The respondent had been detained after conviction for arson, under the 1983 Act, and was liable to indefinite detention in hospital for medical treatment and dischargeable only by the Appellant or the First Tier Tribunal, possibly only as a conditional release. He said that that was discriminatory.
Held: (Lord Hughes dissenting) The appeal failed. The MHA does not permit either the FtT or the Secretary of State to order a conditional discharge of a restricted patient subject to conditions which amount to detention or a deprivation of liberty. The Secretary of State has complete control over the conditions imposed on restricted patients and whether the patient should be recalled to hospital.
Lady Hale, President, Lord Kerr, Lord Hughes, Lady Black, Lord Lloyd-Jones
[2018] UKSC 60
Bailii, Bailii Summary
Mental Health Act 1983, European Convention on Human Rights 5
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – The Secretary of State for Justice v RB and Another CA 20-Dec-2011
The court considered and rejected the possibility of the First Tier Tribunal making orders under the 2005 Act which would have the effect of depriving a patient of his liberty. The respondent, now aged 73, suffered a persistent delusional condition . .
Cited – P (By His Litigation Friend The Official Solicitor) v Cheshire West and Chester Council and Another and similar SC 19-Mar-2014
Deprivation of Liberty
P and Q were two adolescent sisters without capacity. They complained that the arrangements made for their care amounted to an unjustified deprivation of liberty, and now appealed against rejection of their cases. In the second case, P, an adult . .
At UT – MM v WL Clinic and Another UTAA 23-Nov-2015
Mental Health : All – whether for the purposes of Article 5 a restricted patient who has the capacity to do so can give a valid consent to the terms of a conditional discharge that, when it is implemented, will on an objective assessment create a . .
Appeal from – The Secretary of State for Justice v MM CA 29-Mar-2017
Power of FTT to deprivie patient of liberty
Two patients who had been confined to a secure hospital, appealed against orders which would continue to restrict their liberty upon being conditionally released. The parties now disputed the jurisdiction of the FTT to make such an order.
Cited – Winterwerp v The Netherlands ECHR 24-Oct-1979
A Dutch national detained in hospital complained that his detention had divested him of his capacity to administer his property, and thus there had been determination of his civil rights and obligations without the guarantee of a judicial procedure. . .
Cited – Secretary of State for the Home Department v Mental Health Review Tribunal for Mersey Regional Health Authority Admn 1986
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 . .
Cited – Secretary of State for the Home Department, Regina (on the Application of) v Mental Health Review Tribunal Admn 20-May-2002
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 . .
Cited – Ashingdane v The United Kingdom ECHR 28-May-1985
The right of access to the courts is not absolute but may be subject to limitations. These are permitted by implication since the right of access ‘by its very nature calls for regulation by the State, regulation which may vary in time and place . .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for The Home Department Ex Parte Simms HL 8-Jul-1999
Ban on Prisoners talking to Journalists unlawful
The two prisoners, serving life sentences for murder, had had their appeals rejected. They continued to protest innocence, and sought to bring their campaigns to public attention through the press, having oral interviews with journalists without . .
Cited – Stanev v Bulgaria ECHR 17-Jan-2012
. .
Cited – Storck v Germany ECHR 16-Jun-2005
ECHR Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction) – Preliminary objection rejected ( res iudicata ); Violation of Art. 5-1 (placement in private clinic from 1977 to 1979); No separate issue under Arts. 5-4 and 5-5; No . .
Cited – Secretary of State for Justice v RB UTAA 20-Dec-2010
‘The premise for exercise of the tribunal’s powers is that the patient has previously been lawfully detained (so that article 5 has been complied with); but that he does not now need to be detained in a hospital and that some other form of . .
Cited – Robertson v The Balmain New Ferry Company Ltd PC 10-Dec-1909
High Court of Australia – The Plaintiff paid a penny on entering the wharf to stay there till the boat should start and then be taken by the boat to the other side. The Defendants were admittedly always ready and willing to carry out their part of . .
Cited – Herd v Weardale Steel Coal and Coke Co Ltd HL 30-Jun-1914
The claimant, a miner, said that his work was dangerous, and threw down his tools. He now sought damages saying that his employer had falsely imprisoned him by failing to bring him to the surface until the end of his shift.
Held: The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Criminal Sentencing, Health, Human Rights
Updated: 29 November 2021; Ref: scu.630739
