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: 2003 To: 2003

This page lists 54 cases, and was prepared on 27 May 2018.


 
 Regina v Fairley; CACD 2003 - [2003] EWCA Crim 1625

 
 Regina v H (On appeal from the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)); HL 30-Jan-2003 - Times, 31 January 2003; [2003] UKHL 1; [2003] 1 WLR 411; [2003] 2 Cr App R 2; (2003) 167 JPN 155; [2003] 1 All ER 497; (2003) 71 BMLR 146; [2003] HRLR 19; (2003) 167 JP 125
 
K B and Others, Regina (on the Application of) v Mental Health Review Tribunal and Another Times, 05 March 2003; [2003] EWHC 193 (Admin); Gazette, 10 April 2003; [2004] QB 936; [2003] 3 WLR 185
13 Feb 2003
Admn
Mr Justice Stanley Burnton
Health, Damages, Human Rights
The claimants were entitled to damages for their detention as mental patients, where this had been found to be wrongful as an infringement of their human rights. The court considered the appropriate level of damages. Held: There was no clear guidance in existence on the proper level of damages. An English court should be no lower than would be awarded for a comparable tort, an in line with general awards in this jurisdiction. It was wrong to compare such a detention with wrongful imprisonment since that would often be accompanied by feelings of humiliation and otherwise arising from the deliberately wrongful intention of the act in question. The court should compensate the injured party for his injury. It should not be lower because it was an human rights award. Even for mentally ill claimants not every feeling of distress would give rise to an award.
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
B, Regina (on the Application Of) v the Mental Health Tribunal and Another [2003] EWHC 815 (Admin)
13 Feb 2003
Admn
Stanley Burnton J
Health

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina (W) v Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council Times, 12 March 2003; [2003] EWHC 192 (Admin )
13 Feb 2003
QBD
Stanley Burton J
Torts - Other, Human Rights, Health
The claimant sought damages for false imprisonment. The mental health tribunal had ordered his release, but the respondent had delayed that release. Held: False imprisonment is established on proof of imprisonment without lawful authority. An authority might commit both the tort of false imprisonment and infringe a patient's human rights, but not all infringements of a patient's article 5 rights would involve a breach of domestic law. It was not therefore possible to equate an infringement of article 5 with a domestic tort, and the section did not apply. The Mental Health Act should be read down so as not to protect authorities against breaches of the convention.
Mental Health Act 1983 139(1) - European Convention on Human Rights 5 8
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
K, Regina (on the Application of) v Hughes [2003] EWHC 357 (Admin)
18 Feb 2003
Admn

Health

Mental Health Act 1983 3
[ Bailii ]
 
Hutchison Reid v The United Kingdom Times, 26 February 2003; [2003] ECHR 94; 50272/99; (2003) 37 EHRR 211; [2003] ECHR 94
20 Feb 2003
ECHR

Human Rights, Criminal Practice, Human Rights, Health
The applicant had been detained over many years after committing offences of a sexual and violent nature. After one release he reoffended and was re-detained after completing his sentence. He challenged the basis of his continued detention. Held: The system of review by a sherriff's court was sufficient to provide an independent court, and the detention was lawful. However the sherrif had placed upon him the burden of proving that he was no longer a danger to be freed, and despite practical safeguards which would assist him, that burden was unfair where it could make a difference to the outcome of his application for release. The burden lay on the person seeking to justify the detention. Also the delay in concluding the cases infringed his right to a speedy trial.
European Convention on Human Rights 5.4 5.1
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ]
 
AHE Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust v A and Others (By Their Litigation Friend, the Official Solicitor), The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority B, B [2003] EWHC 259 (QB); Gazette, 01 May 2003; [2003] 1 FLR 1091
26 Feb 2003
QBD
The President
Family, Health, Human Rights
An IVF treatment centre used sperm from one couple to fertilise eggs from another. This was discovered, and the unwilling donors sought a paternity declaration. Held: Section 28 did not confer paternity. The mistake vitiated whatever consents had been given, and the concept under the Act of 'treatment together'. Any interference with the right to family life was proportionate and necessary.
Family Law Act 1986 55A - Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 28 29
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
KW, Regina (on the Application of) v Avon and Wiltshire Mental Health Partnership NHS Trust and Another [2003] EWHC 919 (Admin)
3 Mar 2003
Admn

