Click the case name for better results:

Regina (DJ) v Mental Health Review Tribunal; Regina (AN) v Mental Health Review Tribunal (Northern Region): Admn 11 Apr 2005

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

T and others v Mental Health Review Tribunal and G: Admn 22 Feb 2002

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

Regina (on the application of H) v Mental Health Review Tribunal, North and East London Region: CA 28 Mar 2001

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

Regina (on the application of K) v Camden and Islington Health Authority: CA 21 Feb 2001

The duty of a local authority to seek to provide resources to care for a mental patient after release into the community, is not absolute, and is subject to the limitations of the availability of a sufficient budget. A continued detention in hospital of a patient because of the absence of such proper provision was … Continue reading Regina (on the application of K) v Camden and Islington Health Authority: CA 21 Feb 2001

Henderson v Dorset Healthcare University NHS Foundation Trust: CA 3 Aug 2018

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 negligence. The defendant relied upon a defence of illegality. Held: All the heads of claim … Continue reading Henderson v Dorset Healthcare University NHS Foundation Trust: CA 3 Aug 2018

AN, Regina (on the Application of) v Mental Health Review Tribunal (Northern Region) and others: CA 21 Dec 2005

The appellant was detained under section 37 of the 1983 Act as a mental patient with a restriction under section 41. He sought his release. Held: The standard of proof in such applications remained the balance of probabilities, but that standard was flexible, and varied according to the seriousness of the allegation. The only misdirection … Continue reading AN, Regina (on the Application of) v Mental Health Review Tribunal (Northern Region) and others: CA 21 Dec 2005

Khera v Secretary of State for The Home Department; Khawaja v Secretary of State for The Home Department: HL 10 Feb 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

Acts

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

Nelson v Regina: CACD 2 Dec 2020

‘This appeal against sentence demonstrates some of the practical differences between, and advantages and disadvantages of, a ‘hybrid order’ under section 45A of the Mental Health Act 1983 (‘MHA’) combining imprisonment with a hospital direction and limitation direction on the one hand, and a ‘hospital and restriction order’ under section 37 MHA with section 41 … Continue reading Nelson v Regina: CACD 2 Dec 2020

Attorney-General’s Reference No 54 of 2011: CACD 2012

Hughes LJ said that the detention for public protection regime and that under sections 37/41 of the 1983 Act have features in common. Under both, release is discretionary in the hands of the Secretary of State, effectively the Ministry of Justice. There is no absolute right to release. The test for the exercise of the … Continue reading Attorney-General’s Reference No 54 of 2011: CACD 2012

Gray v Thames Trains and Others: HL 17 Jun 2009

The claimant suffered psychiatric injury in a rail crash caused by the defendant’s negligence. Under this condition of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, the claimant had later 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

MJ (Angola) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: CA 20 May 2010

The applicant had been ordered to be deported and returned to Angola, but at the same time he was a detained mental patient. He argued that a return would breach his Article 8 rights. Held: The respondent was entitled to decide to deport the appellant notwithstanding that he was still subject to orders under sections … Continue reading MJ (Angola) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: CA 20 May 2010

Lall, Regina v: CACD 19 Mar 2021

Choice of mental Health Sentencing Options On conviction of manslaughter by reason of diminished responsibility, the judge imposed a hospital order and a restriction, without limit of time, under sections 37 and 41 of the Mental Health Act 1983. The AG appealed it as too lenient, suggesting imprisonment for life with a limitation restriction under … Continue reading Lall, Regina v: CACD 19 Mar 2021

Manuel and Others v Attorney-General; Noltcho and Others v Attorney-General: ChD 7 May 1982

The plaintiffs were Indian Chiefs from Canada. They complained that the 1982 Act which granted independence to Canada, had been passed without their consent, which they said was required. They feared the loss of rights embedded by historical treaties. The Attorney General sought the strike out of the claims. Held: The application for a strike … Continue reading Manuel and Others v Attorney-General; Noltcho and Others v Attorney-General: ChD 7 May 1982

Regina on the Application of Brooks v The Parole Board: CA 10 Feb 2004

The court had to decide the extent to which the Parole Board could rely on hearsay evidence in a case in which a discretionary life prisoner’s licence had been revoked. The evidence was crucial to the issue of risk. Held: (majority) The Board’s decision which had relied upon the hearsay evidnce was upheld. Kennedy LJ: … Continue reading Regina on the Application of Brooks v The Parole Board: CA 10 Feb 2004

B, Regina (on the Application of) v Ashworth Hospital Authority: CA 15 Apr 2003

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 suffering from a mental illness, and the tribunal had not said his condition was … Continue reading B, Regina (on the Application of) v Ashworth Hospital Authority: CA 15 Apr 2003

