2002
|
|
Cases Reported |
| R (On the Application of C) v Lincolnshire Health Authority (Administrative Court) | 1 |
| Issue: Whether it was lawful to close a residential complex for those with learning disabilities. | |
| R (On the Application of C) v Lincolnshire Health Authority (Court of Appeal) | 10 |
| Issue: Whether it was lawful to close a residential complex for those with learning disabilities. | |
| R (On the Application of Ashworth Hospital Authority) v Mental Health Review Tribunal | 13 |
| Issue: Whether a Tribunal decision to discharge a patient was reasonable and adequately reasoned; whether the re-sectioning of the patient was proper in light of the Tribunal order. | |
| R (On the Application of Wirral Health Authority and Wirral Borough Council) v (1) Mental Health Review Tribunal (2) Dr Finnegan; DE as Interested Party | 34 |
| Issue: Whether the quashing of a Tribunal decision to discharge caused the underlying order to revive. | |
| R v Mark Skermer | 40 |
| Issue: Whether a custodial sentence was appropriate in light of the medical evidence. | |
| R v Heather Grant | 41 |
| Issue: Whether the procedures under the Criminal Procedure (Insanity) Act 1964 breached Arts 5 and 6 European Convention in relation to a defendant charged with murder. | |
| R (On the Application of John Kenneally) v Snaresbrook Crown Court | 53 |
| Issue: Whether an order made by a Crown Court judge under s51 Mental Health Act 1983 should be quashed. | |
| R v Theresa Mary Stevens | 63 |
| Issue: Whether a custodial sentence was appropriate for an offence of theft in breach of trust in light of the medical evidence. | |
| R v James Anthony Drew | 65 |
| Issue: Whether the imposition of an automatic life sentence for a second serious offence breached the European Convention in relation to an offender who qualified for a hospital order. | |
| R (On the Application of N) v Mental Health Review Tribunal | 70 |
| Issue: Whether a Tribunal decision was lawful in light of the evidence that the risk a patient posed could not be quantified; whether the reasons were adequate. | |
| R (On the Application of IH) v Nottinghamshire Healthcare NHS Trust and Others | 77 |
| 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 | |
| R (On the Application of IH) v (1) Secretary of State for the Home Department (2) Secretary of State for Health | 87 |
| 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 | |
| R (On the Application of C) v Secretary of State for the Home Department | 105 |
| Issue: Whether the Home Secretary was right to refer a case back to a Tribunal under s71 Mental Health Act 1983 after a deferred conditional discharge. | |
| R (On the Application of S) v Plymouth City Council (Administrative Court) | 111 |
| Issue: Whether it was necessary to disclose social services files in relation to the subject of a guardianship application. | |
| R (On the Application of S) v Plymouth City Council (Court of Appeal) | 118 |
| Issue: Whether it was necessary to disclose social services files in relation to the subject of a guardianship application. | |
| R v Mico Ristic | 129 |
| Issue: Whether a restriction order under s41 Mental Health Act 1983 was required. | |
| R (On the Application of LH) v (1) Mental Health Review Tribunal (2) Secretary of State for Health | 130 |
| Issue: Whether the failure to move a patient from high secure conditions breached Arts 3 and/or 5 European Convention. | |
| R v Alan Cornelius | 134 |
| Issue: Whether an extended licence period was appropriate. | |
| R (On the Application of L) v Mental Health Review Tribunal | 136 |
| Issue: Whether a claim for breach of Art 5 should continue after the Claimant absconded. | |
| Re C (Mental Patient: Habeas Corpus) | 138 |
| Issue: Whether an application for habeas corpus should be permitted to proceed. | |
| R v Neville Gunning | 139 |
| Issue: Whether a sentence of imprisonment or a hospital order should be imposed. | |
| R (On the Application of PG) v (1) LB Ealing (2) Ealing Hospital Mangers (3) Jonathon Scott | 140 |
| Issue: Whether there was a power to order the cross-examination of those involved in determining whether the nearest relative objected to a s3 treatment order. | |
| R v Michael Czarnota | 144 |
| Issue: Whether a restriction order was appropriate. | |
| R (On the Application of PW) v Mental Health Review Tribunal London North and East Region | 146 |
