Search Results for: Mental Health Act 1983 99

Click the case name for better results:

Regina (Holding and Barnes plc) v Secretary of State for Environment Transport and the Regions; Regina (Alconbury Developments Ltd and Others) v Same and Others: HL 9 May 2001

Power to call in is administrative in nature The powers of the Secretary of State to call in a planning application for his decision, and certain other planning powers, were essentially an administrative power, and not a judicial one, and therefore it was not a breach of the applicants’ rights to a fair hearing before … Continue reading Regina (Holding and Barnes plc) v Secretary of State for Environment Transport and the Regions; Regina (Alconbury Developments Ltd and Others) v Same and Others: HL 9 May 2001

Finucane, Re Application for Judicial Review: SC 27 Feb 2019

(Northern Ireland) The deceased solicitor was murdered in his home in 1989, allegedly by loyalists. They had never been identified, though collusion between security forces and a loyalist paramilitary was established. The ECHR and a judge led inquiry had said that a proper investigation was required. A promised inquiry under the 2005 Act was objected … Continue reading Finucane, Re Application for Judicial Review: SC 27 Feb 2019

O, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: SC 27 Apr 2016

The appellant failed asylum seeker had been detained for three years pending deportation. She suffered a mental illness, and during her detention the medical advice that her condition could be coped with in the detention centre changed, recommending treatment in the community. She said that the Francis case was wrongly decided. Held: Her appeal failed. … Continue reading O, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: SC 27 Apr 2016

Bento v The Chief Constable of Bedfordshire Police: QBD 1 Jun 2012

The claimant had been convicted of the murder of his girlfriend. On his acquittal on appeal, the police criticised the CPS decision not to retry the claimant, in effect, the claimant now said, continuing the accusation against him, and so defaming him. The defendant pleaded justification. Held: The prosecution case rested in substantial part on … Continue reading Bento v The Chief Constable of Bedfordshire Police: QBD 1 Jun 2012

Seal v Chief Constable of South Wales Police: CA 19 May 2005

Mr Seal noisily objected to a neighbour blocking in his car. Police were called who took him into custody under the 1983 Act. He was released several days later, and eventually sought damages for his wrongful treatment. He had failed to first seek permission from the court as was required by s139(2). Held: The appeal … Continue reading Seal v Chief Constable of South Wales Police: CA 19 May 2005

Welsh 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. The question arising on this appeal is whether a patient’s responsible clinician (may impose conditions in a CTO which amount to the deprivation of his liberty within the meaning of article … Continue reading Welsh Ministers v PJ: SC 17 Dec 2018

HM Treasury v Ahmed and Others: SC 4 Feb 2010

The Court had declared unlawful as ultra vires terrorism related orders made against the several claimants. The court now considered how restrictions imposed by banks should be dealt with. Held: (Lord Hope dissenting as to the order required) The Court could not lend itself to a procedure that is designed to obfuscate the effect of … Continue reading HM Treasury v Ahmed and Others: SC 4 Feb 2010

Watkins v Home Office and others: HL 29 Mar 2006

The claimant complained of misfeasance in public office by the prisons for having opened and read protected correspondence whilst he was in prison. The respondent argued that he had suffered no loss. The judge had found that bad faith was established in three prison officers. In one case the officer opened the letter in front … Continue reading Watkins v Home Office and others: HL 29 Mar 2006

Regina v Special Commissioner And Another, ex parte Morgan Grenfell and Co Ltd: HL 16 May 2002

The inspector issued a notice requiring production of certain documents. The respondents refused to produce them, saying that they were protected by legal professional privilege. Held: Legal professional privilege is a fundamental part of ensuring human rights as a right of privacy, and is recognised in European law (A M and S Europe Ltd). A … Continue reading Regina v Special Commissioner And Another, ex parte Morgan Grenfell and Co Ltd: HL 16 May 2002

Austin and Another v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis: HL 28 Jan 2009