Health

Mental Health Act 1983 2
[ Bailii ]
 
An Hospital NHS Trust v S (By her Litigation Friend the Official Solicitor) And D G (S's Father) and S G (S's Mother) [2003] EWHC 365 (Fam)
6 Mar 2003
FD
The President
Health, Children
The hospital sought a declaration that it had no obligation to provide a kidney transplant to an eighteen year old youth who had had very severe disabilities since birth. It was argued that his mental condition meant that he would be unable to cope with the stress and changes involved in the operation. Held: "When considering the best interests of a patient, it is, as is set out in Thorpe LJ's judgment above, the duty of the court to assess the advantages and disadvantages of the various treatments and management options, the viability of each such option and the likely effect each would have on the patient's best interests and . . . his enjoyment of life." The present treatment should continue with further treatments decided upon as necessary, with nothing excluded.
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Thompson, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2003] EWHC 538 (Admin)
7 Mar 2003
Admn

Health, Criminal Sentencing

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina on the Application of Frederick Tagoe-Thompson v the Hospital Managers of the Park Royal Centre [2003] EWCA Civ 330; Times, 18 April 2003
12 Mar 2003
CA
The Hon Mrs Justice Arden Dbe Lord Justice Laws Lord Justice Pill
Judicial Review, Health
The applicant, detained under the section by the respondent, appealed refusal of a judicial review and a writ of habeas corpus. He had applied for a review of his detention. The review had been heard by a panel of three. Two judged in his favour. Held: The Act required a minimum of three votes in his favour. The power to order his release was only exerciseable by three doctors reaching agreement.
Mental Health Act 1983 3
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
South West Yorkshire Mental Health NHS Trust v Bradford Crown Court [2003] EWHC 640 (Admin); [2003] ACD 68
27 Mar 2003
Admn

Health, Criminal Practice

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina (on the Application of 'S') v the Secretary of Statefor the Home Department [2003] EWCA Civ 426
4 Apr 2003
CA
Lord Justice Rix Lord Justice Simon Brown Lord Justice Scott Baker
Health, Prisons
The patient had been released on licence from prison. He later refused treatment for mental illness and was detained under the 1983 Act, though still on licence. His probation obtained the revocation of his licence, and he was recalled. He did not know of the revocation of his licence, but absconded from the hospital and re-arrested. Held: The section allowed that either a licensee was detained under a court sentence or at large. For the purposes of calculating a revised licence expiry date, the time spend detained in the mental hospital counted as time spent unlawfully at large and did not count to reduce the time to be spent in prison.
Prison Act 1952 49(2) - mental Health Act 1983 3
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
W, Regina (on the Application Of) v Oxfordshire County Council [2003] EWHC 953 (Admin)
15 Apr 2003
Admn

Children, Health, Local Government

[ Bailii ]
 
B, Regina (on the Application of) v Ashworth Hospital Authority [2003] EWCA Civ 547; Times, 24 April 2003; [2003] 1 WLR 1886
15 Apr 2003
CA
Lord Justice Dyson Lord Justice Simon Brown Lord Justice Scott Baker
Health
B having been made subject to a court hospital order classifying him as suffering from a mental illness, complained when he was later detained under section 63 as subject to a personality disorder. Held: At all times, B was classified as suffering from a mental illness, and the tribunal had not said his condition was a psychopathic personality disorder. Section 63 disposed of the requirement for consent to treatment, but did not make it clear that Part IV was to apply to a mental disorder from which a person suffered whilst liable to be detained. Compulsory treatment was a serious infringement of his rights and could only follow the clearest of statements of stautory intent. The detention was unlawful. 'treatment for the mental disorder from which he is suffering' meant treatment for the form of mental disorder from which he was classified as suffering under the Act. A patient classified as suffering from psychopathic disorder could not be treated as mentally ill and vice versa.
Mental Health Act 1983 37(7) 41(1) 63
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina (M) v Secretary of State for Health Times, 25 April 2003
16 Apr 2003
QBD
Maurice Kay J
Health, Human Rights, Constitutional
In the J T case the UK government had reached a friendly settlement under which it accepted that the United Kingdom law under sections 26 and 29 of the 1983 Act was an infringement of a patients human rights. It had been accepted that the legislation would need amendment, to allow a detainee exercising his right to apply to court to choose a diferent family member as his representative, but that had not yet happened. Held: The right to make a declaration of incompatibility was discretionary, but the existence of a decision such as J T did not prevent a court exercising that discretion. The court made a declaration of incompatibility.
1 Cites


