Local Authority is not able to take account of its resources in deciding whether to meet particular kinds of need.
Gazette 12-Sep-1996
Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 2(1)
England and Wales
Updated: 31 October 2022; Ref: scu.86698
Application for judicial review to quash a number of decisions of the defendant that the claimant does not have a need for care and attention pursuant to section 1 of the 1948 Act and section 47 of the 1990 Act.
Robinson DHCJ
[2010] EWHC 2326 (Admin)
National Assistance Act 1948 1, National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 47
England and Wales
Updated: 31 October 2022; Ref: scu.459752
A request was made for a statutory will.
Held: The 2005 Act marked a radical departure from previous practice. A decision made on behalf of a protected person must be made in his best interests. That was not (necessarily) the same as inquiring what the protected person would have decided if he or she had had capacity. Best interests was not a test of ‘substituted judgment’ (what the person would have wanted), but rather required a determination to be made by applying an objective test as to what would be in the protected person’s best interests. Having followed a structured decision-making process, the Court must then form a value judgement of its own, giving effect to the paramount statutory instruction that any decision must be made in the protected person’s best interests. A protected person’s expressed wishes should not be lightly overridden, since adult autonomy is an important part of the overall picture. But what will live on after the protected person’s death is his memory; and for many people it is in their best interests that they should be remembered with affection by their family, and as having done ‘the right thing’ by their will. The decision maker is entitled to take into account, in assessing what is in the protected person’s best interests, how he would be remembered after his death.
Lewison J
[2009] EWHC 163 (Ch), [2010] EWHC 1592 (COP), [2010] Ch 33, [2009] NPC 24, [2009] WTLR 651, [2009] LS Law Medical 264, [2009] 2 All ER 1198, [2010] 2 WLR 253
England and Wales
Approved – In re M; ITW v Z and Others (Statutory Will) FD 12-Oct-2009
The court considered a request for a statutory will under the 2005 Act.
Held: the Court of Protection has no jurisdiction to rule on the validity of any will. However, Munby J made three points: (1) that the 2005 Act laid down no hierarchy as . .
Cited – In Re D (Statutory Will); VAC v JAD and Others ChD 16-Aug-2010
The protected person’s deputy sought authority for making a statutory will for her. An earlier Enduring Power had been found to be a forgery, and a later will was also doubted. The deputy had been appointed. A statutory will had been refused because . .
Cited – NT v FS and Others CoP 26-Mar-2013
An application was made for a statutory will for the patient. The court considered how it should approach competing suggestions as to the provisions to be included.
Held: The 2005 Act had changed the basis for such wills fundamentally. The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 27 October 2022; Ref: scu.281710
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 held that treatment falling within the definition in section 145(1) was ‘treatment for the mental disorder from which he is suffering’ even if addressing its symptoms or ancillary to trying to address the underlying disorder.
Times 01-Dec-1994, Independent 30-Nov-1994, [1995] Fam 133
England and Wales
Cited – Munjaz v Mersey Care National Health Service Trust And the Secretary of State for Health, the National Association for Mental Health (Mind) Respondent interested; CA 16-Jul-2003
The claimant was a mental patient under compulsory detention, and complained that he had been subjected to periods of seclusion.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The hospital had failed to follow the appropriate Code of Practice. The Code was not . .
Cited – B, Regina (on the Application of) v Ashworth Hospital Authority HL 17-Mar-2005
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 27 October 2022; Ref: scu.78057
Moses J
[2005] EWHC 559 (Admin)
National Health Service Act 1977
England and Wales
Appeal from – Keating and Others, Regina (on the Application Of) v Cardiff Local Health Board CA 6-Jul-2005
The applicants appealed refusal of their application for judicial review of the refusal of the respondents to provide funding for a hydrotherapy pool or a non-nursing day centre. The centre provided these facilities to support those with mental . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 27 October 2022; Ref: scu.224844
The patient who was pregnant had been involved in a car accident and during hospital treatment required a blood transfusion.
Held: Lord Donaldson MR said: ‘Doctors faced with a refusal of consent have to give very careful and detailed consideration to the patient’s capacity to decide at the time when the decision was made. It may not be the simple case of the patient having no capacity because, for example, at that time he had hallucinations. It may be the more difficult case of a temporarily reduced capacity at the time when his decision was made. What matters is that the doctors should consider whether at that time he had a capacity which was commensurate with the gravity of the decision which he purported to make. The more serious the decision, the greater the capacity required. If the patient had the requisite capacity, they are bound by his decision. If not, they are free to treat him in what they believe to be his best interests.’
Lord Donaldson MR
[1993] Fam 95
England and Wales
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: . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 27 October 2022; Ref: scu.186734
A discretionary life prisoner who had been transferred to a mental hospital is not automatically eligible for a certificate under the section. The right conferred on a discretionary life prisoner by section 34 of the 1991 Act did not extend to those who were also detained under the MHA by reason of transfer and restriction directions given by the Home Secretary under sections 47 and 49 respectively. ‘I [do not] see anything unjust or illogical in two separate codes existing which cannot be triggered simultaneously, but each of which at an appropriate time, depending on the circumstances, can be triggered so as to achieve a judicial hearing. ‘ The Home Secretary’s powers to refer a case back to the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) was an integral part of the just functioning of the overall process of criminal justice.
Simon Brown LJ
Times 29-Jul-1994, [1995] QB 43, [1995] 1 WLR 734
Criminal Justice Act 1991 31 Sch 12 9(3), Mental Health Act 1983 47 49
England and Wales
Appeal from – Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Hickey and Others QBD 28-Oct-1993
Parole provisions are to apply to life prisoners who had been transferred transferred to a mental hospital. . .
Cited – Thynne, Wilson and Gunnell v The United Kingdom ECHR 25-Oct-1990
The applicants, discretionary life prisoners, complained of a violation on the ground that they were not able to have the continued lawfulness of their detention decided by a court at reasonable intervals throughout their imprisonment.
Held: A . .
Confirmed – Regina (D) v Secretary of State for the Home Department QBD 19-Dec-2002
The applicant had been a discretionary life prisoner. His minimum period of detention had passed, but he continued to be detained under a transfer order for his treatment as mental health patient.
Held: The absence of any means for him to . .
Cited – P, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department Admn 11-Dec-2003
The applicant was a discretionary life prisoner compulsorily detained in a mental hospital. His tariff had now expired. If not detained under the 1983 Act he would now be entitled to a review. He argued that there should be a joint hearing.
Cited – Roberts v Parole Board HL 7-Jul-2005
Balancing Rights of Prisoner and Society
The appellant had been convicted of the murder of three police officers in 1966. His tariff of thirty years had now long expired. He complained that material put before the Parole Board reviewing has case had not been disclosed to him.
Held: . .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for The Home Department Ex Parte Simms HL 8-Jul-1999
Ban on Prisoners talking to Journalists unlawful
The two prisoners, serving life sentences for murder, had had their appeals rejected. They continued to protest innocence, and sought to bring their campaigns to public attention through the press, having oral interviews with journalists without . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 26 October 2022; Ref: scu.87747
A Local Authority may admit a minor in care to a mental hospital for assessment or treatment. Section 131 merely preserves or confirms the common law and previous law. Consent requires proof of conduct and a reasoning capacity.
