When assessing the release of a detained patient the tribunal must look at the ‘nature or degree’ of the illness disjunctively and not conjunctively. A person subject to a serious illness but without current symptoms might still be detained. Citations: Times 09-Dec-1998,  EWHC Admin 832 Links: Bailii Statutes: Mental Health Act 1983 72(1)(b)(I) Health … Continue reading Regina v Mental Health Review Tribunal for South Thames Region ex parte Anthony David Smith: Admn 4 Aug 1998
The Commission had power to hear a complaint about treatment since the power to detain also carried the power to treat, and a complaint about one part carried a power to complain about the rest. Citations: Times 18-May-1998,  EWHC Admin 524 Links: Bailii Statutes: Mental Health Act 1983 120(b)(ii) Health, Jury Updated: 27 May … Continue reading Regina v Mental Health Act Commission ex parte Smith: Admn 11 May 1998
The duty of a local authority to seek to provide resources to care for a mental patient after release into the community, is not absolute, and is subject to the limitations of the availability of a sufficient budget. A continued detention in hospital of a patient because of the absence of such proper provision was … Continue reading Regina (on the application of K) v Camden and Islington Health Authority: CA 21 Feb 2001
The authority obtained an ex parte order allowing it to give treatment in the form of a medically assisted birth, to the claimant against her will. Citations: Times 08-May-1998, Gazette 03-Jun-1998,  EWHC Admin 490 Links: Bailii Statutes: Mental Health Act 1983 2 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Citing: See Also – Regina v Collins; Pathfinder … Continue reading Regina v Collins; Pathfinder Mental Health Services NHS Trust and St Georges Healthcare NHS Trust ex parte S: Admn 7 May 1998
The applicant was severely autistic, and unable to consent to medical treatment. He had been admitted voluntarly to a mental hospital and detained under common law powers. The Hospital trust appealed a finding that his detention had been unlawful. Held: He had in fact been detained: ‘We do not consider that the judge was correct … Continue reading Regina v Bournewood Community and Mental Health NHS Trust, Ex parte L: CA 2 Dec 1997
A patient’s conditional discharge had been ordered by a tribunal. One of the conditions imposed by the tribunal was the appointment by the health authority of a responsible medical officer to provide psychiatric supervision of the patient in the community. The authority refused to make the appointment. Held: ‘I reject the submission that this duty … Continue reading Regina v Ealing District Health Authority, ex parte Fox: 1993
The plaintiff brought proceedings against the defendant health authority for negligence and breach of duty of care on the ground that, if he had been properly treated, he would not have killed his victim and would not have been convicted of the offence of manslaughter. He alleged that the consequence of the defendant’s breach of … Continue reading Clunis v Camden and Islington Health Authority: QBD 12 Dec 1996
A standardised period before a hearing to review a patient’s detention that does not vary with the facts of each case may involve a breach of the Convention right. Citations:  EWCA Civ 1110,  1 WLR 176 Statutes: European Convention on Human Rights, Mental Health Act 1983 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Cited by: Cited … Continue reading Regina (C) v London South and West Region Mental Health Review Tribunal: CA 2001
Two patients were each subject to hospital orders and restriction orders under the Mental Health Act 1983. On a reference to the First-tier Tribunal, the first patient did not seek a discharge but instead sought an extra-statutory recommendation that he be granted leave outside the hospital. Before hearing any evidence, the First-tier Tribunal announced that … Continue reading EC v Birmingham and Solihull Mental Health NHS Trust: UTAA 8 May 2013
The applicant sought to challenge a decision that she should be sterilised, and detained as a mental patient for this purpose. Judges: Popplewell J Citations:  EWHC Admin 281 Statutes: Mental Health Act 1983 2, Supreme Court Act 1981 31(6) Jurisdiction: England and Wales Citing: See Also – Regina v Collins; Pathfinder Mental Health Services … Continue reading Regina v Collins; Pathfinder Mental Health Services NHS Trust and St George’s Health Care NHS Trust ex parte ‘S’: Admn 17 Mar 1997
A mental patient’s detention under s 3 should not be renewed under s 20 when she was absent from the hospital on home leave. Judicial review is to be preferred to habeas corpus as a means of seeking remedies in these situations. Citations: Times 14-Oct-1998 Statutes: Mental Health Act 1983 3, 20 Jurisdiction: England and … Continue reading In Re Barker; Regina v Bhb Community Healthcare NHS Trust and Another, Ex Parte Barker: CA 14 Oct 1998
