References: 60 L Ed 2d 323, 60 L Ed 323, 99 SCt 1804, 441 US 418
Links: Worldlii
Coram: Burger CJ
(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 the evidence, which was held to strike a fair balance between the rights of the individual and the legitimate concerns of the state.
This case is cited by:
- Not applicable – Regina (DJ) -v- Mental Health Review Tribunal; Regina (AN) -v- Mental Health Review Tribunal (Northern Region) Admn (Times 18-Apr-05, Bailii, [2005] EWHC 587 (Admin))
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 . . - Cited – AN, Regina (on the Application of) -v- Mental Health Review Tribunal (Northern Region) and others CA (Bailii, [2005] EWCA Civ 1605, Times 12-Jan-06, [2006] 4 All ER 194, [2006] 2 WLR 850, [2006] QB 468, [2006] MHLR 59, (2006) 88 BMLR 59)
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 . .