Lloyd LJ
Ind Summary 12-Apr-1993, [1993] FLR 187
England and Wales
Cited – L v Bournewood Community and Mental Health NHS Trust Admn 9-Oct-1997
L was adult autistic. He had been admitted to mental hospital for fear of his self-harming behaviours, and detained informally. He complained that that detention was unlawful.
Held: The continued detention of a mental health patient who is . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 26 October 2022; Ref: scu.87087
A doctor may deny a patient access to his health records if it is in the patient’s best interests to do so. There is no common law right for a patient to see his own medical records, and the Act is not retrospective.
Gazette 19-Oct-1994, Independent 07-Sep-1994, Times 16-Aug-1994, [1995] 1 All ER 357
Access to Health Records Act 1990
England and Wales
Appeal from – Regina v Mid Glamorgan Family Health Services and Another, ex parte Martin QBD 2-Jun-1993
The Access to Health Records Act 1990 did not give retrospective rights of access to records which had been created before it was brought into effect. . .
Cited – Mersey Care NHS Trust v Ackroyd QBD 7-Feb-2006
The trust, operators of Ashworth Secure Hospital sought from the defendant journalist disclosure of the name of their employee who had revealed to the defendant matters about the holding of Ian Brady, the Moors Murderer, and in particular medical . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 26 October 2022; Ref: scu.87336
It was not unlawful for a patient to be detained for treatment, even though he was untreatable, and unwilling to be treated. A Mental Health tribunal appeal was to be allowed where patient was re-admitted.
Gazette 08-Jun-1994, Gazette 30-Mar-1994, Times 02-Mar-1994
Mental Health Act 1983 72(1)(b)
England and Wales
Appeal from – Regina v Cannons Park Mental Health Review Tribunal, Ex Parte A QBD 24-Aug-1993
It was unlawful to detain a psychopath for treatment where in fact his condition was untreatable. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 26 October 2022; Ref: scu.86290
Procedures for emergency applications to authorise cessation of medical care.
Times 19-Jan-1994
England and Wales
Updated: 26 October 2022; Ref: scu.80686
Application by Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust (the Trust) for declarations as follows;
Midrar Namiq has no capacity to consent to, to refuse, or to make decisions about the medical treatment he should receive, namely the administration of mechanical ventilation.
It is lawful for Manchester University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust to make arrangements for his mechanical ventilation treatment to be withdrawn to allow him a kind and dignified death.
The Honourable Mrs Justice Lieven DBE
[2020] EWHC 180 (Fam)
England and Wales
See Als – Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust v Namiq and Another (RRO) FD 28-Jan-2020
Application for a reporting restriction order (RRO) limiting the reports on the naming of the clinicians and nursing staff at the treating hospital. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 26 October 2022; Ref: scu.648617
Appeal against a decision made by the respondents in terms of section 324(5)(a) of the Mental Health (Care and Treatment) (Scotland) Act 2003
[2011] ScotSC 119
Scotland
Updated: 26 October 2022; Ref: scu.463998
Anyone using violence against a member of staff at a hospital can only expect a sentence of immediate imprisonment. That did not mean the court could not make full allowance for the degree of violence used and the surrounding circumstances.
Times 01-Dec-1999
England and Wales
Updated: 25 October 2022; Ref: scu.88556
Application for a reporting restriction order (RRO) limiting the reports on the naming of the clinicians and nursing staff at the treating hospital.
The Honourable Mrs Justice Lieven DBE
[2020] EWHC 181 (Fam)
England and Wales
See Als – Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust v Namiq and Another FD 28-Jan-2020
Application by Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust (the Trust) for declarations as follows;
Midrar Namiq has no capacity to consent to, to refuse, or to make decisions about the medical treatment he should receive, namely the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 25 October 2022; Ref: scu.648618
Mrs Justice Lieven DBE
[2020] EWHC 185 (Fam)
England and Wales
Updated: 25 October 2022; Ref: scu.648626
References for a preliminary ruling – Medicinal products for human use – Directive 2001/83/EC – Articles 62 and 69 – Particulars on the labelling and package leaflet of homeopathic medicinal products – Exhaustive list of the particulars or possibility to add information that is useful to the patient and is compatible with the summary of product characteristics – Dosage schedules for homeopathic medicinal products
C-101/19, [2020] EUECJ C-101/19, ECLI:EU:C:2020:304
European
Updated: 24 October 2022; Ref: scu.660117
The applicant, detained under the section by the respondent, appealed refusal of a judicial review and a writ of habeas corpus. He had applied for a review of his detention. The review had been heard by a panel of three. Two judged in his favour.
Held: The Act required a minimum of three votes in his favour. The power to order his release was only exerciseable by three doctors reaching agreement.
The Hon Mrs Justice Arden Dbe Lord Justice Laws Lord Justice Pill
[2003] EWCA Civ 330, Times 18-Apr-2003, [2003] 1 WLR 1272
England and Wales
Cited – Grindley v Barker 1798
Where a number of persons are entrusted with powers not of mere private confidence, but in some respect of a general nature, and all of them are regularly assembled, the majority will conclude the minority, and their act will be the act of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 23 October 2022; Ref: scu.179744
The father sought a specific issue order for the immunisation of his child in particular with the MMR vaccine. The mother opposed all immunisation.
Held: Whether a child was to be refused immunisation was an issue on which both parents should be involved. ‘the present case is seen not as some significant novelty requiring guidance from this court but as a standard section 8 application which has attracted a great deal of publicity.’ It is not a general requirement of section 8 applications that expert evience must be brought. The judge’s assessment of the evidence given was conscientious and comprehensive, and the applications had been decided by applying the paramount consideration of the welfare of the two children concerned. ‘Not to mince words, the court below was presented with junk science. ‘ The appeal failed.
Thorpe LJ, Sedley LJ, Sir Anthony Evans
[2003] EWCA Civ 1148, [2003] 73 BMLR 152, [2003] 2 FLR 1095, [2003] 2 FCR 156
England and Wales
Cited – In re Z (A Minor) (Identification: Restrictions on Publication) CA 31-Jul-1995
The court was asked whether the daughter of Cecil Parkinson and Sarah Keays should be permitted to take part in a television programme about the specialist help she was receiving for her special educational needs.
Held: The court refused to . .
Cited – Payne v Payne; P v P CA 13-Feb-2001
No presumption for Mother on Relocation
The mother applied for leave to return to New Zealand taking with the parties’ daughter aged four. The father opposed the move, saying that allowing the move would infringe his and the child’s right to family life. He had been refused residence.
Cited – In Re J (A Minor) (Prohibited Steps Order: Circumcision) CA 22-Dec-1999
Where there was a dispute between parents as to the necessity or propriety of circumcising a child, it was appropriate that the court should be involved to make the decision. Such decisions were vital to the child’s upbringing and irreversible. Here . .
Cited – In Re T (A Minor) (Wardship: Medical Treatment) CA 24-Oct-1996
A baby boy who was 18 months old, suffered from a life-threatening liver defect. His parents were health-care professionals experienced in the care of sick children. The unanimous medical view was that as soon as donor liver became available the . .
Cited – Regina (Burke) v General Medical Council Admn 30-Jul-2004
The applicant, suffering a life threatening disease, wanted to ensure his continued treatment and revival in the circumstance of losing his own capacity. He said the respondent’s guidelines for doctors were discriminatory and failed to protect his . .
