Judges: Munby J Citations: [2007] EWHC 781 (Admin) Links: Bailii Statutes: Mental Health Review Tribunal Rules 1983 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Health, Human Rights Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.251646
Proceedings before the Mental Health Review Tribnal had been very nearly all held in private. The patient, Ian Brady sought to have his hearing in public. Held: Beatson J approved the Tribunal’s reasons forfind that their privacy rules were a proper and proportionate departure from the principle of open justice and thus compatible with article … Continue reading Mersey Care NHS Trust, Regina (on the Application of) v Mental Health Review Tribunal and others: Admn 22 Jul 2004
The claimant was detained as a mental patient. He complained that a consultant employed by the NHS Trust which detained him, also sat on the panel of the tribunal which heard the review of his detention. Held: Such proceedings did engage the applicant’s right to a fair trial. The issue was whether a fair-minded and … Continue reading PD, Regina (on the Application of) v West Midlands and North West Mental Health Review Tribunal: Admn 22 Oct 2003
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 his conditional release. She sought a copy of the decision, and now sought … Continue reading T and others v Mental Health Review Tribunal and G: Admn 22 Feb 2002
When a person detained compulsorily applied for a review of his admission, it was unacceptable to list all such cases to be heard only after eight weeks. Whilst such cases might often require detailed assessment which would take some time after admission, and the consequences of a decision to confirm the detention were serious for … Continue reading Regina (C) v Mental Health Review Tribunal: CA 11 Jul 2001
The jurisdiction with respect to restricted patients of the Tribunal was to decide whether the Act allowed the patient to be discharged or re-classified. Questions about the transfer of patients to other less secure facilities were not part of the tribunals jurisdiction, and it could not adjourn for consideration of such an option. Citations: Times … Continue reading Regina v Mental Health Tribunal for North East Thames Region, ex parte Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 20 Feb 2001
[2002] EWHC 2522 (Admin) Bailii Mental Health Review Tribunal Rules 1983 11 England and Wales Health, Human Rights Updated: 26 January 2022; Ref: scu.189100
The claimant appealed against an order striking out his claim in negligence. He had leaped from a window in a suicide attempt. The accommodation was provided by the defendant whilst caring for him under the 1983 Act. Held: The case should be allowed to go ahead. Though the common law tort of negligence is still … Continue reading K v Central and North West London Mental Health NHS Trust and Another: QBD 30 May 2008
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
Unlawful Detention pending Deportation An offender had been recommended for deportation following conviction. He had served his sentence and would otherwise have been released on parole. He had no passport and no valid travel documents. He complained that the length of time for which he had then been detained was too long and that the … Continue reading Regina v Governor of Durham Prison, ex parte Hardial Singh: QBD 13 Dec 1983
The patient was detained under the Act. The Mental Health Tribunal decided he should be released. The hospital disagreed. The patient continued to reside to the Hospital voluntarily, but the hospital viewed the decision to release him as . .
The Home Secretary had the duty to make a decision on the release of a mental patient, and in doing so had no obligation to follow the recommendation of the tribunal, but he must still act fairly and disclose what was happening in the making of his decision. Citations: Gazette 03-Jun-1998 Statutes: Mental Health Review … Continue reading Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department Ex Parte Harry: QBD 3 Jun 1998
Home Secretary had the duty to make decision on release of mental patient and had no duty to follow recommendation of the tribunal but must act fairly and disclose what was happening. Citations: Times 15-May-1998 Statutes: Mental Health Review Tribunal Rules 1983 (1983 No 942) Jurisdiction: England and Wales Health Updated: 26 May 2022; Ref: … Continue reading Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Harry: QBD 15 May 1998
The copyright tribunal was given a wide discretion for the awarding of costs on applications made to it for licenses. The nature of the applications and the different basis makes it dangerous to import rules for awards from the general rules on costs. The Copyright Tribunal was wrong to award costs on an award to … Continue reading AEI Rediffusion Music Ltd v Phonographic Performance Ltd: CA 1 Feb 1999
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
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
Standing to Claim under A1P1 ECHR The appellants had written employers’ liability insurance policies. They appealed against rejection of their challenge to the 2009 Act which provided that asymptomatic pleural plaques, pleural thickening and asbestosis should constitute actionable harm for the purposes of an action of damages for personal injury. Held: The insurers’ appeals failed. … Continue reading AXA General Insurance Ltd and Others v Lord Advocate and Others: SC 12 Oct 2011
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
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
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
Hate-Incident Guidance Inflexible and Unlawful The central issue raised in the appeal is the lawfulness of certain parts of a document entitled the Hate Crime Operational Guidance (the Guidance). The Guidance, issued in 2014 by the College of Policing (the College), the respondent to this appeal, sets out the national policy in relation to the … Continue reading Miller v The College of Policing: CA 20 Dec 2021
The court was asked, whether asked to grant possession against a disabled tenant where the grounds for possession were mandatory. The defendant was a secure tenant with a history of psychiatric disability. He had set out to buy his flat, but the council sought possession when it discovered that he had sublet. Held: Section 23(3)(c) … Continue reading London Borough of Lewisham v Malcolm and Disability Rights Commission: CA 25 Jul 2007
The applicants had been made subject of anti-social behaviour orders. They challenged the basis upon which the orders had been made. Held: The orders had no identifiable consequences which would make the process a criminal one. Civil standards of evidence therefore applied, and hearsay evidence was admissible. Nevertheless, the test as to whether it was … Continue reading Clingham (formerly C (a minor)) v Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea; Regina v Crown Court at Manchester Ex parte McCann and Others: HL 17 Oct 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
The appellants were teachers in Christian schools who said that the blanket ban on corporal punishment interfered with their religious freedom. They saw moderate physical discipline as an essential part of educating children in a Christian manner. Held: The appeal was dismissed. For Article 9 to be engaged (aside from certain other threshold conditions) the … Continue reading Regina v Secretary of State for Education and Employment and others ex parte Williamson and others: HL 24 Feb 2005
The claimant telecoms companies objected to a proposed scheme for future licensing of available spectrum. The scheme anticipated a bias in favour of auctioniung such content. It was not agreed whether any challenge to the decision should be by way of appeal to the Competition Appeal Tribunal or by judicial review. The CAT had declined … Continue reading T-Mobile (Uk) Ltd. and Another v Office of Communications: CA 12 Dec 2008
The various claimants sought damages for established breaches of their human rights involving breaches of statutory duty by way of maladministration. Does the state have a duty to provide support so as to avoid a threat to the family life of the claimant? Held: A finding that a Convention right has been infringed, including a … Continue reading Anufrijeva and Another v London Borough of Southwark: CA 16 Oct 2003
The appellant was serving a life sentence for terrorist offences. He complained that he should have been released under the 1998 Act. It was said he would be a danger to the public if released. On pre-release home leave he was involved in a seriously violent incident, and it was found that he continued to … Continue reading McClean, Re: HL 7 Jul 2005
The claimant said that the medical member of the tribunal which had heard his disability claim was biased. The doctor was on a temporary contract and also worked for an agency which contracted directly the Benfits Agency. The court of session had considered tha a reasonable and well informed observer would not think there was … Continue reading Gillies v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions: HL 26 Jan 2006
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 . .
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