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: 2002 To: 2002

This page lists 69 cases, and was prepared on 27 May 2018.

 
Mrs U v Centre for Reproductive Medicine [2002] EWCA Civ 565
2002
CA
Hale LJ
Health, Children
The 1990 Act lays great emphasis upon consent. Scientific techniques developed since the first IVF baby open up the possibility of creating human life in quite new ways bringing huge practical and ethical difficulties. These have to be balanced against the strength and depth of the feelings of people who desperately long for the children which only these techniques can give them, as well as the natural desire of clinicians and scientists to use their skills to fulfil those wishes. Parliament has devised a legislative scheme and a statutory authority for regulating assisted reproduction in a way which tries to strike a fair balance between the various interests and concerns. Centres, the HFEA and the courts have to respect that scheme, however great their sympathy for the plight of particular individuals caught up in it.
Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990
1 Cites

1 Citers



 
 Re SS (an adult: medical treatment); 2002 - [2002] 1 FCR 73
 
In re S (Adult patient) (Inherent jurisdiction: Family life); Sheffield City Council v S [2003] 1 FLR 292; [2002] EWHC 2278 (Fam)
2002
FD
Munby J
Health, Family, Human Rights
A court could only grant an order permitting treatment despite the absence of an adult patient's consent by virtue of the doctrine of necessity.
Munby J said: "in our multi-cultural and pluralistic society the family takes many forms . . The fact is that many adults and children, whether through choice or circumstance, live in families more or less removed from what until comparatively recently would have been recognised as the typical nuclear family. But – and this is the point - the family, whatever form it takes, is the bedrock of our society and the foundation of our way of life."
1 Citers


 
Practice Note (Family Division: Incapacitated adults) Times, 04 January 2002; [2002] 1 WLR 325
2 Jan 2002
FD
Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss, President of the Family Division
Health, Family
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 regard to their nature and the issues raised within them, such proceedings were more suitable for hearing in the Family Division.
Accordingly, those proceedings should be commenced, and would be determined, as follows:
(a) Permanent vegetative state cases should be issued in the principal registry of the Family Division and would be determined by the President of the Family Division or by a judge nominated by her. Interlocutory applications would be heard by the President or by the nominated judge.
(b) Other proceedings might be commenced in any registry but must be determined by a judge of the division. Interlocutory applications were to be heard by a judge of the division.
Practice Note: Declaratory proceedings: Medical and welfare decisions for adults who lack capacity ((2001) 2 FLR 158), dated May 1, 2001 and issued by the Official Solicitor, provided valuable guidance in relation to those proceedings and should be followed.
1 Cites

1 Citers



 
 Regina (Quintavalle) v Secretary of State for Health; CA 18-Jan-2002 - Times, 25 January 2002; Gazette, 06 March 2002; [2002] QB 628; [2002] EWCA Civ 29; [2002] 2 WLR 550
 
The Centre for Reproductive Medicine v U [2002] EWHC 36 (Fam)
24 Jan 2002
FD
The President
Health, Undue Influence
The defendant sought to use the sperm of her deceased husband for her insemination. The deceased had apparently withdrawn his consent to the use of his sperm posthumously. His widow claimed that he had been influenced to change the form, by an implied threat that the treatment would not continue. Held: the case of re T established that for undue influence it must be shown that the patients will was overborne. That was not the case here.
Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990
1 Cites

1 Citers



 
 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 - Times, 11 March 2002; Gazette, 14 March 2002
 
P, Regina (on the Application Of) v Mental Health Review Tribunal for East Midlands and North East Region [2002] EWCA Civ 260
30 Jan 2002
CA

Health

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina (Assisted Reproduction and Gynaecology Centre) v The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority Times, 21 March 2002; Gazette, 21 March 2002; [2002] EWCA Civ 20; [2003] 1 FCR 266
31 Jan 2002
CA
Lord Justice Clarke and Mr Justice Wall
Health, Judicial Review
The applicant was undergoing fertility treatment. She wanted to have more than three eggs implanted, but permission for this was refused by the Authority. She sought to challenge that by way of judicial review. Held: Judicial review was not the right way to challenge a scientific view. The authority is a public one, and its decisions are subject to review, but only as administrative ones. Scientists might disagree about the decision, but it could not be described as irrational.
Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
London Borough of Ealing and others v Jan [2002] EWCA Civ 329
7 Feb 2002
CA

Health, Natural Justice

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
C and Others, Regina (on the Application Of) v Brent, Kensington and Chelsea and Westminster Mental Health NHS Trust [2002] EWHC 181 (Admin)
13 Feb 2002
Admn

Health

[ Bailii ]
 
