Administrative Discretion to be Used Reasonably The applicant challenged the manner of decision making as to the conditions which had been attached to its licence to open the cinema on Sundays. It had not been allowed to admit children under 15 years of age. The statute provided no appeal procedure, and the applicant sought a … Continue reading Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation: CA 10 Nov 1947
PH had severe physical and learning disabilities and was without speech, lacking capacity to decide for himself where to live. Since the age of four he received accommodation and support at public expense. Until his majority in December 2004, he was living with foster parents in South Gloucestershire. He then lived in two care homes … Continue reading Cornwall Council, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Health and Somerset County Council: SC 8 Jul 2015
The patient had been detained, and then secluded within the mental hospital for 11 days. He claimed to have been subjected to inhuman treatment, and false imprisonment. Held: His claim failed. The policy allowed the authority to confine him to a locked room under supervision for the protection of others. The fact of seclusion did … Continue reading S v Airedale National Health Service Trust: QBD 22 Aug 2002
The Court of Appeal issued habeas corpus because the applicant was committed to a mental institution pursuant to an application which was made by somebody who lacked the statutory authority to make it. The right of personal freedom is fundamental. In the mental health context, if someone is to be taken out of the community … Continue reading In re S-C (Mental Patient: Habeas Corpus): CA 22 Nov 1995
UTAA This appeal provides the first chance for the Upper Tribunal to consider the application of the decision of the Supreme Court in Surrey County Council v P [2014] AC 896 to guardianship under the Mental Health Act 1983. [2014] UKUT 475 (AAC) Bailii Mental Health Act 1983 England and Wales Health Updated: 23 December … Continue reading NL v Hampshire County Council (Mental Health : All): UTAA 21 Oct 2014
There had been a trial of 35 days regarding rights of way over land, which had proved fruitless, and where some orders had been made without jurisdiction. The result had been inconclusive. The costs order was now appealed, the plaintiff complaining that the judge had failed to take into account an offer of settlement made … Continue reading Cutts v Head and Another: CA 7 Dec 1983
The appellant Khera’s father had obtained leave to settle in the UK. The appellant obtained leave to join him, but did not disclose that he had married. After his entry his wife in turn sought to join him. The appellant was detained as an illegal immigrant. Held: The term ‘illegal immigrant’ included anyone entering unlawfully. … Continue reading Khera v Secretary of State for The Home Department; Khawaja v Secretary of State for The Home Department: HL 10 Feb 1983
The court considered the narrow but important question in this appeal concerns the requirements of the common law principles of procedural fairness in cases where a convicted offender is detained under section 37 as mentally ill and is being considered for transfer from conditions of medium security to conditions of high security. Moses, Patten, Beatson … Continue reading L, Regina (on The Application of) v West London Mental Health NHS Trust and Others: CA 29 Jan 2014
The plaintiff had killed someone and, as a result, been convicted of manslaughter and ordered to be detained in a secure hospital when subject to after-care under section 117 of the 1983 Act. He sought damages from the health authority on the basis that he would not have killed anyone but for negligence on the … Continue reading Clunis (By his Next Friend Prince) v Camden and Islington Health Authority: CA 5 Dec 1997
Change in Doctors’ Information Obligations The pursuer claimed that her obstetrician had been negligent, after her son suffered severe injury at birth. The baby faced a birth with shoulder dystocia – the inability of the shoulders to pass through the pelvis. The consultant considered that a vaginal birth was preferable and did not given advice … Continue reading Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board: SC 11 Mar 2015
This appeal, from an order dismissing the Appellant’s claim for judicial review, raises a short but important point as to the effect of a hospital order made under section 37 of the Mental Health Act 1983: does such an order cease to have effect if . .
A person who is liable to be detained in a hospital by virtue of an application or order under that Act may either be actually detained or given leave of absence. While on leave of absence it may well be that the patient’s disorder is not such that . .
application for the issue of a writ of habeas corpus – detention after convictions . .
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 . .
The applicant’s former partner, G, had been detained under the Act. She had obtained an injunction to keep him away, but whilst exercising staying contact with her child, he had killed his own parents, and was now detained. The tribunal had ordered . .
The section placed the burden upon a specially restricted patient to prove that he was not suffering from a mental disorder of a nature or degree requiring him to be detained, before the Tribunal could order his release. This shifting of the burden . .
The court was asked ‘When a mental health review tribunal has ordered the discharge of a patient, is it lawful to readmit him under section 2 or section 3 of the [Mental Health Act 1983] where it cannot be demonstrated that there has been a relevant . .
