Y v A Healthcare NHS Trust and Others: CoP 2 Aug 2018

Application for procedure to collect the applicant’s husband’s sperm. He lacked capacity to consent, and was in a critical condition. The applicant wanted to use the sperm so that she could bear his children after his death.

Judges:

Knowles J

Citations:

[2018] EWCOP 18

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Mental Capacity Act 2005

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Health

Updated: 25 May 2022; Ref: scu.625401

Regina v Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority ex parte DB: Admn 17 Oct 1996

Sperm which had been taken from a dying and unconscious man may not be used for the later insemination of his surviving wife. The Act required his written consent.
Held: Community Law does not assist the Applicant. The question had been considered in Parliament, and allowing for the limitations on the powers of courts exercising a judicial review, the decision stood. The decision was left by Parliament within the discretion and judgement of the respondent. That is where it stayed.

Judges:

Sir Stephen Brown

Citations:

Gazette 30-Oct-1996, Times 18-Oct-1996, [1996] EWHC Admin 122

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 Sch 3

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appealed toRegina v Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority ex parte DB CA 6-Feb-1997
At the applicant’s request samples of sperm were taken from her husband hours prior to his death, when he was in a coma.
Held: Sperm cannot lawfully be taken from a comatose man in order later to allow his surviving wife to be artificially . .
CitedRe B (Parentage) FD 1996
A mother applied for financial provision for her twin children under 1989 Act Sch 1. The father asked whether he was their parent within the Schedule. They had been born by artificial insemination. He accepted that he was the donor of the sperm and . .
CitedThe Society for the Protection of Unborn Children Ireland Ltd v Stephen Grogan and others ECJ 4-Oct-1991
Europa A national court or tribunal is not empowered to bring a matter before the Court by way of a reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 177 of the Treaty unless a dispute is pending before it in the . .
CitedHer Majesty’s Customs and Excise v Gerhart Schindler and Jorg Schindler ECJ 24-Mar-1994
Europa The importation of lottery advertisements and tickets into a Member State with a view to the participation by residents of that State in a lottery conducted in another Member State relates to a ‘service’ . .
CitedRegina v Immigration Appeal Tribunal and Surinder Singh, ex parte Secretary of State for the Home Department ECJ 7-Jul-1992
ECJ The provisions of the Treaty relating to the free movement of persons are intended to facilitate the pursuit by Community citizens of occupational activities of all kinds throughout the Community and preclude . .
CitedBarnard v Gorman HL 1941
The court considered awarding costs in a judicial review case: ‘There will be no order as to costs in this House, as the Crown has very properly agreed (since this is a case of general importance, and the respondent is a poor man) to pay the costs . .
CitedLiversidge v Sir John Anderson HL 3-Nov-1941
The plaintiff sought damages for false imprisonment. The Secretary of State had refused to disclose certain documents. The question was as to the need for the defendant to justify the use of his powers by disclosing the documents.
Held: The . .
CitedGillick v West Norfolk and Wisbech Area Health Authority and Department of Health and Social Security HL 17-Oct-1985
Lawfulness of Contraceptive advice for Girls
The claimant had young daughters. She challenged advice given to doctors by the second respondent allowing them to give contraceptive advice to girls under 16, and the right of the first defendant to act upon that advice. She objected that the . .
CitedGillick v West Norfolk and Wisbech Area Health Authority and Department of Health and Social Security HL 17-Oct-1985
Lawfulness of Contraceptive advice for Girls
The claimant had young daughters. She challenged advice given to doctors by the second respondent allowing them to give contraceptive advice to girls under 16, and the right of the first defendant to act upon that advice. She objected that the . .
CitedChief Constable of the North Wales Police v Evans HL 1982
The Court found the probationer police constable to have been unlawfully induced to resign, but the court could not order his reinstatement. A power must be exercised by the precise person or body stated in the statute. Though courts may review the . .

Cited by:

Appeal fromRegina v Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority ex parte DB CA 6-Feb-1997
At the applicant’s request samples of sperm were taken from her husband hours prior to his death, when he was in a coma.
Held: Sperm cannot lawfully be taken from a comatose man in order later to allow his surviving wife to be artificially . .
CitedX v Y (Employment: Sex Offender) CA 28-May-2004
The claimant had been dismissed after it was discovered he had been cautioned for a public homosexual act. He appealed dismissal of his claim saying that the standard of fairness applied was inappropriate with regard to the Human Rights Act, and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Health

Updated: 25 May 2022; Ref: scu.136670

Re X (A Child): FD 2 Oct 2015

Application by an NHS Trust responsible for a paediatric hospital for a Declaration that it would not be unlawful to withdraw medical support devices which are effectively keeping X alive. Without such devices in place in respect of his heart and lungs, X will die.

Judges:

Bodey J

Citations:

[2015] EWHC 2778 (Fam)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Health

Updated: 25 May 2022; Ref: scu.553920

Broadmoor Hospital Authority and Another v Robinson: CA 20 Dec 1999

Where a body was given statutory duties, it would normally be entitled to orders restraining others from interfering with its performance of those duties. A patient detained under the Act had written a book, and the Hospital had sought to restrain its publication. It was argued that such a restraint went beyond the express powers of the authority. The powers were in public law, but the court might assist. The application went beyond the hospital’s statutory duties, and should be discharged. A secure hospital’s right to prevent a package or letter being sent out by patient did not extend to allow restriction on publication or recovery of book manuscript once it had already left the hospital. There was scope to grant an injunction where it could be shown that behaviour outside the hospital would sufficiently seriously interfere with the hospital’s conduct of its statutory duties, but that did not apply in this case.
Lord Woolf stated said: ‘I would therefore summarise the position by stating that if a public body is given a statutory responsibility which it is required to perform in the public interest, then, in the absence of an implication to the contrary in the statute, it has standing to apply to the court for an injunction to prevent interference with its performance of its public responsibilities and the courts should grant such an application when it appears to the court to be just and convenient to do so.’ and
‘The statutes only rarely provide expressly that a particular public body may institute proceedings in protection of specific public interests. It is usually a matter of implication. If a public body is given responsibility for performing public functions in a particular area of activity, then usually it will be implicit that it is entitled to bring proceedings seeking the assistance of the courts in protecting its special interests in the performance of those functions.’

Judges:

Lord Woolf MR, Lord Justice Morritt And Lord Justice Waller

Citations:

Times 09-Feb-2000, Gazette 20-Jan-2000, [2000] QB 775, [2000] 2 All ER 727, [1999] EWCA Civ 3039

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Mental Health Act 1983 134

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal fromBroadmoor Hospital Authority v Robinson QBD 12-Oct-1998
A secure hospital’s right to prevent a package or letter being sent out by a patient did not extend to allowing a restriction on publication or recovery of a book manuscript once it had already left the hospital. . .

Cited by:

CitedH (A Healthcare Worker) v Associated Newspapers Limited CA 27-Feb-2002
The applicant had been a health care worker, but was no longer working. He had come to be HIV positive, and an order was sought protecting his identity from disclosure in the press. He had evidence that the NHS guidelines on notification of patients . .
Appealed toBroadmoor Hospital Authority v Robinson QBD 12-Oct-1998
A secure hospital’s right to prevent a package or letter being sent out by a patient did not extend to allowing a restriction on publication or recovery of a book manuscript once it had already left the hospital. . .
CitedWorcestershire County Council v Tongue, Tongue, and Tongue CA 17-Feb-2004
The defendants had been convicted of animal welfare offences, and banned from keeping animals. The claimant sought to enter the premises to remove animals, but were denied entry.
Held: The court had no power to make an order to allow access . .
CitedCallaghan v Independent News and Media Ltd QBNI 7-Jan-2009
callaghan_inmQBNI2009
The claimant was convicted in 1987 of a callous sexual murder. He sought an order preventing the defendant newspaper publishing anything to allow his or his family’s identification and delay his release. The defendant acknowledged the need to avoid . .
CitedRollins, Regina v SC 28-Jul-2010
The court was asked whether the Financial Services Authority had a power to prosecute money laundering offences under the 2002 Act, or whether, as contended by the defendant, its powers were limited to sections under the 2000 Act.
Held: The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Health, Administrative

Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.135997

Regina v Camden and Islington Health Authority, Ex Parte K: Admn 9 Jun 2000

Judges:

Burton J

Citations:

[2000] EWHC Admin 353

Links:

Bailii

Citing:

Appealed toRegina (on the application of K) v Camden and Islington Health Authority CA 21-Feb-2001
The duty of a local authority to seek to provide resources to care for a mental patient after release into the community, is not absolute, and is subject to the limitations of the availability of a sufficient budget. A continued detention in . .

Cited by:

Appeal fromRegina (on the application of K) v Camden and Islington Health Authority CA 21-Feb-2001
The duty of a local authority to seek to provide resources to care for a mental patient after release into the community, is not absolute, and is subject to the limitations of the availability of a sufficient budget. A continued detention in . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Health, Human Rights

Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.135741

Regina (on the application of K) v Camden and Islington Health Authority: CA 21 Feb 2001

The duty of a local authority to seek to provide resources to care for a mental patient after release into the community, is not absolute, and is subject to the limitations of the availability of a sufficient budget. A continued detention in hospital of a patient because of the absence of such proper provision was not an infringement of his human rights. Section117 does not impose on health authorities an absolute obligation to implement the conditions for a patient’s discharge from hospital required by a tribunal; the authorities’ duty is, in general, to use reasonable endeavours to secure compliance with those conditions.
Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers MR: ‘Putting on one side the question of compliance with article 5 of the Convention, I can see no justification for interpreting section 117 so as to impose on health authorities an absolute obligation to satisfy any conditions that a tribunal may specify as prerequisites to the discharge of a patient. The section does not expressly impose any such requirement, nor is it reasonable to imply such a requirement. The applicant’s suggested interpretation would place upon health authorities a duty which, on occasion, would be impossible to perform. The applicant’s skeleton argument suggested that there was more that the health authority could have done to persuade a forensic psychiatrist to provide the aftercare required by the tribunal. The decision of the judge was to the contrary, and there is no basis upon which that decision can be challenged. An interpretation of section 117 which imposed on health authorities absolute duties which they would not necessarily be able to perform would be manifestly unreasonable.’

Judges:

Master of the Rolls (Lord Phillips) Lord Justice Buxton And Lord Justice Sedley

Citations:

Gazette 20-Apr-2001, Times 15-Mar-2001, [2001] EWCA Civ 240, [2002] QB 198

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights Art 5, Mental Health Act 1983 37 41 117(2)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal fromRegina v Camden and Islington Health Authority, Ex Parte K Admn 9-Jun-2000
. .
CitedJohnson v The United Kingdom ECHR 24-Oct-1997
Mr Johnson awaited trial for crimes of violence. He was diagnosed mentally ill, and on conviction made subject to a hospital order, and restricted without limit of time. He made progress, but was not discharged or re-classified. At a fourth tribunal . .
CitedRegina v Ealing District Health Authority, ex parte Fox 1993
A patient’s conditional discharge had been ordered by a tribunal. One of the conditions imposed by the tribunal was the appointment by the health authority of a responsible medical officer to provide psychiatric supervision of the patient in the . .
CitedRegina v Mental Health Review Tribunal; Torfaen County Borough Council and Gwent Health Authority ex parte Hall Admn 23-Apr-1999
The tribunal had ordered the conditional discharge of the patient, subject to conditions to be satisfied by the local health authority. The authority had failed to make the arrangements which would have satisfied the relevant conditions, and as a . .

