‘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 accommodation is appropriate, subject to the possibility of recall. The next step is to devise the conditions. At that stage, it is hard to see why the question whether the conditions would amount to detention for the purposes of article 5 should come into it. Even if they do amount to such detention, there will be no breach of article 5 because the 1983 Act makes provision for the procedural safeguards guaranteed by article 5. The tribunal’s concern should be simply to decide what is necessary for the well-being and protection of the patient, and the protection of the public and to satisfy themselves that the patient is willing to comply with the conditions and to that extent consents to them. We see no reason why Parliament should have wished them to concern with themselves with the fine distinctions which may arise under the Strasbourg case law on detention.’
Lord Justice Carnwath SPT
[2010] UKUT 454 (AAC), [2011] MHLR 37
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Secretary of State for Justice v MM SC 28-Nov-2018
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Health
Updated: 29 November 2021; Ref: scu.433613