Amanda Claire Smith (A Patient proceeding by her Mother and Next Friend Jenny May Smith) v The Secretary of State for Health (Sued on behalf of the Committee on Safety of Medicines) Times, 11 March 2002
15 Feb 2002
QBD
Justice Morland
Personal Injury, Health, Negligence
Mrs Smith's daughter was unwell with chicken pox. She gave her aspirin, but she contracted a serious disease. She later learned that the Committee had been previously warned of the complication. The drug was later withdrawn for such cases. Held: The statute avoided any liability for breach of statutory duty. Was the Secretary liable in negligence? No common law duty was owed in respect of the decisions allegedly negligent, even if there was fault in failing to stick to the original timetable. Such decisions are discretionary/policy and not justiciable. It was appropriate to withhold a warning until those who might implement it were ready. The delay of a month was not negligent.
Medicines Act 1968 6(1)

 
T and others v Mental Health Review Tribunal and G [2002] EWHC 247 (Admin)
22 Feb 2002
Admn
The Honourable Mr Justice Scott Baker
Health, Administrative, Information
The applicant's former partner, G, had been detained under the Act. She had obtained an injunction to keep him away, but whilst exercising staying contact with her child, he had killed his own parents, and was now detained. The tribunal had ordered his conditional release. She sought a copy of the decision, and now sought judicial review of the refusal to supply a copy. An order had been made that the tribunal should place a note of her views among the hearing papers, and one was sent, but was not so considered. Held: The tribunal argued that the tribunal's activities were patient centered, not victim centered. It had never exercised its discretion to publicise a decision to a third party. The claimant argued the tribunal as a creature of statute had no jurisdiction beyond its statutory powers. Although she had no reason to be told of some elements, it might be that she should know of a condition as to residence, but not other matters such as the assessment of the risk he now presented. The tribunal had a discretion which it had failed to exercise. It should reconsider the decision as to the making of information available to the claimant and in the express light of her letter.
Mental Health Act 1983 37 41 - Administration of Justice Act 1960 12 - Mental Health Review Tribunal Rules 1983 (S.I 1983 No. 942) 21(5)
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
HM v Switzerland 39187/98; [2002] ECHR 157; [2002] 38 EHRR 314; (2004) 38 EHRR 17; [2002] MHLR 209
26 Feb 2002
ECHR

Human Rights, Health

European Convention on Human Rights 5(1)
1 Citers

[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ]
 
H (A Healthcare Worker) v Associated Newspapers Limited Times, 19 March 2002; [2002] EWCA Civ 195
27 Feb 2002
CA
Lord Phillips MR, Lord Justice Judge, Lord Justice Carnwath
Health, Information, Human Rights, Media, Civil Procedure Rules, Contempt of Court
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 of having been treated. He declined to provide details of his private patients for notification. He had obtained an order under the rules to protect his identity within the proceedings. Held: The order against the newspaper would better have been obtained as part of the first action, but the two could be consolidated. The order had allowed the authority to be named, but restricted the newspaper publishing anything which might lead directly or indirectly to his identification. Both parties challenged parts of the order. The order preventing the naming of the Health Authority was intended only to protect the identity of the worker, and was properly made. There was a balancing exercise to be had, and also there was a need to respect the privacy of those who had been treated by H. The Health authority also had interests which it had a duty to protect. The court had power to protect its identity to avoid a situation which would seriously interfere with its statutory duties. The consequence of identifying the authority would include also the inevitable discovery of the identity of H. N should not be identified. H must hand over such records of his private patients as was necessary to allow a look-back exercise, and identify any who might have been at risk.
Data Protection Act 1988 - Civil Procedure Rules 39.2.(2) - Human Rights Act 1998 Sch1 Art 10
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Nitecki v Poland 65653/01
21 Mar 2002
ECHR

Human Rights, Health
The applicant was an elderly man suffering from a life-threatening condition known as amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS). He was prescribed the drug Rilutek to treat the disease but could not afford to pay for it. Held: His complaints to the European Court of Human Rights under Articles 2, 8 and 14 of the Convention were found to be inadmissible. The Court held that: "an issue may arise under Article 2 where it is shown that the authorities of a Contracting State put an individual's life at risk through the denial of healthcare which they have undertaken to make available to the population generally…"
1 Citers


 
In re B (Consent to treatment: Capacity) Times, 26 March 2002; Gazette, 25 April 2002; [2002] 1 FLR 1090
22 Mar 2002
FD
Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss, President
Health
The claimant had suffered catastrophic injuries, leaving her unable to breathe without artificial help. She eventually decided that she wanted to refuse treatment. The health authority took this as an indication of lack of capacity, and refused to disconnect the life support mechanisms. Held: The question of mental capacity was not to be disturbed by the fact that the patient may assert values not approved by those in authority. The principles in St George's were restated. The presumption was that the patient had capacity. If capacity existed, it was not for doctors to look instead to what they thought was in the patient's best interests. Genuine questions about capacity should be settled quickly, and within normal medical procedures. Where the doctor found themselves unable to carry out a patient's wishes, it was for the doctors to find a doctor who would. Here, there had been treatment against the patient's wishes, and a trespass had occurred. A seriously physically disabled patient who was mentally competent had the same right to personal autonomy, and to make decisions as any other person with mental capacity.
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Stevens v Plymouth City Council [2002] EWCA Civ 388
26 Mar 2002
CA
Lord Justice Clarke
Information, Health, Local Government