Cited by:

Appealed toRegina v Camden and Islington Health Authority, Ex Parte K Admn 9-Jun-2000
. .
CitedRegina v Secretary of State for the Home Department and Another ex parte IH HL 13-Nov-2003
The appellant had been found unfit to plead after assaulting his son, and he had been detained under the 1964 Act. He alleged his detention was in breach of his right to a fair trial. His release had been authorised subject to the appointment of a . .
CitedRegina (W) v Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council Admn 13-Feb-2003
The claimant sought damages for false imprisonment. The mental health tribunal had ordered his release, but the respondent had delayed that release.
Held: False imprisonment is established on proof of imprisonment without lawful authority. An . .
CitedM, Regina (on the Application of) v Gateshead Council CA 14-Mar-2006
The applicant had left care, but still received assistance. She was arrested and the police asked the attending social worker to arrange secure accommodation overnight. The respondent refused. The court was asked what duty (if any) is owed by local . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Health, Human Rights, Local Government

Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.135560

Hutchison Reid v Secretary Of State For Scotland and Another: HL 5 Feb 1998

(Scotland) A detention in hospital which was capable of preventing the deterioration of a psychopathic disorder in a patient was sufficient to bring his detention within the requirement for treatment which might alleviate a condition, which phrase has a wide meaning. ‘Medical treatment’ could include treatment which alleviates or prevents a deterioration of the symptoms of the disorder, even if the treatment would have no effect on the disorder itself. A person who had been detained under the Mental Health Acts but was subsequently diagnosed as not suffering a condition susceptible to treatment can no longer be detained. The two sections of the Act are to be read together.

Judges:

Lord Hope of Craighead

Citations:

Times 07-Dec-1998, Gazette 27-Jan-1999, [1998] UKHL 43, [1999] 2 AC 512, [1999] 2 WLR 28, [1999] 1 All ER 481

Links:

House of Lords, Bailii

Statutes:

Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984 63(2) 64(1)(a) 17(1)

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Cited by:

Appeal fromHutchison Reid v The United Kingdom ECHR 20-Feb-2003
The applicant had been detained over many years after committing offences of a sexual and violent nature. After one release he reoffended and was re-detained after completing his sentence. He challenged the basis of his continued detention.
CitedMunjaz 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 . .
CitedRegina (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 . .
CitedRegina 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 . .
CitedAN, 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

Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.135166

Krol v Craig: HL 29 Oct 1998

The appellant had been compulsorily detained in a mental hospital, but after treatment was granted leave of absence, which left her still subject to the detention. It was proposed that she be made subject to a community care order. She complained that she should have been discharged from the compulsory detention.
Held: The officer was obliged to discharge the hospital order if it was no longer needed, and the community care order implied just that. The wording of the prescribed form created confusion, but should not be allowed to undermine the working of the Act. The medical opinion and the sheriff’s recommendation should neither be confused. Appeal dismissed.

Judges:

Lord Slynn of Hadley, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, Lord Hoffmann, Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Hutton

Citations:

[1998] UKHL 44

Links:

House of Lords, Bailii

Statutes:

Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984 34 35B(8)

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Health

Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.135174

The Public Guardian’s Severance Applications: CoP 19 Jun 2017

18 applications by the Public Guardian for the severance of clauses in instruments intended to have effect as Lasting Powers of Attorney – When severance is and is not necessary – Construction of section 12 (gifts) in relation to providing for the needs of others from the donor’s estate
District Judge Eldergill compared and contrasted the new terminology in the latest versions of the prescribed forms with the statutory language in s.9(4): ‘It is always risky to depart from the statutory language when drafting forms and the adoption of the headings ‘Preferences’ and ‘Instructions’ in the forms introduced by the Amendment Regulations is potentially misleading.
The term ‘instructions’ is not synonymous with ‘conditions or restrictions’.
Equally, the term ‘preferences’ is not synonymous with ‘best interests’ or a donee’s duty when deciding what is in the donor’s best interests to consider anything written in section 7 of the form concerning the donor’s wishes, feelings, beliefs and values, and the other factors to be considered by their donee(s): see s.4(6) of the 2005 Act.’

Judges:

District Judge Eldergill

Citations:

[2016] EWHC COP 10

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Mental Capacity Act 2005 57

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

ApprovedThe Public Guardian v DA and Others CoP 5-Oct-2018
The court considered the validity of lasting powers of attorney in the authorisation of euthanasia, and the appointment of multiple attorneys. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Agency, Health

Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.588180

Re XZ; XZ v The Public Guardian: CoP 19 May 2015

XZ executed an LPA which stipulated a number of restrictions and conditions designed to ensure that his attorneys did not act until his incapacity had been unequivocally confirmed by two psychiatrists, whose opinion was subject to review by a ‘protector’, and had endured for a minimum period of 60 days. The Public Guardian refused to register the LPA because he considered that the conditions imposed an unreasonable fetter on the attorneys’ power to act and were, therefore, ineffective as part of an LPA.
Held: Lush SJ granted a declaration that the LPA did not contain any provisions which would render it ineffective and made an order that the Public Guardian register the instrument. The court held that the Public Guardian’s function under paragraph 11 of Schedule 1 to the Act was limited to considering whether the conditions and restrictions in an LPA were ineffective as part of an LPA or would prevent the instrument from operating as a valid LPA. If he concluded that they could not be given legal effect, then he was under a duty to apply to the court for determination of the point under s.23(1). Otherwise, he had a duty to register the power. Neither the court nor the Public Guardian was concerned with whether a restriction that does not contravene the terms of the 2005 Act might pose practical difficulties in its operation. In this case, the Public Guardian had failed to identify any specific provision of the Act or the 2007 Regulations or the common law of agency that had been infringed by the provisions in XZ’s LPA.

Judges:

Lush SJ

Citations:

[2015] EWCOP 35

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedThe Public Guardian v DA and Others CoP 5-Oct-2018
The court considered the validity of lasting powers of attorney in the authorisation of euthanasia, and the appointment of multiple attorneys. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Agency, Health

Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.546869

Afework, Regina (on The Application of) v London Borough of Camden: Admn 13 Jun 2013

Judgment on the claimant’s application for permission to apply for judicial review as to whether the defendant local authority is duty bound by virtue of the terms of section 117 of the Mental Health Act 1983, to provide the claimant, in his particular circumstances, with accommodation free-of-charge.

Judges:

Mostyn J

Citations:

[2013] EWHC 1637 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Mental Health Act 1983 117

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Health, Local Government

Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.510803

John M, Regina v: CACD 14 Nov 2003

The trial judge had directed the jury, determining fitness to plead, with an extended formulation of the test, including the appellant’s ability to give evidence, if he wished, in his own defence. This facility had been described to mean that ‘the defendant must be able (a) to understand the questions he is asked in the witness box, (b) to apply his mind to answering them, and (c) to convey intelligibly to the jury the answers which he wishes to give. It is not necessary that his answers should be plausible or believable or reliable… Nor is it necessary that the defendant should be able to remember all or any of the matters which give rise to the charge against him…’
Held: The judge’s direction ws approved. The court considered the authorities on the test for whether a defendant was fit to plead. The court summarised the questions to be asked: ‘Does the defendant understand the charges that have been made against him? Is he able to decide whether to plead guilty or not? Is he able to exercise his right to challenge the jurors? Is he able intelligently to convey to his lawyers the case which he wishes them to advance on his behalf, and the matters which he wishes to put forward in his defence? Is he able to follow the proceedings when they come to court? And is he able, if he wishes, to give evidence on his own behalf? ‘

Judges:

Keene LJ, Roderick Evans, J Cooke J

Citations:

[2003] EWCA Crim 3452, [2004] MHLR 86

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Criminal Procedure (Insanity) Act 1964 4(5)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

ExplainedRex v Pritchard 21-Mar-1836
A person, deaf and dumb, was to be tried for a capital felony the Judge ordered a Jury to be impanneled, to try whether he was mute by the visitation of God, the jury found that he was so. The jury were then sworn to try whether he was able to . .
CitedRegina v Berry CACD 1978
Although a person was highly abnormal, it did not mean that he was incapable of doing those things set out in Pritchard as the requirements to be fit to be tried. Lord Lane CJ set aside a finding that the defendant was unfit to stand trial, saying: . .
CitedRegina v Robertson CACD 1968
The evidence suggested that the defendant had a complete understanding of the legal proceedings in which he was involved but, also that, through mental illness, he had suffered delusions which may have effected his ability ‘properly’ to conduct his . .
CitedRegina v Robertson CACD 1968
The evidence suggested that the defendant had a complete understanding of the legal proceedings in which he was involved but, also that, through mental illness, he had suffered delusions which may have effected his ability ‘properly’ to conduct his . .

Cited by:

CitedMoyle v Regina CACD 18-Dec-2008
The defendant appealed from his conviction for murder. He said that he had not been fit to plead at the time of the trial. A medical report had said that whilst his responsibility was impaired, it had not been substantially so. The report warned of . .
CitedTaitt v The State PC 8-Nov-2012
(Trinidad and Tobago) The defendant sought leave to appeal against his conviction for murder, with the death penalty mandatory sentence. He was of severely low intelligence.
Held: The appeal against conviction would not be allowed. Settled law . .
CitedOrr, Regina v CACD 7-Jul-2016
The court considered whether the trial court had correctly identified the test for fitness to plead.
Held: The appeal was allowed: ‘Once the issue of fitness to plead has been raised it must be determined. In this case, the judge explicitly . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime, Health

Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.279859

Regina (M) v Bromley London Borough Council: CA 16 Jul 2002

A care worker had been investigated by his employer local authority, and the Care Standards Tribunal had placed his name on the Consultancy Index of workers who should not be employed in that work after suspicion of child abuse. He sought judicial review of the decision.
Held: Review as refused. Although such a decision would be subject to judicial review, the tribunal had special experience of and skill in interviewing mentally handicapped children, and was the more appropriate place for such an enquiry.

Judges:

Lord Justice Thorpe, Lord Justice Judge and Lord Justice Buxton

Citations:

Times 20-Jul-2002

Statutes:

Protection of Children Act 1999

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Health

Updated: 22 May 2022; Ref: scu.174444

Regina v Collins; Pathfinder Mental Health Services NHS Trust and St Georges Healthcare NHS Trust ex parte S: Admn 7 May 1998

The authority obtained an ex parte order allowing it to give treatment in the form of a medically assisted birth, to the claimant against her will.

Citations:

Times 08-May-1998, Gazette 03-Jun-1998, [1998] EWHC Admin 490

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Mental Health Act 1983 2

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See AlsoRegina 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 AlsoRegina 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. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Health

Updated: 22 May 2022; Ref: scu.138611

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 likely to have better experience, and the application should be there rather than in the family division.

Judges:

Stuart White J

Citations:

[1997] EWHC Admin 156

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

See AlsoRegina 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. . .
See AlsoRegina v Collins; Pathfinder Mental Health Services NHS Trust and St Georges Health Care NHS Trust ex parte M S CA 3-Jul-1997
The hospital authorities applied ex parte and were granted a declaration which dispensed with the applicant’s consent to medical treatment.
Held: Her appeal was allowed. A declaration (especially one affecting an individual’s personal . .
See AlsoRegina v Collins; Pathfinder Mental Health Services NHS Trust and St Georges Healthcare NHS Trust ex parte S Admn 7-May-1998
The authority obtained an ex parte order allowing it to give treatment in the form of a medically assisted birth, to the claimant against her will. . .
See AlsoSt George’s Healthcare National Health Service Trust v S, Regina v Collins and Others ex parte S CA 8-May-1998
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 . .
See AlsoSt George’s Healthcare National Health Service Trust v S (No 2); Regina v Collins and Others ex parte S (No 2) CA 3-Aug-1998
The patient came to hospital pregnant. The doctors advised a caesarian section but she refused it. The doctors said that she lacked capacity and applied to the court for leave to proceed.
Held: It was wrong to apply to the court to override . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Health

Updated: 22 May 2022; Ref: scu.137101

N, Regina (On the Application of) v M and Others: Admn 24 Sep 2002

The patient challenged the decision of her doctors to administer anti-psychotic medicine for the prevention or for the alleviation of her psychotic illness, to which she did not consent.

