2006
|
|
Cases Reported |
| R (East London and the City Mental Health NHS Trust) v Mental Health Review Tribunal (IH as Interested Party) | 1 |
| Issue: Whether a judge had sufficient evidence to impose a hospital order. | |
| Romanov v Russia | 7 |
| Issue: Whether the recall to hospital and continuing detention of a conditionally discharged patient was lawful when he was suffering from a mental disorder for which he had not initially been detained. | |
| Nakach v Netherlands | 22 |
| Issue: Whether the recall to hospital and continuing detention of a conditionally discharged patient was lawful when he was suffering from a mental disorder for which he had not initially been detained | |
| Schenkel v Netherlands | 27 |
| Issue: Whether a duty arose to secure the transfer to hospital of a prisoner; whether the duty was breached; whether delays in transfer had breached the prisoner’s Art 8 rights. | |
| Gorshkov v Ukraine | 32 |
| Issue: Whether a restriction order was justified | |
| R (TP) v West London Youth Court | 40 |
| Issue: Whether s75(3) Mental Health Act 1983 is incompatible with the ECHR; the matters to be taken into account by a Tribunal when considering an application by a conditionally discharged restricted patient; whether a Tribunal had acted unlawfully by taking into account a mental disorder from which the patient was not classified as suffering. | |
| R (M) v Mental Health Review Tribunal | 46 |
| Issue: Whether a patient detained under the classification of mental illness could be treated on a ward for those suffering from personality disorder. | |
| R (AN) v Mental Health Review Tribunal | 59 |
| Issue: The standard of proof and approach to be applied by a Tribunal | |
| R (Hasani) v Blackfriars Crown Court | 79 |
| Issue: Whether an approved social worker was required to inform or consult a nearest relative under s11 Mental Health Act 1983 where it was contrary to the patient’s best interests and express wishes. | |
| R (K) v West London Mental Health NHS Trust (Administrative Court) | 82 |
| Issue: Whether a minimum term should have been specified for an offender sentenced to life imprisonment and made subject to a hospital limitation direction under s45A Mental Health Act 1983. | |
| R (K) v West London Mental Health NHS Trust (Court of Appeal) | 89 |
| Issue: Whether a restriction order was lawful | |
| R ((1) Donaldson (2) Barker) v Home Secretary | 100 |
| Issue: Whether a challenge to a decision to medicate a patient should proceed when the question had become academic; whether the statutory provisions allowing compulsory treatment of a capacitated detained patient violated Arts 3, 8 and 14 ECHR. | |
| R (T) v (1) Chief Executive of Nottinghamshire Healthcare NHS Trust (2) Acting Executive Director of Rampton Hospital (3) Secretary of State for Health (4) Home Secretary | 103 |
| Issue: Whether a magistrate is entitled to impose a condition that only named professionals are involved in the execution of a warrant issued under s135 Mental Health Act 1983 | |
| R v Wang | 109 |
| Issue: Whether a Tribunal should have exercised its discretion to discharge on an application by the patient where the nearest relative’s order for discharge had been barred; whether the Tribunal’s reasons were adequate. | |
| R (Webb-Johnson) v DPP | 111 |
| Issue: Whether a failure to obtain leave in accordance with s139 Mental Health Act 1983 before bringing proceedings in respect of acts purportedly done under the Act rendered the subsequent proceedings a nullity | |
| R (SR) v Mental Health Review Tribunal | 121 |
| Issue: Whether the second hearing in an application to the Mental Health Review Tribunal before a differently constituted tribunal panel was fair. | |
| R (B) v (1) Dr SS (2) Dr G (3) Secretary of State for the Health Department | 131 |
| Issue: Whether detention in prison pending a place being found in a secure psychiatric institution breached Art 5 of the European Convention. | |
| Wilkinson v UK | 142 |
| Issue: Whether detention in prison pending a place being found in a secure psychiatric institution breached Art 5 of the European Convention. | |
| R (DB) v Home Secretary | 158 |
| Issue: Whether the transfer of a prisoner from hospital back to prison violated Art 5 of the European Convention | |
| R (Home Secretary) v Mental Health Tribunal (BR as Interested Party) (Administrative Court) | 168 |
| Issue: Whether a tribunal decision to discharge a patient detained under s37 Mental Health Act 1983 because it was not satisfied that the dangerousness criteria in s72(1)(b)(iii) of the 1983 Act were met was lawful. | |
| R (Home Secretary) v Mental Health Tribunal (BR as Interested Party) (Court of Appeal) | 172 |
| Issue: Whether a failure by hospital managers to give sufficient reasons for their decision rendered that decision unlawful. | |
| R v Rogerson | 175 |
| Issue: Whether there was sufficient evidence for the imposition of a restriction order where a defendant was unfit to plead; the requirements for making such an order. | |
| R v Nafei | 176 |
| Issue: Whether a Mental Health Review Tribunal’s reasons for its decision to direct the conditional discharge of a patient were sufficient. | |
| R v Reid | 180 |
| Issue: Whether a sentence of imprisonment should be substituted by a hospital order under s37 Mental Health Act 1983 | |
| R v Bainton | 183 |
| Issue: Whether detention and forced medical treatment which had not been sanctioned by the domestic courts violated Arts 3, 5, and 8 of the Convention; whether the State was responsible for detention at a private clinic; whether proceedings before national courts in respect of that detention had violated Arts 6 and 8 of the Convention; compensation. | |
| R v Staines | 184 |
| Issue: Whether Art 5 European Convention was breached by delay in the consideration of a patient’s case by a Mental Health Review Tribunal after a deferred conditional discharge | |
| R v Bryan | 197 |
| Issue: Whether the provisions of the Mental Health Act 1983 relating to the deferred conditional discharge of restricted patients are compatible with Art 5 European Convention | |
