It was not unlawful for a patient to be detained for treatment, even though he was untreatable, and unwilling to be treated. A Mental Health tribunal appeal was to be allowed where patient was re-admitted. Citations: Gazette 08-Jun-1994, Gazette 30-Mar-1994, Times 02-Mar-1994 Statutes: Mental Health Act 1983 72(1)(b) Jurisdiction: England and Wales Citing: Appeal from … Continue reading Regina v Cannons Park Mental Health Review Tribunal, Ex Parte A: CA 2 Mar 1994
The applicant, detained under the section by the respondent, appealed refusal of a judicial review and a writ of habeas corpus. He had applied for a review of his detention. The review had been heard by a panel of three. Two judged in his favour. Held: The Act required a minimum of three votes in … Continue reading Regina on the Application of Tagoe-Thompson v the Hospital Managers of the Park Royal Centre: CA 12 Mar 2003
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 They challenged as unlawful the respondent’s, at first unpublished, policy introduced in 2006, that by default, those awaiting deportation should be … Continue reading Lumba (WL) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: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
Each applicant sought judicial review of the refusal of the tribunal to authorise their release from detention under the 1983 Act, saying that the Tribunal had accepted evidence to a lower standard of proof. Held: Neither the criminal standard of proof nor the level of proof set down in Addington applied. To raise the standard … Continue reading Regina (DJ) v Mental Health Review Tribunal; Regina (AN) v Mental Health Review Tribunal (Northern Region): Admn 11 Apr 2005
The patient did not wish her nearest relative, namely her sister, to be involved with her case and there was evidence that she would be so distressed by the sister being consulted that it could harm her health. The sister likewise did not wish to become involved. Held: When an adult whose mental health is … Continue reading E, Regina (on the Application of) v Bristol City Council: Admn 13 Jan 2005
Damages were claimed by three mental health patients whose rights under Article 5(4) had been infringed because of inordinate delay in processing their claims to mental health review tribunals. Held: Article 5.5 did not make an award of damages mandatory. It was complied with provided that it was possible to make an application for compensation; … Continue reading KB and Others, Regina (on the Applications of) v Mental Health Review Tribunal: Admn 23 Apr 2002
The applicant was an adult autistic, unable to consent to medical treatment. Treatment was provided at a day centre. He had been detained informally under the Act and against the wishes of his carers, but the Court of Appeal decided he should have been formally detained. Held: The appeal succeeded. His detention had not been … Continue reading In Re L (By His Next Friend GE); Regina v Bournewood Community and Mental Health NHS Trust, Ex Parte L: HL 25 Jun 1998
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 was in breach of his human rights not to be detained. It … Continue reading Regina (on the application of H) v Mental Health Review Tribunal, North and East London Region: CA 28 Mar 2001
The defendant was mentally ill. He had been convicted of a second serious offence, and now appealed the life sentence imposed. Psychiatrists had recommended a hospital order, but such an order could not now be made by virtue of the 2000 Act save in exceptional circumstances. It was said to be wrong automatically to impose … Continue reading Regina v Drew: HL 8 May 2003
When assessing the release of a detained patient the tribunal must look at the ‘nature or degree’ of the illness disjunctively and not conjunctively. A person subject to a serious illness but without current symptoms might still be detained. Citations: Times 09-Dec-1998, [1998] EWHC Admin 832 Links: Bailii Statutes: Mental Health Act 1983 72(1)(b)(I) Health … Continue reading Regina v Mental Health Review Tribunal for South Thames Region ex parte Anthony David Smith: Admn 4 Aug 1998
Citations: [1998] EWHC Admin 472 Links: Bailii Statutes: Mental Health Act of 1983 2 Health Updated: 27 May 2022; Ref: scu.138593
Two patients were each subject to hospital orders and restriction orders under the Mental Health Act 1983. On a reference to the First-tier Tribunal, the first patient did not seek a discharge but instead sought an extra-statutory recommendation that he be granted leave outside the hospital. Before hearing any evidence, the First-tier Tribunal announced that … Continue reading EC v Birmingham and Solihull Mental Health NHS Trust: UTAA 8 May 2013
The applicant sought to challenge a decision that she should be sterilised, and detained as a mental patient for this purpose. Judges: Popplewell J Citations: [1997] EWHC Admin 281 Statutes: Mental Health Act 1983 2, Supreme Court Act 1981 31(6) Jurisdiction: England and Wales Citing: See Also – Regina v Collins; Pathfinder Mental Health Services … Continue reading Regina v Collins; Pathfinder Mental Health Services NHS Trust and St George’s Health Care NHS Trust ex parte ‘S’: Admn 17 Mar 1997
Where a child, having attained sixteen, but with severe mental disability, sought to return home where the local authority feared she might be the victim of abuse, the proper approach was to seek wardship, where she might have separate representation. An application for the displacement of the father as the nearest relative was inappropriate, since … Continue reading In Re F (A Child): CA 13 Oct 1999
Citations: [2002] EWHC 1522 (Admin) Links: Bailii Statutes: Mental Health Act 1983 72 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Health, Human Rights Updated: 07 May 2022; Ref: scu.347803
