The House decided that section 73 of the 1983 Act provided a two-stage process in relation to a patient’s conditional discharge. The tribunal first decides that it will direct the discharge subject to conditions, but defers giving the direction so that arrangements may be made to enable the patient to comply with the conditions. The second stage is reached if and when the tribunal is satisfied that those arrangements have been made, whereupon it directs the conditional discharge. The tribunal is not obliged, or even entitled, to reconsider its earlier decision in order to accommodate any new facts that might cause it to alter that decision. A tribunal could not reconsider a direction that had been deferred under section 73(7).
 AC 120
England and Wales
Cited – Regina (C) v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 15-May-2002
A mental health review tribunal had recommended the conditional release of the applicant, a restricted patient in a high security hospital. A community social worker’s report was only later made available to the tribunal.
Held: There was no . .
No longer compliant – Regina (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 . .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department and Another ex parte IH HL 13-Nov-2003
The appellant had been found unfit to plead after assaulting his son, and he had been detained under the 1964 Act. He alleged his detention was in breach of his right to a fair trial. His release had been authorised subject to the appointment of a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 12 April 2022; Ref: scu.182903