 
M, Regina (on the Application Of) v Secretary of State for Health [2003] EWHC 1094 (Admin)
16 Apr 2003
Admn

Health

[ Bailii ]
 
HE v Hospital NHS Trust and Another [2003] EWHC 1017 (Fam)
7 May 2003
FD
Munby J
Health
Munby J gave reasons for his decision to permit AE's treating doctors to infuse her with blood, if necessary, notwithstanding the existence of a living will in which she refused, in advance, to accept the transfusion of blood. He said: "There is now quite a substantial body of authority relevant to the issues I have to consider. It is all too well-known to require either description or much analysis: see In re T (Adult: Refusal of Treatment) [1993] Fam 95 , Airedale NHS Trust v Bland [1993] AC 789 , In re C (Adult: Refusal of Treatment) [1994] 1 WLR 290 , Re MB (Medical Treatment) [1997] 2 FLR 426 , St George's Healthcare NHS Trust v S [1999] Fam 26 , Re AK (Medical Treatment: Consent) [2001] 1 FLR 129 and Re B (Consent to Treatment: Capacity) [2002] EWHC 429 (Fam), [2002] 1 FLR 1090.
i) A competent adult patient has an absolute right to refuse consent to any medical treatment or invasive procedure, whether the reasons are rational, irrational, unknown or non-existent, and even if the result of refusal is the certainty of death. I agree with Professor Andrew Grubb's observation (see [2002] Med L Rev 201 at 203) that: "English law could not be clearer. A competent adult patient once properly informed, has the unassailable legal right to refuse any or all medical treatment or care.
ii) Consistently with this, a competent adult patient's anticipatory refusal of consent (a so-called 'advance directive' or 'living will' ) remains binding and effective notwithstanding that the patient has subsequently become and remains incompetent.
iii) An adult is presumed to have capacity, so the burden of proof is on those who seek to rebut the presumption and who assert a lack of capacity. It is therefore for those who assert that an adult was not competent at the time he made his advance directive to prove that fact."
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina v Drew [2003] UKHL 25; Times, 09 May 2003; Gazette, 03 July 2003; [2003] 1 WLR 1213; [2004] 1 Cr App R (S) 8; (2004) 75 BMLR 34; [2003] 2 Cr App R 24; [2003] 4 All ER 557
8 May 2003
HL
L Bingham of Cornhill, L Steyn, L Hutton, L Millett, L Rodger of Earlsferry
Criminal Sentencing, Human Rights, Health
The defendant was mentally ill. He had been convicted of a second serious offence, and now appealed the life sentence imposed. Psychiatrists had recommended a hospital order, but such an order could not now be made by virtue of the 2000 Act save in exceptional circumstances. It was said to be wrong automatically to impose a life sentence on the mentally ill and not criminally culpable, being "inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment" within the unqualified prohibition, and the sections requiring imposition of such sentences where the offender is mentally ill, would be incompatible with article 3. Held: The advantage of the life sentence is its flexibility. A determinate sentence would eventually result in release with no control. Courts had been reluctant to impose life sentences, and the Act was a response to that. It was not arbitrary, but proportionate and compliant.
Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 109 - Mental Health Act 1983 37 - Crime (Sentences) Act 1977 2 - European Convention on Human Rights 3
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ House of Lords ] - [ Bailii ]
 
Mersey Care NHS Trust, Regina (on the Application of) v Mental Health Review Tribunal [2003] EWHC 1182 (Admin)
9 May 2003
Admn

Health

Mental Health Act 1983 3
[ Bailii ]
 
Muller-Faure v Onderlinge Waarborgmaatschappij OZ Zorgverzekeringen UA, van Riet v Onderlinge Waarborgmaatschappij ZAO Zorgverzekeringen C-385/99; [2003] EUECJ C-385/99
13 May 2003
ECJ