Where a patient was detained having been diagnosed as suffering from two mental health conditions justifying his detention, a finding that one condition was in remission but might return, but which could not at that time be used to justify his continued detention, did not oblige the tribunal to delete that condition as a basis … Continue reading Regina v Anglia and Oxfordshire Mental Health Review Tribunal, Ex Parte Hagan: CA 21 Jan 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 lender of its property rights. It was also argued that it was not possible to make a declaration … Continue reading Wilson v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry; Wilson v First County Trust Ltd (No 2): HL 10 Jul 2003
An application for the discharge of a mental patient under section 72, was to be based on the same criteria as would found the original decision to authorise detention under section 3. The criteria would mirror each other save that the burden of proof was reversed. It was correct to take account of the possibility … Continue reading Regina v London South West Region Mental Health Review Tribunal, Ex Parte Moyle: QBD 10 Feb 2000
Balance of Interests in peaceful enjoyment claim (Plenary Court) The claimants challenged orders expropriating their properties for redevelopment, and the banning of construction pending redevelopment. The orders remained in place for many years. Held: Article 1 comprises three distinct rules: the first rule, set out in the first sentence of the first paragraph, is general … Continue reading Sporrong and Lonnroth v Sweden: ECHR 23 Sep 1982
EAT UNFAIR DISMISSAL – Dismissal/ambiguous resignationWhether employee was dismissed – unambiguous words of dismissal used by employer – Tribunal erred in law in holding that by reason of ‘special circumstances’ the employer did not dismiss the employee.Cases on ‘special circumstances’ considered and reviewed – in particular Sothern v Frank Charlesly and Co [1981] IRLR 278; … Continue reading Willoughby v C F Capital Plc: EAT 13 Jul 2010
The Court was asked: ‘As: (i) a public body with obligations in public law and (ii) a public authority under the Human Rights Act 1998 can the Secretary of State for Health ‘the S/S’ lawfully refuse to refer a patient’s case to the First-tier Mental Health Review Tribunal ‘MHRT’ under section 67(1) of the Mental … Continue reading Modaresi, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Health: SC 24 Jul 2013
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
Mental health – ‘This case raises one issue: is the nature of the risk posed by a patient detained under the Mental Health Act 1983 relevant to the appropriateness of treatment under section 72(1)(b)(iia) of that Act?’ . .
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 . .
The parties considered the propriety of a sterilisation of a woman who was, through mental incapacity, unable to give her consent.
Held: The appeal succeeded, and the operation would be lawful if the doctor considered it to be in the best . .
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
For civil patients, it matters a great deal whether the classification of their condition is ‘severe subnormality’ or just ‘subnormality’ or whether it is ‘mental illness’ or ‘psychopathic disorder’. Lawton LJ discussed the construction of the phrase ‘mental illness’: ‘The answer in my judgment is to be found in the advice which Lord Reid gave … Continue reading W v L: CA 1974
The deceased and the claimant lived together for about 10 years in an apparently stable and loving relationship. They had a son together. They also co-owned a house (by way of joint tenancy) in which they lived. In April 2013 the claimant was referred by his GP for a mental health assessment after describing feelings … Continue reading Chadwick v Collinson and Others: ChD 24 Sep 2014
After conviction of manslaughter with diminished responsibility, the defendant now argued that the imposition of an extended sentence of imprisonment with a hospital direction under section 45A was wrong in principle, contrary, as it was, to the unanimous view of the psychiatrists involved in his case that the appropriate sentence was a hospital order under … Continue reading Westwood, Regina v: CACD 6 May 2020
The parties had married, but the male partner was a transsexual, having been born female and having undergone treatment for Gender Identity Dysphoria. After IVF treatment, the couple had a child. As the marriage broke down the truth was revealed in court, but the plaintiff said that his wife had known the true position. He … Continue reading J v S T (Formerly J): CA 21 Nov 1996
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: inadmissible Facts – Under the relevant domestic legislation prisoners were not entitled to social security benefits while serving a prison sentence, including during any periods they were required to spend … Continue reading SS And Others v The United Kingdom (Dec): ECHR 21 Apr 2015
The claimant’s daughter had committed suicide whilst on home leave from a hospital where she had stayed as a voluntary patient with depression. Her admission had followed a suicide attempt. The hospital admitted negligence but denied that it owed her a positive obligation to protect life under Article 2. Held: The claimants’ appeal succeeded. The … Continue reading Rabone and Another v Pennine Care NHS Foundation: SC 8 Feb 2012
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 to consult is one which exists to enable there to … Continue reading GD v Hospital Managers of the Edgware Community Hospital and Another: Admn 27 Jun 2008
Renewed application for leave to appeal after conviction on plea for common assault and sentence to a hospital order and restriction without time under section 41. Held: ‘the overall history that we have described and the balance of the psychiatric evidence did not justify making a restriction order in this case.’ The restriction was removed. … Continue reading MMK, Regina v: CACD 25 Nov 2002
Citations: [2005] EWCA Civ 1726 Links: Bailii Statutes: Mental Health Act 1983 37 41 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Health, Prisons Updated: 05 July 2022; Ref: scu.238606
