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: 2001 To: 2001
This page lists 41 cases, and was prepared on 27 May 2018.
Regina (C) v London South and West Region Mental Health Review Tribunal [2001] EWCA Civ 1110; [2002] 1 WLR 176
2001
CA
Health, Human Rights
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.
European Convention on Human Rights - Mental Health Act 1983
1 Citers
Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex parte X Times, 09 January 2001; [2001] 1 WLR 740
9 Jan 2001
CA
Schiemann LJ
Immigration, Health, Human Rights
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."
Immigration Act 1971 - Mental Health Act 1983
1 Citers
In Re W (Enduring Power of Attorney); CA 9-Jan-2001 - Gazette, 25 January 2001; Times, 09 January 2001; [2000] Ch 343
Bensaid v The United Kingdom 44599/98; (2001) 33 EHRR 205; (2001) 33 EHRR 10; [2001] ECHR 82; [2001] INLR 325; 11 BHRC 297
6 Feb 2001
ECHR
Human Rights, Health, Immigration
The applicant was a schizophrenic and an illegal immigrant. He claimed that his removal to Algeria would deprive him of essential medical treatment and sever ties that he had developed in the UK that were important for his well-being. He claimed that his article 3 and 8 rights would be infringed if he were removed to Algeria. His claim focused both on the medical treatment in the UK of which he would be deprived and the lack of such treatment in Algeria. Held: His case under article 3 was not made out: the risk that the applicant would suffer a deterioration in his condition if he were returned to Algeria was "speculative". "Private life is a broad term not susceptible to exhaustive definition . . Mental health must also be regarded as a crucial part of private life associated with the aspect of moral integrity. Article 8 protects a right to identity and personal development, and the right to establish and develop relationships with other human beings and the outside world. The preservation of mental stability is in that context an indispensable precondition to effective enjoyment of the right to respect for private life."
European Convention on Human Rights 3 8
1 Cites
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
Greenfield v Irwin and Others (A Firm) Times, 06 February 2001
6 Feb 2001
CA
Health, Professional Negligence, Damages
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.
Regina v Mental Health Tribunal for North East Thames Region, ex parte Secretary of State for the Home Department; CA 20-Feb-2001 - Times, 20 February 2001
Regina (Count Franz Von Brandenburg (aka Hanley) ) v East London and The City Mental Health NHS Trust, Snazell, Approved Social worker; CA 21-Feb-2001 - Gazette, 12 April 2001; Times, 28 February 2001; [2001] EWCA Civ 239; [2002] QB 235
Regina (on the application of K) v Camden and Islington Health Authority Gazette, 20 April 2001; Times, 15 March 2001; [2001] EWCA Civ 240; [2002] QB 198
21 Feb 2001
CA
Master of the Rolls (Lord Phillips) Lord Justice Buxton And Lord Justice Sedley
Health, Human Rights, Local Government
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."
European Convention on Human Rights Art 5 - Mental Health Act 1983 37 41 117(2)
1 Cites
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte X Gazette, 22 February 2001
22 Feb 2001
CA
Immigration, Health, Human Rights
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.
Immigration Act 1971 2(1), 30 - Mental Health Act 1983 86 - Human Rights Act 1998 3
Regina (on the application of H) v Mental Health Review Tribunal, North and East London Region; CA 28-Mar-2001 - Times, 02 April 2001; Gazette, 24 May 2001; [2001] EWCA Civ 415; [2002] QB 1
Milton Keynes Housing Benefit Review Board v Saxby Times, 07 June 2001; Gazette, 07 June 2001
3 Apr 2001
CA
Benefits, Health
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.
Housing Benefit (General) Regulations 1987 (1987 No 1971) 10(1)
Commission v Cambridge Healthcare Supplies (Order) C-471/00
11 Apr 2001
ECJ
European, Health
Europa Appeal - Order of the President of the Court of First Instance in proceedings for interim relief - Withdrawal of marketing authorisations for medicinal products for human use containing "phentermine" - Urgency - Balancing of interests.
Case C-471/00 P (R).
Second Directive 75/319/EEC
NHS Trust A v H Times, 17 May 2001; [2001] Fam 349
17 May 2001
FD
Health
The two sets of guidelines on the meaning of and criteria for diagnosing 'permanent vegetative state' contained conflicts. Those issued by the Royal College of Physicians, and those issued in an International Working Party Report on Persistent Vegetative State, had different groupings of criteria which led to difficulties in applying the criteria within both medical and legal professions. The guidelines should be reviewed.