When a person detained compulsorily applied for a review of his admission, it was unacceptable to list all such cases to be heard only after eight weeks. Whilst such cases might often require detailed assessment which would take some time after admission, and the consequences of a decision to confirm the detention were serious for … Continue reading Regina (C) v Mental Health Review Tribunal: CA 11 Jul 2001
The jurisdiction with respect to restricted patients of the Tribunal was to decide whether the Act allowed the patient to be discharged or re-classified. Questions about the transfer of patients to other less secure facilities were not part of the tribunals jurisdiction, and it could not adjourn for consideration of such an option. Citations: Times … Continue reading Regina v Mental Health Tribunal for North East Thames Region, ex parte Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 20 Feb 2001
Citations:  EWHC 1522 (Admin) Links: Bailii Statutes: Mental Health Act 1983 72 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Health, Human Rights Updated: 07 May 2022; Ref: scu.347803
Citations:  EWHC 1400 (Admin) Links: Bailii Statutes: Mental Health Act 1983 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Health, Prisons Updated: 07 May 2022; Ref: scu.347799
Judges: Otton LJ Citations:  2 FLR 848 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Cited by: Cited – GD v Hospital Managers of the Edgware Community Hospital and Another Admn 27-Jun-2008 The claimant sought a writ of habeas corpus, by way of a challenge to his detention under section 3 of the 1983 Act, saying that it … Continue reading In Re D (Mental Patient: Habeas Corpus): Admn 2000
Where a patient was detained having been diagnosed as suffering from two mental health conditions justifying his detention, a finding that one condition was in remission but might return, but which could not at that time be used to justify his continued detention, did not oblige the tribunal to delete that condition as a basis … Continue reading Regina v Anglia and Oxfordshire Mental Health Review Tribunal, Ex Parte Hagan: CA 21 Jan 2000
Means of approval of settlements of PI awards to mental health patients. Citations: Gazette 08-Jun-1994 Statutes: Mental Health Act 1983 96(1)(d) Jurisdiction: England and Wales Health Updated: 05 May 2022; Ref: scu.84959
A discretionary life sentence should be reserved for the most exceptional circumstances, and for the most part for offenders who were incapable of being dealt with under the Mental Health Act 1959, ‘yet who are in a mental state which makes them dangerous to the life or limb of members of the public’ and in … Continue reading Regina v Wilkinson: CACD 1983
C applied for judicial review of the refusal by the respondent to order his absolute discharge, and the continuation of the restriction order. He said the tribunal had taken account of earlier reporst referring to a psychopathic personality disorder, when the original restriction order had only referred to a mental illness. He also complained at … Continue reading Regina (C) v Mental Health Review Tribunal and Others: QBD 17 Jan 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 allowed the Hospital’s appeal. The policy was lawful. Seclusion was to be seen as … Continue reading Regina v Ashworth Hospital Authority (Now Mersey Care National Health Service Trust) ex parte Munjaz: HL 13 Oct 2005
Upon the allegedly negligent release of the claimant from mental health care, she had, while in the midst of a serious psychotic episode, derived from the schizophrenia, killed her mother and been convicted of manslaughter. She now sought damages in negligence. The defendant relied upon a defence of illegality. Held: All the heads of claim … Continue reading Henderson v Dorset Healthcare University NHS Foundation Trust: CA 3 Aug 2018
Change in Doctors’ Information Obligations The pursuer claimed that her obstetrician had been negligent, after her son suffered severe injury at birth. The baby faced a birth with shoulder dystocia – the inability of the shoulders to pass through the pelvis. The consultant considered that a vaginal birth was preferable and did not given advice … Continue reading Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board: SC 11 Mar 2015
In the J T case the UK government had reached a friendly settlement under which it accepted that the United Kingdom law under sections 26 and 29 of the 1983 Act was an infringement of a patients human rights. It had been accepted that the legislation would need amendment, to allow a detainee exercising his … Continue reading Regina (M) v Secretary of State for Health: QBD 16 Apr 2003
