2015
|
|
Cases Reported |
| R (Dale Lee-Hirons) v Secretary of State for Justice | 1 |
| Issue: Whether written reasons for recalling a conditionally-discharged patient are necessary at common law and/or under Art 5 ECHR; whether a breach of the duty to supply adequate reasons promptly rendered detention unlawful. | |
| R v Fox (Wayne Anthony) | 12 |
| Issue: Whether imprisonment for public protection, combined with hospital and limitation directions under s45A Mental Health Act 1983, was wrong in principle in light of the role of undiagnosed mental disorder in the offending; whether the minimum term set was manifestly excessive. | |
| R v Peter Quirk | 22 |
| Issue: Whether a custodial sentence was proper in light of the defendant’s mental disorder; whether the minimum term imposed as part of a sentence of life imprisonment was excessive. | |
| R (LV) v Secretary of State for Justice and Parole Board | 29 |
| Issue: Whether a process of reviewing the ongoing detention of an indeterminate sentence prisoner transferred to hospital under ss47/49 Mental Health Act 1983 which took 22 months breached Art 5(4) ECHR. | |
| R (Wiltshire Council) v Hertfordshire County Council | 41 |
| Issue: Whether the residence of a conditionally discharged patient changed for the purposes of funding aftercare provision to that of the location of a hostel in which he resided as a condition of discharge. | |
| Re SC | 44 |
| Issue: Whether a Tribunal decision not to discharge a patient misapplied the law, including by placing the burden of proof on the patient, or rested on inadequate reasons. | |
| MH v Mental Health Review Tribunal for Northern Ireland | 53 |
| Issue: MH v Mental Health Review Tribunal for Northern Ireland | |
| Re RS | 61 |
| Issue: Whether decisions to detain a patient for assessment and then for treatment were lawful; whether Arts 5 and 8 ECHR were breached; whether it had been necessary to specify changed conditions since a Tribunal-ordered release. | |
| K (by his litigation friend, L) v Hospital Managers of the Kingswood Centre | 68 |
| Issue: Whether notice of a faxed nearest relative application to discharge was received when the fax was received by the hospital or when the application was read by the authorised administrator, and so whether a barring order made more than 72 hours after receipt of the fax was valid. | |
| K (by his litigation friend, L) v Hospital Managers of the Kingswood Centre and Central and North West London NHS Foundation Trust | 75 |
| Issue: Whether notice of a faxed nearest relative application to discharge was received when the fax was received by the hospital or when the application was read by the authorised administrator, and so whether a barring order made more than 72 hours after receipt of the fax was valid. | |
| R (M) v Kingston Crown Court; M v Wells Unit, West London Mental Health Trust | 79 |
| Issue: Whether s35 Mental Health Act 1983 allowed the defendant to be detained for a prosecution expert to confirm her view as to an issue arising in the trial. | |
| R v Matthew Poole | 84 |
| Issue: The propriety of a limitation direction under s45A Mental Health Act 1983 and of a victim surcharge order. | |
| HK v Llanarth Court Hospital | 88 |
| Issue: The adequacy of the reasons of the Tribunal. | |
| R v Jade Louise Daniels | 91 |
| Issue: Whether a restriction order was necessary. | |
| R (Worcester County Council) v Essex County Council | 93 |
| Issue: Which local authority was responsible for funding aftercare for a patient who had been placed in care in a hospital before being detained there under s2 and s3 Mental Health Act 1983. | |
| R v Tomasz Jagnieszko | 99 |
| Issue: Whether the defendant’s proof of evidence should have been admitted into evidence in a trial of the facts after a finding of unfitness to stand trial. | |
| R v MB | 105 |
| Issue: Whether a finding that the defendant committed the act of voyeurism was safe; the issues to be investigated on a trial of the facts under s4A Criminal Procedure (Insanity) Act 1964; whether a Sexual Offences Prevention Order was necessary. | |
| Attorney General’s Reference No 117 of 2014, R v Miles Gregory Balogh | 119 |
| Issue: Whether a suspended sentence for an offence of rape was unduly lenient in light of various features, including mental disorder; the approach to sentencing guidelines when an offender has a mental disorder. | |
| Lee Bostridge v Oxleas NHS Foundation Trust | 127 |
| Issue: Whether nominal damages for false imprisonment were proper when a patient was unlawfully detained in light of a misunderstanding of legal powers, was unaware of the unlawfulness, and would have been detained under proper procedures in any event. | |
| AMA v Greater Manchester West Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust and Others | 133 |
| Issue: Whether a Tribunal had properly allowed an application to withdraw made by a patient’s welfare deputy; the proper approach when issues of capacity are raised before a Tribunal. | |
| B v Romania (No 2) | 144 |
| Issue: Whether admissions to a psychiatric hospital breached Art 8 ECHR; whether taking into care children of a person with mental disorder breached Art 8. | |
| YA v Central and NW London NHS Trust and Others | 164 |
| Issue: The proper approach when issues of capacity to appoint a legal representative are raised before a Tribunal | |
| Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v Romania | 176 |
| Issue: Whether the circumstances of the death of a man with learning disabilities and HIV breached Arts 2, 3, 5, 8, 13 and 14 ECHR; the standing of a non-governmental organisation to bring a claim on behalf of the deceased victim. | |
| Ivinović v Croatia | 217 |
| Issue: Whether the process leading to a partial deprivation of capacity breached Art 8 ECHR. | |
| MS v Croatia | 226 |
| Issue: Whether Art 8 ECHR was breached by the termination of a private prosecution in relation to an assault on the basis of the complainant's alleged lack of capacity; whether commencing proceedings to divest a person of capacity breached Art 8. | |
| Biziuk v Poland (No 2) | 239 |
| Issue: Whether detention in a psychiatric hospital breached Art 5(1)(e) ECHR; whether delays in considering applications for release breached Art 5(4). | |
| Zagidulina v Russia | 246 |
| Issue: Whether an order for detention made without the participation of the detainee or her representative was in breach of Art 5(1)(e) ECHR. | |
| Raudevs v Latvia | 257 |
| Issue: Whether detention in a psychiatric hospital arising from a criminal charge declared unconstitutional by the time of detention and resting on out-of-date medical evidence breached Art 5(1) ECHR; whether domestic law was adequate to comply with Art 5(4); whether there was a breach of Art 5(5) in relation to compensation proceedings. | |
| Ruiz Rivera v Switzerland | 269 |
| Issue: Whether there was a breach of Art 5(4) ECHR when detention resting on mental disorder was ordered to continue in 2004 on the basis of a psychiatric report from 2001 to the effect that the disorder was little changed from a 1995 assessment. | |
| Anatoliy Rudenko v Ukraine | 278 |
| Issue: Whether pre-trial detention was excessive in length and subject to adequate safeguards for the purposes of Arts 5(3) and (4) ECHR; whether orders for detention in a psychiatric hospital were based on adequate evidence and procedures for the purposes of Art 5(1)(e). | |
| MS v Croatia (No 2) | 294 |
| Issue: Whether overnight restraint of a person admitted to a psychiatric hospital breached Art 3 ECHR; whether there was an adequate investigation under Art 3; whether there were adequate protections against arbitrary detention under Art 5. | |
| R v Martin Clayton | 325 |
| Issue: Whether adequate mitigation had been allowed for mental disorder in the offending of a drug courier. | |
| HM’s Application for Judicial Review | 326 |
| Issue: Whether the absence of a procedure for a patient to change their nearest relative breached Art 8 ECHR; whether the Mental Health (Northern Ireland) Order 1986 could be interpreted compatibly with Art 8. | |
| R v Daniella Smith | 336 |
| Issue: Whether an immediate custodial sentence was required for an offence of aggravated arson committed by a young woman with a personality disorder. | |
| NL v Hampshire County Council | 338 |
| Issue: Whether a Tribunal had wrongly failed to exercise its discretion to discharge a guardianship order on the basis that the patient was deprived of his liberty. | |
| NM v Kent County Council | 343 |
| Issue: Whether a Tribunal had wrongly maintained a guardianship order under s7 Mental Health Act 1983 in relation to a patient subject also to a DOLS order. | |
| AF v Nottinghamshire NHS Trust | 347 |
| Issue: Whether a Tribunal had erred by failing to adjourn for a social circumstances report prepared by a social worker or community psychiatric nurse. | |
| KD v A Borough Council, Department of Health, MK, MAK | 358 |
| Issue: The proper approach when an application is made to discharge a guardianship order on the basis that arrangements can be made under the MCA in relation to the patient. | |
| Secretary of State for Justice v KC and C Partnership NHS Foundation Trust | 369 |
| Issue: Whether a Tribunal could grant a conditional discharge to a restricted patient that included a condition with a care plan that would involve a deprivation of liberty, the discharge being deferred to allow the Court of Protection to decide whether the care plan was in the best interests of the patient, who did not have capacity in relation to the relevant matters. | |
| SL v Ludlow Street Healthcare | 390 |
| Issue: Whether there was sufficient treatment in hospital to justify ongoing detention under s3 Mental Health Act 1983. | |
| YZ v NHS Trust 1 and NHS Trust 2 | 394 |
| Issue: Whether judicial review proceedings of decisions to decline to offer a particular drug treatment and to transfer a patient to high secure conditions should be permitted to proceed. | |
| Proshkin v Russia | 402 |
| Issue: Whether there were breaches of Art 5(1) ECHR when orders were made for a pre-trial psychiatric report that authorised detention in prison and in hospital; of Art 5(4) when an appeal was not considered; and of Art 6 when a criminal trial was held in the absence of the defendant. | |
| R v Anthony Russell Cox | 417 |
| Issue: Whether the failure to appoint an intermediary for a defendant with mental health and addiction issues rendered a conviction unfair. | |
| R (OP) v Secretary of State for Justice | 421 |
| Issue: Whether the refusal to provide a Registered Intermediary to a defendant with a mental health condition that led to the court requiring an intermediary, leaving the defendant to use a non-registered intermediary, was lawful. | |