A person who is liable to be detained in a hospital by virtue of an application or order under that Act may either be actually detained or given leave of absence. While on leave of absence it may well be that the patient’s disorder is not such that . .
The applicant was severely autistic, and unable to consent to medical treatment. He had been admitted voluntarly to a mental hospital and detained under common law powers. The Hospital trust appealed a finding that his detention had been unlawful. . .
Mr Ashingdane was a Broadmoor patient who was deemed ready for transfer back into his local hospital, but was denied a bed there because the nurses’ trade union operated a ban on taking special hospital patients. He launched proceedings against the . .
C applied for judicial review of the refusal by the respondent to order his absolute discharge, and the continuation of the restriction order. He said the tribunal had taken account of earlier reporst referring to a psychopathic personality . .
A discretionary life sentence should be reserved for the most exceptional circumstances, and for the most part for offenders who were incapable of being dealt with under the Mental Health Act 1959, ‘yet who are in a mental state which makes them . .
The House decided that section 73 of the 1983 Act provided a two-stage process in relation to a patient’s conditional discharge. The tribunal first decides that it will direct the discharge subject to conditions, but defers giving the direction so . .
Upon the allegedly negligent release of the claimant from mental health care, she had, while in the midst of a serious psychotic episode, derived from the schizophrenia, killed her mother and been convicted of manslaughter. She now sought damages in . .
1267 – 1278 – 1285 – 1297 – 1361 – 1449 – 1491 – 1533 – 1677 – 1688 – 1689 – 1700 – 1706 – 1710 – 1730 – 1737 – 1738 – 1751 – 1774 – 1792 – 1793 – 1804 – 1814 – 1819 – 1824 – 1828 – 1831 – 1832 … Continue reading Acts
Transfer directions of discretionary life prisoners. Mr Justice Stanley Burnton [2002] EWHC 2805 (Admin), [2003] 1 WLR 1315 Bailii Criminal Justice Act 1991, Mental Health Act 1983 47 England and Wales Prisons Updated: 17 November 2021; Ref: scu.347817
The claimant had been near to completing a sentence for serious violence. He now challenged the way in which, as his sentenced approached completion, the defendant had sought an order transferring him to a secure mental hospital. He was served with an order as he left the prison. The court had said that there was … Continue reading TF, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice: CA 18 Dec 2008
A discretionary life prisoner who had been transferred to a mental hospital is not automatically eligible for a certificate under the section. The right conferred on a discretionary life prisoner by section 34 of the 1991 Act did not extend to those . .
The court dismissed the claimant’s complaint that the seclusion policies operated at Ashworth Special Hospital infringed his human rights. The Special Hospitals operated policies for seclusion which differed from the Code of Practice laid down under . .
The prisoner had been sentenced but then transferred to a secure mental hospital. Whilst there be acted in a way equivalent to a hostage taking.
Held: Upon his release from the mental hospital the powers as to recall under the prison sentence . .
The applicant applied for asylum, but suffered from schizophrenia. He had been refused entry and detained, and then his detention was transferred to a mental hospital by order of the Home Secretary, with a view to his return for treatment in Malta. . .
The prisoner challenged a decision to have her transferred to a mental hospital under scetion 47.
Held: It had not been reasonable for the Secretary of State to rely on one of the two medical reports she relied on. However since if the . .
