| Display title | Re A (publication of MHT decision) [2023] MHLO 3 (FTT) |
| Default sort key | Re A (publication of MHT decision) (2023) MHLO 3 (FTT) |
| Page length (in bytes) | 2,013 |
| Page ID | 15586 |
| Page content language | en - English |
| Page content model | wikitext |
| Indexing by robots | Allowed |
| Number of redirects to this page | 0 |
| 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 | 13:42, 2 June 2024 |
| Latest editor | Jonathan (talk | contribs) |
| Date of latest edit | 10:32, 9 October 2024 |
| Total number of edits | 7 |
| Total number of distinct authors | 1 |
| Recent number of edits (within past 90 days) | 0 |
| Recent number of distinct authors | 0 |
Description | Content |
Article description: (description)
This attribute controls the content of the description and og:description elements. | Permission to publish the First-tier Tribunal decision (which was an interlocutory decision setting aside the initial refusal of the patient's request for an all-female panel) was granted. The Deputy Chamber President took into account that "departing from the open justice principle can only be justified in exceptional circumstances when [it is] strictly necessary to secure the proper administration of justice" and that "in circumstances where the patient wants the decision to be published on the website and thereby waives her privacy, the balance falls in favour of publication". She noted that there were no exceptional circumstances for departing from the open justice principle, that she had taken into account the contents and nature of the decision and the level of redaction and anonymity, and that all cases will be considered on their own merits. The patient's argument that permission to publish was not necessary was rejected. |