September 2016 update

Revision as of 11:39, 18 July 2022 by Jonathan (talk | contribs) (Text replacement - "Staffordshire County Council v SRK (2016) EWCOP 27, (2016) MHLO 36" to "Staffordshire County Council v SRK (2016) EWCOP 27")

Website

  • Mental Health Law Online CPD scheme: 12 points for £60. Obtain 12 CPD points online by answering monthly questionnaires. The scheme is an ideal way to obtain your necessary hours, or to evidence your continued competence. It also helps to support the continued development of this website, and your subscriptions (and re-subscriptions) are appreciated. For full details and to subscribe, see CPD scheme.

Case law

  • Deprivation of liberty case. Staffordshire County Council v SRK [2016] EWCOP 27 — "This case concerns an individual SRK who was severely injured in a road traffic accident. The effects of those injuries are that (a) he lacks capacity to make decisions on the regime of care, treatment and support that he should receive (SRK's care regime), and (b) applying the approach in Cheshire West (see Surrey County Council v P and others; Cheshire West and Chester Council v P and another [2014] UKSC 19M, [2014] AC 896B), SRK's care regime creates, on an objective assessment, a deprivation of liberty. SRK was awarded substantial damages that were paid to his property and affairs deputy (the third Respondent IMTC). He lives at a property that has been bought and adapted for him. His regime of care and support there is provided by private sector providers. The damages funded that purchase and adaptation and fund that regime of care. The issue is whether this situation on the ground is a deprivation of liberty that has to be authorised by the Court of Protection (the COP) by it making a welfare order. The test that the COP would apply in making such an order is whether SRK's care regime is the least restrictive available option to best promote his best interests. The same test applies to the decision makers on the ground. It is common ground that at present SRK's care regime satisfies that test."

Legislation

Office of the Public Guardian

  • Office of the Public Guardian, 'Giving gifts for someone else: A guide for attorneys and deputies' (document OPG2, published 18/5/16, updated 20/6/16). "Attorneys and deputies can sometimes give gifts on behalf of the person they have been appointed to help make decisions for. Only deputies and attorneys making financial decisions can give gifts; you can’t give gifts if you have been appointed just to make health and welfare decisions. If you do have the authority to give gifts, you can do so only in some situations and if it is in the person’s best interests. This guide includes practical advice such as: (a) what counts as a gift; (b) who can give gifts for someone else; (c) when you can give gifts; (d) changing the limits on gift-giving; (e) what happens with unauthorised gifts." See Office of the Public Guardian

Ministry of Justice

  • Consultation. Ministry of Justice, 'Transforming our justice system' (consultation from 15/9/16 to 27/10/16). The main proposal relevant to the MHT is an amendment (a) providing that a tribunal panel in the First-tier Tribunal is to consist of a single member unless otherwise determined by the Senior President of Tribunals, and (b) removing the existing requirement to consider the arrangements that were in place before the tribunal transferred into the unified system. A detailed summary is available on MHLO by clicking the page link.
  • Ministry of Justice, 'Offender Management Statistics Bulletin, England and Wales: Quarterly October to December 2015; Annual January to December 2015' (28/4/16). See Statistics#Ministry of Justice

Welsh Code of Practice

Books

Event

  • Edge Training: AMHP Conference - London, 18/11/16No results

Twitter