| Drew v UK | 203 |
| Issue: Whether public authorities responsible for the provision of s117 after-care to a conditionally discharged patient had breached their duty by delay; whether they were liable under s47 National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990; whether the patient’s rights under Arts 5 and 8 ECHR had been infringed; damages. | |
| Ronald Harry Bailey (by his sister & litigation friend Janet Ashton) v Matthew George Warren | 211 |
| Issue: Whether a hospital policy on seclusion that departed from the Code of Practice to the Mental Health Act 1983 was lawful; the status of the Code of Practice. | |
| Folks v Faizey | 239 |
| Issue: The requirements of Art 5 European Convention in relation to patients without capacity detained under s2 Mental Health Act 1983 and patients detained under s2 pending an application to displace their nearest relative in the county court. | |
| R v Hendy | 244 |
| Issue: Whether a displacement order under s29 Mental Health Act 1983 was correct. | |
| Lebrooy v LB Hammersmith & Fulham & Others | 253 |
| Issue: Whether treatment with anti-psychotic medication violated a detained patient’s rights under Arts 3 and 8 of the Convention. | |
| R v Khelifi | 257 |
| Issue: Whether the treatment without consent of a detained patient was lawful. | |
| Panteleyenko v Ukraine | 261 |
| Issue: Whether a sentence of custody for life was appropriate where the offender suffered from a mental disorder | |
| R v Golding | 272 |
| Issue: Whether medical treatment could lawfully be given to a detained patient without his consent. | |
| R (OS) v Home Secretary | 275 |
| Issue: Whether managers considering whether to uphold a decision to bar a nearest relative’s discharge had considered their residual discretion not to discharge even if the criteria for a barring order were not made out; whether the conclusion that the barring order criteria were not made out was rational. | |
| Stone v South East Coast Strategic Health Authority and Others | 288 |
| Issue: Whether managers considering whether to uphold a decision to bar a nearest relative’s discharge had considered their residual discretion not to discharge even if the criteria for a barring order were not made out; whether the conclusion that the barring order criteria were not made out was rational. | |
| R v Leigers | 301 |
| Issue: Whether managers considering whether to uphold a decision to bar a nearest relative’s discharge had considered their residual discretion not to discharge even if the criteria for a barring order were not made out; whether the conclusion that the barring order criteria were not made out was rational. | |
| R (JB) v Drs Haddock, Rigby and Wood | 306 |
| Issue: Whether managers considering whether to uphold a decision to bar a nearest relative’s discharge had considered their residual discretion not to discharge even if the criteria for a barring order were not made out; whether the conclusion that the barring order criteria were not made out was rational. | |
| R v David Whitnall | 318 |
| Issue: Whether managers considering whether to uphold a decision to bar a nearest relative’s discharge had considered their residual discretion not to discharge even if the criteria for a barring order were not made out; whether the conclusion that the barring order criteria were not made out was rational. | |
| Gajcsi v Hungary | 322 |
| Issue: Whether managers considering whether to uphold a decision to bar a nearest relative’s discharge had considered their residual discretion not to discharge even if the criteria for a barring order were not made out; whether the conclusion that the barring order criteria were not made out was rational. | |
| R (O) v Mental Health Review Tribunal | 326 |
| Issue: Whether managers considering whether to uphold a decision to bar a nearest relative’s discharge had considered their residual discretion not to discharge even if the criteria for a barring order were not made out; whether the conclusion that the barring order criteria were not made out was rational. | |
| R v David William Beatty | 333 |
| Issue: Whether managers considering whether to uphold a decision to bar a nearest relative’s discharge had considered their residual discretion not to discharge even if the criteria for a barring order were not made out; whether the conclusion that the barring order criteria were not made out was rational. | |
| Kunal Karl Lindsay v Kenneth Arnold Wood | 341 |
| Issue: Whether managers considering whether to uphold a decision to bar a nearest relative’s discharge had considered their residual discretion not to discharge even if the criteria for a barring order were not made out; whether the conclusion that the barring order criteria were not made out was rational. | |
| Buck and Others v Nottinghamshire Healthcare NHS Trust | 351 |
| Issue: Whether managers considering whether to uphold a decision to bar a nearest relative’s discharge had considered their residual discretion not to discharge even if the criteria for a barring order were not made out; whether the conclusion that the barring order criteria were not made out was rational. | |
| R (MM) v Home Secretary | 358 |
| Issue: Whether managers considering whether to uphold a decision to bar a nearest relative’s discharge had considered their residual discretion not to discharge even if the criteria for a barring order were not made out; whether the conclusion that the barring order criteria were not made out was rational. | |
| R (Care Principles Ltd) v Mental Health Review Tribunal; R (AL) v Care Principles Ltd and Julie Bartlett (ASW) | 365 |
| Issue: Whether managers considering whether to uphold a decision to bar a nearest relative’s discharge had considered their residual discretion not to discharge even if the criteria for a barring order were not made out; whether the conclusion that the barring order criteria were not made out was rational. | |
View as
Sort by
Display
per page
