Site icon swarb.co.uk

Regina (C) v Mental Health Review Tribunal and Others: QBD 17 Jan 2005

C applied for judicial review of the refusal by the respondent to order his absolute discharge, and the continuation of the restriction order. He said the tribunal had taken account of earlier reporst referring to a psychopathic personality disorder, when the original restriction order had only referred to a mental illness. He also complained at the absence of criteria to guide the tribunal in considering an application.
Held: The claimant had been made subject to a hospital order after conviction for grievous bodily harm. The order imposed restrictions indefinitely. The case of B -v- Ashworth referred only to cases involving compulsory treatment. The Act allowed the possibility of making restrictions or directing a conditional discharge even where in the absence of a mental disorder, for example where he was in remission. Since there was no necessary connection between the disorder for which the patient had been first confined and and the grounds applicable on a conditional discharge, there was no reason either to make such a connection under section 75. Though the exact criteria were not set out the statute went a long way to identify the relevant factors, and the availablity of various remedies gave important safeguards. The section was not incompatible with the claimant’s human rights.

Judges:

Munby J

Citations:

Times 24-Jan-2005

Statutes:

Mental Health Act 1983 75(3)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

DistinguishedB, Regina (on the Application of) v Ashworth Hospital Authority CA 15-Apr-2003
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 . .
CitedRegina (IH) v Secretary of State for the Home Department and Another CA 15-May-2002
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 . .
CitedL, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department and Another Admn 23-Apr-2004
. .
CitedRegina (Secretary of State for the Home Department) v Mental Health Review Tribunal Admn 2004
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Health, Human Rights

Updated: 30 April 2022; Ref: scu.223066

Exit mobile version