November 2008 update

November 2008 summary

The following materials were added during November 2008.

NB This is a work in progress: until the end of November please see Update.

Bookshop

Amazon Bookshop (with selected mental health law books) added, and some links to recommended books added to articles.

New cases

R (IT) v SSJ (2008) EWHC 1707 — Click on link to view page.§
RD v SSWP [2008] EWHC 2635 (Admin) — Click on link to view page.§
R (RJM) v SSWP [2008] UKHL 63 — Social welfare payments come within the scope of Article 1 Protocol 1; homelessness is an "other status" under Article 14; depriving the homeless of disability premiums was justified; the Court of Appeal is free (but not obliged) to follow an ECtHR decision rather than a previous inconsistent CA decision, but (absent wholly exceptional circumstances) must follow any previous House of Lords decision.§
R (N) v Coventry City Council [2008] EWHC 2786 (Admin) — "This case concerns the assessment by Coventry City Council of the claimant's needs under section 47 of the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 and its decision to refuse him support under section 21 of the National Assistance Act 1948. It turns, in particular, on the meaning of "care and attention" in section 21, as interpreted by the House of Lords recently, and the ambit of Article 3 ECHR in the context of community care legislation." (para 1)§
Renolde v France 5608/05 [2008] ECHR 1085 — The authorities failed to comply with their positive obligation to protect the detainee's right to life, in violation of Article 2, partly because they did not monitor his compliance with anti-psychotic medication. A penalty of 45 days' detention in a punishment cell breached Article 3 (inhuman and degrading treatment and punishment).§

Old cases added

DN v Switzerland 27154/95 [2001] ECHR 235 — The psychiatrist who sat as judge rapporteur on the Administrative Appeals Commission had, before the hearing, concluded that the patient should not be released; the patient had legitimate fears that the doctor had a preconceived opinion and was not acting impartially; this was reinforced because he was sole the psychiatric expert and the only person who had interviewed her; Article 5(4) having been breached, damages and costs were awarded§
McGrady, Re Application for Judicial Review [2003] NIQB 15 — (1) The ability to disclose material to the representative on condition that it was not revealed to the patient was compatible with the Convention (obiter, since no decision had been taken on this yet). (2) The medical member's role is to form a provisional view on the patient's mental condition, rather than on the statutory criteria, and he discloses his conclusion during the hearing; if this approach is taken then there is no violation of Article 5(4), DN v Switzerland 27154/95 [2001] ECHR 235 distinguished.§
Bensaid v UK 44599/98 [2001] ECHR 82 — The deportation to Algeria of a patient suffering from schizophrenia did not breach Articles 3, 8 or 13.§
R (SSG) v Liverpool City Council [2002] EWHC 2803 (Admin) — Click on link to view page.§
Stec v UK 65731/01 [2006] ECHR 393 — Judgment of Grand Chamber. State benefits, Article 1 of Protocol No 1 & Article 14.§
Stec v UK 65731/01 [2005] ECHR 924 — Admissibility decision. State benefits, Article 1 of Protocol No 1 & Article 14.§

Transcripts now available

LLBC v TG [2007] EWHC 2640 (Fam) — Best interests/deprivation of liberty case.§
R (B) v London Borough of Camden [2006] EWCA Civ 246 — Claimant sought damages breach of statutory duty under s117 causing delay after deferred conditional discharge. Unsuccessful appeal.§
R (Care Principles Ltd) v MHRT; R (AL) v Care Principles Ltd [2006] EWHC 3194 (Admin) — The MHRT's decision to discharge from s2 was not flawed; the subsequent decision to re-detain under s3 was unjustified and unlawful.§
R (O) v MHRT [2006] EWHC 2659 (Admin) — Patient can withdraw application between unfulfilled s72(3) recommendation and reconvened hearing. [Caution.]§
R (T) v Nottinghamshire Healthcare NHS Trust [2006] EWHC 800 (Admin) — Unsuccessful challenge to s19 transfer from Rampton to Broadmoor.§
R (SSHD) v MHRT, re BR [2005] EWCA Civ 1616 — MHRT granted absolute discharge without considering conditional discharge criteria; High Court quashed decision, so patient became detained restricted patient again; Home Office refused to grant s17 leave until next MHRT; Court of Appeal partially quashed MHRT decision but declared patient entitled to be conditionally discharged pending MHRT determination of appropriate discharge type.§

Primary legislation added (new and old)

UK Borders Act 2007 — This Act is relevant to mental health in that it affects whether the deportation of a foreign criminal detained under the Mental Health Act 1983 is conducive to the public good.
Immigration Act 1971 — The Immigration Act 1971 regulates which foreigners can and cannot stay in the United Kingdom, makes provision for voluntary and compulsory repatriation, etc. Patients subject to the Mental Health Act 1983 may be deported under the Immigration Act or s86 of the 1983 Act as appropriate. The UK Borders Act 2007 imposes a duty to deport under the 1971 Act certain foreign criminals.
Family Law Act 1996 — From 25/11/08, s1 Forced Marriage (Civil Protection) Act 2007 inserts s64L, which applies MHA 1983 s35, into the Family Law Act 1996.
Forced Marriage (Civil Protection) Act 2007‎ —

From 25/11/08, s1 of this Act inserts s64L, which applies MHA 1983 s35, into the Family Law Act 1996.

LEGISLATION DATABASE

Full text: Legislation.gov.uk

Type: UK Public General Act🔍

Year: 2007🔍

Number: 20

Subject: Legislation amending MHA 1983🔍

What links here:

Archive of monthly updates

§

Legal Services Act 2007‎ —

When in force, this Act amends the MHA 1983, mainly by replacing references to "counsel" and "solicitor" with "authorised person" (and defining that term).

Amendments

Sch 21 paras 53-60 amend s35, s36, s38, s52, s54, s55 and s78. The changes replace references to "counsel" and "solicitor" with "authorised person" and define that type of person as "a person who, for the purposes of the Legal Services Act 2007, is an authorised person in relation to an activity which constitutes the exercise of a right of audience (within the meaning of that Act".