European, Health
Europa Freedom to provide services - Articles 59 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 49 EC) and 60 of the EC Treaty (now Article 50 EC) - Sickness insurance - System providing benefits in kind - System of agreements - Medical costs incurred in another Member State - Prior authorisation - Criteria - Justification.
EC Treaty 59
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
X, Regina (on the Application of) v Mental Health Review Tribunal [2003] EWHC 1272 (Admin)
13 May 2003
Admn

Health

[ Bailii ]

 
 Quintavalle, Regina (on the Application of) v Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority; CA 16-May-2003 - [2003] EWCA Civ 667; Times, 20 May 2003; [2003] 2 WLR 1403; Gazette, 10 July 2003; [2003] 2 AC 687; [2004] QB 168
 
D v South Tyneside Health Care NHS Trust [2003] EWCA Civ 878
11 Jun 2003
CA

Professional Negligence, Health

Mental Health Act 1983 3
[ Bailii ]
 
In re C (a Child) (Immunisation: Parental Rights); In re F (a Child) (Immunisation: Parental rights) Times, 26 June 2003; Gazette, 14 August 2003
13 Jun 2003
FD
Sumner J
Children, Health, Human Rights
In each case fathers not married to the mother of the child, but with parental responsibility sought to have the child immunised. The mothers opposed the treatment saying they believed it unsafe. Held: The children should be immunised. Article 8.2 permitted interference with family life for health reasons. Mothers and fathers had equal rights before the court, and the court should be reluctant to intervene. The medical evidence was clear and persuasive. Acknowledging the mothers fears, age appropriate vaccination was in the child's best interests. This was not a general approval of immunisation for children.
Children Act 1989 8 - European Convention on Human Rights 8.2
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
A and D v B and E [2003] EWHC 1376 (Fam)
13 Jun 2003
FD
The Honourable Mr Justice Sumner
Children, Health, Civil Procedure Rules
In two separate actions, fathers with parental responsibility sought orders requiring the mothers of their children to ensure they received the MMR vaccine. Each mother objected, having suspicions as to the safety of the treatment. Specific issue orders were sought. Held: The court found the evidence given by the expert for the mother's unconvincing. There was no evidence of a medical reason for the children not to be immunised. Though part 35 of the Civil Procedure Rules did not apply directly in family proceedings, experts should follow the principles laid down. The interests of the child were paramount, and the decision made according to their best interests. immunisation is in these children’s best interests. Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights giving respect to private and family life is considered. There is an exception permitting the interference by the court for the protection of health.
Children Act 1989 1 8 - Civil Procedure Rules P35
1 Cites


 
MP v Nottinghamshire Healthcare NHS Trust [2003] EWHC 1782 (Admin)
14 Jul 2003
Admn

Health, Human Rights

[ Bailii ]
 
