The patient was detained on the application of an AMHP. In purported pursuance of section 11(4) the AMHP had consulted the patient’s mother as her nearest relative. However, the patient’s mother was not ordinarily resident in the UK, and, according to the statutory definition of ‘nearest relative’, the AMHP ought to have consulted the patient’s uncle. He was in fact consulted, but not in the capacity of nearest relative. Neither the patient’s mother nor the patient’s uncle objected to her admission.
Held: The AMHP had unwittingly acted outside the Act. An application for the renewed detention of a patient under section 3 was proper despite a recent tribunal ruling that the patient should be released. The social worker had a duty under the Act to admit a patient in this way when the circumstances of the Act applied. The application should have been made by way of judicial review rather than under habeas corpus. ‘there is no sense in which those concerned in a section 3 application are at any stage bound by an earlier tribunal decision.’
Gazette 24-Mar-1993,  QB 683,  1 All ER 161,  3 WLR 376
England and Wales
Followed – Regina (Count Franz Von Brandenburg (aka Hanley) ) v East London and The City Mental Health NHS Trust, Snazell, Approved Social worker CA 21-Feb-2001
The court was asked ‘When a mental health review tribunal has ordered the discharge of a patient, is it lawful to readmit him under section 2 or section 3 of the [Mental Health Act 1983] where it cannot be demonstrated that there has been a relevant . .
Mentioned – Regina v East London and the City Mental Health NHS Trust and Another ex parte Von Brandenburg (Aka Hanley) HL 13-Nov-2003
The patient was ordered to be discharged and released from hospital. The tribunal making the order had not accepted the medical recommendations. His release was deferred pending the finding of accommodation, but in the meantime, a social worker . .
Cited – TTM v London Borough of Hackney and Others Admn 11-Jun-2010
The claimant had said that his detention under the 1983 Act was unlawful, and that the court should issue a writ of habeas corpus for his release. Having been released he sought damages on the basis that his human rights had been infringed. The . .
Cited – 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 . .
Overruled – Davidson v Chief Constable of North Wales Police and Another CA 31-May-1993
A store detective said the plaintiffs had stolen from the store. He was wrong. The plaintiffs sought damages from the defendant for false imprisonment.
Held: If the police use their own discretion to arrest a suspect, an informer is not liable . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Health, Torts – Other
Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.88553