The claimant had said that his detention under the 1983 Act was unlawful, and that the court should issue a writ of habeas corpus for his release. Having been released he sought damages on the basis that his human rights had been infringed. The admission had been made despite the claimant’s brother having notified the defendant of his objections under 11(4), the hospital had made the order without reference to him.
Held: The claim failed.
 EWHC 1349 (Admin),  Med LR 362,  ACD 78
Mental Health Act 1983 3 139, Human Rights Act 1998, European Convention on Human Rights 5 8
England and Wales
Cited – E, Regina (on the Application of) v Bristol City Council Admn 13-Jan-2005
The patient did not wish her nearest relative, namely her sister, to be involved with her case and there was evidence that she would be so distressed by the sister being consulted that it could harm her health. The sister likewise did not wish to . .
Cited – Regina v Ashworth Hospital Authority (Now Mersey Care National Health Service Trust) ex parte Munjaz HL 13-Oct-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 . .
Cited – Regina v Managers of South Western Hospital and Another, Ex Parte M QBD 24-Mar-1993
The patient was detained on the application of an AMHP. In purported pursuance of section 11(4) the AMHP had consulted the patient’s mother as her nearest relative. However, the patient’s mother was not ordinarily resident in the UK, and, according . .
Cited – Prison Officers Association v Iqbal CA 4-Dec-2009
The claimant, a prisoner, alleged false imprisonment. The prison officers had taken unlawful strike action leaving him to be confined within his cell and unable to be involved in his normal activities. In view of the strike, a governor’s order had . .
Appeal from – TTM v London Borough of Hackney and Others CA 14-Jan-2011
The claimant had been found to have been wrongfully detained under section 3. He appealed against rejection of his claim for judicial review and for damages. The court found that his detention was lawful until declared otherwise. He argued that the . .
These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 25 February 2021; Ref: scu.416634