The applicant was a male nurse at Broadmoor Special Hospital. He was on duty while patients were saying goodbye to visitors. He approached the detained patient telling him to ‘come on’ and allegedly punched him on the shoulder. The patient brought criminal proceedings for assault without first obtaining the leave of the High Court under section 141(2) of the 1959 Act. The applicant was convicted and applied for certiorari to quash the conviction on the ground that since the leave of the High Court had not been obtained the proceedings were a nullity.
Held: The case questioned the rights of nurses in secure mental hospitals to oblige patients to return to their wards at the end of visiting time. The House accepted that the power to detain brought with it powers of control which would allow the practice. Quoting Lord Widgery in the Divisional Court that: ‘where a male nurse is on duty and exercising his functions of controlling the patients in the hospital, acts done in pursuance of such control, or purportedly in pursuance of such control, are acts within the scope of section 141, and are thus protected by the section.’
Lord Edmund-Davies said ‘That, in my respectful judgment, was the correct view to take of the case, and it follows that, since the leave of the High Court was not obtained, the proceedings before the magistrates were a nullity and the Divisional Court had no alternative but to quash the conviction.’ Lord Simon of Glaisdale observed that s.141 of the 1959 Act placed a hindrance on the recourse of a class of citizens to the courts and drew a comparison with the requirement for a vexations litigant to obtain the permission of the court before commencing proceedings.
Lord Edmund-Davies, Lord Simon of Glaisdale
[1976] AC 314
Mental Health Act 1959 141(2)
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Pountney v Griffiths QBD 1975
A mental patient sought damages for assault from a nurse. The nurse replied that the proceedings were a nullity since the patient had not first obtained permission to commence proceedings.
Held: Lord Widgery CJ said: ‘Although no point was . .
Cited – Bradford Corporation v Myers HL 1916
The 1893 Act was criticised for its complexity. A section gave protection to public authorities for ‘any act done in pursuance, or execution, or intended execution of any Act of Parliament, or of any power duty or authority, or in respect of any . .
Cited – Magor and St Mellons Rural District Council v Newport Corporaion HL 1951
The Court of Appeal had tried to fill in the gaps in a statute where parliament had intended an effect.
Held: Rights to compensation are well capable of falling within the definition of ‘property of a company’ in the relevant provisions of the . .
Cited by:
Cited – Munjaz v Mersey Care National Health Service Trust And the Secretary of State for Health, the National Association for Mental Health (Mind) Respondent interested; CA 16-Jul-2003
The claimant was a mental patient under compulsory detention, and complained that he had been subjected to periods of seclusion.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The hospital had failed to follow the appropriate Code of Practice. The Code was not . .
Cited – B, Regina (on the Application of) v Ashworth Hospital Authority HL 17-Mar-2005
The House was asked whether a patient detained for treatment under the 1983 Act can be treated against his will for any mental disorder from which he is suffering or only for the particular form of mental disorder from which he is classified as . .
Cited – Patel and others v London Borough of Brent CA 25-May-2005
Application for return of deposit made to secure commencement of road works on development. . .
Cited – Seal v Chief Constable of South Wales Police CA 19-May-2005
Mr Seal noisily objected to a neighbour blocking in his car. Police were called who took him into custody under the 1983 Act. He was released several days later, and eventually sought damages for his wrongful treatment. He had failed to first seek . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 23 October 2021; Ref: scu.185207