R (H) v MHRT [2000] EWHC 646 (Admin)

Revision as of 22:54, 11 April 2009 by Jonathan (talk | contribs) (Created page with '''The MHRT should not have informed the nearest relative of restricted patient [or, more correctly, the person who would have been the nearest relative had the patient not been r...')
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

The MHRT should not have informed the nearest relative of restricted patient [or, more correctly, the person who would have been the nearest relative had the patient not been restricted] of the forthcoming hearing, because the definition of "nearest relative" in the Tribunal rules excluded restricted patients; the injunction preventing the Tribunal from disclosing its final decision would continue.

External link

Bailii