1 Citers
Pickering, Regina (on the Application of) v Ashworth Hospital Authority [2001] EWCA Civ 883
18 May 2001
CA
Health
Application by restricted patient with regard to transfer to more restrictive regime for punitive not therapeutic reasons.
Mental Health Act 1983
[ Bailii ]
Regina (L) v Dagenham London Borough Council; CA 11-Jun-2001 - Times, 11 June 2001
Regina v Ashworth Special Hospital Authority and Another, ex parte N Times, 26 June 2001
26 Jun 2001
QBD
Health, Human Rights
A secure hospital charged with caring for patients considered to be at high risk, imposed rules for monitoring 100 per cent of the telephone calls of high risk prisoners, and a random ten per cent of lower risk patients. Privileged calls were not intercepted. It was held that although this was an infringement of the right to respect for his correspondence, the steps were taken balanced against an understanding of the high risks of escape and other damage which might be suffered. The interceptions took place in accordance with policies approved by the Home Secretary. The interceptions were lawful.
Human Rights Act 1998
Rahma Khana (By Her Litigation Friend, the Official Solicitor) v Mayor and Burgesses of London Borough of Southwark Gazette, 31 August 2001; Times, 25 September 2001; [2001] EWCA Civ 999
28 Jun 2001
CA
Henry, Mance LJJ, McKinnon J
Local Government, Health
The applicant was an elderly Iraqi lady with poor sight and mental illness. The local authority decided that she needed care in a residential home. She applied for a two bed-roomed ground floor flat, which would allow her to live with her extended family and among others who spoke her language. The court held that given that the conclusion and recommendation were not challenged as such, the court could not intervene. The authority had satisfied its statutory obligations, which did not require it to satisfy preferences.
National Assistance Act 1948 - National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990
[ Bailii ]
Optident Ltd and Another v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and Another; HL 2-Jul-2001 - Times, 02 July 2001; [2001] UKHL 32; (2001) 61 BMLR 10; [2001] 3 CMLR 1
C, Regina (on the Application Of) v Mental Health Review Tribunal London South and South West Region [2001] EWCA Civ 1110
3 Jul 2001
CA
Health
[ Bailii ]
Regina (C) v Mental Health Review Tribunal; CA 11-Jul-2001 - Times, 11 July 2001; Gazette, 19 July 2001
Geraets-Smits v Stichting Ziekenfonds VGZ Peerbooms v Stichting CZ Groep Zorgverzekeringen Times, 03 September 2001; Case C-157/99
12 Jul 2001
ECJ
GC Rodriguez Iglesias, President and Judges C. Gulmann, A. La Pergola, M. Wathelet, V. Skouris, D. A. O. Edward, J.-P. Puissochet, P. Jann, L. Sevon, R. Schintgen and F. Macken Advocate General D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer
Health, Benefits, Commercial
Where a member of a sickness scheme sought treatment in another member state, it was proper to require prior authorisation, but any conditions imposed had to be justifiable and proportionate. In this case the scheme required the recognition of the treatment sought, and that immediate treatment in the country was not available. Hospital services were capable of constituting economic activity, and were accordingly required to be free of restraint by Community law. Re-imbursement by a member state's sickness benefits scheme did not take it out of the scope of Article 60. The additional restrictions were valid only in so far as they required that the treatment be tried and tested, or that equivalent treatment was available locally without undue delay.
EC Treaty Article 60 234
1 Citers
Vanbraekel and Others v Alliance nationale des mutualites chretiennes Case C-368/98 (Judgment) Times, 03 September 2001; C-368/98; [2001] EUECJ C-368/98; C-368/98
12 Jul 2001
ECJ
European, Health, Benefits, Commercial
The applicant was insured under the national health insurance scheme, but received treatment in another member state, he was entitled to be re-imbursed the higher cost even though it might be higher than the amount he would have been entitled to have claimed in his own country. To hold otherwise would discourage free supply of services through member states.