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 … Continue reading Regina v Oxford Regional Mental Health Review Tribunal, Ex parte Secretary of State for the Home Department (Campbell’s Case): HL 1988
A conditionally discharged but restricted patient may still be detained under the section. Citations: Times 15-Aug-1996 Statutes: Mental Health Act 1983 3 Health Updated: 10 April 2022; Ref: scu.88573
It was unlawful to detain a psychopath for treatment where in fact his condition was untreatable. Citations: Times 24-Aug-1993, Independent 01-Sep-1993 Statutes: Mental Health Act 1983 3(2) Cited by: Appeal from – Regina v Cannons Park Mental Health Review Tribunal, Ex Parte A CA 2-Mar-1994 It was not unlawful for a patient to be detained … Continue reading Regina v Cannons Park Mental Health Review Tribunal, Ex Parte A: QBD 24 Aug 1993
An application for the discharge of a mental patient under section 72, was to be based on the same criteria as would found the original decision to authorise detention under section 3. The criteria would mirror each other save that the burden of proof was reversed. It was correct to take account of the possibility … Continue reading Regina v London South West Region Mental Health Review Tribunal, Ex Parte Moyle: QBD 10 Feb 2000
The claimant appealed against rejection of his request for release from liability to be detained for medical treatment. Judges: Arden, McCombe, Sales LJJ Citations:  EWCA Civ 436 Links: Bailii Statutes: Mental Health Act 1983, European Convention of Human Rights 5 8 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Health, Human Rights Updated: 27 March 2022; Ref: scu.588320
Parents of children had falsely and negligently been accused of abusing their children. The children sought damages for negligence against the doctors or social workers who had made the statements supporting the actions taken. The House was asked if the suffering of psychiatric injury by the parent was a foreseeable result of making it and … Continue reading JD v East Berkshire Community Health NHS Trust and others: HL 21 Apr 2005
Her GP and a consultant gynaecologist had recommended a termination for a pregnant, severely mentally handicapped 26 year old woman. Following Re F, her father sought a formal declaration of the court was required before any termination. Held: Termination of a pregnancy was already closely regulated by statute which provided ‘fully adequate safeguards for doctors … Continue reading Re SG (adult mental patient: abortion): FD 1991
Application for judicial review of a decision by an independent panel (‘the Panel’) on 12 April 2016 to discharge the Interested Party, AU, from detention under the Mental Health Act 1983 Cranston J  EWHC 1196 (Admin) Bailii Mental Health Act 1983 Health Updated: 16 January 2022; Ref: scu.564655
The appellant was detained under section 37 of the 1983 Act as a mental patient with a restriction under section 41. He sought his release. Held: The standard of proof in such applications remained the balance of probabilities, but that standard was flexible, and varied according to the seriousness of the allegation. The only misdirection … Continue reading AN, Regina (on the Application of) v Mental Health Review Tribunal (Northern Region) and others: CA 21 Dec 2005
The claimant appealed against an order striking out his claim in negligence. He had leaped from a window in a suicide attempt. The accommodation was provided by the defendant whilst caring for him under the 1983 Act. Held: The case should be allowed to go ahead. Though the common law tort of negligence is still … Continue reading K v Central and North West London Mental Health NHS Trust and Another: QBD 30 May 2008
L was adult autistic. He had been admitted to mental hospital for fear of his self-harming behaviours, and detained informally. He complained that that detention was unlawful. Held: The continued detention of a mental health patient who is incapable of giving consent is unlawful in the absence of the hospital following the statutory procedures. Owen … Continue reading L v Bournewood Community and Mental Health NHS Trust: Admn 9 Oct 1997
PH had severe physical and learning disabilities and was without speech, lacking capacity to decide for himself where to live. Since the age of four he received accommodation and support at public expense. Until his majority in December 2004, he was living with foster parents in South Gloucestershire. He then lived in two care homes … Continue reading Cornwall Council, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Health and Somerset County Council: SC 8 Jul 2015