Munjaz v Mersey Care National Health Service Trust And the Secretary of State for Health, the National Association for Mental Health (Mind) Respondent interested; [2003] EWCA Civ 1036; Times, 25 July 2003; [2004] QB 395; [2003] Lloyds Rep Med 534; [2003] 3 WLR 1505; (2003) 74 BMLR 178; [2003] HRLR 38
16 Jul 2003
CA
The Master Of The Rolls Lady Justice Hale Lord Justice Latham
Human Rights, Health
The claimant was a mental patient under compulsory detention, and complained that he had been subjected to periods of seclusion. Held: The appeal succeeded. The hospital had failed to follow the appropriate Code of Practice. The Code was not obligatory, but following it would generally ensure that a patient's rights were not infringed. It recognised the potential damage from seclusion, and therefore the need for proper systems for its use. The Special Hospitals had sought to operate their own procedures, reflecting their own needs. Seclusion infringes Article 8 unless it can be justified under Article 8(2). Seclusion of a detained psychiatric patient was capable of amounting to a breach of Article 3.
Ashworth were not entitled to treat as being in seclusion a large number of patients who are not in fact secluded as defined by the Code of Practice and then depart from the Code of Practice in relation to a group which was defined solely by reference to how long its members have been secluded. Airedale were not justified in keeping Mr S in seclusion from the time when it ceased to be a necessary and proportionate response to the risk he presented to others.
European Convention on Human Rights 3 8 - Mental Health Act 1983 118
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
B (A Child); Re C (Welfare of Child: Immunisation) [2003] EWCA Civ 1148; [2003] 73 BMLR 152; [2003] 2 FLR 1095; [2003] 2 FCR 156
30 Jul 2003
CA
Thorpe LJ, Sedley LJ, Sir Anthony Evans
Children, Health
The father sought a specific issue order for the immunisation of his child in particular with the MMR vaccine. The mother opposed all immunisation. Held: Whether a child was to be refused immunisation was an issue on which both parents should be involved. "the present case is seen not as some significant novelty requiring guidance from this court but as a standard section 8 application which has attracted a great deal of publicity." It is not a general requirement of section 8 applications that expert evience must be brought. The judge's assessment of the evidence given was conscientious and comprehensive, and the applications had been decided by applying the paramount consideration of the welfare of the two children concerned. "Not to mince words, the court below was presented with junk science. " The appeal failed.
Children Act 1989 8
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Ward v The Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis and Epsom and St Helier NHS Trust [2003] EWCA Civ 1152; Times, 02 September 2003; Gazette, 02 October 2003
30 Jul 2003
CA
Lord Justice Schiemann Lord Justice Latham
Health, Magistrates, Police
The claimant sought damages for the circumstances of her having been taken into custody. A magistrate had issued a warrant to require her to be removed to a place of safety. The warrant named a social worker and doctor to accompany the officer. The warrant was executed but the social worker and doctor were not those named. Held: Magistrates could issue a warrant without naming the social worker or doctor who would be required under the section to accompany the police officer. If so, such workers could be selected as appropriate. The addition of the names to the warrant was to be read as a restriction on the way the warrant was to be executed, and the officer could not assume that the warrant would have been issued without names or with alternative names. The warrant itself was valid, but the mode of execution was not.
Mental Health Act 1983 135(1)
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
In re C (a Child) (Immunisation: Parental rights); In re F (a Child) (Imminisation: Parental rights) Times, 15 August 2003
30 Jul 2003
CA
Thorpe, Sedley LJJ, Sir Anthony Evans
Children, Health
In two actions heard together, single mothers resisted attempts to have their children immunised at the behest of the fathers, who in each case had parental responsibility. Held: A one-parent carer did not have the freedom to make such a choice when the other parent sought that the child should be immunised. Doctors had provided expert evidence in support of the advisability of immunisations, and the judge had considered the various treatments in turn. Disputes on the value and safety of such treatments ought not to be decided at the behest of one of the two parents in the absence of agreement. Immunisation was not an invasive treatment, and 'In re J' did not support the mothers' cases. It was rather preventive health care, and it was the duty of the State to promote it. The witness employed by the mothers had used junk science, and their case was against the weight of the evidence.
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
London Borough of Newham v Bs and Another [2003] EWHC 1909 (Fam)
31 Jul 2003
FD
Wall J
Health
Care of mentally impaired adult.
[ Bailii ]
 
A, Regina (on the Application of) v Harrow Crown Court and others [2003] EWHC 2020 (Admin)
14 Aug 2003
Admn
The Honourable Mr Justice Stanley Burnton
Health, Human Rights
The applicant sought his release from detention in hospital, correction of records at the Crown Court, and confirmation that his detention had infringed his human rights. He had been accused of two assaults, but was found unfit to plead under section 4 by a jury. He was however later made subject to the s37 order. Held: Following Fairley, the court did not have power to make the order it had. However the earlier order remained valid until revoked.
Offences Against the Persons Act 1861 16 - Criminal Procedure (Insanity) Act 1964 4 - Mental Health Act 1983 31
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Rodriguez-Bannister, Regina (on the Application of) v Somerset Partnership NHS and Social Care Trust [2003] EWHC 2058 (Admin)
20 Aug 2003
Admn

Health

[ Bailii ]
 
Rodriguez-Bannister, Regina (on the Application Of) v Somerset Partnership NHS and Social Care Trust [2003] EWHC 2184 (Admin)
22 Aug 2003
Admn

Health

[ Bailii ]
 
Bitcon, Regina (on the Application Of) v Eden Valley Primary Care Trust [2003] EWHC 2460 (Admin)
4 Sep 2003
Admn

Health

[ Bailii ]
 
