020-09-09 |Court=First-tier Tribunal |Parties=E |Sentence=Condition removed from conditional discharge |Summary=The tribunal added a condition to the written reasons which was not stated at the hearing: "Abide by the rules applicable to such accommodation in particular to sleep there every night and not to have overnight guests." There had been a clear error of law and the condition was removed: (a) the tribunal had failed to address in its decision why it had made the conditions it made; (b) it was required to provide a brief explanation; (c) it was also required to announce the conditions that the patient was subject to in exact terms, which was crucial given that the patient was being conditionally discharged immediately. [First-tier Tribunal decisions are useful but not binding.] |Detail===Thanks== Thanks to Karen Wolton (Wolton & Co Solicitors) for providing the decision. | 2020-10-20 | 2020 cases, Cases, Discharge conditions cases, First-tier Tribunal decisions, Judgment available on MHLO, Neutral citation unknown or not applicable, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Transcript |
| Birmingham City Council v SR [2019] EWCOP 28 — {{Case
|Date=2019/07/17 |NCN=[2019] EWCOP 28M |Essex issue=96 |Essex page=27 |Other citations=(2019) 22 CCL Rep 326, [2020] 3 All ER 438, (2020) 172 BMLR 173, [2019] Med LR 510, [2020] COPLR 62 |Court=Court of Protection |Judges=Lieven |Parties=Birmingham City Council, SR, Lancashire County Council, JTA |Cites=SSJ v MM [2018] UKSC 60 |Sentence=Deprivation of liberty during conditional discharge |Summary=(1) Both patients supported but lacked capacity in relation to the proposed care plans, which involved deprivation of liberty concurrently with a conditional discharge, and those plans were in their best interests. (2) Obiter, the division in the MOJ's post-MM guidance (MCA DOL for incapacitous patients whose risk is to themselves, but MHA s17 leave for incapacitous patients whose risk is to others and for capacitous patients) did not withstand scrutiny as it is in patients' best interests to be kept "out of mischief" and therefore out of psychiatric hospital. |Detail===Note== The two cases in this judgment were (1) Birmingham City Council v SR and (2) Lancashire County Council v JTA, so sometimes this judgment gets called SR/JTA. | 2020-10-17 | 2019 cases, Cases, Deprivation of liberty, Discharge conditions cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function |
| MC v Cygnet Behavioural Health Ltd [2020] UKUT 230 (AAC) —
Conditional discharge and DOL (1) Although, following MM, the First-tier Tribunal has no power to impose conditions which would amount to a deprivation of liberty, it does have the power to coordinate its decision with the provision of an authorisation under the MCA, either by "the different hats approach" (the same judge sitting in the COP and the FTT) or "the ducks in a row approach" (adjournment or deferred conditional discharge). (2) This involves no Article 14 discrimination in favour of incapacitous restricted patients as, under SSJ guidance, the equivalent outcome can be reached for capacitous patients by using s17 leave. (3) The FTT had misunderstood the MM decision and had been wrong to refuse to defer conditional discharge for a standard authorisation to be put in place. (4) The UT discharged the patient subject to conditions of residence, supervision and compliance with "all aspects of the care package" ..→ | 2020-07-24 | 2020 cases, Cases, Deprivation of liberty, Discharge conditions cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Judgment available on MHLO, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Transcript, Upper Tribunal decisions |
| RP v Dudley and Walsall Mental Health Partnership NHS Trust [2016] UKUT 204 (AAC) — | 2016-05-09 | 2016 cases, Cases, Discharge conditions cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Upper Tribunal decisions |
| SSJ v RB [2011] EWCA Civ 1608 — The Mental Health Tribunal may not grant a conditional discharge in circumstances where the conditions would inevitably lead to an Article 5 deprivation of liberty. Postscript: see PJ v A Local Health Board [2015] UKUT 480 (AAC). | 2011-12-31 | 2011 cases, Brief summary, Deprivation of liberty, Discharge conditions cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Transcript |
| Re T (A child: murdered parent) [2011] EWHC B4 (Fam) — B killed his girlfriend, then spent four years as a restricted hospital order patient and a year as a conditionally-discharged patient (with exclusion-zone and no-contact conditions); he now applied for a contact order in respect of their daughter T. (1) There is no presumption that a parent who has murdered the other parent should have no contact with their child; however, having regard to the welfare checklist and other factors, there should be no contact of any kind between B and T. (2) An order under s91(14) Children Act 1989 (preventing further applications by B without leave) was made until T reaches 16 years of age. (3) The family court has no power to vary the conditions of a conditional discharge; however, the court is not constrained by the conditions when making orders; if the order would put the patient in breach of conditions then it should invite the Secretary of State to indicate to what extent he is prepared to vary them. (4) Since the only sanction for breach of ..→ | 2011-03-21 | 2011 cases, Brief summary, Discharge conditions cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Transcript |
| SSJ v RB [2010] UKUT 454 (AAC) — (1) The Tribunal may conditionally discharge with conditions which amount to a regime of detention (deprivation of liberty) to any establishment which is not defined as a 'hospital'. [Caution.] (2) The Upper Tribunal will follow High Court decisions unless it is convinced they are wrong, but where highly specialised issues arise the UT may feel less inhibited than the High Court in revisiting the issues. | 2011-01-13 | 2010 cases, Deprivation of liberty, Detailed summary, Discharge conditions cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Transcript, Upper Tribunal decisions |