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 … Continue reading S v Airedale National Health Service Trust: QBD 22 Aug 2002
The Court of Appeal issued habeas corpus because the applicant was committed to a mental institution pursuant to an application which was made by somebody who lacked the statutory authority to make it. The right of personal freedom is fundamental. In the mental health context, if someone is to be taken out of the community … Continue reading In re S-C (Mental Patient: Habeas Corpus): CA 22 Nov 1995
The Court was asked: ‘As: (i) a public body with obligations in public law and (ii) a public authority under the Human Rights Act 1998 can the Secretary of State for Health ‘the S/S’ lawfully refuse to refer a patient’s case to the First-tier Mental Health Review Tribunal ‘MHRT’ under section 67(1) of the Mental … Continue reading Modaresi, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Health: SC 24 Jul 2013
dispute about which of two local authorities should pay for care services, in this case after-care services pursuant to s.117(3) of the Mental Health Act 1983 Lord Justice Coulson, Lady Justice Carr, And, Lord Justice William Davis  EWCA Civ 1957 Bailii, Judiciary England and Wales Health, Local Government Updated: 28 December 2021; Ref: scu.670716
UTAA This appeal provides the first chance for the Upper Tribunal to consider the application of the decision of the Supreme Court in Surrey County Council v P  AC 896 to guardianship under the Mental Health Act 1983.  UKUT 475 (AAC) Bailii Mental Health Act 1983 England and Wales Health Updated: 23 December … Continue reading NL v Hampshire County Council (Mental Health : All): UTAA 21 Oct 2014
The applicant was an adult autistic, unable to consent to medical treatment. Treatment was provided at a day centre. He had been detained informally under the Act and against the wishes of his carers, but the Court of Appeal decided he should have been formally detained. Held: The appeal succeeded. His detention had not been … Continue reading In Re L (By His Next Friend GE); Regina v Bournewood Community and Mental Health NHS Trust, Ex Parte L: HL 25 Jun 1998
Appeal from dismissal of claim for professional negligence  EWCA Civ 878 Bailii Mental Health Act 1983 3 England and Wales Professional Negligence, Health Updated: 16 December 2021; Ref: scu.330943
A mother sought to challenge guidelines issued by the respondent which would allow doctors to protect the confidentiality of women under 16 who came to them for assistance even though the sexual activities they might engage in would be unlawful. Held: A person under 16 who was otherwise competent was entitled to seek medical assistance, … Continue reading Axon, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Health and Another: Admn 23 Jan 2006
There had been a trial of 35 days regarding rights of way over land, which had proved fruitless, and where some orders had been made without jurisdiction. The result had been inconclusive. The costs order was now appealed, the plaintiff complaining that the judge had failed to take into account an offer of settlement made … Continue reading Cutts v Head and Another: CA 7 Dec 1983
The appellant Khera’s father had obtained leave to settle in the UK. The appellant obtained leave to join him, but did not disclose that he had married. After his entry his wife in turn sought to join him. The appellant was detained as an illegal immigrant. Held: The term ‘illegal immigrant’ included anyone entering unlawfully. … Continue reading Khera v Secretary of State for The Home Department; Khawaja v Secretary of State for The Home Department: HL 10 Feb 1983
The court considered the narrow but important question in this appeal concerns the requirements of the common law principles of procedural fairness in cases where a convicted offender is detained under section 37 as mentally ill and is being considered for transfer from conditions of medium security to conditions of high security. Moses, Patten, Beatson … Continue reading L, Regina (on The Application of) v West London Mental Health NHS Trust and Others: CA 29 Jan 2014
The Court considered the meaning of ‘discharge’ from a mental health hospital. Elias J held that it meant ‘discharge from detention in hospital’, so that there could be a discharge on condition of residence in another hospital: but he also held that the crucial question was whether the conditions amounted to detention, which was not … Continue reading Secretary of State for the Home Department, Regina (on the Application of) v Mental Health Review Tribunal: Admn 20 May 2002