A statement made by a politician as to his intentions on a particular matter if elected could not create a legitimate expectation as regards the delivery of the promise after elected, even where the promise would directly affect individuals, and the costs of a child’s education. Any consequences of a failure to keep a promise … Continue reading Regina v Department of Education and Employment ex parte Begbie: CA 20 Aug 1999
Power to call in is administrative in nature The powers of the Secretary of State to call in a planning application for his decision, and certain other planning powers, were essentially an administrative power, and not a judicial one, and therefore it was not a breach of the applicants’ rights to a fair hearing before … Continue reading Regina (Holding and Barnes plc) v Secretary of State for Environment Transport and the Regions; Regina (Alconbury Developments Ltd and Others) v Same and Others: HL 9 May 2001
(Northern Ireland) The deceased solicitor was murdered in his home in 1989, allegedly by loyalists. They had never been identified, though collusion between security forces and a loyalist paramilitary was established. The ECHR and a judge led inquiry had said that a proper investigation was required. A promised inquiry under the 2005 Act was objected … Continue reading Finucane, Re Application for Judicial Review: SC 27 Feb 2019
(Scotland) By the 2014 Act, the Scottish Parliament had provided that each child should have a named person to monitor that child’s needs, with information about him or her shared as necessary. The Institute objected that the imposed obligation to share information was outwith the powers of the Parliament. It extended the information to be … Continue reading The Christian Institute and Others v The Lord Advocate: SC 28 Jul 2016
Ban on Prisoners talking to Journalists unlawful The two prisoners, serving life sentences for murder, had had their appeals rejected. They continued to protest innocence, and sought to bring their campaigns to public attention through the press, having oral interviews with journalists without undertakings from the journalists not to publish any element of the interview. … Continue reading Regina v Secretary of State for The Home Department Ex Parte Simms: HL 8 Jul 1999
The Home Secretary may not later extend the tariff for a lifer, after it had been set by an earlier Home Secretary, merely to satisfy needs of retribution and deterrence: ‘A power conferred by Parliament in general terms is not to be taken to authorise the doing of acts by the donee of the power … Continue reading Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex Parte Pierson: HL 24 Jul 1997
The right of access to the courts is not absolute but may be subject to limitations. These are permitted by implication since the right of access ‘by its very nature calls for regulation by the State, regulation which may vary in time and place according to the needs and resources of the community and of … Continue reading Ashingdane v The United Kingdom: ECHR 28 May 1985
Inherent High Court power may restrain Publicity The claimant child’s mother was to be tried for the murder of his brother by poisoning with salt. It was feared that the publicity which would normally attend a trial, would be damaging to S, and an application was made for reporting restrictions to be applied to avoid … Continue reading In re S (a Child) (Identification: Restrictions on Publication): HL 28 Oct 2004
From 4 April 2005 until 3 December 2012, English law provided for the imposition of sentences of imprisonment for public protection (‘IPP’). The Court addressed the practical and legal issues resulting from the new system. Held: The decision as to whether to impose an IPP senence and whether a prisoner was ready for release on … Continue reading Sturnham, Regina (on The Application of) v The Parole Board of England and Wales and Another (No 2): SC 3 Jul 2013
The claimant suffered severe psychiatric injured in a rail crash caused by the defendant’s negligence. Under this condition of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, the claimant had gone on to kill another person, and he had been detained under section 41. He now sought damages for his loss of earnings through detention in prison and mental hospital. … Continue reading Gray v Thames Trains and Others: HL 17 Jun 2009
Police’s Complete Immunity was Too Wide (Grand Chamber) A male teacher developed an obsession with a male pupil. He changed his name by deed poll to the pupil’s surname. He was required to teach at another school. The pupil’s family’s property was subjected to numerous acts of vandalism, which the police investigated and in respect … Continue reading Osman v The United Kingdom: ECHR 28 Oct 1998
The applicants were former mental patients who had been admitted to hospital compulsorily under section 3. On their release they were to be given support under section 117. The authorities sought to charge for these services, and appealed a decision that the services should be free. Held: Section 117 imposed a clear and free standing … Continue reading Regina v Manchester City Council, ex parte Stennett etc: HL 25 Jul 2002
The applicant, a Pakistani national had entered the UK to act as a Muslim priest. The Home Secretary was satisfied that he was associated with a Muslim terrorist organisation, and refused indefinite leave to remain. The Home Secretary provided both open and closed statements to the tribunal. The open statement accepted that the organisation was … Continue reading Secretary of State for the Home Department v Rehman: HL 11 Oct 2001
False Imprisonment Damages / Immigration Detention The respondent had held the claimant in custody, but had failed to follow its own procedures. The claimant appealed against the rejection of his claim of false imprisonment. He had overstayed his immigration leave, and after convictions had served a prison sentence. When about to be released, an order … Continue reading Kambadzi (previously referred to as SK (Zimbabwe)) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: SC 25 May 2011
The claimant challenged his detention under the 1971 Act, now appealing against refusal of judicial review. His asylum claims had been rejected, and he had been convicted of various offences, including failures to answer bail. He had failed to report as required to comply with the deportation requirements. He had been transferred to a prison … Continue reading MC (Algeria), Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: CA 31 Mar 2010
