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