the interpretation of section 73(2) (and section 42(2)) may depend, in part at least, on what is meant by ‘discharge’. Held: Mann J said that it meant ‘discharge from hospital’, so that a condition could not be imposed that the patient reside in another hospital, even if not under conditions of detention. Mann J  … Continue reading Secretary of State for the Home Department v Mental Health Review Tribunal for Mersey Regional Health Authority: Admn 1986
Whether the 1983 Act, and in particular its provisions governing the conditional discharge and deferral of conditional discharge of ‘restricted patients’, are compatible with Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights.  EWHC Admin 1037 Bailii Mental Health Act 1983, European Convention on Human Rights England and Wales Citing: Appealed to – Regina … Continue reading Regina (on the Application IH) v Nottinghamshire Healthcare NHS Trust and Others: Admn 5 Dec 2001
Unlawful Detention pending Deportation An offender had been recommended for deportation following conviction. He had served his sentence and would otherwise have been released on parole. He had no passport and no valid travel documents. He complained that the length of time for which he had then been detained was too long and that the … Continue reading Regina v Governor of Durham Prison, ex parte Hardial Singh: QBD 13 Dec 1983
The plaintiff had killed someone and, as a result, been convicted of manslaughter and ordered to be detained in a secure hospital when subject to after-care under section 117 of the 1983 Act. He sought damages from the health authority on the basis that he would not have killed anyone but for negligence on the … Continue reading Clunis (By his Next Friend Prince) v Camden and Islington Health Authority: CA 5 Dec 1997
The claimants appealed against the imposition on them of smoking bans while they were compulsorily detained at Rampton Hospital. They said that other persons detained for example in prisons had been exempted fully. Held: The right or freedom to smoke does not engage article 8(1) of the Convention. The appeal failed: ‘We reject the argument … Continue reading N, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Health; Regina (E) v Nottinghamshire Healthcare NHS Trust: CA 24 Jul 2009
The patient was detained under the Act. The Mental Health Tribunal decided he should be released. The hospital disagreed. The patient continued to reside to the Hospital voluntarily, but the hospital viewed the decision to release him as . .
Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus ad Subjiciendum directed to the hospital managers of the defendant. The application relates to the detention of the claimant since 30 January 2008 at the Cygnet Wing Blackheath purportedly authorised under . .
This appeal, from an order dismissing the Appellant’s claim for judicial review, raises a short but important point as to the effect of a hospital order made under section 37 of the Mental Health Act 1983: does such an order cease to have effect if . .
The parties considered the propriety of a sterilisation of a woman who was, through mental incapacity, unable to give her consent.
Held: The appeal succeeded, and the operation would be lawful if the doctor considered it to be in the best . .
Where a patient lacks capacity, there is the power to provide him with whatever treatment or care is necessary in his own best interests. Medical treatment can be undertaken in an emergency even if, through a lack of capacity, no consent had been . .
The appellant, detained for assessment under section 2, was too disabled to make an application to the court on her own behalf. After a dispute between her mother and the medical officer over her treatment, an application was made to the county . .
‘The claimant is a restricted patient presently detained in Broadmoor Special Hospital under the provisions of the Mental Health Act 1983 (the 1983 Act). She challenges the refusal of the defendants to fund the costs of a placement for her at the . .
The patient had been detained under the Act and was incapable of making an application for her freedom.
Held: There was a duty on the state to ensure that mechanisms were made available to a patient to apply to review her continued detention . .
A person who is liable to be detained in a hospital by virtue of an application or order under that Act may either be actually detained or given leave of absence. While on leave of absence it may well be that the patient’s disorder is not such that . .
Managers considering an application by relatives for discharge of patient were not bound by the doctor’s report, but could go outside the criteria set out in the section to see whether it was safe to release the patient. . .
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 . .
A patient discharged conditionally under one part of the Act can still be detained properly under another. They constitute separate and distinct codes. . .
