Category:Change of status cases

|Date=2022/06/23 |NCN=[2022] UKUT 166 (AAC)^M |Court=Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber) |Judges=Jacobs |Parties=DD, Sussex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust, Secretary of State for Justice, Mind |Sentence=Change of status - s37/41 to conditional discharge |Summary=DD applied to the MHT while subject to a s37/41 restricted hospital order but, before the hearing, was conditionally discharged: the MHT decided that it ceased to have jurisdiction. He appealed to the UT but, before that hearing, was absolutely discharged: the UT decided that it retained jurisdiction and should decide the case despite it being academic. The UT concluded that the MHT retain jurisdiction when a s37/41 patient is conditionally discharged. |Detail===Thanks== Thanks to Adam Marley (GT Stewart Solicitors & Advocates, solicitor for the patient) for providing the judgment.

|Date=2021-06-29 |NCN=[2021] UKUT 186 (AAC)^M |Court=Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber) |Judges=Mitchell |Parties=CS, Elysium Healthcare, Secretary of State for Justice, S |Sentence=Change in status - s47/49 to s37/41 |Summary=The patient applied to the MHRT for Wales while subject to a s47/49 restricted transfer direction; then the Court of Appeal quashed the underlying Imprisonment for Public Protection sentence, replacing it with a s37/41 restricted hospital order; then the MHRT decided that following the change in status it lacked jurisdiction to consider the application. The Upper Tribunal set aside the MHRT's decision, on the basis that the patient had remained a restricted patient throughout, and remade it accordingly. Elysium Healthcare was criticised for its "lamentable" failure to comply with case management directions, which delayed proceedings (as did the Upper Tribunal's own inefficient administration). |Detail===Dates== The judgment states that it was made on 29/6/21. It was first published on the Gov.uk website on 23/8/21. The Gov.uk website states that the decision was made on 29/7/21.

|Date=2020/05/04 |NCN=[2020] UKUT 152 (AAC)^M |Court=Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber) |Judges=Jacobs |Parties=GM, Dorset Healthcare University NHS Foundation Trust, Secretary of State for Justice |Sentence=Change from s3 to s37 during tribunal proceedings |Summary=The First-tier Tribunal had been right to strike out proceedings arising from a s3 reference when the patient was subsequently made subject to a s37 hospital order. It would be contrary to statutory policy if the tribunal were to retain jurisdiction under an application or reference that was made before the date of the hospital order. |Detail===Summary on Gov.uk website== When a patient who was detained pursuant to section 3 of the Mental Health Act 1983 is made subject to a hospital order without a restriction order, the First-tier Tribunal has no jurisdiction on any application or reference that was lodged before the order was made.

|Date=2020/03/30 |NCN=[2020] UKUT 110 (AAC)^M |Court=Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber) |Judges=Jacobs |Parties=AD'A, Cornwall Partnership NHS Foundation Trust |Cites=R (SR) v MHRT [2005] EWHC 2923 (Admin) |Sentence=Change in status - s3 to guardianship |Summary=When the patient had been transferred from s3 detention to s7 guardianship, the tribunal had been wrong to strike out her case for want of jurisdiction. The tribunal's jurisdiction arose from the s3 application, and none of the subsequent changes (including a new right to apply to tribunal, different tribunal powers, and different parties) affected that jurisdiction. |Detail===Thanks== Thanks to Ben Conroy (Conroys Solicitors) for providing the judgment.. Also: Thanks to Roger Pezzani (Garden Court Chambers) for providing the judgment.

|Date=2011/03/30 |NCN=[2011] UKUT 143 (AAC)^M |Court=Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber) |Judges=Jacobs |Parties=PS, Camden and Islington NHS Foundation Trust |Sentence=CTO reference hearings |Summary=The Tribunal's policy was that a reference made under s68(7) (triggered by the revocation of a CTO) would be treated as having lapsed if the patient subsequently was placed on a new CTO (see Guidance: References made under section 68(7) Mental Health Act 1983 (updated 22/9/10)). When the patient's representative argued that the case should be heard, the Tribunal treated that letter as the patient's own application. (1) The policy was unlawful: (a) whether the reference has lapsed depends on the nature of the reference, which is a matter of statutory interpretation, so neither the overriding objective nor the policy is relevant; (b) the subject matter of a reference under s68(7) (the duty to consider the s72 criteria) is not related to the circumstances that trigger it (the revocation of the CTO) so survives the change in circumstances; (c) the policy was inconsistent with s68(3)(c) (no six-month reference if revocation reference has been made) which would not be necessary if the revocation reference lapses. (2) The power to treat a letter as a Tribunal application is only appropriately exercised for the applicant's advantage, not potential detriment; it is not permissible to override an unequivocal indication by the solicitor to the opposite effect, especially if to do so would deprive the patient of the chance to make an application later should discharge not be obtained on the reference. (3) If the hospital managers had been represented, the judge would have wanted to know why it took 12 days to complete the simple referral form. (4) The Tribunal Procedure Committee will be consulting on rule changes to make it easier to handle CTO revocation cases in which the patient does not 'co-operate': in the meantime, the judge suggested that proceedings could be stayed, or hearings conducted in patients' absence. |Detail===Representation== Roger Pezzani (instructed by Blavo & Co) for the applicant

The respondent did not appear and was not represented

|Date=2005/12/14 |NCN=[2005] EWHC 2923 (Admin)^M |Court=High Court (Administrative Court) |Judges=Stanley Burnton |Parties=SR, Mental Health Review Tribunal |Sentence=Change of status - s3 to s25A |Summary=MHRT application appealing against s3 falls when patient subsequently made subject to s25A; fresh application required. |Detail=== 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 Admin 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).