Judges:

Silber J

Citations:

[2002] EWHC 1911 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Mental Health Act 1983

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedHandyside v The United Kingdom ECHR 7-Dec-1976
Freedom of Expression is Fundamental to Society
The appellant had published a ‘Little Red Schoolbook’. He was convicted under the 1959 and 1964 Acts on the basis that the book was obscene, it tending to deprave and corrupt its target audience, children. The book claimed that it was intended to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Health, Human Rights

Updated: 22 May 2022; Ref: scu.347807

Graziana Luisi and Giuseppe Carbone v Ministero del Tesoro: ECJ 31 Jan 1984

The freedom to provide services includes the freedom, for the recipients of services, to go to another member state in order to receive a service there, without being obstructed by restrictions, even in relation to payments. Tourists, persons receiving medical treatment and persons travelling for the purposes of education or business are to be regarded as recipients of services.
The general scheme of the treaty shows, and a comparison between articles 67 and 106 confirms, that the current payments covered by article 106 are transfers of foreign exchange which constitute the consideration within the context of an underlying transaction, whilst the movements of capital covered by article 67 are financial operations essentially concerned with the investment of the funds in question rather than remuneration for a service. For that reason movements of capital may themselves give rise to current payments, as is implied by articles 67(2) and 106(1). The physical transfer of bank notes may not therefore be classified as a movement of capital where the transfer in question corresponds to an obligation to pay arising from a transaction involving the movement of goods or services.
Article 106 compels member states to authorize the payments referred to in that provision in the currency of the member state in which the creditor or beneficiary resides. Payments made in the currency of a third country are not therefore covered by that provision.
Article 106 of the Treaty must be interpreted as meaning that: transfers in connection with tourism or travel for the purposes of business, education or medical treatment constitute payments and not movements of capital, even where they are effected by means of the physical transfer of bank notes; any restrictions on such payments are abolished as from the end of the transitional period; member states retain the power to verify that transfers of foreign currency purportedly intended for liberalized payments are not in reality used for unauthorized movements of capital; controls introduced for that purpose may not have the effect of limiting payments and transfers in connection with the provision of services to a specific amount for each transaction or for a given period, or of rendering illusory the freedoms recognized by the treaty or of subjecting the exercise thereof to the discretion of the administrative authorities; such controls may involve the fixing of flat-rate limits below which no verification is carried out, whereas in the case of expenditure exceeding those limits proof is required that the amounts transferred have actually been used in connection with the provision of services, provided however that the flat-rate limits so determined are not such as to affect the normal pattern of the provision of services.

Citations:

C-286/82, [1984] ECR 377, R-286/82, [1984] EUECJ R-286/82

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

CitedFoulser and Another v HM Inspector of Taxes ChD 20-Dec-2005
The taxpayer company entered into an arrangement in which shares were purchased by a company based in Ireland and resold. A claim was made for holdover relief.
Held: The scheme failed. The restriction imposed did not infringe the right of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European, Health

Updated: 21 May 2022; Ref: scu.133529

St George’s Healthcare National Health Service Trust v S (No 2); Regina v Collins and Others ex parte S (No 2): CA 3 Aug 1998

The patient came to hospital pregnant. The doctors advised a caesarian section but she refused it. The doctors said that she lacked capacity and applied to the court for leave to proceed.
Held: It was wrong to apply to the court to override the will of a patient with full capacity. Capacity is not necessarily lost if a patient is committed under the Mental Health Act. Advance Directives are to be heeded. Patients without mental capacity are to be treated according to the medical views of the doctors. The court gave guidelines on the procedures to be followed.

Judges:

Butler-Sloss, Judge, Robert Walker LJJ

Citations:

Times 03-Aug-1998, [1998] EWCA Civ 1349, [1999] Fam 26

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See AlsoRegina 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 AlsoRegina 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. . .

Cited by:

CitedCorr v IBC Vehicles Ltd HL 27-Feb-2008
The claimant’s husband had committed suicide. She sought damages for financial loss from his former employers under the 1976 Act. He had suffered a severe and debilitating injury working for them leading to his depression and suicide. The employers . .
CitedG v E and Others CA 16-Jul-2010
E, now aged 19, suffered a genetic disorder leading to severe learning disability and lack of mental capacity. He had been in the care of his sister, the appellant, but had been removed by the local authority when his behaviour became disturbed. G, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Health

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.89468

KK v Leeds City Council: COP 14 Dec 2020

The Local Authority asserts that DK lacks capacity to make decisions about KKs residence, contact with others, and use of social media; it seeks declarations and welfare orders in these respects.

Judges:

The Honourable Mr Justice Cobb

Citations:

[2020] EWCOP 64

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Health

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.656766

Regina v Medicines Control Agency Ex Parte Pharma Nord Ltd: QBD 11 Jul 1997

A Court reviewing a decision of the Medicines Control Agency does not decide whether the product is a medicine, but whether the decision had been properly reached.

Judges:

Collins J

Citations:

Times 29-Jul-1997, [1997] EWHC Admin 674

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

Appeal fromRegina v Medicines Control Agency ex parte Pharma Nord Ltd CA 10-Jun-1998
Once the Medicines Control Agency has decided that a product is a medicinal product and licensable as such, the courts should not seek to substitute their own judgment. Residuary discretion for declaration not used. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Health, Licensing, Administrative

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.87315

Regina v Gloucestershire County Council and Another, Ex Parte Barry: HL 21 Mar 1997

The House considered the need when assessing community care provision to include considerations of the cost and resources for care. The case concerned a question about the relevance of cost and arose in the context of a duty to make certain arrangements where a local authority is satisfied this is ‘necessary’ in order to meet the ‘needs’ of disabled persons.
Held: (by a majority) On the proper interpretation of the section the local authority is entitled to have regard to its resources when performing this duty. The local authority had merged the two stages into one by providing services in accordance with elaborate ‘eligibility criteria’. What was in issue was whether the authority could lawfully raise the eligibility criteria because of shortage of money. ‘Need’ within the meaning of section 2(1) of 1970 Act is a relative concept and that ‘needs for services cannot sensibly be assessed without having some regard to the cost of providing them. A person’s need for a particular type or level of service cannot be decided in a vacuum from which all considerations of cost have been expelled.’

Judges:

Lord Lloyd of Berwick, Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Steyn, Lord Hoffmann, Lord Clyde

Citations:

Gazette 09-Apr-1997, Times 21-Mar-1997, [1997] AC 584, [1997] UKHL 58, [1997] 2 WLR 459, [1997] 2 All ER 1, (1997) 9 Admin LR 209, (1997-98) 1 CCL Rep 40, (1997) 36 BMLR 92

Links:

Bailii, Bailii

Statutes:

Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 2(1)

Citing:

Appeal fromRegina v Gloucestershire County Council Ex Parte Mahfood; Same v Same Ex Parte Barry Etc QBD 2-Aug-1996
Local Authority may allow for finances in deciding on care but must look to individual case. . .

Cited by:

CitedT (a Minor), In Re 1997 HL 20-May-1998
The Act obliged a local education authority to provide education for children too ill to attend school. The claimant suffered from ME, and received only five hours support, which the authority proposed to reduce in order to save money. The parents . .
Appeal toRegina v Gloucestershire County Council Ex Parte Mahfood; Same v Same Ex Parte Barry Etc QBD 2-Aug-1996
Local Authority may allow for finances in deciding on care but must look to individual case. . .
CitedRegina v London Borough of Barnet ex parte G; Regina v London Borough of Lambeth ex parte W; Regina v London Borough of Lambeth ex parte A HL 23-Oct-2003
The applicants sought to oblige the local authority, in compliance with its duties under the 1989 Act, to provide a home for children, and where necessary an accompanying adult.
Held: There were four hurdles for the applicants to cross. They . .
CitedSavva, Regina (on The Application of) v Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea Admn 11-Mar-2010
The claimant challenged the defendant’s policies on caring for elderly people within the community saying that it provided insufficient funds, and the procedures for review were inadequate and infringed her human rights. . .
CitedMcDonald, Regina (on The Application of) v Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea SC 6-Jul-2011
The claimant, a former prima ballerina, had suffered injury as she grew old. She came to suffer a condition requiring her to urinate at several points during each night. The respondent had been providing a carer to stay with her each night to . .
CitedKM, 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 . .
CitedRobson and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Salford City Council CA 20-Jan-2015
The appellants, all severely disabled appealed against the refusal of their judicial review of the substantial withdrawal by the Council of a service providing them with transport to local day care facilities. They said that the council had failed . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Health, Benefits, Local Government

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.86701

Regina v Cambridge and Huntingdon Health Committee Ex Parte B: CA 10 Mar 1995

A decision by a Health Authority to withhold treatment for a patient could be properly so made. It was not ordinarily to be a matter for lawyers. A Health Authority’s withholding of treatment, which might not be in a child’s simple best interests could even so be lawful, but when called upon, it would have to show substantial cause for its decisions.
Where the use of limited resources has to be decided, the undesirability of the court stepping in too quickly was made clear: (Sir Thomas Bingham MR) ‘I have no doubt that in a perfect world any treatment which a patient, or a patient’s family, sought would be provided if doctors were willing to give it, no matter how much it cost, particularly when a life was potentially at stake. It would however, in my view, be shutting one’s eyes to the real world if the court were to proceed on the basis that we do live in such a world. It is common knowledge that health authorities of all kinds are constantly pressed to make ends meet. They cannot pay their nurses as much as they would like; they cannot provide all the treatments they would like; they cannot purchase all the extremely expensive medical equipment they would like; they cannot carry out all the research they would like; they cannot build all the hospitals and specialist units they would like. Difficult and agonising judgments have to be made as to how a limited budget is best allocated to the maximum advantage of the maximum number of patients. That is not a judgment which the court can make. In my judgment, it is not something that a health authority such as this authority can be fairly criticised for not advancing before the court.’
Sir Thomas Bingham MR: ‘. . . the courts are not, contrary to what is sometimes believed, arbiters as to the merits of cases of this kind. Were we to express opinions as to the likelihood of the effectiveness of medical treatment, or as to the merits of medical judgment, then we should be straying far from the sphere which under our constitution is accorded to us. We have one function only, which is to rule upon the lawfulness of decisions. That is a function to which we should strictly confine ourselves.’

Judges:

Sir Thomas Bingham MR

Citations:

Independent 14-Mar-1995, Times 15-Mar-1995, [1995] 1 WLR 898, [1995] EWCA Civ 43, [1995] EWCA Civ 49, [1995] Fam Law 480, [1995] 6 Med LR 250, [1995] 1 FLR 1056, [1995] 2 FCR 485, [1995] 2 All ER 129, [1995] COD 407

Links:

Bailii, Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedWatts, Regina (on the Application of) v Bedford Primary Care Trust and others Admn 1-Oct-2003
The claimant sought hip-replacement treatment. She was first told that she would have to wait a year. As her lawyers pressed the respondent, she looked at obtaining treatment in France. As she decided to take the treatment, the respondent reduced . .
CitedRogers, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Health Admn 15-Feb-2006
The claimant suffered breast cancer. She sought treatment from the defendant with a drug called Herceptin, and now sought judicial review of the refusal of such treatment. Various stages in the licensing of the drug were yet to be completed. It was . .
CitedRogers, Regina (on the Application of) v Swindon NHS Primary Care Trust CA 12-Apr-2006
The claimant challenged the policy of her local health authority not to allow prescription to her of the drug Herceptin.
Held: The policy had not been settled upon lawfully and was to be set aside. On the one hand the PCT developed a policy . .
See AlsoRegina v Cambridge and Huntingdonshire Health Authority Ex Parte B (No 2) CA 27-Oct-1995
A child’s anonymity could removed, where publicity could generate cash for required treatment. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Health, Children

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.86273

Regina v Richmond London Borough Council, Ex Parte Watson; Regina v Manchester City Council, Ex Parte Stennett; etc: CA 28 Sep 2000

Local Authorities who found themselves obliged to provide care for former mental patients were not free to charge for the services. The section imposing the obligation could not be looked at as a gateway provision before services were provided under other statutory provisions. The references by other sections to services provided under this section made that clear. The care was given by virtue of the councils’ obligations under the 1983 Act, not the National Assistance Act.

Citations:

Times 15-Oct-1999, Times 17-Aug-2000, Gazette 28-Sep-2000, [2000] EWCA Civ 239

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

National Assistance Act 1948 21, Mental Health Act 1983 3 117

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal fromRegina v Richmond London Borough Council, Ex Parte Watson; Regina v Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council, Ex Parte Armstrong etc Admn 15-Oct-1999
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Health, Local Government, Benefits

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.85459

K (A Patient) v Craig: HL 3 Dec 1998

(Scotland) A move to supervised community care by a detained patient first requires a finding by a psychiatrist that detention is no longer necessary, but a report to that effect is not sufficient to allow requirement to release as such.