Watts, Regina (on the Application of) v Bedford Primary Care Trust and others Times, 03 October 2003; [2003] EWHC 2228 (Admin); [2003] EWHC 2401 (Admin); Gazette, 16 October 2003; [2006] 1 QB 667
1 Oct 2003
Admn
Munby J
Health, European, Human Rights
The claimant sought hip-replacement treatment. She was first told that she would have to wait a year. As her lawyers pressed the respondent, she looked at obtaining treatment in France. As she decided to take the treatment, the respondent reduced the waiting time to four months. She sought judicial review, and to recover the cost of the treatment. Held: The claimant had no remedy in domestic law. The respondent could refuse the certificate which would allow her to recover the cost for lack of medical necessity only if the the same treatment could be offered locally without an undue waiting time. In this case, the one year wait was unreasonable, but the four months was not undue, and a certificate had been properly refused. Though the claimant failed on the particular facts, her argument was correct.
European Convention on Human Rights
1 Cites

[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ]
 
Evans v Amicus Healthcare Ltd and others; Hadley v Midland Fertility Services Ltd and Others Times, 02 October 2003; [2003] EWHC 2161 (Fam); Gazette, 16 October 2003; [2004] 2 WLR 713
1 Oct 2003
FD
Wall J
Health, Human Rights
The claimants and their former partners had undergone fertility treatment resulting in frozen embryos being kept pending possible implantation. The relationship had in each case failed, and the potential fathers had refused consent, but the claimants sought to be allowed to have the eggs implanted. Held: Permission was refused. The father's consent was required to be continuing, and that was absent. Treatment was to a couple 'together'. The Act gave an unconditional right for either party to withdraw consent, and that right continued until implantation. The consents originally given were no longer valid. There was no breach of the claimants' article 8 rights, since the act served a legitimate purpose. The male was not given a veto, but each had equal rights, and no estoppel could be established.
Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 12 - European Convention on Human Rights 8 12 14
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
C, Regina (On the Application of) v Mental Health Review Tribunal [2003] EWHC 3467 (Admin)
6 Oct 2003
Admn

Health

[ Bailii ]

 
 PS, Regina (on the Application of) v Responsible Medical Officer, Dr G and others; Admn 10-Oct-2003 - [2003] EWHC 2335 (Admin); [2004] 1 MHLR 1
 
PD, Regina (on the Application of) v West Midlands and North West Mental Health Review Tribunal [2003] EWHC 2469 (Admin); Times, 31 October 2003; Gazette, 02 January 2004
22 Oct 2003
Admn
Silber J
Health, Human Rights
The claimant was detained as a mental patient. He complained that a consultant employed by the NHS Trust which detained him, also sat on the panel of the tribunal which heard the review of his detention. Held: Such proceedings did engage the applicant's right to a fair trial. The issue was whether a fair-minded and informed observer, having considered the facts would perceive a real possibility of subconscious bias. The tribunal had to offer sufficient guarantees to exclude any legitimate doubt as to its impartiality. The consultant's denial of bias was of no consequence. The consultant had no contact outside the tribunal with the case or any party to it. He was acting outside the roles in which he might be subject to any pressure, and his employment rights were established. No threat of bias was established.
Mental Health Act 1983 3 - Mental Health Review Tribunal Rules 1983 (SI 1983/942) 2
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina v East London and the City Mental Health NHS Trust and Another ex parte Von Brandenburg (Aka Hanley) [2003] UKHL 58; Times, 14 November 2003; Gazette, 05 February 2004; [2004] 2 AC 280; [2004] Lloyds Rep Med 228; (2004) 7 CCL Rep 121; [2004] 1 All ER 400; [2003] 3 WLR 1265; [2004] HRLR 6; (2004) 76 BMLR 168
13 Nov 2003
HL
Lord Bingham of Cornhill Lord Steyn Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough Lord Scott of Foscote Lord Rodger of Earlsferry
Health, Human Rights
The patient was ordered to be discharged and released from hospital. The tribunal making the order had not accepted the medical recommendations. His release was deferred pending the finding of accommodation, but in the meantime, a social worker applied for his re-admission. Held: The approved social worker could not apply in these circumstances unless he considered reasonably and in good faith that he knew of circumstances which were not before the tribunal, and which would put a different complexion on that decision. The common law respects and protects the personal freedom of the individual, which may not be curtailed save for a reason and in circumstances sanctioned by the law of the land, but law may properly provide for the compulsory detention in hospital of those who suffer from mental disorder if detention is judged to be necessary for the health or safety of the patient or the protection of others. A person compulsorily detained on mental health grounds should have the right to take proceedings by which the lawfulness of his detention may be decided by a court.
Mental Health Act 1983 2
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ House of Lords ] - [ Bailii ]