Mental Health Act 1983
[ Bailii ]
 
A, Regina (on the Application of) v Partnerships In Care Ltd. [2002] EWHC 529 (Admin)
11 Apr 2002
Admn

Health

[ Bailii ]
 
P, Regina (on the Application of) v Mental Health Review Tribunal for East Midlands and North East Regions [2002] EWCA Civ 697
16 Apr 2002
CA

Health
The issue before the tribunal was whether the disorder, if established, had resulted in abnormally aggressive or seriously irresponsible conduct in the past and there was a real risk that, if treatment in hospital were discontinued, it would do so in the future.
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina (Smeaton) v Secretary of State for Health and Others Times, 02 May 2002; Gazette, 30 May 2002; [2002] EWHC 610 (Admin); [2002] EWHC 886 (Admin); (2002) 2 FLR 146
18 Apr 2002
Admn
Mr Justice Munby
Crime, Health
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 interference with a fertilised egg, if it leads to the loss of the egg, involves the procuring of a “miscarriage” within the meaning of the 1861 Act, even – and this is the important point – if the interference takes place before the egg has implanted in the wall of the womb." "The Court of King’s Bench, or its modern incarnation the Administrative Court, is no longer custos morum of the people. " The 1861 Act was an 'always speaking' Act, and was to be interpreted according to our understanding now, not as in 1861. Also the word 'miscarriage' is an ordinary word and is not to be given a technical meaning. On current understanding, pregnancy began once the blastocyst had implanted in the endometrium. The morning after pill operated before that time, and was not an abortifacient. The Regulations were not unlawful. "There would in my judgment be something very seriously wrong, indeed grievously wrong with our system – by which I mean not just our legal system but the entire system by which our polity is governed – if a judge in 2002 were to be compelled by a statute 141 years old to hold that what . . . millions, of ordinary honest, decent, law abiding citizens have been doing day in day out for so many years is and always has been criminal. I am glad to be spared so unattractive a duty. "
Offences against the Person Act 1861 58 59 - Prescription Only Medicines (Human Use) Amendment (No 3) Order 2000 (SI 2000 No 3231) - Abortion Act 1967 - Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 2(3) 27
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ]
 
Warren, Regina (on the Application of) v Mental Health Review Tribunal London North and East Region [2002] EWHC 811 (Admin)
19 Apr 2002
Admn

Health

[ Bailii ]
 
KB and Others, Regina (on the Applications of) v Mental Health Review Tribunal [2002] EWHC 639 (Admin); [2003] EWHC 193 (Admn); [2004] 1 QB 936
23 Apr 2002
Admn
Stanley Burnton J
Health, Human Rights
Damages were claimed by three mental health patients whose rights under Article 5(4) had been infringed because of inordinate delay in processing their claims to mental health review tribunals. Held: Article 5.5 did not make an award of damages mandatory. It was complied with provided that it was possible to make an application for compensation; it did not preclude the Contracting States from making the award of compensation conditional upon proof that procedural delay had resulted in damage. Should compensation be awarded where delay has caused frustration and distress? "I conclude that there is no "clear and constant jurisprudence" of the European Court on the recoverability of damages for distress under Article 5.5 in the absence of deprivation of liberty. There are two principles applied by the Court: that damages are not recoverable in the absence of deprivation of liberty, and that damages are recoverable for distress which may be inferred from the facts of the case. It follows that this Court must itself determine the principles it is to apply." Having regard for the vulnerability of detained mental health patients: "Thus, even in the case of mentally ill claimants, not every feeling of frustration and distress will justify an award of damages. The frustration and distress must be significant: of such intensity that it would in itself justify an award of compensation for non-pecuniary damages. In my judgment, an important touchstone of that intensity in cases such as the present will be that the hospital staff considered it to be sufficiently relevant to the mental state of the patient to warrant its mention in the clinical notes."
European Convention on Human Rights 5.4 5.5
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
U v Centre for Reproductive Medicine [2002] EWCA Civ 565
24 Apr 2002
CA
Lady Justice Hale
Health, Undue Influence
The claimant appealed a refusal to grant an order preventing the destruction of the sperm of her late husband held by the respondent fertility clinic. The clinic had persuaded her husband to sign a form of consent for this purpose. The claimant said that the form had been obtained by undue influence, believing that the treatment would not be provided unless it was signed. He had first completed the form to refuse such consent, but the staff had persuaded him to change it. Held: A withdrawal of consent might be vitiated by undue influence. It was for the claimant to establish undue influence. However here, the issue is not strictly one of undue influence, but rather of a consent given within a particular statutory context. The court stressed the great importance to be attached to the prescribed form completed in compliance with Schedule 3 of the Act. The judge's decision was essentially one of fact having heard and seen the witnesses. That decision was not to be disturbed.
Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Wooder, Regina (on the Application of) v Feggetter and Dr Grah Times, 28 May 2002; Gazette, 30 May 2002; [2002] EWCA Civ 554; [2003] QB 219
25 Apr 2002
CA
Lord Justice Potter, Lord Justice Brooke and Lord Justice Sedley
Health, Administrative
The patient challenged the treatment given to him against his will as a detained mental patient. He said the opinion of the second doctor as required under the Act, had not been put into writing. Held: Following Wilkinson, which allowed a challenge to such decisions, it was inevitable that a written opinion would be required from the second doctor. Otherwise the challenge would not be possible. The duty did not go so far as to require disclosure of the request to the second doctor for that opinion.
Mental Health Act 1983 53
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]

