MM v WL Clinic and Another: UTAA 23 Nov 2015

Mental Health : All – whether for the purposes of Article 5 a restricted patient who has the capacity to do so can give a valid consent to the terms of a conditional discharge that, when it is implemented, will on an objective assessment create a deprivation of the patient’s liberty.
Held: there was power to impose a condition of compliance with a care package, provided that the patient had the capacity to consent to it and did consent

Charles J
[2015] UKUT 644 (AAC), [2016] MHLR 198
European Convention on Human Rights 5
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal fromThe Secretary of State for Justice v MM CA 29-Mar-2017
Power of FTT to deprive patient of liberty
Two patients who had been confined to a secure hospital, appealed against orders which would continue to restrict their liberty upon being conditionally released. The parties now disputed the jurisdiction of the FTT to make such an order.
At UTSecretary of State for Justice v MM SC 28-Nov-2018
The respondent had been detained after conviction for arson, under the 1983 Act, and was liable to indefinite detention in hospital for medical treatment and dischargeable only by the Appellant or the First Tier Tribunal, possibly only as a . .
At UTAAWelsh Ministers v PJ SC 17-Dec-2018
A patient detained under the Mental Health Act 1983 (MHA) may be released from compulsory detention in hospital subject to a community treatment order (CTO). The question arising on this appeal is whether a patient’s responsible clinician (may . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Health, Human Rights

Updated: 24 December 2021; Ref: scu.556086