 
 Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department and Another ex parte IH; HL 13-Nov-2003 - [2003] UKHL 59; Times, 14 November 2003; Gazette, 15 January 2004; [2003] 3 WLR 1278

 
 John M, Regina v; CACD 14-Nov-2003 - [2003] EWCA Crim 3452; [2004] MHLR 86
 
Secretary of State for the Home Department, Regina (on the Application Of) v Mental Health Review Tribunal [2003] EWHC 2864 (Admin)
17 Nov 2003
Admn

Health

[ Bailii ]

 
 An NHS Trust v D (Medical Treatment: Consent: Termination); FD 28-Nov-2003 - [2003] EWHC 2793 (Fam); [2004] 1 LR 1110
 
Louisa G v Wandsworth London Borough Council [2003] EWHC 2941 (Admin)
5 Dec 2003
Admn

Health, Benefits, Local Government

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina (Longstaff) v Newcastle upon Tyne NHS Primary Care Trust Times, 15 January 2004; [2003] EWHC 3252 (Admin)
8 Dec 2003
QBD
Charles J
Health
The complainant sought treatment with recombinant coagulation factor VIII for his haemophilia but was refused. Held: The trust was not required to seek further information from the claimant as to his reasons for declining other forms of treatment before refusing his application. The failure did not create an unfair decision. It was for the patient to set out reasons why any discretion should be exercised in his favour.
[ Bailii ]
 
P, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2003] EWHC 2953 (Admin); Times, 29 December 2003
11 Dec 2003
Admn
Stanley Burnton J
Prisons, Health, Human Rights
The applicant was a discretionary life prisoner compulsorily detained in a mental hospital. His tariff had now expired. If not detained under the 1983 Act he would now be entitled to a review. He argued that there should be a joint hearing. Held: There is no necessary breach of the requirement of a speedy hearing caused by the provision of successive hearings by a mental health review tribunal and (if that results in discharge from MHA detention) a Discretionary Lifer Panel. Individual delays can be judged on their own facts. The fact that the claimant had no right to have his case considered by the Parole Board until after his discharge from detention under the MHA did not infringe his rights under Article 5.4.
European Convention on Human Rights - Mental Health Act 1983 49
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
I R, Regina (on the Application Of) v Shetty and Another [2003] EWHC 3152 (Admin)
12 Dec 2003
Admn

Health, Criminal Sentencing

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina (on the application of R) v Secretary of State for the Home Department Times, 09 January 2003
12 Dec 2003
QBD
Munby J
Health, Prisons
The decision to designate a prisoner with mental difficulties as a 'technical lifer' was not a sentencing exercise requiring a right for the issue to be heard before a court, and it remained a decision for the respondent.
1 Cites


 
Regina on the Application of South West Yorkshire Mental Health NHS Trust v Crown Court at Bradford [2003] EWCA Civ 1857; Times, 23 January 2004; [2004] 1 WLR 1664; [2004] 1 All ER 1311,
19 Dec 2003
CA
Lord Justice Chadwick Lord Justice May Lord Justice Pill
Health, Crime, Criminal Practice
A appealed an order made by the Crown Court under the 1964 Act for his detention in a mental hospital on the grounds that he was unfit to enter a plea to the charge of murder. Held: The Court of Appal had no jurisdiction to hear the appeal. All appeals from orders of the Crown Court not involving a conviction were to the Queens Bench Division. The orders were not in any sense merely collateral, and a criminal trial remained a possibility.
Criminal Procedures (Insanity and Unfitness to Plead) Act 1991 - Supreme Court Act 1981 18(1)(a)
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
National Association of Health Stores and Another v Secretary of State for Health and Another [2003] EWHC 3133 (Admin)
19 Dec 2003
Admn

Consumer, Health, Licensing

Medicines Act 1968 168
1 Citers

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