 
 Pretty v The United Kingdom; ECHR 29-Apr-2002 - 2346/02; (2002) 35 EHRR 1; [2002] ECHR 427; (2002) 66 BMLR 147; 12 BHRC 149; [2002] Fam Law 588; [2002] 2 FCR 97; [2002] All ER (D) 286 (Apr); [2002] 2 FLR 45
 
Regina (C) v Secretary of State for the Home Department Times, 24 May 2002; Gazette, 20 June 2002; [2002] EWCA Civ 647
15 May 2002
CA
Lord Justice Jonathan Parker
Health, Human Rights
A mental health review tribunal had recommended the conditional release of the applicant, a restricted patient in a high security hospital. A community social worker's report was only later made available to the tribunal. Held: There was no need for the matter to go to the Secretary of State for him to order a fresh referral to the tribunal. The conditional discharge meant that the tribunal remained seised of the case and could recall its decision of its own motion. The case of Campbell was not engaged.
Mental Health Act 1983 71 73 - European Convention on Human Rights
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina (IH) v Secretary of State for the Home Department and Another Times, 24 May 2002; Gazette, 20 June 2002; [2002] EWCA Civ 646; [2003] QB 320
15 May 2002
CA
Lord Justice Jonathan Parker
Health, Human Rights
The applicant was a restricted mental patient. His conditional release had been ordered, but required a consultant psychiatrist to be found who would agree to supervise him. None such could be found, and his detention continued. After two years he contended that his continued detention infringed his human rights. Held: Campbell's case required s73 to operate in two stages. The decision was made for a release, subject to conditions. The second stage was met once those arrangements were in place, and at that point the conditional release was ordered. Article 5.4 required a speedy decision, and there was a clear potential conflict. To avoid that conflict Campbell might no longer be followed. Instead, a provisional decision directing a conditional discharge should be made, but that direction should be deferred to allow for arrangements for psychiatric treatment in the community. The health authority was under a duty to provide assistance. If no such help was forthcoming, the tribunal might then be obliged to decide to continue the detention. That would avoid incompatibility.
Mental Health Act 1983 73 117 - European Convention on Human Rights 3 5.4
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Secretary of State for the Home Department, Regina (on the Application of) v Mental Health Review Tribunal [2002] EWHC 1128 (Admin)
20 May 2002
Admn

Health

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina (H) v Ashworth Hospital Authority and Others, Regina (Ashworth Hospital Authority) v Mental Health Review Tribunal for West Midlands and North West Region and Others Times, 10 July 2002; Gazette, 01 August 2002; Gazette, 05 September 2002; [2002] EWCA Civ 923; [2003] 1 WLR 127; 70 BMLR 40
28 Jun 2002
CA
Lord Justice Simon Brown, Lord Justice Mummery and Lord Justice Dyson
Health, Civil Procedure Rules, Judicial Review
The patient was detained under the Act. The Mental Health Tribunal decided he should be released. The hospital disagreed. The patient continued to reside to the Hospital voluntarily, but the hospital viewed the decision to release him as unreasonable, and detained him further under 5(3). Held: If the hospital authority considered the tribunal's decision unreasonable, it must first apply for judicial review, rather than detain the patient. A second tribunal had since decided how should not be released in any event, but the principle was important. The procedure should be by way of judicial review under rule 54.10. A judicial review decision did re-write history, in setting aside a decision, and therefore the fact that events following the decision had been concluded was no bar. It was therefore equally possible to order a stay under the same procedure.
Dyson L.J. stated that the purpose of a stay in judicial review is clear: "It is to suspend the "proceedings" that are under challenge pending the determination of the challenge. It preserves the status quo. This will aid the judicial review process and make it more effective. It will ensure so far as possible, that, if a party is ultimately successful in his challenge, he will not be denied the full benefit of his success. In Avon, Glidewell LJ said that the phrase "stay of proceedings" must be given a wide interpretation so as to apply to administrative decisions. In my view it should also be given a wide interpretation so as to enhance the effectiveness of the judicial review jurisdiction. A narrow interpretation, such as that which appealed to the Privy Council in [Minister of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Industry v. Vehicles and Supplies Ltd. [1991] 1 W.L.R. 550] would appear to deny jurisdiction in case A [i.e. where the tribunal ordered discharge, but the order had not yet taken effect because the tribunal directed that the discharge was to be deferred to a specific future date]. That would indeed be regrettable and, if correct, would expose a serious shortcoming in the armoury of powers available to the court when granting permission to apply for judicial review . . [It] is common ground that "proceedings" includes not only the process leading up to the making of the decision itself. The Administrative Court routinely grants a stay to prevent the implementation of a decision that has been made but not yet carried into effect, or fully carried into effect. A good example is where a planning authority grants planning permission and an objector seeks permission to apply for judicial review. It is not, I believe, controversial that, if the court grants permission, it may order a stay of the carrying into effect of the planning permission."
Dyson LJ also discussed the effect of the lack of resources on litigation: "I absolutely reject the submission that reasons which would be inadequate if sufficient resources were available may be treated as adequate simply because sufficient resources are not available. Either the reasons are adequate or they are not and the sufficiency of resources is irrelevant to that question."
Mental Health Act 1983 3 5(3) - Civil Procedure Rules 54.10
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
B, Regina (On the Application of) v Ashworth Hospital Authority [2002] EWHC 1442 (Admin)
1 Jul 2002
Admn
Sir Richard Tucker
Prisons, Health
The cliamant, detained after conviction for manslaughter but in a mental hospital challenged his further confinement within a Personality Disorder Unit.
[ Bailii ]
 