Movement retsriction was not Liberty Deprivation The claimants had been present during a demonstration policed by the respondent. They appealed against dismissal of their claims for false imprisonment having been prevented from leaving Oxford Circus for over seven hours. The claimants appealed against rejection of their claims on human rights law. Held: The appeal failed. … Continue reading Austin and Another v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis: HL 28 Jan 2009

Miller v The College of Policing: CA 20 Dec 2021

Hate-Incident Guidance Inflexible and Unlawful The central issue raised in the appeal is the lawfulness of certain parts of a document entitled the Hate Crime Operational Guidance (the Guidance). The Guidance, issued in 2014 by the College of Policing (the College), the respondent to this appeal, sets out the national policy in relation to the … Continue reading Miller v The College of Policing: CA 20 Dec 2021

The 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. Held: The orders made by the UT were set … Continue reading The Secretary of State for Justice v MM: CA 29 Mar 2017

Masterman-Lister v Brutton and Co, Jewell and Home Counties Dairies (No 1): CA 19 Dec 2002

Capacity for Litigation The claimant appealed against dismissal of his claims. He had earlier settled a claim for damages, but now sought to re-open it, and to claim in negligence against his former solicitors, saying that he had not had sufficient mental capacity at the time to accept the offer. Held: There is no definition … Continue reading Masterman-Lister v Brutton and Co, Jewell and Home Counties Dairies (No 1): CA 19 Dec 2002

Winterwerp v The Netherlands: ECHR 24 Oct 1979

A Dutch national detained in hospital complained that his detention had divested him of his capacity to administer his property, and thus there had been determination of his civil rights and obligations without the guarantee of a judicial procedure. Held: Article 5(1)(a) is concerned with the question whether the detention is permissible. Its object and … Continue reading Winterwerp v The Netherlands: ECHR 24 Oct 1979

Secretary 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 conditional release. He said that that was discriminatory. Held: (Lord Hughes dissenting) The appeal failed. The … Continue reading Secretary of State for Justice v MM: SC 28 Nov 2018

Regina (Kenneally) v Snaresbrook Crown Court: Admn 27 Nov 2001

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 … Continue reading Regina (Kenneally) v Snaresbrook Crown Court: Admn 27 Nov 2001

Sturnham, Regina (on The Application of) v The Parole Board of England and Wales and Another (No 2): SC 3 Jul 2013

From 4 April 2005 until 3 December 2012, English law provided for the imposition of sentences of imprisonment for public protection (‘IPP’). The Court addressed the practical and legal issues resulting from the new system. Held: The decision as to whether to impose an IPP senence and whether a prisoner was ready for release on … Continue reading Sturnham, Regina (on The Application of) v The Parole Board of England and Wales and Another (No 2): SC 3 Jul 2013

Crown Prosecution Service v P; Director of Public Prosecutions v P: Admn 27 Apr 2007

The prosecutor appealed a grant of a stay of a prosecution of the 13 year old defendant as an abuse of process. Reports had indicated that he was unfit to plead. The prosecution contended that, if the court thought P ought not to face trial by reason of his disability, it should proceed to decide … Continue reading Crown Prosecution Service v P; Director of Public Prosecutions v P: Admn 27 Apr 2007

London Borough of Lewisham v Malcolm and Disability Rights Commission: CA 25 Jul 2007

The court was asked, whether asked to grant possession against a disabled tenant where the grounds for possession were mandatory. The defendant was a secure tenant with a history of psychiatric disability. He had set out to buy his flat, but the council sought possession when it discovered that he had sublet. Held: Section 23(3)(c) … Continue reading London Borough of Lewisham v Malcolm and Disability Rights Commission: CA 25 Jul 2007

Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service: HL 22 Nov 1984

Exercise of Prerogative Power is Reviewable The House considered an executive decision made pursuant to powers conferred by a prerogative order. The Minister had ordered employees at GCHQ not to be members of trades unions. Held: The exercise of a prerogative power of a public nature may be, subject to constraints of national security and … Continue reading Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service: HL 22 Nov 1984

Edgington v Fitzmaurice: CA 7 Mar 1885

False Prospectus – Issuers liable in Deceit The directors of a company issued a prospectus, falsely stating that the proceeds were to be used to complete alterations to the buildings of the company, to purchase horses and vans and to develop the trade of the company. In fact it was to pay off pressing liabilities. … Continue reading Edgington v Fitzmaurice: CA 7 Mar 1885