EC Treaty Article 234
[ Bailii ]
C, Regina (On the Application of) v Lincolnsire Health Authority [2001] EWHC Admin 685
6 Sep 2001
Admn
David Pannick QC
Health
The claimant a 35 year old woman with severe learning disabilities caused by cerebral palsy brought the proceedings to challenge the decision of the Lincolnshire Health Authority to cease to provide long stay care for her at Long Leys,
[ Bailii ]
S, Regina (On the Application of) v Plymouth City Council [2001] EWHC Admin 750
7 Sep 2001
Admn
Local Government, Health
[ Bailii ]
Regina v Edward William Moore, William Samuel Kerr, Asad Haroon Gazette, 25 October 2001; Times, 01 November 2001
5 Oct 2001
CACD
Rose LJ, Bell J, Stanley Burnton J
Crime, Human Rights, Health
The applicants challenged the procedures under which, having been found unfit to plead by proceedings under the section, they were then found to have committed the acts forming the offences. The defendants were unable to put forward any case in rebuttal. Applications to stay proceedings as an abuse of process had failed. Were such proceedings criminal proceedings. Not all proceedings which might result in a deprivation of liberty were criminal proceedings. Proceedings under sections 4 and 4A also did not constitute criminal proceedings. The complaint that the inability to defend themselves made a trial unfair confused the rights under the convention with the ability to exercise those rights. The latter could not be guaranteed by any convention. What is a fair hearing varies with the situation.
Criminal Procedure (Insanity) Act 1964 4(1) - European Convention on Human Rights - Criminal Procedure (Insanity and Unfitness to Plead) Act 1991
1 Cites
Regina v M and Others [2001] EWCA Crim 2024; [2001] MHLR 177; [2002] 1 Cr App R 25; [2002] 1 WLR 824; [2002] Crim LR 57
5 Oct 2001
CACD
Rose LJ
Crime, Health
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 can be seen as retributive or deterrent. With the exception of an absolute discharge, they are concerned with the treatment and care of the accused."
As to the effect of the Human Rights Convention Rose LJ said: "The right to liberty and security is the subject of article 5. Detention after conviction is only one of the cases in which deprivation of liberty is permitted by article 5.5(1). In the present connection, the other relevant paragraph of article 5(1) is (e): the lawful detention of persons of unsound mind. The protection of persons detained on the ground that they are of unsound mind is contained in article 5(4)."
Mental Health Act 1983
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
A v The Scottish Ministers Times, 29 October 2001; [2002] 1 WLR 1460; [2001] UKPC D5; [2003] 2 AC 602; [2002] UKHRR 1; [2002] HRLR 6; 2001 SLT 1331; 2002 SC (PC) 63; 2001 GWD 33-1312
15 Oct 2001
PC
Lord Slynn of Hadley, Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Clyde, Lord Hutton and Lord Scott of Foscote
Scotland, Health, Human Rights
(Scotland) The power to detain a person suffering from a mental illness, in order to ensure the safety of the public, and even though there was no real possibility of treatment of the mental condition in hospital, was not a disproportionate contravention of that person's human rights. Article 5(1) made no reference either to the purpose of detention, or any requirement that the condition should be susceptible to treatment, even though it made explicit exceptions. There was nothing in the Convention which gave the rights of the detainee who was a danger to society a priority over the rights of other citizens to live in peace and security. The Convention exists to protect the fundamental rights and freedoms of each and every individual.
Mental Health (Public Safety and Appeals) (Scotland) Act 1999 1 - European Convention on Human Rights Art 5(1)
1 Cites
1 Citers
[ PC ] - [ Bailii ]
Wirral Health Authority and Another, Regina (on the Application of) v Mental Health Review Tribunal and others [2001] EWCA Civ 1572
19 Oct 2001
CA
Health
[ Bailii ]
Regina (Wilkinson) v Broadmoor Special Hospital and Others Gazette, 15 November 2001; [2001] EWCA Civ 1545; [2002] 1 WLR 419; Times, 02 November 2001; (2002) Lloyd's Rep Med 41; (2002) UKHRR 390; (2002) 65 BMLR 15
22 Oct 2001
CA
Lord Justice Simon Brown, Lord Justice Brooke and Lady Justice Hale
Health, Human Rights, Administrative
A detained mental patient sought to challenge a decision by his RMO that he should receive anti-psychotic medication, despite his refusal to consent, and to challenge a certificate issued by the SOAD. Held: Where a mental patient sought to challenge by judicial review the imposition of treatment without his consent, it was open to the court to investigate the merits of the decision to impose treatment, and it was not restricted to testing the reasonableness of the decision. This would include the power of the court to require the attendance and examination of medical witnesses. Had the patient proceeded by way of a claim for damages for assault that power would have existed. If the patient's human rights were to be respected, an investigation of the merits must be allowed.