Judges:

Slynn, Lloyd, Hoffmann, Hope, Hutton LL

Citations:

Times 07-Dec-1998, [1998] UKHL 54, 1999 SCLR 67, 1999 SLT 219, 1998 GWD 40-2074, 1999 SC (HL) 1

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984 Part V

Health, Scotland

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.82652

Birmingham Post and Mail Ltd v Birmingham City Council: QBD 12 Nov 1993

The name of a person with a notifiable disease could be withheld pending an appeal, but any anonymity given by court to party must end when it would not be needed for the purposes of justice. The power to make an order under s.11 must be exercised carefully and cannot be used simply to protect privacy or avoid embarrassment An open ended order was inappropriate.

Citations:

Times 25-Nov-1993, Independent 25-Nov-1993

Statutes:

Public Health (Control of Diseases) Act 1984 37, Contempt of Court Act 1981 11

Cited by:

CitedAllen v The Grimsby Telegraph and Another QBD 2-Mar-2011
The claimant sought to prevent publication of his name in the context of the making of a Sexual Offences Prevention Order (SOPO). He had been convicted of offences against sex workers. An order had been made preventing disclosure of his address, but . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Health, Litigation Practice

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.78418

Re J(C): CoP 2012

Lush J doubted that a proper consideration when setting the terms for a statutory will under the 2005 Act, would be the desirability of the deceased being remembered for having ‘done the right thing’ in his will.

Judges:

Lush J

Citations:

[2012] WTLR 121

Statutes:

Mental Capacity Act 2005

Cited by:

CitedNT 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.

Wills and Probate, Health

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.510003

Juncal, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department and others: CA 25 Jul 2008

The claimant appealed dismissal of his claim for wrongful imprisonment having been detained in 1997 on being found unfit to plead to an offence of violence.
Held: Parliament had a legitimate concern for the protection of the public, and defendants themselves, from persons whom it would be unfair to try because they have insufficient understanding of the trial process. A legal system must have a procedure for dealing with that situation. There was a right of appeal under the Criminal Appeal (Northern Ireland) Act 1980 against a finding of unfitness to plead . . The procedure provided was not capricious or arbitrary, and was followed.

Judges:

Pill, Baker, Richards LJJ

Citations:

[2008] EWCA Civ 869

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Mental Health (Northern Ireland) Order 1986, Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984 81(1), Criminal Procedure (Insanity) Act 1964, European Convention on Human Rights 5

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal fromJuncal, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department and others Admn 19-Dec-2007
The claimant sought damages, saying that he had been unlawfully detained when found unfit to plead in 1997.
Held: The claim failed. (a) The 1964 Act, and its Scottish equivalent, did not authorise anything that was arbitrary. (b) It followed . .
CitedX v United Kingdom ECHR 5-Nov-1981
(Commission) The application was made a patient, restricted under the 1959 Act. A mental health review tribunal which concluded that the continued detention of a restricted patient was no longer justified had power to recommend but not to order the . .
CitedRegina v M and Others CACD 5-Oct-2001
The court considered the nature of the detention of a defendant when he was found unfit to plead. Rose LJ said: ‘The old orders available to the courts [including the hospital order with restrictions] do not include any punishment or any order that . .
CitedWinterwerp 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. . .
CitedJohnson v The United Kingdom ECHR 24-Oct-1997
Mr Johnson awaited trial for crimes of violence. He was diagnosed mentally ill, and on conviction made subject to a hospital order, and restricted without limit of time. He made progress, but was not discharged or re-classified. At a fourth tribunal . .
CitedRegina (Kenneally) v Snaresbrook Crown Court Admn 27-Nov-2001
That a mentally disturbed defendant may cause embarrassment by his behaviour in court was no reason for him not to be brought to court to be present when an order detaining him under the Act was to be made. The words of section 51(5) must be . .
CitedRegina v Grant CACD 22-Nov-2001
A jury had found, under section 4(5) of the 1964 Act as amended, that the defendant was unfit to plead. The court considered section 5 of the 1964 Act.
Held: A judge of the Crown Court is obliged under the section to make a mandatory order . .
CitedRegina 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 . .
CitedB (A Minor) v Director of Public Prosecutions HL 23-Feb-2000
Prosecution to prove absence of genuine belief
To convict a defendant under the 1960 Act, the prosecution had the burden of proving the absence of a genuine belief in the defendant’s mind that the victim was 14 or over. The Act itself said nothing about any mental element, so the assumption must . .
CitedRegina v Kansal (2) HL 29-Nov-2001
The prosecutor had lead and relied at trial on evidence obtained by compulsory questioning under the 1986 Act.
Held: In doing so the prosecutor was acting to give effect to section 433.
The decision in Lambert to disallow retrospective . .
CitedRegina v Grant CACD 22-Nov-2001
A jury had found, under section 4(5) of the 1964 Act as amended, that the defendant was unfit to plead. The court considered section 5 of the 1964 Act.
Held: A judge of the Crown Court is obliged under the section to make a mandatory order . .
CitedRegina v Lambert HL 5-Jul-2001
Restraint on Interference with Burden of Proof
The defendant had been convicted for possessing drugs found on him in a bag when he was arrested. He denied knowing of them. He was convicted having failed to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that he had not known of the drugs. The case was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Health, Crime, Human Rights

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.271102

Mersey Care NHS Trust v Ackroyd: CA 21 Feb 2007

The defendant journalist had published confidential material obtained from the claimant’s secure hospital at Ashworth. The hospital now appealed against the refusal of an order for him to to disclose his source.
Held: The appeal failed. Given that over 200 people may have been the source, the claimant’s argument based on the burden on fellow employees of suspicion failed. In essence whether an order for disclosure was to be made was a matter of discretion for the judge at first instance, and the appeal court’s role would be limited. The judge had taken into account all the relevant factors, and was particularly free to conclude that things had moved on in the considerable delay since the original disclosure. This did not suggest any reduction in the respect to be given to the confidentiality of health records.

Judges:

Sir Anthony Clarke MR, Lord Neiberger of Abbotsbury, Leveson LJ

Citations:

[2007] EWCA Civ 101, 94 BMLR 84, [2008] EMLR 1, [2007] HRLR 19

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Contempt of Court Act 1981 10

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See AlsoAshworth Security Hospital v MGN Limited HL 27-Jun-2002
Order for Journalist to Disclose Sources
The newspaper published details of the medical records of Ian Brady, a prisoner and patient of the applicant. The applicant sought an order requiring the defendant newspaper to disclose the identity of the source of material which appeared to have . .
See AlsoAshworth Security Hospital v MGN Ltd CA 18-Dec-2000
The court can order the identity of a wrongdoer to be revealed where the person against whom the order was sought had become involved in his tortious acts. This might apply even where the acts were unlawful, but fell short of being tortious. There . .
See AlsoAckroyd v Mersey Care NHS Trust 18-Oct-2002
The medical records of a patient at the hospital had been provided by an employee to a journalist who then provided a story to the Mirror. An order had been made for the Mirror to disclose the source. An application was now made against the . .
CitedAckroyd v Mersey Care NHS Trust CA 16-May-2003
The journalist was required to provide the source of his material. In an earlier hearing the newspaper had been ordered to disclose the name of its source, the journalist. The claimant obtained summary judgement, which the journalist now appealed. . .
Appeal fromMersey 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 . .
CitedNorwich Pharmacal Co and others v Customs and Excise Commissioners HL 26-Jun-1973
Innocent third Party May still have duty to assist
The plaintiffs sought discovery from the defendants of documents received by them innocently in the exercise of their statutory functions. They sought to identify people who had been importing drugs unlawfully manufactured in breach of their . .
CitedHandyside v The United Kingdom ECHR 7-Dec-1976
Freedom of Expression is Fundamental to Society
The appellant had published a ‘Little Red Schoolbook’. He was convicted under the 1959 and 1964 Acts on the basis that the book was obscene, it tending to deprave and corrupt its target audience, children. The book claimed that it was intended to . .
CitedX v Y 1987
Complaint was made that defendant newspapers were to publish confidential medical records of doctors suffering Aids. An injunction was sought to prevent use of records given to a journalist by a hospital employee. The records related to doctors in . .
CitedIn 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 . .
CitedRegina v Shayler HL 21-Mar-2002
The defendant had been a member of the security services. On becoming employed, and upon leaving, he had agreed to keep secret those matters disclosed to him. He had broken those agreements and was being prosecuted. He sought a decision that the . .
CitedZ v Finland ECHR 25-Feb-1997
A defendant had appealed against his conviction for manslaughter and related offences by deliberately subjecting women to the risk of being infected by him with HIV virus. The applicant, Z, had been married to the defendant, and infected by him with . .
CitedGoodwin v The United Kingdom ECHR 27-Mar-1996
An order for a journalist to reveal his source was a breach of his right of free expression: ‘The court recalls that freedom of expression constitutes one of the essential foundations of a democratic society and that the safeguards to be afforded to . .
CitedX Ltd v Morgan-Grampian (Publishers) Ltd HL 1990
In a case where a contemnor not only fails wilfully and contumaciously to comply with an order of the court but makes it clear that he will continue to defy the court’s authority if the order should be affirmed on appeal, the court must have a . .
CitedFressoz and Roire v France ECHR 21-Jan-1999
Le Canard Enchaine published the salary of M Calvet, the chairman of Peugeot, (which was publicly available information) and also, by way of confirmation, photographs of the relevant part of his tax assessment, which was confidential and could not . .
CitedGeorge Galloway MP v The Telegraph Group Ltd CA 25-Jan-2006
The defendant appealed agaiunst a finding that it had defamed the claimant by repeating the contents of papers found after the invasion of Iraq which made claims against the claimant. The paper had not sought to justify the claims, relying on . .
CitedDouglas and others v Hello! Ltd and others (No 3) CA 18-May-2005
The principal claimants sold the rights to take photographs of their wedding to a co-claimant magazine (OK). Persons acting on behalf of the defendants took unauthorised photographs which the defendants published. The claimants had retained joint . .
CitedRegina 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 . .
CitedFinancial Times Ltd and others v Interbrew SA CA 8-Mar-2002
The appellants appealed against orders for delivery up of papers belonging to the claimant. The paper was a market sensitive report which had been stolen and doctored before being handed to the appellant.
Held: The Ashworth Hospital case . .
CitedReynolds v Times Newspapers Ltd and others HL 28-Oct-1999
Fair Coment on Political Activities
The defendant newspaper had published articles wrongly accusing the claimant, the former Prime Minister of Ireland of duplicity. The paper now appealed, saying that it should have had available to it a defence of qualified privilege because of the . .
CitedMcCartan Turkington Breen (A Firm) v Times Newspapers Limited HL 2-Nov-2000
(Northern Ireland) The defendant reported a press conference at which the claims denying the criminal responsibility of an army private were made. The report was severely critical of the claimants, who then sued in defamation. The defendants claimed . .
CitedHandyside v The United Kingdom ECHR 7-Dec-1976
Freedom of Expression is Fundamental to Society
The appellant had published a ‘Little Red Schoolbook’. He was convicted under the 1959 and 1964 Acts on the basis that the book was obscene, it tending to deprave and corrupt its target audience, children. The book claimed that it was intended to . .

Cited by:

CitedIndependent Police Complaints Commission v Warner and Others QBD 17-Feb-2012
The applicant had mistakenly disclosed confidential personal information in answer to a data request. It sought an injunction restricting its redistribution after the recipient refused to return it and threatened to pass it on. The defendant said . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Media, Contempt of Court, Health

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.248930

Mason v Mason: 1972

The court considered the mental capacity required of somebody to give their consent to a decree of divorce.

Citations:

[1972] Fam 302

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedMasterman-Lister v Brutton and Co, Jewell and Home Counties Dairies (No 1) CA 19-Dec-2002
Capacity for Litigation
The claimant appealed against dismissal of his claims. He had earlier settled a claim for damages, but now sought to re-open it, and to claim in negligence against his former solicitors, saying that he had not had sufficient mental capacity at the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Family, Health

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.259610

J and others v Switzerland: ECHR 5 Apr 1995

Even relatively minor medical treatment, if compulsory, may engage article 8.

Citations:

22398/93

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 8

Cited by:

CitedB, 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.