Secretary of State for Home Department, Regina (on the Application Of) v Mental Health Review Tribunal and Another [2002] EWCA Civ 1053
3 Jul 2002
CA

Health

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina v Ashworth Hospital Authority, Ex parte Munjaz (No 2) [2002] EWHC (Admin) 1521
5 Jul 2002
Admn
Sullivan J
Health, Human Rights, Health, Prisons, Human Rights
The court dismissed the claimant's complaint that the seclusion policies operated at Ashworth Special Hospital infringed his human rights. The Special Hospitals operated policies for seclusion which differed from the Code of Practice laid down under the Act. Held: The claim was dismissed. Any seclusion had been of such a short duration as not to give rise to an infringement of the patient's rights. A departure from the Code did not imply a necessary infringement, since the Code was for guidance only.
As to the alleged infringement of his article 3 and article 8 rights, the minimum level of severity required for Article 3 was not met and there was no breach of Article 8. It also found that the Code of Practice was merely guidance. The Court accepted evidence that the applicant had not remained in seclusion for longer than had been necessary, and that there was no evidence that more frequent reviews would have reduced the time spent in seclusion.
The applicant was detained at Ashworth secure mental hospital. He challenged the lawfulness of the policy implemented for secuded detentions. Held: The Code fell within (1)(b) but not (1)(a).
Mental Health Act 1983 47 49 - European Convention on Human Rights 3 8
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Colonel M, Regina (on the Application of) v Ashworth Hospital Authority [2002] EWHC 1521 (Admin)
5 Jul 2002
Admn
Sullivan J
Health

Mental Health Act 1983 37
[ Bailii ]
 
Regina v Ashworth Hospital Authority, Ex parte Munjaz (No 2) [2002] EWHC (Admin) 1521
5 Jul 2002
Admn
Sullivan J
Health, Human Rights, Health, Prisons, Human Rights
The court dismissed the claimant's complaint that the seclusion policies operated at Ashworth Special Hospital infringed his human rights. The Special Hospitals operated policies for seclusion which differed from the Code of Practice laid down under the Act. Held: The claim was dismissed. Any seclusion had been of such a short duration as not to give rise to an infringement of the patient's rights. A departure from the Code did not imply a necessary infringement, since the Code was for guidance only.
As to the alleged infringement of his article 3 and article 8 rights, the minimum level of severity required for Article 3 was not met and there was no breach of Article 8. It also found that the Code of Practice was merely guidance. The Court accepted evidence that the applicant had not remained in seclusion for longer than had been necessary, and that there was no evidence that more frequent reviews would have reduced the time spent in seclusion.
The applicant was detained at Ashworth secure mental hospital. He challenged the lawfulness of the policy implemented for secuded detentions. Held: The Code fell within (1)(b) but not (1)(a).
Mental Health Act 1983 47 49 - European Convention on Human Rights 3 8
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
M, Petitioner Times, 26 August 2002
11 Jul 2002
OHCS
Lord Eassie
Health, Human Rights
The petitioner challenged his detention and treatment as a mental patient under the 1984 Act, claiming that his human rights to a fair trial had been infringed. It was argued that since the Act automatically dispensed with his common law right to refuse treatment, he had had denied to him the chance to have this issue determined by a court. Held: The Act created a class of people, membership of which gave certain rights and took others away. He had rights to challenge his membership of that class, but he now sought to challenge the consequences of that membership. The attempt was misplaced under article 6. Under article 8, he questioned whether the interference in his rights was necessary. Given the acceptance that some limitation was permissible, it was a question of degree. It was not shown that the provisions were so far out of line with other states as to justify affirmation that the legislation was disproportionate.
Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984 - European Convention on Human Rights 1 6 8
1 Cites


 
Regina (M) v Bromley London Borough Council Times, 20 July 2002
16 Jul 2002
CA
Lord Justice Thorpe, Lord Justice Judge and Lord Justice Buxton
Health
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.
Protection of Children Act 1999

