The House was asked whether a patient detained for treatment under the 1983 Act can be treated against his will for any mental disorder from which he is suffering or only for the particular form of mental disorder from which he is classified as suffering for the purpose of the order or application authorising his detention.
Held: The words of section 63 mean what they say. They authorise a patient to be treated for any mental disorder from which he is suffering, irrespective of whether this falls within the form of disorder from which he is classified as suffering in the application, order or direction justifying his detention. The condition for which his detention was originally detained did not preclude treatment for any supervening orders.
Judges:
Lord Bingham of Cornhill, Lord Steyn, Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, Baroness Hale of Richmond, Lord Carswell
Citations:
Times 18-Mar-2005, [2005] 2 WLR 695, [2005] UKHL 20
Links:
Statutes:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – 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 . .
Cited – Pountney v Griffiths; Regina v Bracknell Justices, Ex parte Griffiths HL 1976
The applicant was a male nurse at Broadmoor Special Hospital. He was on duty while patients were saying goodbye to visitors. He approached the detained patient telling him to ‘come on’ and allegedly punched him on the shoulder. The patient brought . .
Cited – Regina (Wilkinson) v Broadmoor Special Hospital and Others CA 22-Oct-2001
A detained mental patient sought to challenge a decision by his RMO that he should receive anti-psychotic medication, despite his refusal to consent, and to challenge a certificate issued by the SOAD.
Held: Where a mental patient sought to . .
Cited – Regina v Deputy Governor of Parkhurst Prison, Ex parte Hague, Weldon v Home Office HL 24-Jul-1991
The prisoner challenged the decision to place him in segregation under Prison Rule 43. Under rule 43(1) the initial power to segregate was given to ‘the governor’. The case arose from the fact that the governor of one prison had purported to . .
Cited – B v Croydon Health Authority CA 30-Nov-1994
The feeding by tube of a mental patient who was unable and unwilling to consent can remain treatment, and within the decision of the doctors. In the context of whether the force-feeding an anorexic was authorised by section 63, the Court of Appeal . .
Cited – W v L CA 1974
For civil patients, it matters a great deal whether the classification of their condition is ‘severe subnormality’ or just ‘subnormality’ or whether it is ‘mental illness’ or ‘psychopathic disorder’. Lawton LJ discussed the construction of the . .
Cited – 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. . .
Cited – Ashingdane v The United Kingdom ECHR 28-May-1985
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 . .
Cited – Aerts v Belgium ECHR 30-Jul-1998
A person detained as a person of unsound mind should not be kept in a prison, but if the institution concerned is within the appropriate category, there is no breach of Article 5. While measures depriving a person of his liberty often involve an . .
Cited – Herczegfalvy v Austria ECHR 24-Sep-1992
The applicant was detained in an institution for mentally deranged offenders. While so detained he was subjected to the forcible administration of food and neuroleptics and to handcuffing to a security bed. He complained of violation of his Article . .
Cited – J and others v Switzerland ECHR 5-Apr-1995
Even relatively minor medical treatment, if compulsory, may engage article 8. . .
Cited by:
Appealed to – 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 . .
Cited – Regina v Ashworth Hospital Authority (Now Mersey Care National Health Service Trust) ex parte Munjaz HL 13-Oct-2005
The claimant was detained in a secure Mental Hospital. He complained at the seclusions policy applied by the hospital, saying that it departed from the Guidance issued for such policies by the Secretary of State under the Act.
Held: The House . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Health, Human Rights
Updated: 26 July 2022; Ref: scu.223639