The claimants had been detained under the 1971 Act, after completing sentences of imprisonment pending their return to their home countries under deportations recommended by the judges at trial, or chosen by the respondent. They challenged as unlawful the respondent’s, at first unpublished, policy introduced in 2006, that by default, those awaiting deportation should be … Continue reading Lumba (WL) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: SC 23 Mar 2011
Proof Standard for Misrepresentation The court was asked what was the standard of proof required to establish the tort of misrepresentation, and it contrasted the different standards of proof applicable in civil and criminal cases. Held: The standard was the balance of probabilities. It was for the plaintiff to establish that the defendant had the … Continue reading Hornal v Neuberger Products Ltd: CA 1956
The plaintiffs each complained of negligent decisions in his or her education made by the defendant local authorities. In three of them the Court of Appeal had struck out the plaintiff’s claim and in only one had it been allowed to proceed. Held: The House unanimously dismissed the local authority’s appeal in that last case … Continue reading Phelps v Hillingdon London Borough Council; Anderton v Clwyd County Council; Gower v Bromley London Borough Council; Jarvis v Hampshire County Council: HL 28 Jul 2000
The respondent appealed against a finding that the provision which made a loan agreement completely invalid for lack of compliance with the 1974 Act was itself invalid under the Human Rights Act since it deprived the respondent of its property rights. It was also argued that it was not possible to make a declaration of … Continue reading Wilson v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry; Wilson v First County Trust Ltd (No 2): HL 10 Jul 2003
A court should take great care before setting aside a decision of a judge which had involved the exercise of a judicial discretion. The court considered the duty of an appellate court in a children case: ‘What this court should seek to do is to answer the question whether the court discerns a wrongness in … Continue reading G v G (Minors: Custody appeal): CA 1985
Patient’s lack of Safeguards was Infringement The claimant had been detained at a mental hospital as in ‘informal patient’. He was an autistic adult. He had been recommended for release by the Mental Health Review Tribunal, and it was decided that he should be released. He was detained further pending suitable arrangements being made for … Continue reading HL v United Kingdom: ECHR 2004
The appellants challenged the mandatory sentence of life imprisonment imposed on them on their convictions for murder. They said it was an infringement of their Human Rights, being arbitrary and disproportionate. Held: The case followed on where the Anderson case left off. In these cases the judge had noted that he did not think the … Continue reading Regina v Lichniak: HL 25 Nov 2002
Evidence allowed – Care Application after Abuse Children had made allegations of serious sexual abuse against their step-father. He was acquitted at trial, but the local authority went ahead with care proceedings. The parents appealed against a finding that a likely risk to the children had still been been found. Held: A care order could … Continue reading In re H and R (Minors) (Child Sexual Abuse: Standard of Proof): HL 14 Dec 1995
The defendant prison governor had intercepted a prisoner’s letter to the Crown Office for the purpose of raising proceedings to have the governor committed for an alleged contempt of court. Held: The governor was in contempt of court. Subject to any legislation altering the situation, a prisoner retains all his rights that are not taken … Continue reading Raymond v Honey: HL 4 Mar 1981
The claimant had spent his childhood in foster care, and now claimed damages against a local authority for decisions made and not made during that period. The judge’s decision to strike out the claim had been upheld by the Court of Appeal. Held: An adult formerly in the care of a local authority as a … Continue reading Barrett v London Borough of Enfield: HL 17 Jun 1999
Force feeding of the applicant, a convicted murderer and detained mental patient, was lawful since it was reasonably administered as part of the medical treatment given for the mental disorder from which Ian Brady was suffering. By virtue of section . .
The plaintiff sought damages following the death of her husband when working for the defendant. The limitation period expired on Saturday 5 September 1970. The writ was issued on the Monday following.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The writ was . .
(Trinidad and Tobago) The appellant was an attorney. A complaint was made that he had been given money to buy land, but neither had the land been conveyed nor the money returned. The complaint began in 1988, but final speeches were not heard until . .
The patient had been severely injured in the Hillsborough disaster, and had come to be in a persistent vegetative state (PVS). The doctors sought permission to withdraw medical treatment. The Official Solicitor appealed against an order of the Court . .
The parties had engaged in a bitter 95 day trial in which allegations of forgery, theft, false accounting, blackmail and arson. A company owning patents and other rights had become insolvent, and the real concern was the destination and ownership of . .
The Court was asked: ‘Whether a person detained under a provision of the Mental Health Act is, as a matter of public policy or otherwise, prevented from paying for his own care/treatment?’ The claimant had fallen from an ambulance, suffering brain . .
The councils disputed which had a duty to provide care and assistance to a young woman with mental health difficulties. . .
A mental health review tribunal had recommended the conditional release of the applicant, a restricted patient in a high security hospital. A community social worker’s report was only later made available to the tribunal.
Held: There was no . .
ECHR Article 14
Discrimination
Alleged discrimination in entitlement to social security benefits of prisoners in psychiatric care compared to other persons detained for psychiatric treatment: . .
G was a prisoner who was refused permission by the Home Secretary to consult a solicitor with a view to bringing libel proceedings against a prison officer. The court construed article 6 of ECHR, which provides that ‘in the determination of his . .