Cited – Kent County Council v The Mother, The Father, B (By Her Children’s Guardian); Re B (A Child) (Disclosure) FD 19-Mar-2004
The council had taken the applicant’s children into care alleging that the mother had harmed them. In the light of the subsequent cases casting doubt on such findings, the mother sought the return of her children. She applied now that the hearings . .
Cited – British Broadcasting Corporation v CAFCASS Legal and others FD 30-Mar-2007
Parents of a child had resisted care proceedings, and now wished the BBC to be able to make a TV programme about their case. They applied to the court for the judgment to be released. Applications were also made to have a police officer’s and . .
Cited – Kent County Council v The Mother, The Father, B (By Her Children’s Guardian); Re B (A Child) (Disclosure) FD 19-Mar-2004
The council had taken the applicant’s children into care alleging that the mother had harmed them. In the light of the subsequent cases casting doubt on such findings, the mother sought the return of her children. She applied now that the hearings . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 23 October 2022; Ref: scu.184896
Linden J
[2021] EWHC 682 (Admin)
England and Wales
Updated: 23 October 2022; Ref: scu.659916
Request from hospital as to continuation of treatment of a woman of 32 years critically ill. Dispute with family members as to signs of awareness.
Mr Justice Coleridge
[2005] EWHC 2439 (Fam), (2006) 87 BMLR 119, [2006] 1 FLR 638, [2006] Fam Law 100, [2006] Lloyd’s Rep Med 193
England and Wales
Updated: 20 October 2022; Ref: scu.235554
[2016] EWCOP 28
England and Wales
Updated: 19 October 2022; Ref: scu.566557
X suffered both severe anorexia and alcoholism. She had in the past been repeatedly and compulsorily admitted to hospital for treatment, but her doctors considered that whilst this might be life extending treatment it had proved ineffective and unethical. They sought a declaration that they may not be obliged to offer the treatment again. The patient supported the application and had made an Advance Direcitive as to her treatment, but lacked capacity to litigate.
Held: Although she did not want to be compelled to receive treatment, Ms X had no wish to die. The court wished that she might still voluntarily seek assistance and treatment, but court declined to order her compulsory treatment.
Cobb J
[2014] EWCOP 35
Mental Health Act 1983, Mental Capacity Act 2005 4(5) 24, European Convention on Human Rights 2
England and Wales
Cited – Airedale NHS Trust v Bland HL 4-Feb-1993
Procedures on Withdrawal of Life Support Treatment
The patient had been severely injured in the Hillsborough disaster, and had come to be in a persistent vegetative state (PVS). The doctors sought permission to withdraw medical treatment. The Official Solicitor appealed against an order of the Court . .
Cited – Aintree University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust v James SC 30-Oct-2013
The hospital where a gravely ill man had been treated had asked for a declaration that it would be in his best interests to withhold certain life-sustaining treatments from him. When can it be in the best interests of a living patient to withhold . .
Cited – The NHS Trust v L and Others COP 2012
The patient suffered extreme anorexia. A declaration was sought as to the possibility of discontinuing compulsory medical treatment. The medical opinion was that the course of action proposed had a ‘close to’ 100% likelihood of causing Ms L’s death; . .
Cited – Re E (Medical Treatment: Anorexia) CoP 15-Jun-2012
The court considered the propriety of ordering continued compulsory treatment of E where the chance of successful treatment for E (and ‘full recovery’) was considered to be in the region of 20% to 30%. Even that prospect could be achieved only by . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 19 October 2022; Ref: scu.537458
The local authority had begun proceedings for a declaration as to the capacity of the patient and for an injunction against her family.
Sumner J
[2007] EWHC 3289 (Fam)
England and Wales
Updated: 19 October 2022; Ref: scu.279036
Care of mentally impaired adult.
Wall J
[2003] EWHC 1909 (Fam), 75 BMLR 185, [2003] Fam Law 870, [2003] 2 FLR 1235
England and Wales
Updated: 14 October 2022; Ref: scu.235739
Renewed application for permission to appeal against a decision of Jackson J given on 20th June 2001 when he refused the applicant permission to seek judicial review of a decision of The Mental Health Review Tribunal of 6th February 2001 to the effect that the applicant should be detained at hospital.
[2001] EWCA Civ 1705
England and Wales
Updated: 14 October 2022; Ref: scu.218527
[2021] EWCOP 11
England and Wales
Updated: 14 October 2022; Ref: scu.659229
Challenge to decision that claimant was not in need of care package.
Peter Marquand sitting as a deputy High Court judge
[2016] WLR(D) 427, [2016] EWHC 1762 (Admin), [2017] PTSR 140
England and Wales
Updated: 13 October 2022; Ref: scu.567651
[2021] EWCOP 16
England and Wales
Updated: 12 October 2022; Ref: scu.659238
The applicant was a convicted murderer who had been held in a high security mental hospital. His application for unescorted leave had been refused, and he wished to challenge the decisions. Anonymity in the subsequent proceedings had been refused to him, but retained pending the appeal.
Held: His appeal was allowed: ‘an anonymity order is necessary in the interests of this particular patient. His regime before he left hospital, involving escorted leave in the community, demonstrated the need for anonymity and the case is even stronger now.’
‘The central issue was the interests of the patient, and, although there is no presumption of anonymity for mental patients that element was one element.
In this case the identity of the person involved was central to the point of public interest, but was outweighed by the public interest in the administration of justice. The conduct of the case would require disclosure of sensitive and highly personal clinical data as to psychiatric patients serving sentences of imprisonment, which would have undermined confidential clinical relationships and thereby reduced the efficacy of the system for judicial oversight of the Home Secretary’s decisions.
Lady Hale said: ‘The principle of open justice is one of the most precious in our law. It is there to reassure the public and the parties that our courts are indeed doing justice according to law. In fact, there are two aspects to this principle. The first is that justice should be done in open court, so that the people interested in the case, the wider public and the media can know what is going on. The court should not hear and take into account evidence and arguments that they have not heard or seen. The second is that the names of the people whose cases are being decided, and others involved in the hearing, should be public knowledge. ‘
and: ‘The question in all these cases is that set out in CPR 39.2(4): is anonymity necessary in the interests of the patient? It would be wrong to have a presumption that an order should be made in every case. There is a balance to be struck. The public has a right to know, not only what is going on in our courts, but also who the principal actors are. This is particularly so where notorious criminals are involved. They need to be reassured that sensible decisions are being made about them. On the other hand, the purpose of detention in hospital for treatment is to make the patient better, so that he is no longer a risk either to himself or to others. That whole therapeutic enterprise may be put in jeopardy if confidential information is disclosed in a way which enables the public to identify the patient. It may also be put in jeopardy unless patients have a reasonable expectation in advance that their identities will not be disclosed without their consent. In some cases, that disclosure may put the patient himself, and perhaps also the hospital, those treating him and the other patients there, at risk. The public’s right to know has to be balanced against the potential harm, not only to this patient, but to all the others whose treatment could be affected by the risk of exposure.’