Human Rights, Health

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.224204

Regina v Bournewood Community and Mental Health NHS Trust, Ex parte L: CA 2 Dec 1997

The applicant was severely autistic, and unable to consent to medical treatment. He had been admitted voluntarly to a mental hospital and detained under common law powers. The Hospital trust appealed a finding that his detention had been unlawful.
Held: He had in fact been detained: ‘We do not consider that the judge was correct to conclude that L was ‘free to leave’. We think that it is plain that, had he attempted to leave the hospital, those in charge of him would not have permitted him to do so.’ and ‘In our judgment a person is detained in law if those who have control over the premises in which he is have the intention that he shall not be permitted to leave those premises and have the ability to prevent him from leaving. We have concluded that this was and is the position of L.’ The 1983 Act created a complete regime which excluded the application of the common law doctrine of necessity. The judgment was sustained.

Judges:

Lord Woolf MR, Phillips and Chadwick LJJ

Citations:

[1998] 2 WLR 764

Statutes:

Mental Health Act 1983 131(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedBlack v Forsey HL 20-May-1988
The common law was called in aid to supplement the statutory power of compulsory detention to fill a lacuna which had appeared in the 1984 Act.
Held: The common law could not be invoked for that purpose, because the powers of detention . .
At AdmnL 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 . .

Cited by:

At CAIn Re L (By His Next Friend GE); Regina v Bournewood Community and Mental Health NHS Trust, Ex Parte L HL 25-Jun-1998
The applicant was an adult autistic, unable to consent to medical treatment. Treatment was provided at a day centre. He had been detained informally under the Act and against the wishes of his carers, but the Court of Appeal decided he should have . .
At Court of AppealHL v United Kingdom ECHR 2004
Lack of Patient Safeguards was Infringement
The claimant had been detained at a mental hospital as in ‘informal patient’. He was an autistic adult. He had been recommended for release by the Mental Health Review Tribunal, and it was decided that he should be released. He was detained further . .
CitedSavage v South Essex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust (MIND intervening) HL 10-Dec-2008
The deceased had committed suicide on escaping from a mental hospital. The Trust appealed against a refusal to strike out the claim that that they had been negligent in having inadequate security.
Held: The Trust’s appeal failed. The fact that . .
At CAHL v United Kingdom ECHR 10-Sep-2002
(Admissibility) Whether a detention amounts to a deprivation of liberty depends upon all the facts and circumstances of the particular case . .
At CAL v United Kingdom ECHR 5-Oct-2004
The claimant had suffered mental illness and threatened to hurt himself. He was taken into hospital as a voluntary patient, but in effect detained compulsorily. He lacked capacity to consent to medical treatment.
Held: The holding of a patient . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Health

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.218828

Regina v Ealing District Health Authority, ex parte Fox: 1993

A patient’s conditional discharge had been ordered by a tribunal. One of the conditions imposed by the tribunal was the appointment by the health authority of a responsible medical officer to provide psychiatric supervision of the patient in the community. The authority refused to make the appointment.
Held: ‘I reject the submission that this duty (under section 117) only comes into existence when the applicant is discharged from Broadmoor. I consider a proper interpretation of this section to be that it is a continuing duty in respect of any patient who may be discharged and falls within section 117, although the duty to any particular patient is only triggered at the moment of discharge.’ The court declared ‘(1) that the authority has erred in law in not attempting with all reasonable expedition and diligence to make arrangements so as to enable the applicant to comply with the conditions imposed by the mental health review tribunal; (2) that a district health authority is under a duty under section 117 of the Mental Health Act 1983 to provide aftercare services when patient leaves hospital, and acts unlawfully in failing to seek to make practical arrangements for after-care prior to that patient’s discharge from hospital where such arrangements are required by mental health review tribunal in order to enable the patient to be conditionally discharged from hospital.’

Judges:

Otton J

Citations:

[1993] 1 WLR 373

Statutes:

Mental Health Act 1983 117

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Dicta DoubtedRegina (W) v Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council Admn 13-Feb-2003
The claimant sought damages for false imprisonment. The mental health tribunal had ordered his release, but the respondent had delayed that release.
Held: False imprisonment is established on proof of imprisonment without lawful authority. An . .
AppliedRegina v Mental Health Review Tribunal; Torfaen County Borough Council and Gwent Health Authority ex parte Hall Admn 23-Apr-1999
The tribunal had ordered the conditional discharge of the patient, subject to conditions to be satisfied by the local health authority. The authority had failed to make the arrangements which would have satisfied the relevant conditions, and as a . .
CitedRegina (on the application of K) v Camden and Islington Health Authority CA 21-Feb-2001
The duty of a local authority to seek to provide resources to care for a mental patient after release into the community, is not absolute, and is subject to the limitations of the availability of a sufficient budget. A continued detention in . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Health

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.195618

Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust v Mr and Mrs A, YA, ZA, Mr and Mrs B T Authority: QBD 4 Nov 2002

At a fertility clinic, eggs were fertilised with the sperm from the wrong father. It was noticed only because after the birth of the twins, the colour of their skin was different from the mother and putative father.
Held: Difficult issues of medical confidentiality had arisen. The HFEA had conducted a preliminary investigation and imposed certain conditions upon the unit’s licence. Having given a statement of the factual background, the court reserved its’ fuller opinion to a later hearing.

Judges:

Dame Butler-Sloss E, President

Citations:

[2003] 1 FLR 412

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See alsoAHE Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust v A and Others (By Their Litigation Friend, the Official Solicitor), The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority B, B QBD 26-Feb-2003
An IVF treatment centre used sperm from one couple to fertilise eggs from another. This was discovered, and the unwilling donors sought a paternity declaration.
Held: Section 28 did not confer paternity. The mistake vitiated whatever consents . .

Cited by:

See alsoAHE Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust v A and Others (By Their Litigation Friend, the Official Solicitor), The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority B, B QBD 26-Feb-2003
An IVF treatment centre used sperm from one couple to fertilise eggs from another. This was discovered, and the unwilling donors sought a paternity declaration.
Held: Section 28 did not confer paternity. The mistake vitiated whatever consents . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Health, Licensing

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.190124

Regina v Birch: CACD 1989

Even where there is culpability, a hospital order with a restriction order may well be the appropriate way to deal with a dangerous and disordered person.
Mustill LJ discussed the effect of a restriction order: ‘In marked contrast with the regime under an ordinary hospital order, is an order coupled with a restriction on discharge pursuant to section 41. A restriction order has no existence independently of the hospital order to which it relates; it is not a separate means of disposal. Nevertheless, it fundamentally affects the circumstances in which the patient is detained. No longer is the offender regarded simply as a patient whose interests are paramount. No longer is the control of him handed over unconditionally to the hospital authorities. Instead the interests of public safety are regarded by transferring the responsibility for discharge from the responsible medical officer and the hospital to the Secretary of State alone (before September 30, 1983) and now to the Secretary of State and the Mental Health Review Tribunal. A patient who has been subject to a restriction order is likely to be detained for much longer in hospital than one who is not, and will have fewer opportunities for leave of absence.’
As to the problem facing a sentencer where the defendant needs hospital treatment but his offence merits punishment: ‘For the present purposes it is, we believe, sufficient to note that the choice of prison as an alternative to hospital may arise in two quite different ways: . . . (2) Where the sentencer considers that notwithstanding the offender’s mental disorder there was an element of culpability in the offence which merits punishment. This may happen where there is no connection between the mental disorder and the offence, or where the defendant’s responsibility for the offence is ‘diminished’ but not wholly extinguished. That the imposition of a prison sentence is capable of being a proper exercise of discretion is shown by Morris (1961) 2 Q.B. 237 and Gunnell. Nevertheless the more recent decision Mbatha (1985) 7 Cr.App.R(S) 373 strongly indicates that even where there is culpability, the right way to deal with a dangerous and disordered person is to make an order under section 37 and 41.’
Mustill LJ explained the operation of a section 37 hospital order: ‘Once an offender is admitted to hospital under a hospital or transfer order without restriction on discharge, his position is as if he were a civil patient. He passes from the penal system to the hospital regime. Neither the court nor the Secretary of State has any say in his disposal. Thus, like any other mental patient, he may be detained only for a period of six months, unless the authority to detain is renewed, an event which cannot happen unless certain conditions, which resemble those which were satisfied when he was admitted, are fulfilled. If the authority expires without being renewed, the patient may leave. Furthermore, he may be discharged at any time by the hospital managers or the ‘responsible medical officer’. In addition to these regular modes of discharge, a patient who absconds or is absent without leave and is not retaken within 28 days is automatically discharged at the end of that period (section 18(5)) and if he is allowed continuous leave of absence for more than six [now twelve] months, he cannot be recalled (section 17(5)).
Another feature of the regime which affects the disordered offender and the civil patient alike is the power of the responsible medical officer to grant leave of absence from the hospital for a particular purpose, or for a specified or indefinite period of time: subject always to a power of recall (except as mentioned above).
There are certain differences between the positions of the offender and of the civil patient, relating to early access to the Review Tribunal and to discharge by the patient’s nearest relative, but these are of comparatively modest importance. In general the offender is dealt with in a manner which appears, and is intended to be, humane by comparison with a custodial sentence. A hospital order is not a punishment. Questions of retribution and deterrence, whether personal or general, are immaterial. The offender who has become a patient is not kept on any kind of leash by the court, as he is when he consents to a probation order with a condition of inpatient treatment. The sole purpose of the order is to ensure that the offender receives the medical care and attention which he needs in the hope and expectation of course that the result will be to avoid the commission by the offender of further criminal acts.’

Judges:

Mustill LJ, Saville and McKinnon JJ

Citations:

(1989) 11 Cr App R (S) 202

Statutes:

Mental Health Act 1983 37

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

ApprovedRegina v Drew HL 8-May-2003
The defendant was mentally ill. He had been convicted of a second serious offence, and now appealed the life sentence imposed. Psychiatrists had recommended a hospital order, but such an order could not now be made by virtue of the 2000 Act save in . .
CitedGray v Thames Trains and Others HL 17-Jun-2009
The claimant suffered psychiatric injury in a rail crash caused by the defendant’s negligence. Under this condition of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, the claimant had later gone on to kill another person, and he had been detained under section 41. . .
CitedHenderson v Dorset Healthcare University NHS Foundation Trust CA 3-Aug-2018
Upon the allegedly negligent release of the claimant from mental health care, she had, while in the midst of a serious psychotic episode, derived from the schizophrenia, killed her mother and been convicted of manslaughter. She now sought damages in . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Health, Criminal Sentencing

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.182174

Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex Parte Didlick: QBD 30 Mar 1993

A restriction did not expire simply by being allowed to elapse, but could only be brought to an end by a direction from the Home Secretary or by the patient being discharged from the hospital.

Citations:

Times 30-Mar-1993

Statutes:

Mental Health Act 1959, Mental Health Act 1983

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Health

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.87928

Re S and S: CoP 2008

Hazel Marshall QC J described the system of reconsideration under the 2007 Rules: ‘ Such a reconsideration is not an appeal. The processes in the Court of Protection are intended to give the court wide flexibility to reach a decision quickly, conveniently and cost effectively where it can, whilst preserving a proper opportunity for those affected by its orders to have their views taken into account in full argument if necessary. To that end, on receiving an application, the court can make a decision on the papers, or direct a full hearing, or make any order as to how the application can best be dealt with. This will often lead to a speedy decision made solely on paper which everyone is content to accept, but any party still has the right to ask for a reconsideration.
If this occurs, the court should approach the matter as if making the decision afresh, not on the basis that the question is whether there is a justifiable attack on the first order. The party making the application has not had a proper opportunity to be heard, and should be allowed one without feeling that s/he suffers from the disadvantage of having been placed in the position of an appellant by an order made without full consideration of his points or his views.’

Judges:

Hazel Marshall QC J

Citations:

[2008] COPLR Con Vol 1074

Statutes:

Court of Protection Rules 2007 89

Cited by:

CitedRe MRJ JT and KT (Reconsideration of Order) CoP 10-Apr-2014
re_mjtCoP0414
The court had made an order transferring responsibility for MRJ’s affairs from the appointed attorney to the local authority. The order had been made on the papers, and the court now heard an application for it to be reconsidered.
Held: The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Health, Litigation Practice

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.523691

R-B v Official Solicitor: Re A (Medical Sterilisation): 1999

Citations:

[1999] 53 BMLR 66

Cited by:

CitedA Local Authority v K COP 15-Feb-2013
ala_kCoP2013
K was a young lady llivng amid her family with Downs syndrome. The family were thought too want her to be sterilised. The local authority applied to the court to determine whether this should be prevented. It was agreed that she was not currently . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Health

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.471001

Regina v Ghulam: CACD 21 Oct 2009

If a defendant wished the court to consider whether he was fit to plead, he must provide reports from two medical experts to comply with the statute. In this case, the court had been provided with only one, and was therefore unable to consider the plea.