Regina v Manchester City Council, ex parte Stennett etc: HL 25 Jul 2002

The applicants were former mental patients who had been admitted to hospital compulsorily under section 3. On their release they were to be given support under section 117. The authorities sought to charge for these services, and appealed a decision that the services should be free. Held: Section 117 imposed a clear and free standing … Continue reading Regina v Manchester City Council, ex parte Stennett etc: HL 25 Jul 2002

Clingham (formerly C (a minor)) v Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea; Regina v Crown Court at Manchester Ex parte McCann and Others: HL 17 Oct 2002

The applicants had been made subject of anti-social behaviour orders. They challenged the basis upon which the orders had been made. Held: The orders had no identifiable consequences which would make the process a criminal one. Civil standards of evidence therefore applied, and hearsay evidence was admissible. Nevertheless, the test as to whether it was … Continue reading Clingham (formerly C (a minor)) v Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea; Regina v Crown Court at Manchester Ex parte McCann and Others: HL 17 Oct 2002

TF, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice: CA 18 Dec 2008

The claimant had been near to completing a sentence for serious violence. He now challenged the way in which, as his sentenced approached completion, the defendant had sought an order transferring him to a secure mental hospital. He was served with an order as he left the prison. The court had said that there was … Continue reading TF, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice: CA 18 Dec 2008

Secretary of State for the Home Department v Rehman: HL 11 Oct 2001

The applicant, a Pakistani national had entered the UK to act as a Muslim priest. The Home Secretary was satisfied that he was associated with a Muslim terrorist organisation, and refused indefinite leave to remain. The Home Secretary provided both open and closed statements to the tribunal. The open statement accepted that the organisation was … Continue reading Secretary of State for the Home Department v Rehman: HL 11 Oct 2001

Regina v Secretary of State for Education and Employment and others ex parte Williamson and others: HL 24 Feb 2005

The appellants were teachers in Christian schools who said that the blanket ban on corporal punishment interfered with their religious freedom. They saw moderate physical discipline as an essential part of educating children in a Christian manner. Held: The appeal was dismissed. For Article 9 to be engaged (aside from certain other threshold conditions) the … Continue reading Regina v Secretary of State for Education and Employment and others ex parte Williamson and others: HL 24 Feb 2005

Faulkner, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice and Another: SC 1 May 2013

The applicants had each been given a life sentence, but having served the minimum term had been due to have the continued detention reviewed to establish whether or not continued detention was necessary for the protection of the pblic. It had not been, and each had claimed there was no basis for his continued detention, … Continue reading Faulkner, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice and Another: SC 1 May 2013

MC (Algeria), Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: CA 31 Mar 2010

The claimant challenged his detention under the 1971 Act, now appealing against refusal of judicial review. His asylum claims had been rejected, and he had been convicted of various offences, including failures to answer bail. He had failed to report as required to comply with the deportation requirements. He had been transferred to a prison … Continue reading MC (Algeria), Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: CA 31 Mar 2010

Savage v South Essex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust (MIND intervening): HL 10 Dec 2008

The deceased had committed suicide on escaping from a mental hospital. The Trust appealed against a refusal to strike out the claim that that they had been negligent in having inadequate security. Held: The Trust’s appeal failed. The fact that she was detained for her own protection rather than to protect others required different standards … Continue reading Savage v South Essex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust (MIND intervening): HL 10 Dec 2008

B v Chief Constable of Avon and Somerset Constabulary: QBD 5 Apr 2000

The defendant appealed the making of a sex offender order under 1998 Act. The justices had found that the defendant was a sex offender within section 2(1)(a) and that he had acted on a number of occasions in a way which brought him within section 2(1)(b). Held: The civil standard of proof is flexible and … Continue reading B v Chief Constable of Avon and Somerset Constabulary: QBD 5 Apr 2000