| R v Mark Richard Golds | 426 |
| Issue: Whether a conviction for murder despite unchallenged expert evidence supporting diminished responsibility was safe; when was an impairment “substantial” within the statutory test. | |
| R v Scott Jamie Catchpole | 435 |
| Issue: Whether the sentencing judge had lawfully rescinded a sentence of imprisonment and remanded a defendant for a psychiatric report in light of fresh information suggesting risk. | |
| R (Hamberger) v Crown Prosecution Service | 439 |
| Issue: Whether a decision to continue a prosecution in the face of evidence that the defendant’s physical and mental health might be affected adversely was open to challenge by judicial review; the steps available to the trial judge to deal with the risks arising. | |
| Attorney-General’s Reference No 34 of 2014 (R v John Jenkin) | 442 |
| Issue: Whether a minimum term of 6 years under a life sentence imposed for the killing of 2 family members in a situation of diminished responsibility was unduly lenient; the value of the process under the Criminal Justice Act 2003 for fixing a minimum term for murder when there is diminished responsibility. | |
| R v Ali | 446 |
| Issue: Whether a judge could make a confiscation order or make assumptions about a defendant having a criminal lifestyle when he could not participate in the proceedings because of mental disorder. | |
| Charles McCann v State Hospital Board for Scotland | 458 |
| Issue: Whether a ban on smoking in hospitals breached Arts 8 and/or 14 ECHR. | |
| R v Jacqueline Angrave | 476 |
| Issue: Whether a custodial sentence suspended in part for mental health reasons was unduly lenient. | |
| OG v Latvia | 480 |
| Issue: Whether the inability of a detainee to appeal a detention order without acting through his representative breached Art 5(4) ECHR; when the time limit for an application to the ECtHR commences in relation to an order for detention that arguably breaches Art 5(1); whether an order for detention for non-compliance with a court order was lawful for the purposes of Art 5(1)(b) in light of the procedures followed; whether detention some time after the court order was made was lawful for the purposes of Art 5(1)(e). | |
| R v James Atkinson | 492 |
| Issue: Whether a sentence of imprisonment for public protection and the minimum term under it were manifestly excessive in a situation of disagreement as to diagnosis and the impact of mental disorder on the offending conduct. | |
| R v Julie Thomas | 495 |
| Issue: Whether a sentence of 32 months’ imprisonment imposed for a stabbing by a woman who had disengaged from treatment for paranoid schizophrenia was wrong in principle. | |
| R v Guy Turner | 497 |
| Issue: Whether a restriction order under s41 Mental Health Act 1983 was appropriate. | |
| R v Janaway | 499 |
| Issue: Whether orders under ss37/41 Mental Health Act 1983 should be imposed instead of imprisonment for public protection. | |
| R v Janaway – Conviction. | 502 |
| Issue: Fitness to Stand Trial. The appeal against conviction, to which reference is made in para 9, was in front of Elias LJ, Jeremy Baker J and the Recorder of Leeds on 15 May 2014, [2014] EWCA Crim 1073. Elias LJ noted that the application for leave to appeal conviction and sentence was “more than 2 years and 7 months out of time” and had been referred to the Full Court by the single judge (para 1). He noted that this was due to his illness and that it was appropriate to extend time and grant leave to appeal (para 2). Grounds of appeal related to several matters as to the conduct of the trial; the Court found that the judge had fallen into error in directing the jury that they could draw an adverse inference from J’s silence in interview, but that did not impinge on the safety of the conviction, particularly as the jury were told they could draw an adverse inference from his silence at the trial and the fact that the case turned on identification evidence (para 14). He then added, dismissing a ground of appeal based on unfitness to stand trial: | |
| R v Nelson | 503 |
| Issue: Whether an extended sentence was too long; whether mental illness was a mitigating feature. | |
| Lazariu v Romania | 504 |
| Issue: Whether detention ordered by a prosecutor to require a defendant to view a criminal file and then to have an assessment of her mental state breached Art 5 ECHR; whether a photograph of the detainee being taken to hospital breached Art 8. | |
| Attorney-General’s Reference No 91 of 2014 (Joseph Williams) | 518 |
| Issue: Whether imprisonment for 14 years combined with a hospital and limitation direction under s45A Mental Health Act 1983 was unduly lenient for an offence of attempted murder. | |
| R v Craig Maldwyn Anthony Stead | 523 |
| Issue: Whether an order under s45A Mental Health Act 1983 had been made without jurisdiction. | |
| R v Terrence Morgan | 525 |
| Issue: Whether an immediate custodial sentence for an attempted robbery should be replaced by a suspended sentence with a mental health treatment requirement. | |
| R v Maddison Clark (AKA Nancarrow) | 527 |
| Issue: Whether adequate mitigation had been allowed for the impact of learning disability in causing the defendant to participate in a conspiracy to rob. | |
View as
Sort by
Display
per page
