The applicant had been detained after a diagnosis of Bipolar Affective Disorder and convictions for rape. He had applied for discharge, but before the hearing the doctor had said he no longer opposed his release. After the hearing but before being released the detention was re-instated, and the patient again complained at proposals to treat him against his will. He appealed the second order for his detention.
Held: The condition would have periods of remission. In case of medical necessity, treatment against the wishes of a patient did not infringe his human rights. The degree of necessity had been shown in this case. There was still required a genuinely independent assessment.
Lord Phillips CJ
 EWCA Civ 28, Times 02-Feb-2006,  1 WLR 810
Mental Health Act 1983 37 41, European Convention on Human Rights 3 8 14
England and Wales
Appeal from – B v Responsible Medical Officer, Broadmoor Hospital, Dr SS and others Admn 8-Sep-2005
Compulsory administration of treatment to detained mental patient. The court considered, but left open, the relationship between the ‘convincingly shown’ standard of proof, and the decision of the House of Lords in In re H as to the civil standard . .
See Also – B, Regina (on the Application of) v Dr SS and others Admn 31-Jan-2005
The claimant was a mental patient detained for a bipolar dis-order after convictions for rape. . .
Cited – In re MB (Medical Treatment) CA 26-Mar-1997
The patient was due to deliver a child. A delivery by cesarean section was necessary, but the mother had a great fear of needles, and despite consenting to the operation, refused the necessary consent to anesthesia in any workable form.
Held: . .
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 . .
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 – Ladd v Marshall CA 29-Nov-1954
Conditions for new evidence on appeal
At the trial, the wife of the appellant’s opponent said she had forgotten certain events. After the trial she began divorce proceedings, and informed the appellant that she now remembered. He sought either to appeal admitting fresh evidence, or for . .
Cited – PS, Regina (on the Application of) v Responsible Medical Officer, Dr G and others Admn 10-Oct-2003
The claimant had been compulsorily detained under the Act. He complained that the detention and compulsory medication infringed his rights, and amongst other things breached his religious beliefs.
Held: This was an exceptional case requiring . .
Cited – In re T (Adult: Refusal of Treatment) CA 1992
A patient’s right to veto medical treatment is absolute: ‘This right of choice is not limited to decisions which others might regard as sensible. It exists notwithstanding that the reasons for making the choice are rational, irrational, unknown or . .
Cited – Nevmerzhitsky v Ukraine ECHR 5-Apr-2005
ECHR Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction) – Violations of Art. 3 (on account of torture and degrading treatment); Violation of Art. 5-1 (c); Violations of Art. 5-3 (on account of the lack of prompt judicial . .
Cited – Glass v The United Kingdom ECHR 9-Mar-2004
The applicant’s adult son was disabled. There was a disagreement with the hospital about his care. The hospital considered that to alleviate his distress, he should not be resuscitated. The family wanted to take him home, fearing euthanasia. The . .
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 – 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 . .
These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 12 May 2021; Ref: scu.238128