Links: Home | swarblaw - law discussions

swarb.co.uk - law index


These cases are from the lawindexpro database. They are now being transferred to the swarb.co.uk website in a better form. As a case is published there, an entry here will link to it. The swarb.co.uk site includes many later cases.  














Health - From: 2000 To: 2000

This page lists 43 cases, and was prepared on 27 May 2018.

 
Regina (Brady) v Ashworth Hospital Authority (2001) 58 BMLR 173; [2000] Lloyd's Med R 355;
2000

Maurice Kay J
Health, Torts - Other
Force feeding of the applicant, a convicted murderer and detained mental patient, was lawful since it was reasonably administered as part of the medical treatment given for the mental disorder from which Ian Brady was suffering. By virtue of section 63 of the 1983 Act consent was not needed for such treatment.
Mental Health Act 1983 63
1 Citers


 
In Re D (Mental Patient: Habeas Corpus) [2000] 2 FLR 848
2000
Admn
Otton LJ
Health

1 Citers



 
 Re W (Enduring Power of Attorney); 2000 - [2000] 1 All ER 175; [2002] MHLR 411; [2000] Ch 343; [2000] 3 WLR 45
 
Re A (Male Sterilisation) [2000] 1 FLR 549
2000
CA
Thorpe LJ, Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss President
Health, Health Professions
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."
1 Citers



 
 In Re A (Mental Patient: Sterilisation); CA 13-Jan-2000 - Gazette, 13 January 2000
 
Regina v Newman; Regina v Buckland Times, 03 February 2000; [2000] 1 WLR 1262; [2000] EWCA Crim 1
18 Jan 2000
CACD

Criminal Sentencing, Health
The fact that a defendant had, at the time of committing an offence, been suffering from an acute mental illness, was not sufficient reason to count as an exceptional reason allowing a judge not to pass a life sentence for a subsequent serious offence. The case should be looked at in the light of section 2, and the purpose of the Act. Attempted robbery was not a serious offence within the Act but a firearms offence involving an imitation firearm was.
[ Bailii ]
 
Regina v Anglia and Oxfordshire Mental Health Review Tribunal, Ex Parte Hagan Times, 21 January 2000
21 Jan 2000
CA

Health
Where a patient was detained having been diagnosed as suffering from two mental health conditions justifying his detention, a finding that one condition was in remission but might return, but which could not at that time be used to justify his continued detention, did not oblige the tribunal to delete that condition as a basis for his continued detention.
Mental Health Act 1983 72(5)

 
Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica Gmbh and Another v Council of European Union etc Times, 03 February 2000; T-125/96
3 Feb 2000
ECFI

Animals, Health
Where the purpose of European legislation was to protect public health by, in this instance, prohibiting the administration of beta-agonists to farm animals, that purpose was to be given effect even though it might have severe and adverse financial consequences for private individuals and companies.

 
Regina v London South West Region Mental Health Review Tribunal, Ex Parte Moyle Times, 10 February 2000
10 Feb 2000
QBD

Health
An application for the discharge of a mental patient under section 72, was to be based on the same criteria as would found the original decision to authorise detention under section 3. The criteria would mirror each other save that the burden of proof was reversed. It was correct to take account of the possibility of a relapse if a patient ceased to take medication.
Mental Health Act 1983 72 3
1 Citers


 
M v S [2000] EWCA Civ 3028
10 Feb 2000
CA
Hale LJ
Health

Mental Health Act 1983 29
[ Bailii ]
 
R v Newman Gazette, 13 February 2000
13 Feb 2000
CACD

Criminal Sentencing, Health
The fact that a defendant had, at the time of committing an offence, been suffering from an acute mental illness, was not sufficient reason to count as an exceptional reason allowing a judge not to pass a life sentence for a subsequent serious offence. The case should be looked at in the light of section 2, and the purpose of the Act.
Crime (Sentences) Act 1997

 
Re E Enduring Power of Attorney [2000] EWHC 1561 (COP)
18 Feb 2000
CoP

Health

[ Bailii ]
 
X V. Y, Z [2000] EWHC 144 (COP)
18 Feb 2000
CoP

Health

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina v Powys County Council, Ex Parte Hambidge (No 2) Times, 16 March 2000
16 Mar 2000
CA

Health, Benefits, Local Government, Discrimination
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.
Disability Discrimination Act 1995 20 - National Health Service Community Care Act 1990
1 Cites


 
Harris As Personal Representative of Marcia Andrews (Deceased) v Lewisham and Guy's Mental Health Trust [2000] EWCA Civ 87
23 Mar 2000
CA

Health

[ Bailii ]
 
J T v The United Kingdom Times, 05 April 2000; 26494/95; [2000] ECHR 132; [2000] ECHR 133
30 Mar 2000
ECHR

Health, Human Rights
The applicants case was struck out after a friendly settlement under which the UK government undertook to seek to amend Mental Health legislation. Current law did not provide an opportunity for a detained person to apply to court to have substituted some other person for the 'nearest relative' initially appointed, and in this case to substitute a social worker. Certain persons would also be excluded from the class of potential nearest relatives.
Hudoc Judgment (Struck out of the list) Struck out of the list (arrangement)
Mental Health Act 1983 - European Convention on Human Rights
1 Citers

