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
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 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 . .
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 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
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
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
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 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
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 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 . .