SK (Zimbabwe) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 6 Nov 2008

Immigration detention proper after prison release The Home Secretary appealed against a finding that he had unlawfully detained the applicant. The applicant had been detained on release from prison pending his return to Zimbabwe as recommended by the sentencing judge under section 6 of the 1971 Act. The court had found that the detention had … Continue reading SK (Zimbabwe) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 6 Nov 2008

In re D; Doherty, Re (Northern Ireland); Life Sentence Review Commissioners v D: HL 11 Jun 2008

The Sentence Review Commissioners had decided not to order the release of the prisoner, who was serving a life sentence. He had been released on licence from a life sentence and then committed further serious sexual offences against under-age girls and was recalled. In considering his application for a further licence he complained that the … Continue reading In re D; Doherty, Re (Northern Ireland); Life Sentence Review Commissioners v D: HL 11 Jun 2008

T-Mobile (Uk) Ltd. and Another v Office of Communications: CA 12 Dec 2008

The claimant telecoms companies objected to a proposed scheme for future licensing of available spectrum. The scheme anticipated a bias in favour of auctioniung such content. It was not agreed whether any challenge to the decision should be by way of appeal to the Competition Appeal Tribunal or by judicial review. The CAT had declined … Continue reading T-Mobile (Uk) Ltd. and Another v Office of Communications: CA 12 Dec 2008

Anufrijeva and Another v London Borough of Southwark: CA 16 Oct 2003

The various claimants sought damages for established breaches of their human rights involving breaches of statutory duty by way of maladministration. Does the state have a duty to provide support so as to avoid a threat to the family life of the claimant? Held: A finding that a Convention right has been infringed, including a … Continue reading Anufrijeva and Another v London Borough of Southwark: CA 16 Oct 2003

Takoushis, Regina (on the Application of) v HM Coroner for Inner North London and others: CA 30 Nov 2005

Relatives sought judicial review of the coroner’s decision not to allow a jury, and against allowance of an expert witness. The deceased had been a mental patient but had been arrested with a view to being hospitalised. He was taken first to the AandE department. From there he escaped and jumped into and drowned in … Continue reading Takoushis, Regina (on the Application of) v HM Coroner for Inner North London and others: CA 30 Nov 2005

Hornal v Neuberger Products Ltd: CA 1956

Proof Standard for Misrepresentation The court was asked what was the standard of proof required to establish the tort of misrepresentation, and it contrasted the different standards of proof applicable in civil and criminal cases. Held: The standard was the balance of probabilities. It was for the plaintiff to establish that the defendant had the … Continue reading Hornal v Neuberger Products Ltd: CA 1956

Countryside Alliance and others, Regina (on the Application of) v Attorney General and Another: HL 28 Nov 2007

The appellants said that the 2004 Act infringed their rights under articles 8 11 and 14 and Art 1 of protocol 1. Held: Article 8 protected the right to private and family life. Its purpose was to protect individuals from unjustified intrusion by state agents into the private sphere within which they expected to be … Continue reading Countryside Alliance and others, Regina (on the Application of) v Attorney General and Another: HL 28 Nov 2007

TTM v London Borough of Hackney and Others: CA 14 Jan 2011

The claimant had been found to have been wrongfully detained under section 3. He appealed against rejection of his claim for judicial review and for damages. The court found that his detention was lawful until declared otherwise. He argued that the restriction on compensation under the 1983 Act contravened the ECHR. Held: The detention was … Continue reading TTM v London Borough of Hackney and Others: CA 14 Jan 2011

MJ (Angola) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: CA 20 May 2010

The applicant had been ordered to be deported and returned to Angola, but at the same time he was a detained mental patient. He argued that a return would breach his Article 8 rights. Held: The respondent was entitled to decide to deport the appellant notwithstanding that he was still subject to orders under sections … Continue reading MJ (Angola) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: CA 20 May 2010

Iceland Frozen Foods Ltd v Jones: EAT 29 Jul 1982

Members of the tribunal must not simply consider whether they personally think that the dismissal is fair and they must not substitute their decision as to what was the right course to adopt for that of the employer. Their proper function is to determine whether the decision to dismiss the employee fell within the band … Continue reading Iceland Frozen Foods Ltd v Jones: EAT 29 Jul 1982