[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ]

 
 Witold Litwa v Poland; ECHR 4-Apr-2000 - [2000] ECHR 140; 26629/95; [2000] ECHR 141
 
S v W [2000] EWCA Civ 3025
7 Apr 2000
CA

Health
Application for permission to appeal against removal of applicant as designated nearsest relative of his son.
[ Bailii ]

 
 SL (By Her Litigation Friend, the Official Solicitor) v SL (Her Mother); CA 18-May-2000 - [2000] EWCA Civ 162

 
 In Re S (Adult Patient: Sterilisation); CA 26-May-2000 - Times, 26 May 2000; Gazette, 15 June 2000; [2001] Fam 15
 
Wilkes v Wilkes [2000] EWHC 1562 (COP)
8 Jun 2000
CoP

Health

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina v Camden and Islington Health Authority, Ex Parte K [2000] EWHC Admin 353
9 Jun 2000
Admn
Burton J
Health, Human Rights

1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department Ex Parte Xuereb Times, 14 June 2000
14 Jun 2000
QBD

Health, Immigration
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.
Mental Health Act 1983 86 - Immigration Act 1971 SCh 2


 
 In the Matter of F (Adult Patient); CA 16-Jun-2000 - [2000] EWCA Civ 192
 
Karl Anderson, Brian Doherty, and Alexander Reid v The Scottish Ministers and the Advocate General for Scotland Times, 21 June 2000
16 Jun 2000
IHCS
Lord President
Human Rights, Health, Scotland
Where a person had been detained under mental health legislation on one ground, but then came to be seen to be somebody from whom protection was needed by the population on another ground, it was not a breach of his human rights to detain him on the new ground, nor to change the law in the midst of review proceedings in such a way as to ensure the likely failure of such a review. The court should however look with great circumspection at such changes in the law.
Mental Health Public Safety and Appeals (Scotland) Act 1999 1
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ ScotC ]
 
Regina v Tower Hamlets Health Care NHS Trust and Snazell ex parte Von Brandenburg [2000] EWHC Admin 362
26 Jun 2000
Admn

Health, Human Rights

Mental Health Act 1983 2 3
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]

 
 Re F (Adult Patient); CA 26-Jun-2000 - [2000] EWCA Civ 3029
 
Regina v Hammersmith Hospitals NHS Trust, ex Parte Reffell Gazette, 21 September 2000; [2000] EWHC Admin 363
28 Jun 2000
Admn

Health, Benefits
The applicant had come to England to have heart surgery. He expected to pay, and brought with him sufficient to pay for the operation. Unanticipated complications led to delay, and the depletion of his funds. He applied for the operation to be paid for from NHS funds. The hospital refused, and the court held rightly so. The legislation provided no obligation to provide health services for overseas visitors. Such services were provided on a commercial basis, and the operation would be available to him if he returned home to Nigeria.
National Health Service (Charges to Overseas Visitors)
[ Bailii ]

 
 A National Health Service Trust v D; FD 19-Jul-2000 - Times, 19 July 2000

 
 In Re F (Adult: Court's Jurisdiction); CA 25-Jul-2000 - Times, 25 July 2000; Gazette, 14 September 2000; Gazette, 21 September 2000; [2001] 1 Fam 38; [2000] 2 FLR 512
 
Regina and Secretary of State for Home Department v Gavin Mellor [2000] EWHC Admin 385
31 Jul 2000
Admn

Prisons, Family, Human Rights, Health

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]

 
 Regina v Secretary of State for Health, Ex Parte Wagstaff etc; QBD 31-Aug-2000 - Times, 31 August 2000; Gazette, 28 September 2000; [2001] 1 WLR 292

 
 In Re A (Minors) (Conjoined Twins: Medical Treatment); aka In re A (Children) (Conjoined Twins: Surgical Separation); CA 22-Sep-2000 - Times, 10 October 2000; [2000] EWCA Civ 254; [2001] 1 FLR 267; [2000] 4 All ER 961; [2001] Fam 147; [2001] 2 WLR 480; [2001] 9 BHRC 261; [2000] 3 FCR 577; [2001] Fam Law 18; (2001) 57 BMLR 1; [2000] Lloyd's Rep Med 425; [2001] UKHRR 1

 
 Regina v Richmond London Borough Council, Ex Parte Watson; Regina v Manchester City Council, Ex Parte Stennett; etc; CA 28-Sep-2000 - Times, 15 October 1999; Times, 17 August 2000; Gazette, 28 September 2000; [2000] EWCA Civ 239

 
 Regina v Secretary of State for Health and Others, Ex Parte Imperial Tobacco Ltd and Others etc; ECJ 10-Oct-2000 - Times, 10 October 2000; C-376/99; C-74/99
 
Regina v Ashworth Special Hospital Trust, ex parte Munjaz [2000] MHLR 183
10 Oct 2000