Lady Hale, Deputy President, Lord Clarke, Lord Wilson, Lord Carnwath, Lord Hughes
[2016] UKSC 2, [2016] HRLR 7, [2016] WLR(D) 34, [2016] EMLR 13, 149 BMLR 1, (2016) 149 BMLR 1, (2016) 19 CCL Rep 5, [2016] 1 WLR 444, UKSC 2014/0210
Bailii, Bailii Summary, WLRD, SC, SC Summary
European Convention on Human Rights 6(1)
England and Wales
Cited – Scott v Scott HL 5-May-1913
Presumption in Favour of Open Proceedings
There had been an unauthorised dissemination by the petitioner to third parties of the official shorthand writer’s notes of a nullity suit which had been heard in camera. An application was made for a committal for contempt.
Held: The House . .
Cited – M, Regina (on The Application of) v The Parole Board and Another Admn 22-May-2013
(Jan 2013) The court was asked whether an order for anonymity made in the course of proceedings for judicial review should be discharged upon the application of media and other interested parties. Various newspapers had applied for the order to be . .
Cited – B v The United Kingdom; P v The United Kingdom ECHR 24-Apr-2001
The procedures in English law which provided for privacy for proceedings involving children did not in general infringe the human right to family life, nor the right to a public hearing. Where relatives more distant than immediate parties were . .
Cited – In re S (a Child) (Identification: Restrictions on Publication) HL 28-Oct-2004
Inherent High Court power may restrain Publicity
The claimant child’s mother was to be tried for the murder of his brother by poisoning with salt. It was feared that the publicity which would normally attend a trial, would be damaging to S, and an application was made for reporting restrictions to . .
Cited – Attorney General’s Reference No 3 of 1999: Application By the British Broadcasting Corporation To Set Aside or Vary a Reporting Restriction Order HL 17-Jun-2009
An application was made to discharge an anonymity order made in previous criminal proceedings before the House. The defendant was to be retried for rape under the 2003 Act, after an earlier acquittal. The applicant questioned whether such a order . .
Cited – In re Guardian News and Media Ltd and Others; HM Treasury v Ahmed and Others SC 27-Jan-2010
Proceedings had been brought to challenge the validity of Orders in Council which had frozen the assets of the claimants in those proceedings. Ancillary orders were made and confirmed requiring them not to be identified. As the cases came to the . .
Cited – A v British Broadcasting Corporation (Scotland) SC 8-May-2014
Anonymised Party to Proceedings
The BBC challenged an order made by the Court of Session in judicial review proceedings, permitting the applicant review to delete his name and address and substituting letters of the alphabet, in the exercise (or, as the BBC argues, purported . .
Cited – Mersey Care NHS Trust, Regina (on the Application of) v Mental Health Review Tribunal and others Admn 22-Jul-2004
Proceedings before the Mental Health Review Tribnal had been very nearly all held in private. The patient, Ian Brady sought to have his hearing in public.
Held: Beatson J approved the Tribunal’s reasons forfind that their privacy rules were a . .
Cited – M, Regina (on The Application of) v The Parole Board and Another Admn 22-May-2013
(Jan 2013) The court was asked whether an order for anonymity made in the course of proceedings for judicial review should be discharged upon the application of media and other interested parties. Various newspapers had applied for the order to be . .
Cited – C v Secretary of State for Justice Admn 2014
The claimant sought to challenge a refusal to him, as a long standing convicted murderer of unsupervised leave from prison as part of a path to release. He was detained in a secure mental hosptal. The court now considered whether the claimant and . .
Cited – Regina v East London and the City Mental Health NHS Trust and Another ex parte Von Brandenburg (Aka Hanley) HL 13-Nov-2003
The patient was ordered to be discharged and released from hospital. The tribunal making the order had not accepted the medical recommendations. His release was deferred pending the finding of accommodation, but in the meantime, a social worker . .
Cited – AH v West London MHT UTAA 29-Jul-2010
Prisoner in secure hospital – application for public hearig of request for discharge – refused . .
Cited – AH v West London MHT (J) UTAA 17-Feb-2011
Order for public hearing of detention review under Mental Health Act – at request of AH. . .
Cited – PNM v Times Newspapers Ltd and Others SC 19-Jul-2017
No anonymity for investigation suspect
The claimant had been investigated on an allegation of historic sexual abuse. He had never been charged, but the investigation had continued with others being convicted in a high profile case. He appealed from refusal of orders restricting . .
Cited – XXX v Camden London Borough Council CA 11-Nov-2020
Anonymity in Court Proceedings – No two stage test
XXX appealed against the refusal to make orders anonymising her name and redacting certain details from published judgments. The appeal raised a point about the proper approach to applications for anonymisation under CPR 39.2. She brought . .
Cited – Imam, Regina (on The Application of) v The London Borough of Croydon (Anonymity request) Admn 26-Mar-2021
Anonymity Not Necessary under CPR 3.92.
Judgment on the Claimant’s application for an order under CPR 39.2(4) that her name be anonymised in these proceedings by the use of a cipher and that restrictions should be imposed on the reporting of her identity. She said that publication of her . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 12 October 2022; Ref: scu.559351
Reasons for interim order
Sir Mark Potter
[2008] EWHC 1403 (Fam), [2008] Fam Law 996, [2009] 1 FCR 567, [2008] 2 FLR 1196, (2008) 11 CCL Rep 563
England and Wales
Updated: 11 October 2022; Ref: scu.278553
[2001] EWCA Civ 1110, (2001) 4 CCL Rep 284, [2001] Lloyd’s Rep Med 450, [2002] 1 WLR 176, [2002] 2 FCR 181
Human Rights Act 1998, European Convention on Human Rights 5(4)
England and Wales
Updated: 11 October 2022; Ref: scu.218294
The issue before the tribunal was whether the disorder, if established, had resulted in abnormally aggressive or seriously irresponsible conduct in the past and there was a real risk that, if treatment in hospital were discontinued, it would do so in the future.
[2002] EWCA Civ 697
England and Wales
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.
Updated: 11 October 2022; Ref: scu.217084
Silber J
[2003] EWHC 919 (Admin)
England and Wales
Updated: 11 October 2022; Ref: scu.185587
[2011] EWCOP 3522
England and Wales
See Also – London Borough of Hillingdon v Neary and Others CoP 29-Dec-2011
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 11 October 2022; Ref: scu.524764
Doctors are to take great care when considering making a recommendation of an order under sections 37 or 41.
Ind Summary 17-Jul-1995
England and Wales
Updated: 08 October 2022; Ref: scu.88328
[2021] EWCOP 12
England and Wales
Updated: 08 October 2022; Ref: scu.659236
[2002] EWCA Civ 444
England and Wales
Updated: 06 October 2022; Ref: scu.216979
The Hon Mrs Justice Judd
[2021] EWHC 594 (Fam)
England and Wales
Updated: 06 October 2022; Ref: scu.659868
Application by local authority for decisions as to the personal welfare to be made on behalf of HN’s sister FL
Ralton DJ
[2011] EWHC 2894 (COP)
Updated: 06 October 2022; Ref: scu.452486
Action for an account from patient’s receiver.
[2005] EWHC 1274 (Ch)
England and Wales
Updated: 05 October 2022; Ref: scu.227095
Newey J
[2012] EWHC 347 (Ch)
Updated: 05 October 2022; Ref: scu.452180
A severe stroke left the claimant quite unable to care for himself. He sought assistance in committing suicide. He now said that the Attorney-General’s policy was insufficiently clear.
