(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.
Judges:
Burger CJ
Citations:
60 L Ed 2d 323, 60 L Ed 323, 99 SCt 1804, 441 US 418
Links:
Cited by:
Not applicable – 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 . .
Cited – 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Health, International
Updated: 30 April 2022; Ref: scu.224295
