S v Airedale National Health Service Trust: QBD 22 Aug 2002

The patient had been detained, and then secluded within the mental hospital for 11 days. He claimed to have been subjected to inhuman treatment, and false imprisonment.
Held: His claim failed. The policy allowed the authority to confine him to a locked room under supervision for the protection of others. The fact of seclusion did not add to the fact that he was already and lawfully confined. A self evidently necessary power could be read into the 1983 Act to permit seclusion. Nevertheless a high degree of scrutiny was appropriate to prevent abuse.
Mr Justice Stanley Burnton considered when it might be proper to hear oral evidence on an application for judicial review: ‘It is a convention of our litigation that at trial in general the evidence of a witness is accepted unless he is cross-examined and is thus given the opportunity to rebut the allegations made against him. There may be an exception where there is undisputed objective evidence inconsistent with that of the witness that cannot sensibly be explained away (in other words, the witness’s testimony is manifestly wrong), but that is not the present case. The general rule applies as much in judicial review proceedings as in other litigation, although in judicial review proceedings it is relatively unusual for there to be a conflict of testimony and even more unusual for there to be cross-examination of witnesses.’

Mr Justice Stanley Burnton
[2003] Lloyd’s Rep Med 21, [2003] MHLR 63, Times 05-Sep-2002, [2002] EWHC 1780 (Admin)
Mental Health Act 1983, European Convention on Human Rights 3 5
England and Wales
CitedRegina v Deputy Governor of Parkhurst Prison, Ex parte Hague, Weldon v Home Office HL 24-Jul-1991
The prisoner challenged the decision to place him in segregation under Prison Rule 43. Under rule 43(1) the initial power to segregate was given to ‘the governor’. The case arose from the fact that the governor of one prison had purported to . .
CitedRegina v Ashworth Hospital Authority, Ex parte Munjaz (No 2) Admn 5-Jul-2002
The court dismissed the claimant’s complaint that the seclusion policies operated at Ashworth Special Hospital infringed his human rights. The Special Hospitals operated policies for seclusion which differed from the Code of Practice laid down under . .
CitedBolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee QBD 1957
Professional to use Skilled Persons Ordinary Care
Negligence was alleged against a doctor.
Held: McNair J directed the jury: ‘Where some special skill is exercised, the test for negligence is not the test of the man on the Clapham omnibus, because he has not got this special skill. The test . .
CitedRegina (Wilkinson) v Broadmoor Special Hospital and Others CA 22-Oct-2001
A detained mental patient sought to challenge a decision by his RMO that he should receive anti-psychotic medication, despite his refusal to consent, and to challenge a certificate issued by the SOAD.
Held: Where a mental patient sought to . .

Cited by:
Appeal fromMunjaz 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 . .
CitedShoesmith, Regina (on The Application of) v Ofsted and Others Admn 23-Apr-2010
The claimant challenged her dismissal as Director of children’s services at the respondent council following an adverse report into the Baby P death identified her department as being responsible. She said that the first defendant had allowed its . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Health, Torts – Other, Judicial Review

Updated: 02 January 2022; Ref: scu.174790