This case concerns the question whether post-tariff life prisoners who have been transferred by the Secretary of State from prison to a mental health hospital under powers contained in sections 47 and 49 of the Mental Health Act 1983 [‘the 1983 . .
Application for judicial review of the decision of the district judge, sitting at Bath and Wansdyke Magistrates’ Court, not to order a fact-finding exercise rather than a trial. . .
The claimant challenged his detention under section 3 of the 1983. He suffered from paranoid schizophrenia. He said that the social worker had consulted his wife and not, as he said was correct, his mother.
Held: . .
The claimant sought a writ of habeas corpus, by way of a challenge to his detention under section 3 of the 1983 Act, saying that it had been unlawful because the social workers had failed to consult his father.
Held: Burnett J said: ‘The duty . .
The applicant had been a detained mental patient. He was granted a deferred order for his release. He challenged the delay of the respondent and his refusal to allow release under section 17 for overnight stays out of the hospital.
Held: The . .
Challenge to directions given by the respondent for the recall of the appellant to a mental hospital.
Held: The breach of a condition would, if of ‘sufficient significance’ justify a recall. . .
B having been made subject to a court hospital order classifying him as suffering from a mental illness, complained when he was later detained under section 63 as subject to a personality disorder.
Held: At all times, B was classified as . .
The appellant had been detained in a mental hospital after a conviction. Later released, he was recalled, but he was not given written reasons as required by a DoH circular. However the SS referred the recall immediately to the Tribunal. He appealed . .
Application for a writ of habeas corpus ad subjiciendum and a linked application for appropriate relief by way of judicial review of the decision of the hospital managers not to discharge the claimant, made at a hearing at which the managers had . .
The defendant was convicted of indecent assault and common assault after caning a 17 year old female complainant for the purposes of sexual gratification. The complainant suffered actual bodily harm, though the defendant was not charged with an . .
The patient challenged the decision of her doctors to administer anti-psychotic medicine for the prevention or for the alleviation of her psychotic illness, to which she did not consent. . .
The claimant sought judicial review of the decision to serve an abatement notice in respect of premises where the normal noise incidents of living were heard in neighbouring flats, which notices were to be abated by noise insulation.
Held: The . .
The trust, operators of Ashworth Secure Hospital sought from the defendant journalist disclosure of the name of their employee who had revealed to the defendant matters about the holding of Ian Brady, the Moors Murderer, and in particular medical . .
(Commission) Complaint was made as to the censorship of prisoners’ correspondence. The censorship of prisoners’ correspondence was ancillary to prison rules restricting the contents of correspondence. The Commission, therefore, and the Court had to . .
The claimant had suffered mental illness and threatened to hurt himself. He was taken into hospital as a voluntary patient, but in effect detained compulsorily. He lacked capacity to consent to medical treatment.
Held: The holding of a patient . .
The two prisoners, serving life sentences for murder, had had their appeals rejected. They continued to protest innocence, and sought to bring their campaigns to public attention through the press, having oral interviews with journalists without . .
Overcrowding at a football match lead to the deaths of 95 people. The defendant’s employees had charge of safety at the match, and admitted negligence vis-a-vis those who had died and been injured. The plaintiffs sought damages, some of them for . .
The applicant had entered the UK without leave, and then been detained for mental illness. The Secretary ordered him to be removed. He claimed that there was no power to remove him whilst the detention order was current, and that the order infringed . .
Then plaintiff saw her husband killed and her children injured by a runaway motor car. At trial she was awarded damages for nervous shock. The question was whether, having regard to the fact that she had suffered sorrow and grief it would not be to . .
‘the homosexual partner of a patient within the meaning of section 145 of the Mental Health Act 1983 can be treated as a ‘relative’ within section 26(1) of the Mental Health Act 1983.’ . .
The local authority sought a declaration as to its rights to control the daily activities of an eighteen year old, who was incapable of managing her own affairs but was not subject to mental health legislation.
Held: There remained an inherent . .
P, a 16 year old boy with learning difficulties faced charges. A psychologist said his IQ was so low (52) that P would not be able to understand or reply rationally to the charges. The justices decided that he was fit to plead; they had formed a . .
These proceedings raise points of principle in respect of the powers of NHS Foundation Trusts pursuant to the National Health Service Act 2006 (‘the 2006 Act’) regarding financial assistance to patients whilst they are detained pursuant to hospital . .
The Court was asked whether a person who has been compulsorily detained in a hospital for mental disorder under section 3 of the 1983 Act and has then been released from detention but still requires ‘after-care services’ is entitled to require his . .
Application for claim to be struck out. . .
