Newsletter

2022

Cases Reported

R v Shanice Atkinson 1
Issue: Whether a defendant detained under s2 Mental Health Act 1983 who pleaded guilty to assaults and criminal damage in hospital should have been allowed to re-open the pleas to raise self-defence; whether the convictions were safe.
 
R v Brennan McGinley and Connor Leo Morris (AG’s Reference under s36 Criminal Justice Act 1988) 8
Issue: Whether sentences for serious offending, including wounding with intent, were unduly lenient, one of the offenders having several mental health problems and both being assessed to pose a high risk to the public.
 
R v Michael Charlton 12
Issue: Whether adequate credit had been given for the mental disorder of a defendant who admitted a robbery with an imitation firearm.
 
R v Francis Junior Wellington (AG’s Reference No 1 of 2021 under s36 Criminal Justice Act 1988) 15
Issue: Whether a sentence of 5 years’ imprisonment for various offences, including drugs offending that presumptively required a sentence of 7 years, by an offender with a mental illness that arose from substance abuse was unduly lenient.
 
R v Bernard Rebelo 22
Issue: Whether a conviction for gross negligence manslaughter for supplying unsafe weight loss supplements that led to the death of a young woman with body dysmorphia who overdosed on them was safe; the correct direction on causation in the context of supplying such supplements to a person with mental health conditions.
 
R (Worcestershire County Council) v Secretary of State for Health and Social Care 33
Issue: If a person who had been detained under s3 Mental Health Act 1983 was placed in a different area as part of an after-care package provided for them under s117 of the 1983 Act, did that change their ordinary residence and who was responsible for after-care services if they were again detained and then discharged and left hospital?
 
R (Worcestershire County Council) v Secretary of State for Health and Social Care 57
Issue: If a person who had been detained under s3 Mental Health Act 1983 was placed in a different area as part of an after-care package provided for them under s117 of the 1983 Act, did that change their ordinary residence and who was responsible for after-care services if they were again detained and then discharged and left hospital?
 
DA v (1) Central and North West London NHS Foundation Trust and (2) Secretary of State for Justice 72
Issue: Whether a decision not to grant an absolute discharge to a conditionally discharged restricted patient was rational, proportionate and adequately reasoned.
 
View as
Sort by
Display per page