Regina (N) v Dr M and Others: CA 6 Dec 2002

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

Regina (Sim) v Parole Board: CA 18 Dec 2003

The prisoner had been sentenced to an extended term of five years imprisonment for indecent assault. He had been released, and then recalled for alleged breaches of his licence. The respondent appealed findings that such a recall was subject to article 5, and that his release would be mandatory under s44A(b) if his continued detention … Continue reading Regina (Sim) v Parole Board: CA 18 Dec 2003

Hutchison Reid v Secretary Of State For Scotland and Another: HL 5 Feb 1998

(Scotland) A detention in hospital which was capable of preventing the deterioration of a psychopathic disorder in a patient was sufficient to bring his detention within the requirement for treatment which might alleviate a condition, which phrase has a wide meaning. ‘Medical treatment’ could include treatment which alleviates or prevents a deterioration of the symptoms … Continue reading Hutchison Reid v Secretary Of State For Scotland and Another: HL 5 Feb 1998

Addington v Texas: 30 Apr 1979

(US Supreme Court) To commit an individual to a mental institution in civil proceedings, the state was required by the ‘due process’ clause of the US Constitution to prove by clear and convincing evidence the statutory preconditions to commitment. That was an intermediate standard, between proof beyond reasonable doubt and proof on the preponderance of … Continue reading Addington v Texas: 30 Apr 1979

Gorringe v Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council: HL 1 Apr 2004

Statutory Duty Not Extended by Common Law The claimant sought damages after a road accident. The driver came over the crest of a hill and hit a bus. The road was not marked with any warning as to the need to slow down. Held: The claim failed. The duty could not be extended to include … Continue reading Gorringe v Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council: HL 1 Apr 2004

HL v United Kingdom: ECHR 2004

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

RJM, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions: HL 22 Oct 2008

The 1987 Regulations provided additional benefits for disabled persons, but excluded from benefit those who had nowhere to sleep. The claimant said this was irrational. He had been receiving the disability premium to his benefits, but this was cancelled when he lost his home. Held: The appeal was dismissed. The disabilty premium, as part of … Continue reading RJM, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions: HL 22 Oct 2008

Finucane, Re Application for Judicial Review: SC 27 Feb 2019

(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

Bento v The Chief Constable of Bedfordshire Police: QBD 1 Jun 2012

The claimant had been convicted of the murder of his girlfriend. On his acquittal on appeal, the police criticised the CPS decision not to retry the claimant, in effect, the claimant now said, continuing the accusation against him, and so defaming him. The defendant pleaded justification. Held: The prosecution case rested in substantial part on … Continue reading Bento v The Chief Constable of Bedfordshire Police: QBD 1 Jun 2012

Winterwerp v The Netherlands: ECHR 24 Oct 1979

A Dutch national detained in hospital complained that his detention had divested him of his capacity to administer his property, and thus there had been determination of his civil rights and obligations without the guarantee of a judicial procedure. Held: Article 5(1)(a) is concerned with the question whether the detention is permissible. Its object and … Continue reading Winterwerp v The Netherlands: ECHR 24 Oct 1979

Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service: HL 22 Nov 1984

Exercise of Prerogative Power is Reviewable The House considered an executive decision made pursuant to powers conferred by a prerogative order. The Minister had ordered employees at GCHQ not to be members of trades unions. Held: The exercise of a prerogative power of a public nature may be, subject to constraints of national security and … Continue reading Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service: HL 22 Nov 1984

Edgington v Fitzmaurice: CA 7 Mar 1885

False Prospectus – Issuers liable in Deceit The directors of a company issued a prospectus, falsely stating that the proceeds were to be used to complete alterations to the buildings of the company, to purchase horses and vans and to develop the trade of the company. In fact it was to pay off pressing liabilities. … Continue reading Edgington v Fitzmaurice: CA 7 Mar 1885

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 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

Secretary of State for the Home Department v Rehman: HL 11 Oct 2001

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

B v Chief Constable of Avon and Somerset Constabulary: QBD 5 Apr 2000

The defendant appealed the making of a sex offender order under 1998 Act. The justices had found that the defendant was a sex offender within section 2(1)(a) and that he had acted on a number of occasions in a way which brought him within section 2(1)(b). Held: The civil standard of proof is flexible and … Continue reading B v Chief Constable of Avon and Somerset Constabulary: QBD 5 Apr 2000

In re D; Doherty, Re (Northern Ireland); Life Sentence Review Commissioners v D: HL 11 Jun 2008

The Sentence Review Commissioners had decided not to order the release of the prisoner, who was serving a life sentence. He had been released on licence from a life sentence and then committed further serious sexual offences against under-age girls and was recalled. In considering his application for a further licence he complained that the … Continue reading In re D; Doherty, Re (Northern Ireland); Life Sentence Review Commissioners v D: HL 11 Jun 2008

Lumba (WL) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: SC 23 Mar 2011

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

Hornal v Neuberger Products Ltd: CA 1956

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

Regina v Lichniak: HL 25 Nov 2002

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

In re H and R (Minors) (Child Sexual Abuse: Standard of Proof): HL 14 Dec 1995

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