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 where all that was involved was possible inconvenience for the court and distress for the detainee. The court has power to quash an order made by the Crown court where it is made without jurisdiction and there is no alternative remedy. The word ‘inappropriate’ must be construed restrictively: ‘A high degree of disablement or relevant disorder must be present. The section does not apply in a situation in which all that is involved is possible inconvenience for the court and inevitable distress for the defendant and others likely to be concerned in a trial, if a trial is held.’
Lord Justice Pill, Mrs Justice Rafferty and Mr Justice Tomlinson
Times 17-Dec-2001,  EWHC Admin 968,  QB 1169,  2 WLR 1430,  MHLR 53,  ACD 46,
Mental Health Act 1983 51
England and Wales
Cited – Regina (Crown Prosecution Service) v Guildford Crown Court QBD 4-Jul-2007
The defendant had been convicted of rape. The judge had decided that an extended sentence was appropriate, and added four years to the seven year sentence under section 227. However the judge had no jurisdiction to do so, he retired on the same day . .
Cited – Juncal, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department and others CA 25-Jul-2008
The claimant appealed dismissal of his claim for wrongful imprisonment having been detained in 1997 on being found unfit to plead to an offence of violence.
Held: Parliament had a legitimate concern for the protection of the public, and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Criminal Practice, Health
Updated: 17 November 2021; Ref: scu.167113