Mersey Care NHS Trust, Regina (on the Application of) v Mental Health Review Tribunal and others: Admn 22 Jul 2004

Proceedings before the Mental Health Review Tribnal had been very nearly all held in private. The patient, Ian Brady sought to have his hearing in public.
Held: Beatson J approved the Tribunal’s reasons forfind that their privacy rules were a proper and proportionate departure from the principle of open justice and thus compatible with article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights:
‘By definition the issues which the mental health review tribunal has to deal with involve personal and clinical confidential information affecting individuals who are often very vulnerable and not always in a position to make an informed decision as to what may or may not be in their best interests. Questions of capacity may frequently arise and clinical progress may be affected by the consequences of publicity.’
Beatson J
[2005] 1 WLR 2469, [2004] EWHC 1749 (Admin), [2005] 2 All ER 820
Bailii
Mental Health Act 1983 78, Mental Health Review Tribunal Rules 1983, Administration of Justice Act 1960 12
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedPickering v Liverpool Daily Post and Echo Newspapers plc HL 1991
Damages were awarded for a breach of statutory duty where the claimant had suffered loss or damage by reason of the breach. The publication at issue went beyond reporting and ‘it reached deeply into the substance of the matter which the court had . .

Cited by:
CitedRegina (on the application of C) v Secretary of State for Justice SC 27-Jan-2016
The applicant was a convicted murderer who had been held in a high security mental hospital. His application for unescorted leave had been refused, and he wished to challenge the decisions. Anonymity in the subsequent proceedings had been refused to . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 13 January 2021; Ref: scu.199832