| R (RB) v First-tier Tribunal (Review) [2010] UKUT 160 (AAC) — RB was conditionally discharged with a condition that he should not leave a care home without an escort; the MoJ sought a review on the basis that the condition constituted a deprivation of liberty and there was therefore no lawful discharge; the Regional Tribunal Judge set aside the conditional discharge, remitted the case to the First-tier Tribunal, and refused permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal. (1) It is only appropriate for the First-tier Tribunal to exercise its set-aside powers where there has been a clear error of law; where the legal points are contentious the case should be allowed to proceed to the Upper Tribunal. (2) The RTJ's decisions were quashed/set aside, and permission was given to the MoJ to appeal against the conditional discharge. | 2010-06-09 | 2010 cases, Detailed summary, Discharge conditions cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Transcript, Upper Tribunal decisions |
| R (IT) v SSJ [2008] EWHC 1707 (Admin) — Recall of patient unlawful where no new relevant information available to MoJ after discharge by MHRT; the element of the discharge plan requiring leave to be escorted was a temporary measure and so did not amount to continuing deprivation of liberty. | 2008-11-03 | 2008 cases, Detailed summary, Discharge conditions cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Ministry of Justice cases, Transcript, Unlawful detention cases |
| R v MHRT, ex p Hall [1999] EWHC Admin 351 —
Residence for s117 purposes The provisions of s117 Mental Health Act 1983 are designed to ensure that there is always an aftercare authority, being the place where the patient resided before detention or, if there was no such residence, the place where the patient was to be sent on release; the duty as to aftercare included the provision of information to a Tribunal and so arose before discharge. [MHLR.] MHLRThe summary below has been supplied by Kris Gledhill, Editor of the Mental Health Law Reports. The full report can be purchased from Southside Online Publishing (if there is a "file not found" error, it means this particular report is not yet available online). More similar case summaries from the year 1999 are available here: MHLR 1999.
Identifying the aftercare authority obliged to put ..→ | 2008-09-12 | 1999 cases, After-care, Cases, Discharge conditions cases, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, MHLR summary, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function |
| R (Hall) v MHRT [1999] EWCA Civ 2052 — The fact that there will be delay in the implementation of conditions in a conditional discharge does not mean that they are unlawful; it would have been open to the Tribunal to be proactive in adjourning for reports as to the progress of an aftercare package. [MHLR.] | 2008-09-12 | 1999 cases, After-care, Brief summary, Discharge conditions cases, Judgment available offline, Judgment missing from Bailii, MHLR summary, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Transcript |
| R (SH) v MHRT [2007] EWHC 884 (Admin) — Condition "that the patient shall comply with medication" was lawful. | 2007-05-17 | 2007 cases, Detailed summary, Discharge conditions cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Transcript |
| R (SSHD) v MHRT, re PH [2002] EWCA Civ 1868 —
Conditions of discharge and DOL Conditions of discharge are lawful so long as they do not amount to a deprivation of liberty: in this case, a condition that the patient could not leave a hostel unescorted was lawful; so too could be a condition of residence at a hospital. NotesIn this case, unusually restrictive conditions were imposed primarily for the benefit of PH (who was frail, elderly and very institutionalised) rather than for the protection of the public. One of these was that PH was to be escorted whenever he left the hostel. The extent to which the Tribunal can impose unusually restrictive conditions was clarified in the case of R (SSHD) v MHRT, re MP (2004) EWHC 2194. MP had been granted a deferred conditional discharge, which included the condition that he was not to be allowed out of the hostel without an escort. This was because of the risk MP posed to the public. The court ..→ | 2007-02-06 | 2002 cases, Cases, Deprivation of liberty, Discharge conditions cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function |
| R (G) v Mental Health Review Tribunal [2004] EWHC 2193 (Admin) — The Tribunal were right to conclude that the conditions which the claimant patient contended for (continued residence at Thornford Park) would be a deprivation, rather than a restriction, of his liberty. The patient's consent to this continuing deprivation of liberty would not confer jurisdiction on the Tribunal.' | 2006-04-10 | 2004 cases, Brief summary, Deprivation of liberty, Discharge conditions cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Transcript |
| R (SSHD) v MHRT, re MP [2004] EWHC 2194 (Admin) — Conditions attached to conditional discharge of restricted patients must not be so severe as to deprive the patient of his liberty (as opposed to merely restricting it). In this case the condition that the patient may not leave a hostel without escorts deprived him of his liberty. Re PH distinguished: the purpose of the restrictions (and the hope in PH that the need for them might diminish) was different. | 2006-04-10 | 2004 cases, Brief summary, Deprivation of liberty, Discharge conditions cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Transcript |
Article titles
The following 15 pages are in this category.
R
- R (G) v Mental Health Review Tribunal (2004) EWHC 2193 (Admin)
- R (Hall) v MHRT (1999) EWCA Civ 2052
- R (IT) v SSJ (2008) EWHC 1707 (Admin)
- R (RB) v First-tier Tribunal (Review) (2010) UKUT 160 (AAC)
- R (SH) v MHRT (2007) EWHC 884 (Admin)
- R (SSHD) v MHRT, re MP (2004) EWHC 2194 (Admin)
- R (SSHD) v MHRT, re PH (2002) EWCA Civ 1868
- R v MHRT, ex p Hall (1999) EWHC Admin 351
- Re E (2020) MHLO 52 (FTT)
- Re T (A child: murdered parent) (2011) EWHC B4 (Fam)
- RP v Dudley and Walsall Mental Health Partnership NHS Trust (2016) UKUT 204 (AAC)