Mental Health Act 1983 58(3)(b) - European Convention on Human Rights 6
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
WC, Regina (On the Application of) v South London and Maudsley NHS Trust and Another [2001] EWHC Admin 1025; [2001] 1 MHLR 187
25 Oct 2001
Admn
Scott Baker J
Health
The claimant challenged his detention under section 3 of the 1983. He suffered from paranoid schizophrenia. He said that the social worker had consulted his wife and not, as he said was correct, his mother. Held:
Mental Health Act 1983 3
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
Regina (on the Application of Hunter) v Ashworth Hospital Authority [2001] EWHC Admin 872
30 Oct 2001
Admn
Sir Christopher Bellamy QC J
Health, Torts - Other
The court described the regime imposed at Ashworth Hospital as "inevitably intense for safety and security reasons. All high risk patients and newly-admitted patients are subject to a high degree of observation at all times. Regular checks are made on all occupants. A patient is allowed time in communal areas of the hospital with other patients only with close observation and after a detailed risk assessment. "
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
J, Regina (on the Application Of) v Mental Health Review Tribunal (North London and East Region [2001] EWCA Civ 1705
5 Nov 2001
CA
Health
[ Bailii ]
Regina (on the Application of Ashworth Hospital Authority) v Ealing, Hammersmith and Hounslow Health Authority [2001] EWHC Admin 901
9 Nov 2001
Admn
Health
[ Bailii ]
Regina (Wirral Health Authority and Another) v Mental Health Review Tribunal and Another Times, 26 November 2001; Gazette, 10 January 2002; [2001] EWCA Civ 1901
13 Nov 2001
CA
Lord Justice Clarke, Lord Justice Mance and Lord Justice Dyson
Health, Criminal Sentencing
The applicant had been detained under the Act. His detention had been ended by the Mental Health Tribunal, but he had been detained again under s3. The decision was later quashed, and he asserted that upon that decision, an earlier sentence of imprisonment took effect, preventing his re-detention. The Tribunal's detention was later quashed. Held: Where an inferior tribunal's decision was unlawful, the High Court could quash it. the effect of quashing the decision was that the tribunal had never made the decision to discharge.
Mental Health Act 1983 37, 3
[ Bailii ]
Regina (on the Application of Bruno Quintavalle on Behalf of Pro-Life Alliance) v Secretary of State for Health; Admn 15-Nov-2001 - Times, 05 December 2001; [2001] EWHC Admin 918; [2001] 4 All ER 1013
Regina v Grant [2001] EWCA Crim 2611; [2002] MHLR 41; [2002] 1 Cr App R 38,; [2002] QB 1030; [2002] 2 WLR 1409; [2002] Crim LR 403
22 Nov 2001
CACD
Rose LJ VP, Richards J, Pitchford J
Crime, Health
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 containing restrictions on the liberty of the accused person where the accused person has been found to have committed an act which constituted the actus reus of murder where the person was indicted for murder without there being any determination by an independent and impartial tribunal as to whether the appropriate count was one of murder or manslaughter. It was submitted that the provision is incompatible with articles 5.1(e) and 6.1 of the Convention.
Richards J said: "Subject to the concern expressed below, it is not unreasonable for Parliament to have decided to lay down a mandatory requirement of admission to hospital for a person who has been charged with murder, has been found to have done the act charged, but is under a disability so as to be unfit to be tried; and detention in those circumstances is not to be regarded as "arbitrary" for the purposes of Article 5(1)(e). The right to make immediate application to the MHRT and the other protections operating following admission to hospital ensure compliance with Article 5(4)" and
Richards J continued: "The point of concern is whether the procedures give proper effect to the second of the conditions laid down for detention under Article 5(1)(e). To adopt the formulation in R (H) v. London North and East Mental Health Review Tribunal, "the test is whether it can be reliably shown that the [person] suffers from a mental disorder sufficiently serious to warrant detention". The procedures under the 1964 Act are not directed specifically to that question. The issue under section 4 is whether the defendant is fit to be tried, which involves consideration of whether the defendant has sufficient intellect to instruct his legal team, to plead to the indictment, to challenge jurors, to understand the evidence and to give evidence. Those criteria do not correspond directly to the criteria for a mental disorder sufficiently serious to warrant detention, and it may be possible for a person to be found unfit to be tried without his suffering from a mental disorder sufficiently serious to warrant detention. Yet once a person facing a charge of murder has been found to be unfit to be tried, there is no further consideration of his mental condition under the statutory procedures prior to admission to hospital. If the jury find under section 4A(2) that he did the act charged, it is mandatory for the judge to make an admission order under s.5. The judge cannot consider whether such an order is justified on the medical evidence. Thus no-one is required specifically to address, prior to the person's detention, the question whether he suffers from a mental disorder sufficiently serious to warrant detention. This feature of the procedure does raise the question whether detention is "arbitrary" in the sense explained by the European Court of Human Rights in Winterwerp and Johnson.