Judges:

Lord Justice Stanley Burnton, Mr Justice Penry-Davey and Mrs Justice Sharpe

Citations:

Times 26-Oct-2009

Statutes:

Criminal Procedure (Insanity) Act 1964, Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004 (c. 28), Criminal Procedure (Insanity and Unfitness to Plead) Act 1991

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Criminal Practice, Health

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.377226

Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department Ex Parte Xuereb: QBD 14 Jun 2000

The fact that an alien was detained under the Mental Health Acts did not mean that he could not be ordered to be removed and returned to his own country. The power given to the Secretary of State was discretionary, and though the treatment he might receive was of a lower standard, it was not an unreasonable exercise of the discretion. He also retained the powers under the earlier act and could rely upon those powers. The later Act was not an exhaustive statement of his powers.

Citations:

Times 14-Jun-2000

Statutes:

Mental Health Act 1983 86, Immigration Act 1971 SCh 2

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Health, Immigration

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.85527

Regina v Reynolds: CACD 1 Nov 2000

When a court wanted to consider making a restriction order under the Act, it could not do so without some medical evidence which could be used to justify such a restriction. Here it was accepted that the defendant did suffer from a mental disorder induced or exacerbated by the overuse of cannabis, and in appropriate circumstances the court could act upon verbal evidence given to it. It could still not act to impose a hospital order under the section without any such evidence or opinion in favour of restriction.

Citations:

Times 01-Nov-2000

Statutes:

Mental Health Act 1983 41(1)

Health, Criminal Sentencing

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.85456

A National Health Service Trust v D: FD 19 Jul 2000

A young child was very severely ill, and his life threatened from his illness. His doctors together considered that further treatment was not in his interests. They sought an order that in the event of future respiratory of cardiac failure, they should be free not to resuscitate him. His parents asserted that this infringed the child’s human rights.
Held: The UK law position is that the child’s interests are paramount. A death with dignity would not infringe his human rights. The question concerned steps being taken or not to prolong life, not to shorten it.

Citations:

Times 19-Jul-2000

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights

Health, Human Rights

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.77581

M v B, A and S (by the Official Solicitor): 2005

Citations:

[2006] 1 FLR 117, [2005] EWHC 1681 (Fam)

Cited by:

CitedIn re PS (an Adult), Re; City of Sunderland v PS by her litigation friend the Offcial Solcicitor and CA; Re PS (Incapacitated or Vulnerable Adult) FD 9-Mar-2007
The patient an elderly lady with limited mental capacity was to be returned from hospital, but her daughter said she was to come home. The local authority sought to prevent this, wanting to return her to a residential unit where she had lived for . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Health, Family

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.269960

Norfolk and Norwich Healthcare (NHS) Trust v W: 1996

The court’s inherent powers extend to authorising an adult with mental incapacity to be detained for his own protection in such a place and the use of reasonable force (if necessary) to detain him and ensure that he remains there.

Citations:

[1996] 2 FLR 613

Cited by:

CitedIn re PS (an Adult), Re; City of Sunderland v PS by her litigation friend the Offcial Solcicitor and CA; Re PS (Incapacitated or Vulnerable Adult) FD 9-Mar-2007
The patient an elderly lady with limited mental capacity was to be returned from hospital, but her daughter said she was to come home. The local authority sought to prevent this, wanting to return her to a residential unit where she had lived for . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Health

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.269962

Ball v Mallin: HL 1829

A person must have the necessary mental capacity if he is to execute a voluntary deed. The House upheld a direction to the jury that what was required was that a person ‘should be capable of understanding what he did by executing the deed in question when its general import was fully explained to him.’

Citations:

(1829) 3 Bligh NS 1

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedMasterman-Lister v Brutton and Co, Jewell and Home Counties Dairies (No 1) CA 19-Dec-2002
Capacity for Litigation
The claimant appealed against dismissal of his claims. He had earlier settled a claim for damages, but now sought to re-open it, and to claim in negligence against his former solicitors, saying that he had not had sufficient mental capacity at the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contract, Health

Updated: 14 May 2022; Ref: scu.259609

Regina (Secretary of State for the Home Department) v Mental Health Review Tribunal: Admn 2004

Citations:

[2004] EWHC 1029 (Admn)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedRegina (C) v Mental Health Review Tribunal and Others QBD 17-Jan-2005
C applied for judicial review of the refusal by the respondent to order his absolute discharge, and the continuation of the restriction order. He said the tribunal had taken account of earlier reporst referring to a psychopathic personality . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Health

Updated: 13 May 2022; Ref: scu.223067

MP, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Health and Social Care: CA 3 Dec 2020

Challenge to method of imposition of fees for health care for overseas visitor.
Held: No legitimate expectation of consultation had been created.

Judges:

Lord Justice Newey

Citations:

[2020] EWCA Civ 1634

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Health, Benefits, Administrative

Updated: 13 May 2022; Ref: scu.656655

Re A (Male Sterilisation): CA 2000

The court considered the duties of a doctor, asking whether a procedure should be undertaken for a patient without the capacity to consent: Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss said: ‘The doctor, acting to that required standard, has, in my view, a second duty, that is to say, he must act in the best interests of a mentally incapacitated patient.’ and ‘In my judgment best interests encompasses medical, emotional and all other welfare issues.’ and (Thorpe) ‘the evaluation of best interests is akin to a welfare appraisal . . Pending the enactment of a checklist or other statutory direction . . the first instance judge with the responsibility to make an evaluation of the best interests of a claimant lacking capacity should draw up a balance sheet. The first entry should be of any factor or factors of actual benefit. In the present case an instance would be the acquisition of foolproof contraception. Then on the other sheet the judge should write any counterbalancing dis-benefits to the applicant. An obvious instance in this case would be the apprehension of risk and the discomfort inherent in the operation. Then the judge should enter on each sheet the potential gains and losses in each instance making some estimate of the extent of the possibility that the gain or loss might accrue. At the end of that exercise the judge should be better placed to strike a balance between the sum of the certain and possible gains against the sum of the certain and possible losses. Obviously, only if the account is in relatively significant credit will the judge conclude that the application is likely to advance the best interests of the claimant.’

Judges:

Thorpe LJ, Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss President

Citations:

[2000] 1 FLR 549

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedSimms, PA v Simms (Acting By the Official Solicitor As Litigation Friend), an NHS Trust (Acting By the Official Solicitor As Guardian Ad Litem), an NHS Trust FD 11-Dec-2002
‘In a situation where there is no application to the court, and the patient does not have capacity to make a decision about medical or surgical treatment, the doctor has, in my judgment, two duties. First he must act at all times in accordance with . .
FollowedPortsmouth NHS Trust v Wyatt and others FD 7-Oct-2004
Charlotte Wyatt was born prematurely, and depended for day to day her life on medical support. Her doctors asked to be permitted not to resuscitate her again if she needed it. Her parents asked that she be given whatever chance was available for her . .
CitedE v Channel Four, News International Ltd and St Helens Borough Council FD 1-Jun-2005
The applicant sought an order restraining publication by the defendants of material, saying she did not have capacity to consent to the publication. She suffered a multiple personality disorder. She did herself however clearly wish the film to be . .
CitedAintree University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust v James and Others CA 1-Mar-2013
The patient had been found to lack capacity to litigate and make decisions as to his medical treatment. The Hospital appealed against rejection of its request for a declaration that it would be lawful to withhold treatment in the case of clinical . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Health, Health Professions

Updated: 13 May 2022; Ref: scu.194083

Regina (on the application of R) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: QBD 12 Dec 2003

The decision to designate a prisoner with mental difficulties as a ‘technical lifer’ was not a sentencing exercise requiring a right for the issue to be heard before a court, and it remained a decision for the respondent.

Judges:

Munby J

Citations:

Times 09-Jan-2003

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedRegina v Secretary of State for the Home Department Ex parte Anderson HL 25-Nov-2002
The appellant had been convicted of double murder. The judge imposed a mandatory life sentence with a minimum recommended term. The Home Secretary had later increased the minimum term under the 1997 Act. The appellant challenged that increase.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Health, Prisons

Updated: 13 May 2022; Ref: scu.190499

Regina (C) v London South and West Region Mental Health Review Tribunal: CA 2001

A standardised period before a hearing to review a patient’s detention that does not vary with the facts of each case may involve a breach of the Convention right.

Citations:

[2001] EWCA Civ 1110, [2002] 1 WLR 176

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights, Mental Health Act 1983

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedP, 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.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Health, Human Rights

Updated: 12 May 2022; Ref: scu.190086

Re SS (an adult: medical treatment): 2002

The court considered a request for permission to abort the pregnancy of a woman receiving treatment as an in-patient at a mental hospital: ‘Pregnant patients in psychiatric hospital are not unusual. The issue of the termination of pregnancies in such circumstances must arise frequently. It seems to me essential that each hospital should have a protocol to deal with possible terminations of such pregnancies, and that these protocols should be designed to address the issue in good time so that, wherever practicable and in the interests of the patient, a termination can be carried out at the earliest opportunity. Furthermore, any such protocol should ensure that the patient is referred at an early stage to independent legal advice, whether from the Official Solicitor or the solicitor who, as in this case, appears to have represented her at the Mental Health Review Tribunal.’

Judges:

Wall J

Citations:

[2002] 1 FCR 73

Cited by:

CitedAn NHS Trust v D (Medical Treatment: Consent: Termination) FD 28-Nov-2003
The defendant had been admitted to hospital under the 1983 Act and found to be pregnant. The doctors sought an order permitting an abortion. An order had been made, but the parties invited the court to say whether a court order was required at all. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Health

Updated: 12 May 2022; Ref: scu.188390

X v United Kingdom: ECHR 5 Oct 1972

A complaint by a prisoner that as a mentally disordered person he should have been held in a psychiatric hospital rather than a prison was rejected as inadmissible.

Citations:

(Unreported 5 October 1972)

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Cited by:

CitedRegina v Drew HL 8-May-2003
The defendant was mentally ill. He had been convicted of a second serious offence, and now appealed the life sentence imposed. Psychiatrists had recommended a hospital order, but such an order could not now be made by virtue of the 2000 Act save in . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Prisons, Health

Updated: 12 May 2022; Ref: scu.182173

EC v Birmingham and Solihull Mental Health NHS Trust: UTAA 8 May 2013

Two patients were each subject to hospital orders and restriction orders under the Mental Health Act 1983. On a reference to the First-tier Tribunal, the first patient did not seek a discharge but instead sought an extra-statutory recommendation that he be granted leave outside the hospital. Before hearing any evidence, the First-tier Tribunal announced that it had decided that it would not consider making such a recommendation and it did not do so. On an application to the First-tier Tribunal by the second patient, the patient did not seek a discharge but sought an extra-statutory recommendation that he be transferred to less restrictive conditions of detention. At the beginning of the hearing, the First-tier Tribunal judge stated that he was very reluctant to give extra-statutory recommendations and expressed the view that they had value only if there were unreasonable obstructions by the Ministry of Justice. No extra-statutory recommendation was made and the request was not mentioned in the statement of reasons. The patients appealed against, and applied in the alternative for judicial review of, the decisions of the First-tier Tribunal. The principal arguments in both cases were that the patients had a legitimate expectation that requests for extra-statutory recommendations would be considered due to a written Parliamentary answer explaining what would happen if such a recommendation were made and that they were entitled to have their requests for such recommendations considered as a matter of procedural fairness. The Upper Tribunal dismissed the appeals and refused permission to apply for judicial review, holding that, if a refusal to make an extra-statutory recommendation might be challenged at all, it was by way of an appeal rather than by way of judicial review but that the written Parliamentary answer could not rationally be thought to create any expectation that the making of a recommendation would be considered by the First-tier Tribunal in all cases or in any particular case and that there could be no right to an opportunity to invite a tribunal to act beyond its powers. The patients appealed to the Court of Appeal, arguing at the hearing that leave of absence or transfer are, or may be, functions of a patient’s treatment that must be considered in the light of section 72(1)(b)(iia) of the 1983 Act (which, taken with section 73(1)(a), requires a patient to be discharged if appropriate medical treatment is not available to him or her) so that, it was argued, a reasoned decision would have the same material effect as a recommendation.
Held, dismissing the appeals, that:
1. there was no legitimate expectation that the First-tier Tribunal would entertain submissions as to whether an extra-statutory recommendation should be made and take such submissions into account in deciding what to do;
2. while leave of absence or transfer are, or may be, functions of a patient’s treatment, to suggest here that the First-tier Tribunal had not properly considered what might constitute treatment was to raise a new factual case that the First-tier Tribunal had not been obliged to consider for itself and (per Beatson LJ) the First-tier Tribunal had in any event found that appropriate treatment was available and being provided to each of the patients and those findings had not been challenged before the Upper Tribunal.
See Also [2013] EWCA Civ 701

Judges:

Laws, Rimer, Beatson LJJ

Citations:

[2012] UKUT 178 (AAC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Health

Updated: 12 May 2022; Ref: scu.656594

AR v West London NHS Trust and The Secretary of State for Justice: UTAA 10 Sep 2020

On an application for a public hearing in a mental health case:
The capacity to conduct proceedings is to be assessed as a whole, provided the patient’s capacity is not fluctuating.
Guidance on the salient factors that the patient should understand in order to have capacity to apply for a public hearing.
There is power to hold a public hearing, even if the patient lacks capacity to have an informed view. AH v West London Mental Health Trust [2011] AACR 15 explained.