 
B v Mental Health Review Tribunal and Another [2002] EWHC 1553 (Admin)
22 Jul 2002
Admn

Health

[ Bailii ]
 
Robertson v Fife Council Times, 08 August 2002; [2002] UKHL 35; (2002) 68 BMLR 229; (2002) 5 CCL Rep 543; 2003 SCLR 39; 2002 SC (HL) 145; 2002 Hous LR 78; 2002 GWD 26-927; 2002 SLT 951
25 Jul 2002
HL
Lord Slynn of Hadley, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Hope of Craighead and Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough
Benefits, Local Government, Health
The local authority considered providing residential care to the applicant. She had given away her former home, and they sought to take into account notional capital attributed to her as if the house had not been given away. Having done so, it declined to assist. Held: The obligation to provide care was a separate duty and was not to be run together with the consequences of the assessment of financial resources when the authority considered whether to offer assistance. The direction in section 12(3A) of the 1968 Act to disregard capital below one level was not a direction to take into account capital above that level. This did not mean that the patient should not be charged for the care provided. The need assessment came first, and the costs implications was a separate and second matter.
Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 12 12(3A) 12A 13A 55 - Community Care (Residential Accommodation) Act 1998 - National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990
[ House of Lords ] - [ Bailii ]

 
 Regina v Manchester City Council, ex parte Stennett etc; HL 25-Jul-2002 - Times, 29 August 2002; Gazette, 17 October 2002; [2002] UKHL 34; [2002] BLGR 557; (2002) 5 CCL Rep 500; [2002] 4 All ER 124; [2002] 3 WLR 584; (2002) 68 BMLR 247; [2002] 2 AC 1127
 
Regina (Rose and Another) v Secretary of State for Health and the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority Times, 22 August 2002; Gazette, 10 October 2002; [2002] EWHC 1593 (Admin)
26 Jul 2002
Admn
Mr Justice Scott Baker
Children, Human Rights, Administrative, Health
Applications were made, challenging the refusal of the Secretary of State for Health, and the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, to institute a system where a child born by artificial insemination could make enquiries as to his or her parenthood. Held: The knowledge of facts about one's biological parenthood was part of the right to family or private life. Accordingly the decisions made did engage the children's Human Rights, and the appropriate tests should be applied to that decision making process.
European Convention on Human Rights 8
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
R A, R (on the Application Of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2002] EWHC 1618 (Admin)
30 Jul 2002
Admn

Health

Mental Health Ac 1983 17
[ Bailii ]
 
Regina (A) v Secretary of State for the Home Department Times, 05 September 2002
30 Jul 2002
Admn
Mr Justice Crane
Health, Human Rights
The applicant had been a detained mental patient. He was granted a deferred order for his release. He challenged the delay of the respondent and his refusal to allow release under section 17 for overnight stays out of the hospital. Held: The secretary of state had a duty to act with reasonable speed. The department had chosen in practice to rely upon section 43 to control a patients behaviour in this situation, but that was wrong, and the proper section to act under was section 17. The 1983 Act could be read so as not to deny the applicant's human rights.
Mental Health Act 1983 817 42


 
 Plinio Galfetti v Regina; CACD 31-Jul-2002 - [2002] EWCA Crim 1916
 
Regina (R) v Mersey Care NHS Trust Times, 11 October 2002; [2002] EWHC 1810 (Admin)
7 Aug 2002
QBD
Wilson J
Health
The claimant complained that her continued detention for mental health treatment contravened her human rights. She had been detained compulsorily for treatment. A later assessment provided that she could be at home, with a right to by required to continue treatment as an inpatient. Held: The fact that a continued substantial part of her treatment would be as an inpatient meant that the order was valid. When considering the second stage of the procedure, the conditions at that time were to be considered, not those at the time of the original detention.
Mental Health Act 1983 3 20 - European Convention on Human Rights 5
[ Bailii ]
 
South West London and St George's v W [2002] EWHC 1770 (Admin)
18 Aug 2002
Admn
Crane J
Health, Prisons

Mental Health Act 1983 47
[ Bailii ]
 
S v Airedale National Health Service Trust [2003] Lloyd's Rep Med 21; [2003] MHLR 63; Times, 05 September 2002; [2002] EWHC 1780 (Admin)
22 Aug 2002
QBD
Mr Justice Stanley Burnton
Health, Torts - Other, Judicial Review
The patient had been detained, and then secluded within the mental hospital for 11 days. He claimed to have been subjected to inhuman treatment, and false imprisonment. Held: His claim failed. The policy allowed the authority to confine him to a locked room under supervision for the protection of others. The fact of seclusion did not add to the fact that he was already and lawfully confined. A self evidently necessary power could be read into the 1983 Act to permit seclusion. Nevertheless a high degree of scrutiny was appropriate to prevent abuse.
Mr Justice Stanley Burnton considered when it might be proper to hear oral evidence on an application for judicial review: "It is a convention of our litigation that at trial in general the evidence of a witness is accepted unless he is cross-examined and is thus given the opportunity to rebut the allegations made against him. There may be an exception where there is undisputed objective evidence inconsistent with that of the witness that cannot sensibly be explained away (in other words, the witness's testimony is manifestly wrong), but that is not the present case. The general rule applies as much in judicial review proceedings as in other litigation, although in judicial review proceedings it is relatively unusual for there to be a conflict of testimony and even more unusual for there to be cross-examination of witnesses."
Mental Health Act 1983 - European Convention on Human Rights 3 5
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]