The claimant said that he had been indirectly discriminated against on racial grounds. He was dismissed after being elected as a local councillor for the BNP. The employer considered that for Health and Safety reasons, his dismissal was necessary because of the upset and disturbance his continued employment would create with Asian co-workers and passengers. … Continue reading A C Redfearn v Serco Ltd T/A West Yorkshire Transport Service: EAT 27 Jul 2005
The deceased suffered depressive mental illness, and was detained outside on a cold night naked and in a cannabis induced delirium. Because of his size, additional officers were called upon to assist restraining him. He was taken to hospital, but died of a cardiac arrest whilst being restrained pending the arrival of a doctor. The … Continue reading Regina (Anderson and Others) v HM Coroner for Inner North Greater London: QBD 26 Nov 2004
The patient refused consent to treatment in the form of injection of drugs, which her psychiatrists considered to be necessary. Held: Treatment of this nature infringed the patients rights, and was not to be ordered without clear reason. The doctors had to show that it was a medical necessity, and this had to be shown … Continue reading Regina (N) v Dr M and Others: CA 6 Dec 2002
Where a body was given statutory duties, it would normally be entitled to orders restraining others from interfering with its performance of those duties. A patient detained under the Act had written a book, and the Hospital had sought to restrain its publication. It was argued that such a restraint went beyond the express powers … Continue reading Broadmoor Hospital Authority and Another v Robinson: CA 20 Dec 1999
The court was asked: ‘whether the current approach to assessing the financial losses suffered by the dependant of a person who is wrongfully killed properly reflects the fundamental principle of full compensation, and if it does not whether we should depart from previous decisions of the House of Lords.’ Held: The correct date as at … Continue reading Knauer v Ministry of Justice: SC 24 Feb 2016
The claimant’s husband had committed suicide. She sought damages for financial loss from his former employers under the 1976 Act. He had suffered a severe and debilitating injury working for them leading to his depression and suicide. The employers said that these damages were too remote. Held: The employer’s appeal was dismissed.Lord Bingham said: ‘Mr … Continue reading Corr v IBC Vehicles Ltd: HL 27 Feb 2008
The prisoner challenged the decision to place him in segregation under Prison Rule 43. Under rule 43(1) the initial power to segregate was given to ‘the governor’. The case arose from the fact that the governor of one prison had purported to authorise the segregation of a prisoner on his arrival at another prison to … Continue reading Regina v Deputy Governor of Parkhurst Prison, Ex parte Hague, Weldon v Home Office: HL 24 Jul 1991
Lack of Patient 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
(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
ECHR Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction) – Preliminary objection rejected ( res iudicata ); Violation of Art. 5-1 (placement in private clinic from 1977 to 1979); No separate issue under Arts. 5-4 and 5-5; No violation of Art. 5 (stay in private clinic in 1981); Violation of Art. 8 (placement in private clinic from 1977 … Continue reading Storck v Germany: ECHR 16 Jun 2005
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
The plaintiff bought her apartment, but discovered later that the foundations were defective. The local authority had supervised the compliance with Building Regulations whilst it was being built, but had failed to spot the fault. The authority appealed a finding that it was liable, arguing that the claims were time barred and that it had … Continue reading Anns and Others v Merton London Borough Council: HL 12 May 1977
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
Shareholder May Sue for Additional Personal Losses A company brought a claim of negligence against its solicitors, and, after that claim was settled, the company’s owner brought a separate claim in respect of the same subject-matter. Held: It need not be an abuse of the court for a shareholder to seek damages against advisers to … Continue reading Johnson v Gore Wood and Co: HL 14 Dec 2000
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
Movement retsriction was not Liberty Deprivation The claimants had been present during a demonstration policed by the respondent. They appealed against dismissal of their claims for false imprisonment having been prevented from leaving Oxford Circus for over seven hours. The claimants appealed against rejection of their claims on human rights law. Held: The appeal failed. … Continue reading Austin and Another v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis: HL 28 Jan 2009
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 court had ordered the defendant, before his trial for a serious assault, to be remitted to a mental hospital under section 35 of the 1983 Act, so that a report could be prepared as to his mental condition. The central issue would be his capacity to form the necessary intent. The defendant appealed saying … Continue reading M, Regina (on The Application of) v Kingston Crown Court: Admn 17 Jul 2014
Capacity for Litigation The claimant appealed against dismissal of his claims. He had earlier settled a claim for damages, but now sought to re-open it, and to claim in negligence against his former solicitors, saying that he had not had sufficient mental capacity at the time to accept the offer. Held: There is no definition … Continue reading Masterman-Lister v Brutton and Co, Jewell and Home Counties Dairies (No 1): CA 19 Dec 2002
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 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
Application for leave to appeal refusal of leave to bring request for judicial review as to decision on detention under section 3. . .
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 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 . .
