R v Crookes [1999] EWCA Crim 1065
On an appeal against a restriction order, the progress made after sentence can be relevant to show that a restriction order, although properly imposed, should be lifted by the Court of Appeal. [MHLR.]
MHLR
The 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.
The propriety of a restriction order in light of the fresh evidence – R v James Andrew Crookes [1999] Mental Health Law Reports 45 CA
Points Arising: On an appeal against a restriction order, the progress made after sentence can be relevant to show that a restriction order, although properly imposed, should be lifted by the Court of Appeal.
Facts and Outcome: C was made subject to a hospital order and restriction order under ss37/41 MHA 1983 after conviction of 2 counts of wounding with intent, involving him attacking 2 people with a sword. By the time of the sentencing hearing, he had been diagnosed, given proper treatment which controlled his illness and had a level of insight into it: the Court of Appeal held that the restriction order was properly imposed on the material before the sentencing judge, the further progress made meant that it was not required.