Toulson LJ, Charles J
[2012] EWHC 470 (Admin)
Updated: 05 October 2022; Ref: scu.452173
Application to the Court of Protection for a best interests decision in relation to a man who clearly has a pressing need for surgery for cancer. He lacks capacity to give or withhold any informed consent, but is personally resistant to having an operation.
Holman J
[2014] EWCOP 54
England and Wales
Updated: 04 October 2022; Ref: scu.549271
Application by the Trust for the court to give permission for the respondent undergoing an above the knee amputation of her left leg.
Keehan J
[2015] EWCOP 50
England and Wales
Updated: 04 October 2022; Ref: scu.551320
application for the issue of a writ of habeas corpus – detention after convictions
[2002] EWHC 243 (Admin)
England and Wales
Updated: 04 October 2022; Ref: scu.347791
The court was asked whether the respondent, resident in a specialised care home, was ‘maintained free of charge while undergoing medical or other treatment as an in-patient . . in a hospital or similar institution under the National Health Service Act 2006’, within the meaning of reg. 12A of the Social Security (Disability Living Allowance) Regulations 1991, so as to be disentitled to receipt of the mobility component of disability living allowance for which he was a claimant.
Pill, Rcshards, Davis LJJ
[2011] EWCA Civ 1515
National Health Service Act 2006, Social Security (Disability Living Allowance) Regulations 1991 12A
England and Wales
Updated: 01 October 2022; Ref: scu.449888
Application by the defendant, the Mental Health Review Tribunal, to strike out the claimant’s case as an abuse of the court’s process.
[2002] EWHC 618 (Admin)
England and Wales
Updated: 01 October 2022; Ref: scu.347790
The court considered issues arising from the sentencing of mentally ill offenders to indeterminate terms of imprisonment.
As to the release provisions relating to those subject to an order under ss 37/41 and those made subject to a s 45A order, Hallett LJ said: ‘A level of misunderstanding of the guidance offered in Vowles appears to have arisen as to the order in which a sentencing judge should approach the making of a s.37 or a s.45A order and the precedence allegedly given in Vowles to a s.45A order. In our view, section 45A could have been better drafted but the position is clear. Section 45A and the judgment in Vowles do not provide a ‘default’ setting of imprisonment, as some have assumed. The sentencing judge should first consider if a hospital order may be appropriate under section 37 (2) (a). If so, before making such an order, the court must consider all the powers at its disposal including a s.45A order. Consideration of a s.45A order must come before the making [of] a hospital order. This is because a disposal under section 45A includes a penal element, and the court must have ‘sound reasons’ for departing from the usual course of imposing a sentence with a penal element. Sound reasons may include the nature of the offence and the limited nature of any penal element (if imposed) and the fact that the offending was very substantially (albeit not wholly) attributable to the offender’s illness. However, the graver the offence and the greater the risk to the public on release of the offender, the greater the emphasis the judge must place upon the protection of the public and the release regime.’
and ‘It follows that, as important as the offender’s personal circumstances may be, rehabilitation of offenders is but one of the purposes of sentencing. The punishment of offenders and the protection of the public are also at the heart of the sentencing process. In assessing the seriousness of the offence, s. 143 (1) of the Criminal Justice Act provides that the court must consider the offender’s culpability in committing the offence and any harm caused, intended or foreseeable.’
Hallett DBE VP CACD, Treacy LJJ, Sir Wyn Williams
[2018] EWCA Crim 595, [2018] WLR(D) 199, [2018] 4 WLR 64, [2018] MHLR 105
England and Wales
Cited – Vowles and Others, Regina v CACD 5-Feb-2015
The court considered appeals by prisoners subject to indeterminate sentences (either imprisonment for public protection (IPP) or a life sentence) passed between 1997 and 2008, where there had been medical evidence before the court suggesting the . .
Cited – Lall, Regina v CACD 19-Mar-2021
Choice of mental Health Sentencing Options
On conviction of manslaughter by reason of diminished responsibility, the judge imposed a hospital order and a restriction, without limit of time, under sections 37 and 41 of the Mental Health Act 1983. The AG appealed it as too lenient, suggesting . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 01 October 2022; Ref: scu.608695
Application made by the NHS Foundation Trust in the Court of Protection for a raft of declarations in relation to a man, DE who is nearly 37.
Mrs Justice Eleanor King DBE
[2013] EWHC 2562 (Fam)
England and Wales
Updated: 29 September 2022; Ref: scu.514458
An application by An NHS Foundation Trust concerning a declaration, both in respect of capacity and in relation to medical treatment, of a patient in their care.
Hayden J
[2013] EWHC B26 (Fam)
England and Wales
Updated: 29 September 2022; Ref: scu.519681
The court considered claims by several autistic adults in need of community support in connection with proposals for the alteration of arrangements for their care.
Peter Jackson J
[2011] EWHC 276 (COP)
Updated: 29 September 2022; Ref: scu.449713
The defendant appealed against a sentence of imprisonment for robberies. He had a history of mental illness and had been diagnosed schizophrenic. He applied to be made subject to an order under the Act, which would replace the sentence with a treatment order, and agreed to be made subject to an extended restriction order.
Held: The court considered that hopeful, and made the treatment order, but without the further restriction.
Lord Justice Judge, Mr Justice Mitchell, And Recorder Of Birmingham His Honour Judge Peter Crawford QC
[1998] EWCA Crim 1280
England and Wales
Updated: 29 September 2022; Ref: scu.154154
Whether there should be a further substantive hearing upon the legal issues against the background of the findings of fact contained in the judgment.
[2012] EWHC 3860 (Admin)
England and Wales
Updated: 28 September 2022; Ref: scu.471274
The appellant had been detained under the 1983 Act. Her appeal had been declined as out of time, and she now appealed against rejection of her request for judicial review.
Held: The appeal failed, even though the application to the tribunal should have been treated by it as in time, and the claim against the Trust accordingly failed, as it was not its oversight which resulted in the deadline being missed. The claim against the Secretary of State was also dismissed. He had been under no separate duty to check the time limit for himself, no doubt having been raised on that point in the solicitors’ letter. In relation to article 5(4) the only suggested disadvantage of her right to apply under section 3, as compared to section 2, was the potential loss of the right to make a further application within six months, which had been properly addressed in the Secretary of State’s offer to reconsider the use of section 67 in the future.
Black LJ said: ‘What article 5(4) requires is that a patient should have the entitlement to take proceedings to have the lawfulness of his or her detention decided speedily by a court; the appellant had that entitlement under section 66(1) in association with her detention under section 3. Article 5(4) does not prescribe further than that. If there came a time when having unsuccessfully used up her section 3 application at an early stage, the appellant wished to make a further application to the tribunal, she was entitled to ask the Secretary of State again to refer her case to the tribunal under section 67 and he had indicated that he would consider so doing. Of course, that was not a guarantee that he would refer it and to that extent the appellant’s position was less favourable than it would have been had she not had to use her section 3 application in the first place. But the Secretary of State is bound to exercise his discretion under section 67 in accordance with normal public law principles and judicial review would be available to the appellant should he fail to do so, thus ensuring that there would be no breach of article 5(4). Accordingly, I do not consider that the disadvantage to the appellant of having to use up her section 3 application at an early stage was such as to make it unlawful for the Secretary of State to decline to exercise his section 67 power in the expectation that she would do so.’