 
 HL v United Kingdom; ECHR 10-Sep-2002 - [2002] ECHR 850; 45508/99; [2004] 40 EHRR 761
 
N, Regina (On the Application of) v M and Others [2002] EWHC 1911 (Admin)
24 Sep 2002
Admn
Silber J
Health, Human Rights
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.
Mental Health Act 1983
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Benjamin and Wilson v The United Kingdom Times, 09 October 2002; 28212/95; [2002] ECHR 631; [2002] ECHR 636
26 Sep 2002
ECHR

Human Rights, Health, Constitutional
The applicant challenged the system in the UK of deciding on his release from a secure mental hospital. He had been a discretionary life prisoner, but then later his detention was continued because of his mental condition. Though an independent tribunal reviewed his case, it was passed to the Secretary of State actually to decide on his release. Held: The system infringed the applicant's right to a fair trial before an independent and impartial court. The system did not make a sufficient break between the branches of government. Thought the tribunal was independent, it did not have the power to release him which was essential to the right.
European Convention on Human Rights& Art 5.4
1 Citers

[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ]
 
Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs v Atkinson, Hughes Gazette, 07 November 2002; [2002] EWHC 2028 (Admin)
9 Oct 2002
QBD
Lord Justice Brooke and Mr Justice Bell
Crime, Health, Evidence
The defendants were prosecuted for various offences relating to the selling and marketing of veterinary products without being licensed. Their cases were dismissed, when the prosecution put forward evidence as to the nature of what was being sold, but only in the form of the labels on the packages. The defence successfully argued that chemical analysis should have been provided. Held: Under the 1988 Act, the labels were statements and admissible as evidence. Under the 1994 Regulations, the ingredients did not need to be proved. Cases remitted.
Medicines Act 1968 58(2)(a) 67 - Medicines (Veterinary Drugs)(Prescription Only) Order 1991 - Marketing Authorisations for Veterinary Medical Products Regulations 1994 - Criminal Justice Act 1988 24(1)
[ Bailii ]

 
 Westminster City Council v National Asylum Support Service; HL 17-Oct-2002 - Times, 18 October 2002; [2002] UKHL 38; [2002] 1 WLR 2956; [2002] 4 All ER 654; [2002] HLR 58; (2002) 5 CCL Rep 511; [2003] BLGR 23
 
SSG, Regina (On the Application of) v Liverpool City Council and Another [2002] EWHC 4000 (Admin)
22 Oct 2002
Admn

Health, Family

[ Bailii ]
 
Morley v Nottinghamshire Healthcare NHS Trust and Another [2002] EWCA Civ 1667
28 Oct 2002
CA

Health

[ Bailii ]
 
Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust v Mr and Mrs A, YA, ZA, Mr and Mrs B T Authority [2003] 1 FLR 412
4 Nov 2002
QBD
Dame Butler-Sloss E, President
Health, Licensing
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.
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Regina (S) v Secretary of State for the Home Department Times, 13 November 2002; Gazette, 09 January 2003
5 Nov 2002
QBD
Kay J
Prisons, Health
The applicant was mentally ill, and had at various times received inpatient treatment, and also detained. After conviction for harassment offences he was imprisoned, but then again hospitalized and detained under s3 whilst released in licence. Upon his impending release from hospital, the respondent ordered him to be returned to prison. He absconded form the hospital in ignorance of his recall. Held: The order for his return to prison had been made without particular regard to the hospitalization.
Mental Health Act 1983 3 50(4) - Criminal Justice Act 1991 39(2) - Prison Act 1952 49(2)
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Pfizer Ltd, Regina (on the Application Of) v Secretary of State for Health Times, 11 November 2002; Gazette, 16 January 2003; [2002] EWCA Civ 1566
6 Nov 2002
CA
Lord Justice Buxton, Lord Justice Simon Brown, Lord Justice Carnwath
Health, Administrative
The applicant appealed a refusal of a judicial review of the respondent's decision to restrict the prescription of their drug Viagra. They argued that under the transparency directive, the government was obliged to carry out a public process of comparing priorities. Held: The process of making this decision was one of allocating funds to competing needs and choosing priorities. That was essentially a political decision about the affordability of different remedies. It was not clear what sort of analysis might be given if ordered, and was not to be required as a pre-requisite of restricting prescription.
Council Directive 89/105/EEC the Transarency Directive Art 7
[ Bailii ]
 
Artegodan v Commission T-74/00; [2002] EUECJ T-74/00; [2002] ECR 11-495
26 Nov 2002
ECFI