A strict compliance with the statutory rules before a mental patient could be detained did not require an inflexible order of events. . .
The feeding by tube of a mental patient who was unable and unwilling to consent can remain treatment, and within the decision of the doctors. In the context of whether the force-feeding an anorexic was authorised by section 63, the Court of Appeal . .
It was not unlawful for a patient to be detained for treatment, even though he was untreatable, and unwilling to be treated. A Mental Health tribunal appeal was to be allowed where patient was re-admitted. . .
The issue before the tribunal was whether the disorder, if established, had resulted in abnormally aggressive or seriously irresponsible conduct in the past and there was a real risk that, if treatment in hospital were discontinued, it would do so . .
application for the issue of a writ of habeas corpus – detention after convictions . .
The appellant had been detained under the 1983 Act. Her appeal had been declined as out of time, and she now appealed against rejection of her request for judicial review.
Held: The appeal failed, even though the application to the tribunal . .
The authority wanted S to be admitted to hospital, if necessary against her will. She was pregnant and wanted to have a natural birth, even at great risk to herself and her baby. She had refused medical treatment for eclampsia. The caesarian had by . .
The court was asked ‘whether a patient detained under the Mental Health Act 1983 may challenge a decision by the First-tier Tribunal to refuse to make an extra-statutory recommendation as to his future care or treatment.’ . .
The claimant sought judicial review of her detention under section 2 of the 1983 Act.
Held: The request was rejected. The tribunal had been correct to treat the original application as out of time. The Secretary of State’s decision was neither . .
The patient had been detained under section 3. He applied to challenge his detention, but before the hearing, he was accepted on to a programme for supervision following his intended release the day before the hearing. His solicitors notified the . .
Each applicant sought judicial review of the refusal of the tribunal to authorise their release from detention under the 1983 Act, saying that the Tribunal had accepted evidence to a lower standard of proof.
Held: Neither the criminal standard . .
Application in relation to AB who is a young woman of 34 years old and who has a serious and life threatening cardiac condition, the recommended treatment for which is surgery. In addition to her physical problems, AB was an inpatient at a low . .
Proceedings before the Mental Health Review Tribnal had been very nearly all held in private. The patient, Ian Brady sought to have his hearing in public.
Held: Beatson J approved the Tribunal’s reasons forfind that their privacy rules were a . .
The medical member of the review tribunal to which the appellant had applied for his discharge from detention under section 3 of the Mental Health Act 1983 who was a consultant psychiatrist was not disqualified from considering the appellant’s case . .
Architects proposed a system of flexible drains for a site, but the contractors persuaded them to accept rigid drains which once laid proved inadequate at considerable cost. The local authority had permitted the departure from the plans.
Held: . .
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 . .
The claimant was detained as a mental patient. He complained that a consultant employed by the NHS Trust which detained him, also sat on the panel of the tribunal which heard the review of his detention.
Held: Such proceedings did engage the . .
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 . .
Damages were claimed by three mental health patients whose rights under Article 5(4) had been infringed because of inordinate delay in processing their claims to mental health review tribunals.
Held: Article 5.5 did not make an award of . .
The applicant’s former partner, G, had been detained under the Act. She had obtained an injunction to keep him away, but whilst exercising staying contact with her child, he had killed his own parents, and was now detained. The tribunal had ordered . .
The applicant had been detained under the Act. His detention had been ended by the Mental Health Tribunal, but he had been detained again under s3. The decision was later quashed, and he asserted that upon that decision, an earlier sentence of . .
The section placed the burden upon a specially restricted patient to prove that he was not suffering from a mental disorder of a nature or degree requiring him to be detained, before the Tribunal could order his release. This shifting of the burden . .
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 . .
A patient having been convicted of manslaughter eventually applied for release. The authorities were concerned that he might have a spontaneous recurrence of his condition, but delayed preparation of a plan for his release. The Tribunal refused to . .
A person who is liable to be detained in a hospital by virtue of an application or order under that Act may either be actually detained or given leave of absence. While on leave of absence it may well be that the patient’s disorder is not such that . .