Mummery, Richards, Black LJJ
[2011] EWCA Civ 1359, [2012] ACD 37, [2012] PTSR 999
Mental Health Act 1983 3 2 66, European Convention Human Rights 5(4)
England and Wales
Appeal From – Modaresi, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Health and Others Admn 3-Mar-2011
The claimant sought judicial review of her detention under section 2 of the 1983 Act.
Held: The request was rejected. The tribunal had been correct to treat the original application as out of time. The Secretary of State’s decision was neither . .
Appeal from – Modaresi, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Health SC 24-Jul-2013
The Court was asked: ‘As: (i) a public body with obligations in public law and (ii) a public authority under the Human Rights Act 1998 can the Secretary of State for Health ‘the S/S’ lawfully refuse to refer a patient’s case to the First-tier Mental . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 28 September 2022; Ref: scu.449014
The First-tier Tribunal erred in proceeding with a hearing in the patient’s absence, where he refused to attend because he was concerned that his flatmate could overhear him participating in a telephone hearing.
[2020] UKUT 308 (AAC)
England and Wales
Updated: 27 September 2022; Ref: scu.659518
Practice Directions cannot override or amend a rule of procedure and must be interpreted if possible to be valid and consistent with the rules.
Paragraph 8 of the Senior President of Tribunals’ Amended Pilot Practice Direction: Health, Education and Social Care Chamber (Mental Health) is valid and relates only to the practicability of a pre-hearing examination by a panel member.
[2020] UKUT 362 (AAC)
England and Wales
Updated: 27 September 2022; Ref: scu.659528
The claimant, a disabled adult with cerebral palsy and Downs, asserted that the care plan set out in an order of the Court of Protection involved a contravention of his human rights since it involved a deprivation of his liberty. He was incontinent but without control, would tear off parts of his incontinence pad and eat it. His carers had taken to dressing him in an adult babygrow to prevent this.
Held:The Council’s appeal succeeded. When assessing whether there had been a deprivation of liberty, it was correct to allow both for the objective reason why someone was so placed and also the purpose of the placement. As regards an adult with disability, their situation was to be determined by comparison with a similar age and capability, and with similar inherent mental and physical disabilities. The comparator was not the average man or woman on the Clapham omnibus.
Pill, Lloyd, Munby LJJ
[2011] EWCA Civ 1257, [2012] PTSR 1447, [2011] WLR (D) 325
European Convention on Human Rights 5
England and Wales
Appeal From – Cheshire West and Chester Council v P and Another COP 14-Jun-2011
The patient, an adult without capacity and with Down’s syndrome and cerebral palsy complained of his treatment, when in order to prevent his habit of eating his nappy, they dressed him in an adult babygrow costume. The court was asked whether the . .
See Also – Cheshire West and Chester Council v P CA 18-Nov-2011
. .
Appeal from – P (By His Litigation Friend The Official Solicitor) v Cheshire West and Chester Council and Another and similar SC 19-Mar-2014
Deprivation of Liberty
P and Q were two adolescent sisters without capacity. They complained that the arrangements made for their care amounted to an unjustified deprivation of liberty, and now appealed against rejection of their cases. In the second case, P, an adult . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 26 September 2022; Ref: scu.448295
The claimant, the Royal Brompton and Harefield NHS Foundation Trust sought to quash as flawed and unlawful a consultation by the first defendant concerning the reconfiguration of paediatric congenital cardiac services (PCCS) in England.
Owen J
[2011] EWHC 2986 (Admin)
England and Wales
See Also – Royal Brompton and Harefield NHS Foundation Trust v Joint Committee of Primary Care Trusts and Others (Costs) Admn 15-Dec-2011
. .
Appeal from – Royal Brompton and Harefield NHS Foundation Trust, Regina (on The Application of) v Joint Committee of Primary Care Trusts and Another CA 19-Apr-2012
The defendant appealed against a finding that its consultation over the rationalisation of pediatric cardiac surgical facilities had been defective and unlawful. . .
Cited – Moseley, Regina (on The Application of) v London Borough of Haringey SC 29-Oct-2014
Consultation requirements
The claimant challenged a decision of the respondent reducing the benefits under the Council Tax Reduction Scheme reducing Council Tax for those in need, saying that the Council’s consultation had been inadequate.
Held: The consultation was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 26 September 2022; Ref: scu.448117
[2002] EWCA Civ 1336
England and Wales
Updated: 25 September 2022; Ref: scu.217246
Order for urgent treatment – patient refusing
Mr Justice MacDonald
[2021] EWCOP 18
England and Wales
Updated: 22 September 2022; Ref: scu.659241
The court was asked whether either, and if so which, of two local authorities have the duty under section 117 of the 1983 Act to provide after-care services on the release of SF aged 23 from compulsory detention for treatment under that Act. The applicant challenged a position statement of South Tyneside Council, suggesting that the answer was Sunderland.
Langstaff J
[2011] EWHC 2355 (Admin)
England and Wales
Updated: 20 September 2022; Ref: scu.444516
Continuation decision as to Deprivation of Liberty Order
Mrs Justice Lieven DBE
[2020] EWCOP 68
England and Wales
Updated: 19 September 2022; Ref: scu.659244
Mr Justice Peter Jackson
[2013] EWHC 2340 (Fam)
England and Wales
Updated: 19 September 2022; Ref: scu.519031
The Inner House considered the circumstances in which it may be appropriate, as a matter of law, for the Mental Health Tribunal for Scotland to pronounce no order for arrangements to be made for the transfer of a patient detained in the State Hospital to conditions of lesser security, following a finding that the patient is being detained in conditions of excessive security.
Clerk, Bonomy, Brodie LL
[2011] ScotCS CSIH – 55, 2011 SCLR 770, [2011] CSIH 55, 2011 GWD 29-638, [2011] MHLR 387, 2012 SC 138
Mental Health (Care and Treatment) (Scotland) Act 2003 322
Appeal from – G v Scottish Ministers and Another SC 18-Dec-2013
The 2003 Act had been intended to make provision for those who had been in long term mental health carse, but would not need such continued are but were not either ready to survive without continuing support in the community. The claimant had been . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 17 September 2022; Ref: scu.443288
Appeal against sentence for making hoax bomb calls. A hospital order had been made under section 31, and she now appealed against the section 41 restriction order.
Held: The hospital, in reality, is operating as a form of prison, because she is not making medical headway there, but it is not a particularly effective prison because it does not prevent her from getting to a phone. Her treatability is likely to be made worse in an in-patient unit. In these circumstances, we see no value in maintaining the present regime. We consider that the right course is to set aside the restriction.
Toulson LJ, Cooke, Swift DBE JJ
[2010] EWCA Crim 1383, [2010] MHLR 191
England and Wales
Updated: 17 September 2022; Ref: scu.442696
The court was asked to declare whether it would be in TW’s best interests to continue to receive life sustaining treatment, ventilation and blood pressure medication or alternatively, whether it would be lawful to withdraw it.