Health, Commercial, Arbitration
ECJ Medicinal products for human use - Community arbitration procedures - Withdrawal of marketing authorisations - Competence - Criteria for withdrawal - Anorectics: amfepramone, clobenzorex, fenproporex, norpseudoephedrine, phentermine - Directives 65/65/EEC and 75/319/EEC.
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Morley, (Regina on the Application of) v Nottinghamshire Health Care NHS Trust and Another [2002] EWCA Civ 1728
27 Nov 2002
CA

Health

[ Bailii ]
 
S, Regina (on the Application of) v Department of Health [2002] EWHC 2522 (Admin)
27 Nov 2002
Admn

Health, Human Rights

Mental Health Review Tribunal Rules 1983 11
[ Bailii ]

 
 Regina (S) v Mental Health Tribunal and Another; QBD 27-Nov-2002 - Times, 06 December 2002; Gazette, 30 January 2003
 
Regina (N) v Dr M and Others Times, 12 December 2002; [2002] EWCA Civ 1789; [2003] 1 WLR 562; [2003] Lloyd's Rep Med 81; (2003) 72 BMLR 81; [2003] 1 FCR 124; [2003] 1 FLR 667; [2003] Fam Law 160
6 Dec 2002
CA
Phillips of Worth Matravers MR, Rix, Dyson LJJ
Health, Human Rights, Judicial Review
The patient refused consent to treatment in the form of injection of drugs, which her psychiatrists considered to be necessary. Held: Treatment of this nature infringed the patients rights, and was not to be ordered without clear reason. The doctors had to show that it was a medical necessity, and this had to be shown convincingly. The standard of proof was high, though not the criminal standard. To comply with Human Rights law, they also had to show that it was in her best interests. This is a wider test than medical necessity. Despite the applicant's own expert's opinion, the standard of proof had been reached in this case.
Dyson LJ said that cross-examination in judicial review cases should be ordered only if it is necessary to enable the court to determine factual issues for itself.
European Convention on Human Rights 3 - Mental Health Act 1983 58(3)(b)
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina v Central and North-West London Mental Health NHS Trust Times, 13 December 2002
9 Dec 2002
QBD
Forbes J
Health
The patient sought his discharge. A panel of three sat, but only two members voted for his release. Held: The Act allowed a panel with a minimum quorum of three, but also required a minimum of three to vote in favour. The mere majority was insufficient. The Grindley case was not enough to allow a majority vote to be sufficient in the face of the clear words of the statute.
Mental Health Act 1983 23(4)
1 Cites


 
Simms, 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 [2002] EWHC 2734 (Fam)
11 Dec 2002
FD
The President
Health
"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 a responsible and competent body of relevant professional opinion, generally described as the 'Bolam test'. . . That is the professional standard set for those who make such decisions. There is a second duty. In re A (Male Sterilisation) [2000] 1 FLR 549 I said at page 555 "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 a case where an application is made to the court…..it is the judge, not the doctor, who makes the decision that it is in the best interests of the patient that the operation be performed or the treatment be given."
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
A and Others, Regina (on the Application Of) v Disability Rights Commission [2002] EWHC 2771 (Admin)
17 Dec 2002
Admn

Health, Local Government

Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 - National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 47 - National Assistance Act 1948 29
[ Bailii ]
 
Secretary of State for Health v Beeson, Personal Representative of [2002] EWCA Civ 1812
18 Dec 2002
CA

Human Rights, Health

National Assistance Act 1948
[ Bailii ]

 
 Masterman-Lister v Brutton and Co, Jewell and Home Counties Dairies (No 1); CA 19-Dec-2002 - Times, 28 December 2002; [2002] EWCA Civ 1889; [2003] 1 WLR 1511; (2003) 73 BMLR 1; [2003] Lloyds Rep Med 244; [2003] PIQR P20; [2003] WTLR 259; [2003] CP Rep 29; [2003] 3 All ER 162; (2004) 7 CCL Rep 5
 
Secretary of State for the Home Department v Mental Health Review Tribunal; PH [2002] EWCA Civ 1868; [2003] MHLR 202; (2003) 6 CCL Rep 319
19 Dec 2002
CA

Health
The court considered the extent of a Mental Health Review Tribunal's powers to attach conditions to a direction to discharge a restricted patient from the hospital where he is detained.
[ Bailii ]
 
Regina (Quintaville) v Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority Times, 20 January 2003; [2002] EWHC 2785 (Admin)
20 Dec 2002
QBD
Maurice Kay, J
Health, Administrative
The applicant sought a judicial review of the respondent's issue of a licence for genetic screening. They claimed this was outside the statutory powers of the respondent. Held: The Act specifically allowed the Authority to issue licences which were for activities taking place in the course of treatment. The present licence would allow tissue typing, which was solely for the purpose of allowing to go forward a pregnancy which would produce a child with tissue compatible with an elder sibling. That could not be said to be necessary or desirable for the purpose of assisting a woman to carry a child.
Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 11
[ Bailii ]
 
Copyright 2014 David Swarbrick, 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire HD6 2AG.