Mental Health Law Online
The internet resource on mental health law, and mental capacity law, for England & Wales. You can subscribe to free email updates, an email discussion list and a new online forum. Some additional news can be found on the Twitter feed or Facebook page. The online CPD scheme provides 12 hours for £60 and is suitable for lawyers and non-lawyers.
Advertise your events here
- PELT: Getting ready for Liberty Protection Safeguards (online, 21/1/21)
- Edge Training: Level 3 Safeguarding Adults (online, 1-2 Feb 2021)
- PELT: Introduction to the MHA, Code and Tribunals (online, 10/2/21)
- PELT: Depriving Children and Young People of their liberty lawfully (online, 24/2/21)
- PELT: Introduction to MCA and DOLS (online, 3/3/21)
- PELT: Becoming a Mental Health Act Administrator - the basics (online, 10/3/21)
- PELT: Advanced course for Mental Health Act Administrators (online, 17/3/21)
- PELT: Mental Health Act Masterclass (online, 24/3/21)
- PELT: Court of Protection and MCA Masterclass (online, 20/4/21)
News and updates
- 03/12/20: Case (Hybrid order or restricted hospital order). R v Nelson  EWCA Crim 1615 — The Court of Appeal considered the differences between a hybrid order (s45A) and a restricted hospital order (s37/41), the guidance from caselaw and the Sentencing Council's Guideline on "Sentencing offenders with mental disorders, developmental disorders or neurological impairment" which came into effect on 1/10/20.
- 03/12/20: Case (Competence/capacity and puberty blockers). Bell v Tavistock And Portman NHS Foundation Trust  EWHC 3274 (Admin) — (1) The relevant information that a child would have to understand, retain and weigh up in order to have the requisite competence in relation to puberty blockers, would be as follows: (i) the immediate consequences of the treatment in physical and psychological terms; (ii) the fact that the vast majority of patients taking puberty blockers go on to cross-sex hormones and therefore that he or she is on a pathway to much greater medical interventions; (iii) the relationship between taking cross-sex hormones and subsequent surgery, with the implications of such surgery; (iv) the fact that cross-sex hormones may well lead to a loss of fertility; (v) the impact of cross-sex hormones on sexual function; (vi) the impact that taking this step on this treatment pathway may have on future and life-long relationships; (vii) the unknown physical consequences of taking PBs; and (viii) the fact that the evidence base for this treatment is as yet highly uncertain. (2) Gillick competence is treatment- and person-specific but the court gave clear guidance that it is highly unlikely that a child aged 13 or under, and very doubtful that a child aged 14 or 15, would ever be Gillick competent to give consent to being treated with puberty blockers. (3) There is a presumption that young people aged 16 or over have capacity to consent but, given the long-term and potentially irreversible consequences and the experimental nature of the treatment, clinicians may well consider that it is not appropriate to move to treatment such as puberty blockers or cross-sex hormones without the involvement of the court, and it would be appropriate to involve the court when there may be any doubt about long-term best interests.
- 03/12/20: Case (Unlawful refusal to adjourn). GL v Elysium Healthcare  UKUT 308 (AAC) — It was wrong for the tribunal to have proceeded with the telephone hearing because: (1) the tribunal had, without investigation, assumed that the patient's flatmate (with whom he was self-isolating to avoid coronavirus) could not overhear; (2) the tribunal had improperly dealt with the patient's anxiety: either it had concluded, without investigation, that the anxiety was without foundation (when he had in fact previously been assaulted because other patients discovered his history), or it had believed the same anxiety would arise at a future hearing (when in fact it arose from the specific circumstances that day); the tribunal should have considered whether his anxiety was genuine and, if so, the impact on his ability to participate; (3) the tribunal had wrongly approached the adjournment request as if the patient had been concerned with the mode of hearing (i.e. telephone) rather than the fear of being overheard that day.