Regina v Broadmoor Special Hospital Authority and Secretary of State for Department of Health ex parte S, H and D (2): CA 5 Feb 1998

Persons detained under Mental Health Acts could be subject to random non-consensual searches even if this went against medical opinion. The power to seclude a patient within the hospital is implied from the power to detain as a ‘necessary ingredient flowing from a power of detention for treatment.’
Auld LJ
Gazette 26-Feb-1998, Times 17-Feb-1998, [1998] EWCA Civ 160
Mental Health Act 1983
England and Wales
Appeal fromRegina v Broadmoor Special Hospital Authority and Secretary of State for Health ex parte ‘S’, ‘H’, ‘D’, ‘L’ Admn 15-Oct-1997
A hospital admitting a patient under the Mental Health Act has the power to search the patient. Each hospital’s policy, however, remains individually assessable for Wednesbury unreasonableness. . .

Cited by:
CitedMunjaz v Mersey Care National Health Service Trust And the Secretary of State for Health, the National Association for Mental Health (Mind) Respondent interested; CA 16-Jul-2003
The claimant was a mental patient under compulsory detention, and complained that he had been subjected to periods of seclusion.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The hospital had failed to follow the appropriate Code of Practice. The Code was not . .
CitedRegina v Ashworth Hospital Authority (Now Mersey Care National Health Service Trust) ex parte Munjaz HL 13-Oct-2005
The claimant was detained in a secure Mental Hospital. He complained at the seclusions policy applied by the hospital, saying that it departed from the Guidance issued for such policies by the Secretary of State under the Act.
Held: The House . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 01 May 2021; Ref: scu.143638