Futter and Another v Futter and Others: ChD 11 Mar 2010

Various family settlements had been created. The trustees wished to use the rule in Hastings-Bass to re-open decisions they had made after receiving incorrect advice. Held: The deeds were set aside as void. The Rule in Hastings-Bass derives from trust law, not the law of mistake. The principle does not exist to relieve advisors from … Continue reading Futter and Another v Futter and Others: ChD 11 Mar 2010

Nwabueze v University of Law Ltd and Others: CA 13 Nov 2020

No ET Jurisdiction for Non-employment claim The claimant appealed against rejection of her claim for discrimination which she had brought in the Employment Tribunal rather than the County Court. Held: The appeal failed: ‘if a body is a governing body of a university this displaces its status as a qualification body. It follows that the … Continue reading Nwabueze v University of Law Ltd and Others: CA 13 Nov 2020

Gillies v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions: HL 26 Jan 2006

The claimant said that the medical member of the tribunal which had heard his disability claim was biased. The doctor was on a temporary contract and also worked for an agency which contracted directly the Benfits Agency. The court of session had considered tha a reasonable and well informed observer would not think there was … Continue reading Gillies v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions: HL 26 Jan 2006

Abacus Trust Company (Isle of Man) Colyb Limited v Barr, Barr, and Barr: ChD 6 Feb 2003

The court considered the Rule in Hastings-Bass, and specifically (1) whether the trustee’s decision is open to challenge when the failure to take a consideration into account is not attributable to a breach of fiduciary duty on the part of the trustee; and (2) whether, where a decision is open to challenge on the ground … Continue reading Abacus Trust Company (Isle of Man) Colyb Limited v Barr, Barr, and Barr: ChD 6 Feb 2003

Pitt and Another v Holt and Others: ChD 18 Jan 2010

The deceased had created a settlement in favour of his wife. He suffered serious injury and placed the damages in trust, but in a form which created an unnecessary liability to Inheritance Tax on his death. The wife’s mental health act receiver now sought the unravelling of the trust based on either Hastings Bass or … Continue reading Pitt and Another v Holt and Others: ChD 18 Jan 2010

Lall, Regina v: CACD 19 Mar 2021

Choice of mental Health Sentencing Options On conviction of manslaughter by reason of diminished responsibility, the judge imposed a hospital order and a restriction, without limit of time, under sections 37 and 41 of the Mental Health Act 1983. The AG appealed it as too lenient, suggesting imprisonment for life with a limitation restriction under … Continue reading Lall, Regina v: CACD 19 Mar 2021

Stojak, Regina (on The Application of) v Sheffield City Council: Admn 22 Dec 2009

The deceased had been detained as a mental patient and supported after her release, by her family financially. Her representatives now said that the respondent had failed in its obligation to provide support for no charge. The authority said that the case brought by way of judicial review was brought out of time. Held: The … Continue reading Stojak, Regina (on The Application of) v Sheffield City Council: Admn 22 Dec 2009

Raymond v Honey: HL 4 Mar 1981

The defendant prison governor had intercepted a prisoner’s letter to the Crown Office for the purpose of raising proceedings to have the governor committed for an alleged contempt of court. Held: The governor was in contempt of court. Subject to any legislation altering the situation, a prisoner retains all his rights that are not taken … Continue reading Raymond v Honey: HL 4 Mar 1981

Meek v City of Birmingham District Council: CA 18 Feb 1987

Employment Tribunals to Provide Sufficient Reasons Tribunals, when giving their decisions, are required to do no more than to make clear their findings of fact and to answer any question of law raised. Bingham LJ said: ‘It has on a number of occasions been made plain that the decision of an Industrial Tribunal is not … Continue reading Meek v City of Birmingham District Council: CA 18 Feb 1987

Regina v Abadom: CACD 1982

A properly qualified expert is entitled to rely on what might otherwise be considered as hearsay, that is to say findings by other experts in the same field in support of an opinion on any given set of facts. ‘In the context of evidence given by . .