The applicant sought his release from detention in hospital, correction of records at the Crown Court, and confirmation that his detention had infringed his human rights. He had been accused of two assaults, but was found unfit to plead under section 4 by a jury. He was however later made subject to the s37 order.
Held: Following Fairley, the court did not have power to make the order it had. However the earlier order remained valid until revoked.
Judges:
The Honourable Mr Justice Stanley Burnton
Citations:
[2003] EWHC 2020 (Admin)
Links:
Statutes:
Offences Against the Persons Act 1861 16, Criminal Procedure (Insanity) Act 1964 4, Mental Health Act 1983 31
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Regina v H (On appeal from the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)) HL 30-Jan-2003
The defendant had been found unfit to stand trial, at a later hearing under the section, the jury had found that he had committed the act complained of. He was discharged but ordered to be placed on the sex offenders register. He appealed on the . .
Cited – Regina v Fairley CACD 2003
A section 37 order is not available to a court where a defendant has been found unfit to plead, with an additional finding fo fact that he had committed the act. That finding was not a finding of guilt. . .
Cited – Chuck v Cremer 24-Jul-1846
The plaintiff’s solicitor obtained an attachment against the defendant in default of a pleaded defence, disregarding a court order extending the period for filing the defence, which he considered to be a nullity. The order in question had been . .
Cited – Hadkinson v Hadkinson CA 1952
The courts adopt an approach similar to that of the United States courts where there has been a significant contempt on the part of a party to litigation. Denning LJ said: ‘Those cases seem to me to point the way to the modern rule. It is a strong . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Health, Human Rights
Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.185651