It seems to us that the question is one of some difficulty. The answer to it may lie, but does not necessarily do so, in Mr Eadie's submission that this is a difficult and complex area where Parliament has carried out the requisite balancing exercise and has concluded that, where it has been found by a jury that a person is unfit to be tried and has done the act charged as murder, the automatic consequence ought to be admission to hospital as prescribed in s.5 (subject to the person's right to make immediate application to the MHRT and to the other protections afforded to a person subject to detention under these provisions); that the court should afford a measure of deference to Parliament in such a field; and that in all the circumstances the procedure is not to be stigmatised as arbitrary for the purposes of Article 5.
In the circumstances of the present case, however, it is unnecessary for us to reach any conclusion on that issue, since we are satisfied on the particular facts that the conditions for detention, albeit not considered in terms under the statutory procedure, were in fact met. All the experts who gave evidence in the s.4A proceedings were of the view that the appellant suffered from mental impairment within the meaning of the Mental Health Act 1983. They did not consider the question of disposal because it was not necessary for them to do so. [The medical history was considered]. We are also told that, though no report is available, the Secretary of State understands from the clinical staff at the hospital that they believe that the appellant's mental impairment would justify her continuing detention in hospital and that there is treatment available which is alleviating her condition. Looking at the evidence as a whole, we take the view that the appellant did suffer from a mental disorder sufficiently serious to warrant detention and that the conditions for initial detention under Article 5(1)(e) were therefore met. That is a sufficient basis for rejecting this part of the appellant's case. "
Criminal Procedure (Insanity) Act 1964 5
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
Regina (Kenneally) v Snaresbrook Crown Court Times, 17 December 2001; [2001] EWHC Admin 968; [2002] QB 1169
27 Nov 2001
Admn
Lord Justice Pill, Mrs Justice Rafferty and Mr Justice Tomlinson
Criminal Practice, Health
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 construed restrictively, and it was not to be applied where all that was involved was possible inconvenience for the court and distress for the detainee. The court has power to quash an order made by the Crown court where it is made without jurisdiction and there is no alternative remedy. The word "inappropriate" must be construed restrictively: "A high degree of disablement or relevant disorder must be present. The section does not apply in a situation in which all that is involved is possible inconvenience for the court and inevitable distress for the defendant and others likely to be concerned in a trial, if a trial is held."
Mental Health Act 1983 51
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
Regina (on the Application IH) v Nottinghamshire Healthcare NHS Trust and Others [2001] EWHC Admin 1037
5 Dec 2001
Admn
Health
1 Cites
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
Regina and The Secretary of State for Health v Association of Pharmaceutical Importers and Dowelhurst Limited [2001] EWCA Civ 1896
18 Dec 2001
CA
The Master Of The Rolls, Lord Justice Aldous, Lord Justice Ward
Health, Commercial
The applicants sought to quash the Scheme by judicial review. Prescribers under the NHS are not directly concerned with price, and that led to the need for independent regulatory controls over prices. Those controls allowed modulation of the prices, so that companies could select how the overall required price reduction was apportioned between products. That modulation was challenged. Held: It was not possible to sever the modulation provisions. There was no discriminatory effect against imports resulting from the Scheme. Appeal dismissed.
Pharmaceutical Price Regulation Scheme 1999 - Health Act 1999 33
1 Cites
[ Bailii ]
Regina (on the Application of E) v Ashworth Hospital Authority Times, 17 January 2002; [2001] EWHC Admin 1089
19 Dec 2001
Admn
Health
The applicant had been detained under the Act. He sought to be allowed to wear women's clothing. Held: There is an implied power for hospital authorities to exercise control over what inmates wore. Here, the power was being exercised for both the purpose of detention and treatment. The decision to impose the restrictions was a rational one.
Mental Health Act 1983
[ Bailii ]
Regina v Drew Gazette, 21 February 2002
19 Dec 2001
CACD
Lord Justice Kennedy, Mr Justice Bell and Mr Justice Cooke
Criminal Sentencing, Health, Human Rights
Having once been convicted of grievous bodily harm, and later being convicted of wounding with intent, the defendant became subject to the mandatory sentence provisions. He appealed saying that since he suffered from a mental illness, that illness should be treated as an exceptional circumstance allowing the court to exercise a discretion, and that a denial of his right to be so treated infringed his human rights. Held: His condition had not left him in a position where he was not fit to plead, and therefore his mental condition should not affect sentence. As a lifer, he would receive appropriate medical treatment, and his human rights had not been infringed.
Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 2 - Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 109 - European Convention on Human Rights Art 3 5
1 Cites