Mr Justice Hayden
[2021] EWCOP 13
England and Wales
Updated: 16 September 2022; Ref: scu.659239
[2005] EWHC 17 (Admin)
England and Wales
Updated: 16 September 2022; Ref: scu.442239
[2020] UKUT 230 (AAC)
England and Wales
Updated: 15 September 2022; Ref: scu.656567
Application to withdraw active medical treatment for patient D who was in permanent vegetative state
Peter Jackson J
[2012] EWHC 885 (COP), [2012] COPLR 493
England and Wales
Updated: 15 September 2022; Ref: scu.464678
Second appeal against authorisation to receiver to make statutory will.
[2006] EWCA Civ 816, [2006] WTLR 1201
England and Wales
Updated: 14 September 2022; Ref: scu.242696
Judicial review of continued detention of claimant under hospital order
Collins J
[2005] EWHC 921 (Admin)
England and Wales
Cited – Taylor, Regina (on the Application of) v Haydn-Smith and Another Admn 27-May-2005
Whether a detained mental patient could be obliged to receive treatment in the form of antipsychotic medication without his consent. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 14 September 2022; Ref: scu.225052
A appealed an order made by the Crown Court under the 1964 Act for his detention in a mental hospital on the grounds that he was unfit to enter a plea to the charge of murder.
Held: The Court of Appal had no jurisdiction to hear the appeal. All appeals from orders of the Crown Court not involving a conviction were to the Queens Bench Division. The orders were not in any sense merely collateral, and a criminal trial remained a possibility.
Lord Justice Chadwick Lord Justice May Lord Justice Pill
[2003] EWCA Civ 1857, Times 23-Jan-2004, [2004] 1 WLR 1664, [2004] 1 All ER 1311
Criminal Procedures (Insanity and Unfitness to Plead) Act 1991, Supreme Court Act 1981 18(1)(a)
England and Wales
Cited – Regina v H (On appeal from the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)) HL 30-Jan-2003
The defendant had been found unfit to stand trial, at a later hearing under the section, the jury had found that he had committed the act complained of. He was discharged but ordered to be placed on the sex offenders register. He appealed on the . .
Cited – Amand v Home Secretary and Minister of Defence of Royal Netherlands Government HL 1943
A Dutch serviceman who had been arrested for desertion and brought before a magistrate who ordered him to be handed over to the Dutch military authorities under the Allied Forces Act 1940. An application for habeas corpus was rejected by a . .
Cited – Day v Grant (Note) CA 1985
(January 1985) The court must look to the underlying nature of the proceedings in which the order was made and against which an appeal was sought to see to which court an appeal lay. ‘So Lord Wright was saying that you look not at the particular . .
Cited – Customs and Excise Commissioners v City of London Magistrates’ Court QBD 2000
Access orders were sought by the Customs and Excise against banks to facilitate an investigation into the affairs of taxpayers and the issue was whether the resulting proceedings constituted ‘criminal proceedings’ within the meaning of section . .
Cited – United States Government v Montgomery and Another HL 6-Feb-2001
An English court had power to make a restraining order against the disposal of assets pending an application for confiscation pursuant to a US order. This applied even if the US original judgment predated the date on which the US was added to the . .
Appeal from – South West Yorkshire Mental Health NHS Trust v Bradford Crown Court Admn 27-Mar-2003
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 14 September 2022; Ref: scu.191202
The authority wanted S to be admitted to hospital, if necessary against her will. She was pregnant and wanted to have a natural birth, even at great risk to herself and her baby. She had refused medical treatment for eclampsia. The caesarian had by now been carried out against her will under court order.
Held: The cumulative grounds for admission under s.2(2)(a) of the Act had not been made out, and her detention under the Act had been unlawful. The court allowed her appeal against the declaration dispensing with her consent. The reason for detention, albeit for potentially life saving medical treatment, was not related to the alleged mental disorder. Her wishes could not be overridden by a court unless she was clearly and properly not of sound mind.
[1998] 2 WLR 936
England and Wales
See Also – Regina v Collins; Pathfinder Mental Health Services NHS Trust and St Georges Health Care NHS Trust ex parte S Admn 18-Feb-1997
An application was to be made to challenge a decision to sterilise a young woman in the care of the health authority.
Held: The application was in the nature of a request for judicial review. As such a judge in the administrative division was . .
See Also – Regina v Collins; Pathfinder Mental Health Services NHS Trust and St George’s Health Care NHS Trust ex parte ‘S’ Admn 17-Mar-1997
The applicant sought to challenge a decision that she should be sterilised, and detained as a mental patient for this purpose. . .
Affirnmed – In re B (Consent to treatment: Capacity) FD 22-Mar-2002
The claimant had suffered catastrophic injuries, leaving her unable to breathe without artificial help. She eventually decided that she wanted to refuse treatment. The health authority took this as an indication of lack of capacity, and refused to . .
Cited – Ms B v An NHS Hospital Trust FD 22-Mar-2002
The applicant had come to suffer from a completely disabling condition, and requested that her life support machine be turned off. She did not want to live on a ventilator, and had made a living will. She was found at first to have capacity to make . .
Cited – G v E and Others CoP 26-Mar-2010
E Was born with and still suffered severe learning difficulties. The court was asked as to the extent of his capacity to make decisions, and as to where he should live, with a family member, the carer or with the local authority, which had removed . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 13 September 2022; Ref: scu.89469
A person who applied to the Registered Homes Tribunal, had to be the owner of the home at the time when the order sought came to be made. In this case, the registration had been cancelled. The applicant appealed to the tribunal. The hearing was delayed, but in the meantime, the applicant sold the nursing home. Since, at the time when the order was to be made, he was no longer the owner, he now had no standing to make the application. It is a condition of registration that the premises are intended to be used as a nursing home. If the premises ceased to be available to the registered person, registration must be cancelled immediately. There must be premises to inspect. Registration of the premises was inseparable from the person. In this case, there was nothing to stop the applicants applying at a later date in respect of other premises.
Times 19-Dec-2000
England and Wales
Appeal from – Sanjivi v East Kent Health Authority CA 25-Jan-2001
Renewed application for permission to appeal. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 13 September 2022; Ref: scu.89003
Mr Justice Hayden VP CoP
[2021] EWCOP 14
England and Wales
Updated: 13 September 2022; Ref: scu.659240
The Hon Mr Justice Burnett
[2013] EWHC 386 (Admin)
England and Wales
Updated: 13 September 2022; Ref: scu.471506
Ryder J
[2011] EWHC 1539 (Admin)
England and Wales
Updated: 13 September 2022; Ref: scu.440827
The claimant was a severely disabled adult, entitled to assistance under the 1970 Act. He had been refused leave to bring judicial review of the decision as to the extent of that assistance.
Held: Leave was granted, and the court decided to hold the review itself. Doing so, it rejected the challenge, saying: ‘There has of course to be a rational link between the needs and the assessed direct payments, but, in our judgment, there does not need to be a finite absolute mathematical link. This is because (a) the local authority, whose funds are not limitless, are both entitled and obliged to moderate the assessed needs to take account of the relative severity of all those with community care needs in their area . . ; (b) the local authority are not obliged to meet an individual’s needs in absolute terms . .; (c) the use of the RAS as a starting point is lawful and the decision does not have to extend in every case to explaining the RAS in detail. . ; so that (d) . . it was not necessary in this case to provide a mathematical justification of the indicative andpound;61,000.’