Citations:

[2020] UKUT 273 (AAC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Health, Litigation Practice

Updated: 12 May 2022; Ref: scu.656579

The Secretary of State For Health, The Secretary Of State For Trade and Industry, H M Attorney General v Imperial Tobacco Limited etc: CA 16 Dec 1999

The fact that a European Directive appeared to be likely to be subject to a successful adverse finding in a pending hearing, was not sufficient to restrict the right of a member state to legislate to give effect to the Directive, even if they chose to give it effect before the required date. The damage which might follow from such an implementation was short of irreparable.

Citations:

Times 17-Dec-1999, Gazette 13-Jan-2000

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal fromRegina v Secretary of State for Health; Scientific Committee for Tobacco and Health ex parte Imperial Tobacco Limited and Others Admn 6-Jul-1998
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European, Media, Health

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.135999

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.

Judges:

Popplewell J

Citations:

[1997] EWHC Admin 281

Statutes:

Mental Health Act 1983 2, Supreme Court Act 1981 31(6)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See AlsoRegina 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 . .

Cited by:

See AlsoRegina v Collins; Pathfinder Mental Health Services NHS Trust and St Georges Health Care NHS Trust ex parte M S CA 3-Jul-1997
The hospital authorities applied ex parte and were granted a declaration which dispensed with the applicant’s consent to medical treatment.
Held: Her appeal was allowed. A declaration (especially one affecting an individual’s personal . .
See AlsoRegina v Collins; Pathfinder Mental Health Services NHS Trust and St Georges Healthcare NHS Trust ex parte S Admn 7-May-1998
The authority obtained an ex parte order allowing it to give treatment in the form of a medically assisted birth, to the claimant against her will. . .
See AlsoSt George’s Healthcare National Health Service Trust v S, Regina v Collins and Others ex parte S CA 8-May-1998
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 . .
See AlsoSt George’s Healthcare National Health Service Trust v S (No 2); Regina v Collins and Others ex parte S (No 2) CA 3-Aug-1998
The patient came to hospital pregnant. The doctors advised a caesarian section but she refused it. The doctors said that she lacked capacity and applied to the court for leave to proceed.
Held: It was wrong to apply to the court to override . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Health

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.137226

Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex parte X: CA 9 Jan 2001

An asylum seeker had come to be detained under the Mental Health Act. The Home Secretary, having refused the asylum application, ordered him to be repatriated.
Held: Though the Secretary of State could only exercise his powers of removal under section 86 of the MHA if it appeared to him to be in the patient’s interests and with the approval of the MHT, the use of his powers under the 1971 Act were not expressly circumscribed in relation to persons detained under the MHA. Though this might lead to greater harm for the applicant, it was not a breach of his Article 3 rights. The two schemes could run side by side, and the Home Secretary appeared properly to have considered the applicant’s mental condition.
Schiemann LJ said that the 1971 Act and the MHA deal with different categories of persons: the mentally ill and immigrants: ‘Parliament when enacting the Immigration Act 1971 had section 90 of the Mental Health Act 1959, the predecessor of section 86 of the 1983 Act, in mind: see section 30 of the 1971 Act which extended existing statutory powers for the removal of aliens receiving in-patient treatment for mental illness to all persons subject to immigration control.
Similarly Parliament when enacting the Mental Health Act 1983 had the Immigration Act 1971 in mind. Section 86(1) of the 1983 Act specifically refers to it and paragraph 30 of Schedule 4 and Schedule 6 to the 1983 Act expressly amended section 30 of the 1971 Act to which we have just referred.
The interaction of these two Acts is something to which Parliament has adverted its attention yet what Parliament clearly did not do expressly was to circumscribe the Home Secretary in the use of his Immigration Act powers in the case of Mental Health Act patients.
Parliament could have made special provision for those who fell into both categories, perhaps by providing a special regime for them, perhaps by providing that the Immigration Act regime was to prevail and be the only one, perhaps by providing that the Mental Health Act regime should be the only one. It did not do so. It left in existence two sets of powers either of which could be used subject to the conditions prescribed for the use of that power.
. . There appears to us no reason why the two regimes should not run in parallel in the case of a person who is both an immigrant and mentally ill. Clearly if the Home Secretary proposes to use his Immigration Act powers in relation to a mentally ill person that illness will be a factor which he must take into account. It is not suggested in the instant case that he has failed to do so.’

Judges:

Schiemann LJ

Citations:

Times 09-Jan-2001, [2001] 1 WLR 740

Statutes:

Immigration Act 1971, Mental Health Act 1983

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedMJ (Angola) v Secretary of State for The Home Department CA 20-May-2010
The applicant had been ordered to be deported and returned to Angola, but at the same time he was a detained mental patient. He argued that a return would breach his Article 8 rights.
Held: The respondent was entitled to decide to deport the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Health, Human Rights

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.87940

Regina v North Yorkshire County Council Ex Parte Hargreaves: QBD 9 Nov 1994

Both the patient and the carer were to be consulted on which place of respite care was to be offered.

Citations:

Times 09-Nov-1994

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

See AlsoRegina v North Yorkshire County Council Ex Parte Hargreaves QBD 12-Jun-1997
The local authority’s duty to facilitate holidays for the disabled includes the power to fund the basic cost of such holidays. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Health

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.87456

Regina v Powys County Council, Ex Parte Hambidge (No 2): CA 16 Mar 2000

Where a local authority raised the care charges for facilities and services provided to disabled people charging different rates according to the benefits received, and where some benefits were received according to the level of disability, that differentiation did not amount to disability discrimination. The differences arose form the different levels of benefits paid to those asking for these services.

Citations:

Times 16-Mar-2000

Statutes:

Disability Discrimination Act 1995 20, National Health Service Community Care Act 1990

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal fromRegina v Powys County Council, ex parte Jenny Diane Hambidge Admn 28-Apr-1999
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Health, Benefits, Local Government, Discrimination

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.85450

In Re W (Enduring Power of Attorney): CA 9 Jan 2001

A party who objected to the registration of an enduring power of attorney on the basis that the donor had not had the mental capacity to sign it, had the burden of proving that assertion.
Held: Hostility between the donee of a power and other family members was not a reason to invalidate a power. The Act placed the burden on the objectors, and that burden did not shift after they had brought sufficient evidence to raise it as an issue.

Citations:

Gazette 25-Jan-2001, Times 09-Jan-2001, [2000] Ch 343

Statutes:

Enduring Powers of Attorney Act 1985 6(5)(c) 6(6)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedIn re F (Enduring power of Attorney) ChD 2-Apr-2004
Mrs F had given an enduring power to her son, but then became incapable and the power was registered. Her daughter had in the meantime applied to be appointed as her receiver. There was particular bitterness between the brother and sister. F called . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Agency, Health, Family

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.82274

In Re Barker; Regina v Bhb Community Healthcare NHS Trust and Another, Ex Parte Barker: CA 14 Oct 1998

A mental patient’s detention under s 3 should not be renewed under s 20 when she was absent from the hospital on home leave. Judicial review is to be preferred to habeas corpus as a means of seeking remedies in these situations.

Citations:

Times 14-Oct-1998

Statutes:

Mental Health Act 1983 3, 20

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Health

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.81738

In Re A (Mental Patient: Sterilisation): CA 13 Jan 2000

The patient suffered from Down’s Syndrome. As his mother became unable to care for him, she sought his sterilisation to avoid his fathering, whilst in residential care, a child he could not care for.
Held: The application was refused. Where a patient was unable to give informed consent, the court must carry out a balancing exercise, the results of which may be different for men and women. There was no benefit to the care of the patient, and the operation could not be said to be in his personal best interests.

Citations:

Gazette 13-Jan-2000

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedPortsmouth NHS Trust v Wyatt and others FD 7-Oct-2004
Charlotte Wyatt was born prematurely, and depended for day to day her life on medical support. Her doctors asked to be permitted not to resuscitate her again if she needed it. Her parents asked that she be given whatever chance was available for her . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Health

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.81626

Symes v Green: 1859

The deceased had been taken ill and his mind affected, but he recovered. For several weeks he behaved normally and wrote a will, but this was within a day of the recurrence of symptoms of his illness which included a fixated idea that he would be eternally damned, having taken communion whilst unworthy. A few days later he was declared insane and died a year later.
Held: Where a will was apparently properly executed and was rational on the face of it, it was to be presumed to be valid and made by a person of proper capacity unless and until the contrary was shown. Once circumstances were shown to exist to counterbalance that presumption, the court must pronounce against the will unless it was established affirmatively that the testator was of sound mind when the will was executed. Here though there was nothing in the will to betray any lack of capacity, circumstances existed to require the shift in the burden of proof, and it was not discharged.

Citations:

(1859) 1 Sw and Tr 401, (1859) 28 LJP and M 83, (1859) 164 ER 785

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Health, Wills and Probate

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.277880

Peters v Netherlands: ECHR 1994

The court considered the right not to be subjected to compulsory medical interference.

Citations:

77A DR 75 (1994)

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights

Cited by:

CitedIn Re A (Minors) (Conjoined Twins: Medical Treatment); aka In re A (Children) (Conjoined Twins: Surgical Separation) CA 22-Sep-2000
Twins were conjoined (Siamese). Medically, both could not survive, and one was dependent upon the vital organs of the other. Doctors applied for permission to separate the twins which would be followed by the inevitable death of one of them. The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Health

Updated: 09 May 2022; Ref: scu.213669

Pfizer Corporation v Ministry of Health: CA 1964

Lord Justice Diplock said: ‘The duty to provide hospital and specialist services is imposed upon the Minister. It is in its nature a duty which he can only perform vicariously through agents acting on his behalf. The Act requires him to do so through the immediate agency of the Regional Hospital Boards. The Regional Hospital Boards, being corporations, can themselves only do the physical acts involved in the provision of the services on behalf of the Minister, vicariously through their offices and servants. Any act done by an officer or servant of a Regional Hospital Board for the purpose of providing hospital or specialist services is accordingly done on behalf of the Minister in performance of the statutory duty which is imposed upon him. Their acts are acts of a government department.’
Willmer LJ said that in mid-Victorian times the treatment of patients in hospitals would have been regarded as ‘something quite foreign to the functions of government’ but there there has been, since those times: ‘a revolution in political thought and a totally different conception prevails today as to what is and what is not within the functions of Government’.

