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 of proof in English law. He proceeded on the basis of the ‘convincingly shown’ standard, treating it as the parties had agreed, as lying between the English civil standard and criminal standard.
Judges:
Charles J
Citations:
[2005] EWHC 1936 (Admin)
Links:
Statutes:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
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 by:
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 . .
Appeal from – B, Regina (on the Application Of) v SS (Responsible Medical Officer) and others CA 26-Jan-2006
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Health, Human Rights, Evidence
Updated: 03 August 2022; Ref: scu.231224