Sir Anthony May PFD, Jackson and Tomlinson LJJ
[2011] EWCA Civ 682, (2011) 14 CCL Rep 402
National Assistance Act 1948 29(1), Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970
England and Wales
Appeal from – KM, Regina (on The Application of) v Cambridgeshire County Council Admn 26-Nov-2010
The claimant sought leave to bring judicial review of the decision of the Respondent as to the amount attributable to his care package.
Held: Leave was refused. . .
Appeal from – KM, Regina (on The Application of) v Cambridgeshire County Council SC 31-May-2012
The respondent had assessed the claimant’s annual care needs. He challenged the calculations. The authority had a system which calculated the average needs for support adding a sum to reflect particular critical need. An independent expert had . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 13 September 2022; Ref: scu.440462
[2003] EWHC 3133 (Admin)
England and Wales
Appeal from – National Association of Health Stores and Another, Regina (on the Application of) v Department of Health CA 22-Feb-2005
Applications were made to strike down regulations governing the use of the herbal product kava-kava.
Held: The omission of any transtitional provisions had not affected anyone. Nor was the failure to consult as to the possibility of dealing . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 12 September 2022; Ref: scu.189146
This case concerned an application by an NHS Trust relating to the first respondent, XB, who had serious hypertension placing his life in danger, and requiring urgent medication with antihypertensives which the Trust wished to administer to XB, but he refused to take it.
Mrs Justice Theis DBE
[2020] EWCOP 71
England and Wales
Updated: 12 September 2022; Ref: scu.659245
Challenge to refusal of respondent to supply drug.
Collins J
[2016] EWHC 1395 (Admin)
England and Wales
Updated: 12 September 2022; Ref: scu.565721
[2011] ScotCS CSOH – 80
Tobacco and Primary Health Services (Scotland) Act 2010 9
Updated: 12 September 2022; Ref: scu.439694
Baker J
[2010] EWHC 2512 (COP)
England and Wales
See Also – G v E (Deputyship and Litigation Friend) CoP 11-Oct-2010
Baker J considered the common law doctrine of necessity as it applied to the medical treatment of adults without mental capacity and the 2005 Act.
Held: As to section 5: ‘These provisions do not amount to a general authority to act on behalf . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 11 September 2022; Ref: scu.425466
Reasons for order for care
Munby LJ
[2010] EWHC 2107 (Fam), [2011] 1 FLR 1394, [2011] Fam Law 31
England and Wales
Updated: 11 September 2022; Ref: scu.425499
‘This appeal raises important questions as to the circumstances in which, under European Community law, a National Health Service patient requiring surgery is entitled to have the surgery undertaken in another member state of the European Union and require the National Health Service to pay for it.’
Lord Justice May
[2004] EWCA Civ 166, (2004) 77 BMLR 26
England and Wales
Updated: 11 September 2022; Ref: scu.193639
The Trust applied for a declaration that RS lacks capacity to consent or refuse medical treatment, including ventilation and CANH (that is, feeding and hydration) and for an order that it is lawful and in his best interests for ventilation and for food and hydration to be withdrawn and for such palliative care as is appropriate to be provided in order to maximise his dignity and ensure he does not suffer unnecessarily.
Cohen J
[2020] EWCOP 70
England and Wales
Updated: 11 September 2022; Ref: scu.659246
[2020] NIQB 73
Northern Ireland
Updated: 11 September 2022; Ref: scu.658836
Directions for health care on palliative terms only.
The Honourable Mr Justice Cohen
[2020] EWCOP 69
England and Wales
Updated: 11 September 2022; Ref: scu.659247
A mental health review tribunal had recommended the conditional release of the applicant, a restricted patient in a high security hospital. A community social worker’s report was only later made available to the tribunal.
Held: There was no need for the matter to go to the Secretary of State for him to order a fresh referral to the tribunal. The conditional discharge meant that the tribunal remained seised of the case and could recall its decision of its own motion. The case of Campbell was not engaged.
Lord Justice Jonathan Parker
Times 24-May-2002, Gazette 20-Jun-2002, [2002] EWCA Civ 647
Mental Health Act 1983 71 73, European Convention on Human Rights
England and Wales
Cited – Regina v Oxford Regional Mental Health Review Tribunal, Ex parte Secretary of State for the Home Department (Campbell’s Case) HL 1988
The House decided that section 73 of the 1983 Act provided a two-stage process in relation to a patient’s conditional discharge. The tribunal first decides that it will direct the discharge subject to conditions, but defers giving the direction so . .
Cited – Regina (IH) v Secretary of State for the Home Department and Another CA 15-May-2002
The applicant was a restricted mental patient. His conditional release had been ordered, but required a consultant psychiatrist to be found who would agree to supervise him. None such could be found, and his detention continued. After two years he . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 10 September 2022; Ref: scu.170308
The court was asked ‘whether a patient detained under the Mental Health Act 1983 may challenge a decision by the First-tier Tribunal to refuse to make an extra-statutory recommendation as to his future care or treatment.’
Laws, Rimer, Beatson LJJ
[2013] EWCA Civ 701, [2013] AACR 1
England and Wales
Updated: 10 September 2022; Ref: scu.510906
Application by the Public Guardian for the revocation of a Lasting Power of Attorney (‘LPA’) for property and financial affairs.
Lush SJ
[2015] EWCOP 27
England and Wales
Updated: 08 September 2022; Ref: scu.546280
The union challenged proposals to enter into a new round of reform of the National Health Service.
Held: Even if a legitimate expectation has been created, the courts cannot, consistently with the constitutional function of Parliament, control the right of a minister, in his capacity as a member of Parliament, to introduce a bill in either House.
Mitting J
[2010] EWHC 2655 (Admin)
National Health Service Act 2006
England and Wales
Cited – Bank Mellat v Her Majesty’s Treasury (No 2) SC 19-Jun-2013
The bank challenged measures taken by HM Treasury to restrict access to the United Kingdom’s financial markets by a major Iranian commercial bank, Bank Mellat, on the account of its alleged connection with Iran’s nuclear weapons and ballistic . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 08 September 2022; Ref: scu.511046
The Hon Mr Justice Cohen
[2021] EWCOP 17
England and Wales
Updated: 07 September 2022; Ref: scu.659242
As to a severely ill child, the Hospital asked the court to exercise its inherent jurisdiction to declare that it is lawful and in her best interests that:
a. She should not be provided with a tracheostomy.
b. Mechanical ventilation should be withdrawn.
c. There be clearly defined limits on the treatment provided to her after that withdrawal of ventilation, with the effect that she would be allowed to die.
Poole J
[2021] EWHC 25 (Fam)
England and Wales
Updated: 07 September 2022; Ref: scu.657650
Application brought by the NHS Trust relating to J. J is a 12-year-old young person who has acquired a severe brain injury. The application made by the Trust is for a declaration sanctioning the withdrawal of intensive care and effectively confirming the absence of any alternative procedures which might otherwise be thought to be in his best interests
Mr Justice Hayden
[2020] EWHC 2595 (Fam)
England and Wales
Updated: 07 September 2022; Ref: scu.655284
Appeal against refusal to lift a restriction order.
[2010] UKUT 455 (AAC)
Updated: 07 September 2022; Ref: scu.433600