Judges:

Lord Justice Diplock, Willmer LJ

Citations:

[1964] Ch 614

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

ApprovedBritish Medical Association v Greater Glasgow Health Board HL 1989
The House considered the availability of orders against the Crown in Scotland. It is inconceivable that Parliament should have intended to fetter the right of the subject to obtain a prohibitory order more strictly in Scotland than in England. The . .
AppliedFrame v Grampian University Hospitals NHS Trust HCJ 14-Feb-2004
The defendant NHS trust objected as to the leading of certain evidence by the prosecutor, saying it infringed the right to a fair trial.
Held: As a governmental body rather the Trust could not have human rights capable of being infringed, it . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Administrative, Health

Updated: 09 May 2022; Ref: scu.194094

A Local Authority v BF: CA 21 Dec 2018

Application for permission to appeal by a local authority against orders made under the inherent jurisdiction of the Family Division, in respect of a 97-year-old man (‘BF’). The order requires BF until further order (a) not to live or reside at the bungalow which has been his home for many years; (b) not to reside with his son (hereinafter referred to as ‘KF’) at any other address; and (c) to reside at a care home (hereafter referred to as ‘B House’) or such other address, excluding his home, as may be agreed between the applicant local authority and BF, the agreement of the local authority not to be unreasonably withheld.

Citations:

[2018] EWCA Civ 2962

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Health, Human Rights

Updated: 09 May 2022; Ref: scu.632664

A (a Patient) v A Health Authority and Others; In re J (a Child); Regina (S) v Secretary of State for the Home Department and Another: CA 24 Jan 2002

The case asked how cases involving disputes as to the care of children, and of the treatment of adults claimed to be mentally incompetent. Where the issues were solely ones of public law, then they should be heard by way of judicial review in the QBD. Where any private law issues arose, they should be heard in the Family Division. The crucial distinction derived from the identity of the decision-maker whose decision was being scrutinised. If the decision was that of the child, or those acting on the child’s behalf, or the allegedly mentally incompetent adult, then the central issue was the best interests of the child or patient, and the Family Division was appropriate. If the decision was that of the hospital or otherwise, it may be a public law decision, and the issue was as to the statutory function exercised..

Judges:

Mr Justice Munby

Citations:

Times 11-Mar-2002, Gazette 14-Mar-2002

Statutes:

Civil Procedure Rules Part 54

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedPractice Note (Family Division: Incapacitated adults) FD 2-Jan-2002
Proceedings which invoked the jurisdiction of the High Court to grant declarations as to the best interests of incapacitated adults were civil proceedings to which the Civil Procedure Rules applied. Although not assigned to any division, having . .
CitedA v Liverpool City Council HL 1981
Though the child was subject to a care order in favour of the local authority, a wardship order was sought.
Held: Once a care order had been made, whether final or interim, the court was effectively faced with a choice and not a choice which . .
CitedIn re W (a Minor) (Wardship: Jurisdiction) HL 1985
Relatives of a child who was in local authority care disagreed with the authority’s plans for her future.
Held: They could not challenge them by seeking a determination on the merits in wardship.
Lord Scarman referred to Liverpool v A and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Judicial Review, Children, Health, Civil Procedure Rules

Updated: 08 May 2022; Ref: scu.167744

Regina (Quintavalle) v Secretary of State for Health: CA 18 Jan 2002

A cloned cell, a cell produced by cell nuclear replacement came within the definition of embryo under the Act. The Act required that fertilisation was complete.
Held: The act could be applied in a purposive way. The legislative policy was that it was essential to bring the creation and use of embryos under strict regulatory control for ethical reasons. The Act could be read to cover such activities without unnecessary strain on the wording. The Court was willing to adopt what it recognised to be a ‘strained’ construction of a statute where (i) the construction was ‘viable’ as opposed to straining the language to breaking point and (ii) it was ‘plainly necessary’ to do so in order to ‘give effect to Parliamentary intention’ and prevent the ‘clear purpose of the legislation’ being defeated.

Judges:

Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, Master of the Rolls, Lord Justice Thorpe and Lord Justice Buxton

Citations:

Times 25-Jan-2002, Gazette 06-Mar-2002, [2002] QB 628, [2002] EWCA Civ 29, [2002] 2 WLR 550

Statutes:

Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

AppliedAttorney-General v Edison Telephone Company of London 1880
The 1869 Act gave the Postmaster-General a monopoly of transmitting telegrams. Telegrams were defined as messages transmitted by telegraph. A telegraph was defined to include ‘any apparatus for transmitting messages or other communications by means . .
AppliedFitzpatrick v Sterling Housing Association Ltd HL 28-Oct-1999
Same Sex Paartner to Inherit as Family Member
The claimant had lived with the original tenant in a stable and long standing homosexual relationship at the deceased’s flat. After the tenant’s death he sought a statutory tenancy as a spouse of the deceased. The Act had been extended to include as . .
Appeal fromRegina (on the Application of Bruno Quintavalle on Behalf of Pro-Life Alliance) v Secretary of State for Health Admn 15-Nov-2001
Where procedures produced a clone of a human cell or embryo, that was not an embryo within and subject to regulation under the Act, since there had been no process of fertilisation, which is a pre-requisite under the Act. A cloned cell could not be . .

Cited by:

Appeal fromRegina v Secretary of State for Health ex parte Quintavalle (on behalf of Pro-Life Alliance) HL 13-Mar-2003
Court to seek and Apply Parliamentary Intention
The appellant challenged the practice of permitting cell nuclear replacement (CNR), saying it was either outside the scope of the Act, or was for a purpose which could not be licensed under the Act.
Held: The challenge failed. The court was to . .
CitedRegina (Smeaton) v Secretary of State for Health and Others Admn 18-Apr-2002
The claimant challenged the Order as regards the prescription of the morning-after pill, asserting that the pill would cause miscarriages, and that therefore the use would be an offence under the 1861 Act.
Held: ‘SPUC’s case is that any . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Health, Human Rights

Updated: 08 May 2022; Ref: scu.167440

Milton Keynes Housing Benefit Review Board v Saxby: CA 3 Apr 2001

Elders of a Christian Community were required to contribute to the costs of the accommodation in a home shared by all occupants, even though they occupied only part of the home, and claimed housing benefit. It was held that they were entitled to claim, even though they had no direct liability for the rent. The elder would be subject to fixed non-dependent deductions for the other adult members of the house, and it was consistent with the words of the Act and the policy that they should be able to claim the benefit.

Citations:

Times 07-Jun-2001, Gazette 07-Jun-2001

Statutes:

Housing Benefit (General) Regulations 1987 (1987 No 1971) 10(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Benefits, Health

Updated: 08 May 2022; Ref: scu.135515

Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte X: CA 22 Feb 2001

The applicant had entered the UK without leave, and then been detained for mental illness. The Secretary ordered him to be removed. He claimed that there was no power to remove him whilst the detention order was current, and that the order infringed his human rights.
Held: The later Act had not revoked the earlier, and the Secretary could act under either and without infringing his human rights, and he had no duty to give exceptional leave to remain.

Citations:

Gazette 22-Feb-2001

Statutes:

Immigration Act 1971 2(1), 30, Mental Health Act 1983 86, Human Rights Act 1998 3

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration, Health, Human Rights

Updated: 08 May 2022; Ref: scu.88647

Regina v Mental Health Tribunal for North East Thames Region, ex parte Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 20 Feb 2001

The jurisdiction with respect to restricted patients of the Tribunal was to decide whether the Act allowed the patient to be discharged or re-classified. Questions about the transfer of patients to other less secure facilities were not part of the tribunals jurisdiction, and it could not adjourn for consideration of such an option.

Citations:

Times 20-Feb-2001

Statutes:

Mental Health Review Tribunal Rules 1983 (1983 No 942) 16(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Health

Updated: 08 May 2022; Ref: scu.88557

Regina (C) v Mental Health Review Tribunal: CA 11 Jul 2001

When a person detained compulsorily applied for a review of his admission, it was unacceptable to list all such cases to be heard only after eight weeks. Whilst such cases might often require detailed assessment which would take some time after admission, and the consequences of a decision to confirm the detention were serious for the person detained, the right to a speedy review of any detention by a court could not be met by such a routine listing system. The rules imposed no specific time limit, and the human rights case law required this court to look to each individual case. That was no satisfied by such routine listings.

Citations:

Times 11-Jul-2001, Gazette 19-Jul-2001

Statutes:

Mental Health Act 1983 3, European Convention on Human Rights Art 5.4, Mental Health Review Tribunal Rules 1983 (1983 No 942)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Human Rights, Health

Updated: 08 May 2022; Ref: scu.85958

Regina (L) v Dagenham London Borough Council: CA 11 Jun 2001

The examination of care plans prepared by a local authority for the care of a disabled person was not generally a matter for the courts. They required great detail and processes of consultation. Applications to review such plans should therefore only be made as a last resort. The proper course, if the authority had failed to follow the guidelines, was to turn first to the Secretary of State, who may have input. Use could also be made of the authority’s complaint’s procedure.

Citations:

Times 11-Jun-2001

Statutes:

National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Health

Updated: 08 May 2022; Ref: scu.85984

In Re J (A Minor) (Medical Treatment): FD 8 Jul 1992

The Court should be slow to interfere in the exercise of a bona fide clinical judgment to withdraw treatment from a patient, and may overrule a child’s wishes as to the need for medical treatment even though she expressed her wishes clearly.

Citations:

Gazette 08-Jul-1992

Statutes:

Children Act 1989 100(3)

Cited by:

Appeal fromIn Re J (A Minor) (Child in Care: Medical Treatment) CA 26-Aug-1992
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Children, Health

Updated: 08 May 2022; Ref: scu.81951

Greenfield v Irwin and Others (A Firm): CA 6 Feb 2001

A woman who had had to give up work to care for a child was not able to claim damages from a nurse who had failed to diagnose her pregnancy, with the result that she had lost the opportunity to have an abortion. She had no sustainable claim for loss of earnings when she gave up work to look after the child. There is no longer any justification in a distinction being made between negligent advice cases and cases involving actual physical injury.

Citations:

Times 06-Feb-2001

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Health, Professional Negligence, Damages

Updated: 08 May 2022; Ref: scu.81010

Ashingdane v Department of Health and Social Security: 1981

Mr Ashingdane was a Broadmoor patient who was deemed ready for transfer back into his local hospital, but was denied a bed there because the nurses’ trade union operated a ban on taking special hospital patients. He launched proceedings against the trade union branch secretaries, the Secretary of State and the area health authority.
Held: An action against the Department of Health and local Health Authority were struck out, the two parties having immunity from suit under section 141

Citations:

[1981] CLY 175

Statutes:

Mental Health Act 1959 141

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal fromAshingdane 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 . .
CitedG 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.

Health

Updated: 08 May 2022; Ref: scu.552439

The Fore Street Warehouse Company Ltd v Durrant and Co: 1883

A writ had been served on the lunatic defendant’s business manager. The Court Rules provided: ‘When a lunatic or person of unsound mind not so found by inquisition is a defendant to the action, service on the committee of the lunatic, or on the person with whom the person of unsound mind resides or under whose care he or she is, shall unless the Court or Judge otherwise orders, be deemed good service on such defendant.’
Held: Judgment was set aside because the writ had been served at a time when the defendant was of unsound mind.
Grove J said: ‘I think the principle of this rule is that the service should be on some person qualified to act for the lunatic or most likely to know to whom the fact of service ought to be communicated. The manager of the lunatic’s business might be ignorant of these matters. Where the writ is served in such a manner that it may probably never reach the lunatic, I do not think it can be valid and proper service. The plaintiffs may reasonably be required to go through the formalities which may give the friends of the lunatic a proper opportunity of appearing.’
He also considered the actions of the defendant’s solicitors, saying: ‘As for the objection that the solicitors are not qualified to appear for the lunatic, there is no doubt that they were authorized to act when she was first taken ill, and I think that the retainer would extend to enable them to take such steps as became necessary in consequence of her lunacy.’

Judges:

Grove J

Citations:

(1883) 10 QBD 471

Statutes:

Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1873

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedBlankley v Central Manchester and Manchester Children’s University Hospitals NHS Trust CA 27-Jan-2015
This case concerns a claimant with fluctuating capacity to conduct legal proceedings. At a time when she had capacity, she retained a firm of solicitors under a conditional fee agreement. The issue was whether the CFA terminated automatically by . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Health, Agency, Litigation Practice, Legal Professions

Updated: 08 May 2022; Ref: scu.542245