SSJ v MM; Welsh Ministers v PJ [2017] EWCA Civ 194

Revision as of 23:52, 7 May 2017 by Jonathan (talk | contribs) (Created page with "''(1) MM wanted to be conditionally discharged into circumstances which would meet the objective component of article 5 deprivation of liberty. The Court of Appeal decided tha...")
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

(1) MM wanted to be conditionally discharged into circumstances which would meet the objective component of article 5 deprivation of liberty. The Court of Appeal decided that: (a) the tribunal has no power to impose a condition of a conditional discharge that is an objective deprivation of the patient's liberty; (b) that a general condition of compliance with a care plan would be an impermissible circumvention of this jurisdictional limitation; (c) purported consent, even if valid, could not provide the tribunal with jurisdiction. (2) PJ argued that his CTO should be discharged as it could not lawfully authorise his deprivation of liberty. The Court of Appeal decided that a CTO provides the power to provide for a lesser restriction of movement than detention in hospital which may nevertheless be an objective deprivation of liberty provided it is used for the specific purposes set out in the CTO scheme.

Related judgments

ICLR

The ICLR have kindly agreed for their WLR (D) case report to be reproduced below. [[Text:ICLR SSJ v MM; Welsh Ministers v PJ [2017] EWCA Civ 194B, [2017] MHLO 16| ]]

{{Text:ICLR SSJ v MM; Welsh Ministers v PJ [2017] EWCA Civ 194B, [2017] MHLO 16}}

External link

BAILII