Jackson J
Health, Human Rights
The claimant was detained iin a secure mental hospital. He complained of being held in seclusion for a long period, and as to the hospital's policy. Held: The hospital’s policy, by reducing the frequency of review of a patient’s seclusion below that provided for in the Code of Practice, was unlawful and was not justified by the fact that the hospital was a maximum secure hospital. In particular, the failure after the third day of seclusion to have twice-daily medical reviews of the continuation of seclusion was not justified.
The Code of Practice for Seclusions issued under the Act was directed at all seclusions, including those lasting more than three days. A departure would be lawful only if justified by 'a good reason arising from the particular circumstances at Ashworth hospital. There was no justification for abandoning the requirement that one of the nurses reviewing the seclusion was not involved in the original decision to seclude, which should apply 'where practicable'. The policy of reducing medical reviews to one per day was too great a departure from the Code but twice daily reviews after the patient had been secluded for three days would be appropriate. He granted a declaration that "a. the Ashworth Special Hospital Authority Seclusion Procedure is unlawful in that it does not require one of the nurses who carries out the 2 hourly review to be independent from the initial decision to seclude, and that it reduces the frequency of review by a doctor after a patient has been secluded for more than 24 hours b. the Ashworth Special Hospital Authority Seclusion Guidance at paragraph 6.8.1. is unlawful for the reasons set out at Part 3 of the judgment."
Mental Health Act 1983
1 Citers



 
 Regina v Reynolds; CACD 1-Nov-2000 - Times, 01 November 2000

 
 In Re A (Minors) (Conjoined Twins: Medical Treatment) (No 2); CA 15-Nov-2000 - Times, 15 November 2000
 
Nhs Trust A v M; NHS Trust B v H Times, 29 November 2000
29 Nov 2000
FD

Health, Human Rights
A decision made according to established principles to withdraw life support treatment when a patient was in a persistent vegetative state, was not a breach of the patient's human rights. In the absence of a duty on the state to continue to provide treatment, a duty which was not recognised in other jurisdictions, it was in accordance with democratic principles. Whilst the family context was important, such a decision was not an interference with the right to family life, and since the patient was insensate, there was no element of inhuman or degrading treatment.

 
X v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2000] EWCA Civ 3026
7 Dec 2000
CA

Immigration, Health, Human Rights
The court considered the effect of an immigrant's mental illness on the Home Secretary's powers to refuse to grant him exceptional leave to enter or remain.
Immigration Act 1971 - Mental Health Act 1983 - Human Rights Act 1998
[ Bailii ]
 
X v Secretary of State for Home Department [2000] EWCA Civ 311
7 Dec 2000
CA
Lord Justice Schiemann, Lord Justice Tuckey, And Sir Swinton Thomas
Immigration, Health, Human Rights
The applicant applied for asylum, but suffered from schizophrenia. He had been refused entry and detained, and then his detention was transferred to a mental hospital by order of the Home Secretary, with a view to his return for treatment in Malta. The applicant alleged that the Secretary had no power to so order without going first to the Mental Health Review Tribunal. Held: the Secretary's duties were not solely to look to the applicant's bests interests, but also to immigration control. Nevertheless it was argued that to move a person under treatment could amount to inhuman or degrading treatment. In this case that argument failed. It could not be assumed that he would not receive proper health care in Malta. It was also argued that once subject to the Mental Health Act, he could only be dealt with under that Act. Parliament had not circumscribed the Home Secretary's Immigration Act powers, and those remained in effect. Appeal refused.
Immigration Act 1971 2(1)(b), 86(2) - Mental Health Act 1983 47, 86
[ Bailii ]
 
Sanjivi v East Kent Health Authority Times, 19 December 2000
19 Dec 2000
QBD

Health, Licensing
A person who applied to the Registered Homes Tribunal, had to be the owner of the home at the time when the order sought came to be made. In this case, the registration had been cancelled. The applicant appealed to the tribunal. The hearing was delayed, but in the meantime, the applicant sold the nursing home. Since, at the time when the order was to be made, he was no longer the owner, he now had no standing to make the application. It is a condition of registration that the premises are intended to be used as a nursing home. If the premises ceased to be available to the registered person, registration must be cancelled immediately. There must be premises to inspect. Registration of the premises was inseparable from the person. In this case, there was nothing to stop the applicants applying at a later date in respect of other premises.
Registered Homes Act 1984 21
1 Citers


 
Smithkline Beecham Plc and Advertising Standards Authority [2000] EWHC; [2000] EWHC Admin 442
21 Dec 2000
Admn
Mr Justice Hunt
Media, Health
The appellants sold a soft drink. They advertised it using a toothbrush as part of the image. They also said 'Ribena Toothkind does not encourage tooth decay', and cited support from the British Dental Association. The Authority held that this suggested that the drink had health giving qualities, and banned the advertisements. The company appealed. The Authority relied on a report by an expert who had allied himself with complainants against the company beforehand. Held: The independence of experts in such procedures is vital. The person of whom complaint was made acted as a consultee only. This court must act as the hypothetical observer, the reasonable man, and assess whether in any case there has in fact been a real danger, risk or possibility of unjust bias. There was no such risk apparent here. The adjudication stood.
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Copyright 2014 David Swarbrick, 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire HD6 2AG.