Information for "AM v SLAM NHS Foundation Trust (2013) UKUT 365 (AAC)"

Basic information

Display title	AM v SLAM NHS Foundation Trust [2013] UKUT 365 (AAC)
Default sort key	AM v SLAM NHS Foundation Trust (2013) UKUT 365 (AAC)
Page length (in bytes)	4,354
Page ID	7446
Page content language	en - English
Page content model	wikitext
Indexing by robots	Allowed
Number of redirects to this page	1
Counted as a content page	Yes

Edit	Allow only users with "editing" permission (infinite)
Move	Allow only users with "editing" permission (infinite)

Page creator	Jonathan (talk \| contribs)
Date of page creation	14:36, 24 August 2013
Latest editor	Jonathan (talk \| contribs)
Date of latest edit	22:09, 19 October 2024
Total number of edits	16
Total number of distinct authors	1
Recent number of edits (within past 90 days)	0
Recent number of distinct authors	0

Hidden categories (3)	This page is a member of 3 hidden categories: Category:Judgment available on Bailii Category:Judgment available on MHLO Category:Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function
Transcluded templates (13)	Templates used on this page: Template:Add drilldown link date (view source) Template:Add drilldown links (view source) Template:Add drilldown links ul (view source) Template:Case (view source) Template:Case subject note (view source) Template:Contributor (view source) Template:Database header (view source) Template:Extension DPL (view source) Template:Linkless exists (view source) Template:Page creation date (view source) Template:Swap names from commas (view source) Template:Thanks (view source) Template:What links here (view source)

Description	Content
Article description: (`description`) This attribute controls the content of the `description` and `og:description` elements.	It was argued at the tribunal that AM should be discharged from s2 in order to remain in hospital informally. (1) A tribunal should (a) decide whether the patient has capacity to consent, (b) decide whether DOLS is an alternative, and (c) in considering the MHA 'necessity' test identify the regime which is the least restrictive way of best achieving the proposed aim. (Nobody knows what the judge's third point means in practice.) The tribunal had failed properly to consider whether AM would comply with informal admission (which is relevant to the second question) so the case was remitted to a differently-constituted tribunal. (2) To be compatible with Article 5 ECHR, ss 2, 3 and 72 MHA 1983 have to be applied on the basis that for detention in hospital to be 'warranted' it has to be 'necessary' in the sense that the objective set out in the relevant statutory test cannot be achieved by less restrictive measures.

Information from Extension:WikiSEO