| Issue: Whether the Tribunal’s reasons were adequate; whether a mistake of law as to the status of the patient vitiated the decision. | |
| R (On the Application of E) v Ashworth Hospital Authority | 150 |
| Issue: Whether restrictions on cross-dressing were ultra vires the Mental Health Act 1983 and/or breached Art 8 European Convention. | |
| Martin Masterman-Lister v (1) Jewell (2) Home Counties Dairies (3) Brutton & Co | 161 |
| Issue: Whether the claimant was a patient within the Mental Health Act in relation to his capacity to manage his affairs. | |
| R (On the Application of JW) v Dr G Feggetter and Mental Health Act Commission | 178 |
| Issue: Whether the SOAD is required to give reasons for his or her decision. | |
| R (On the Application of H and others) v The Leonard Cheshire Foundation (Administrative Court) | 185 |
| Issue: Whether a charity was a “public authority” under the Human Rights Act 1998 in relation to its running of a home for disable residents; whether it was amenable to judicial review. | |
| R (On the Application of H and another) v The Leonard Cheshire Foundation (Court of Appeal) | 201 |
| Issue: Whether a charity was a “public authority” under the Human Rights Act 1998 in relation to its running of a home for disable residents; whether it was amenable to judicial review. | |
| HM v Switzerland | 209 |
| Issue: Whether the placement of an elderly women in an old persons’ home because of inadequate care in her home was in breach of Art 5 European Convention. | |
| Edwards v UK | 220 |
| Issue: Whether Arts 2 and 13 European Convention were breached in the killing of a prisoner by another, who was mentally ill. | |
| R (On the Application of Secretary of State for the Home Department) v Mental Health Review Tribunal | 241 |
| Issue: The lawfulness of a discharge from hospital on condition that a patient not leave a hostel without an escort. | |
| R (On the Application of P) v Mental Health Review Tribunal (Administrative Court) | 250 |
| Issue: Whether a Tribunal correctly interpreted the definition of psychopathic disorder. | |
| R (On the Application of P) v Mental Health Review Tribunal (Court of Appeal) | 253 |
| Issue: Whether a Tribunal correctly interpreted the definition of psychopathic disorder. | |
| R (On the Application of the Home Secretary) v Mental Health Review Tribunal; G as Interested Party | 260 |
| Issue: Whether a Tribunal erred in requiring a hospital to prove a patient suffered from psychopathic disorder, or in failing to consider whether a discharge should be conditional as opposed to absolute. | |
| R (On the Application of C and Others) v Brent, Kensington and Chelsea and Westminster Health NHS Trust | 265 |
| Issue: Whether the closure of a home breached the patients’ legitimate expectations or rights under Art 8 European Convention. | |
| R (On the Application of T) v Mental Health Review Tribunal | 275 |
| Issue: Whether a Tribunal was able to supply information on the conditions of discharge of a restricted patient to the former partner of the patient. | |
| R (On the Application of H) v Oxfordshire Mental Healthcare Trust | 282 |
| Issue: Whether a decision to redetain a discharged patient was lawful; whether the reasons given were adequate. | |
| R (On the Application of Dillon) v Secretary of State for the Home Department | 293 |
| Issue: Whether a prisoner repatriated from Denmark under an order of “safe custody” should be detained under the Mental Health Act 1983 or as a discretionary life sentence prisoner. | |
| R (On the Application of A) v Partnerships in Care Limited | 298 |
| Issue: Whether the decision of a private hospital to change the focus of a ward was amenable to judicial review or subject to the Human Rights Act 1998. | |
| R (On the Application of P) v Barking Youth Court | 304 |
| Issue: The procedure to be followed in relation to summary-only offences where a defendant is not fit to stand trial. | |
| R v Frank Johnson | 308 |
| Issue: Whether a 1976 conviction was unsafe in light of fresh evidence that the defendant had not been fit to stand trial. | |
| 1. R (On the Application of Ashworth Hospital Authority) v Mental Health Review Tribunal; 2. R (On the Application of H) v Ashworth Hospital Authority | 314 |
| Issue: Whether a Tribunal decision to discharge a patient was reasonable and adequately reasoned; whether the re-sectioning of the patient was proper in light of the Tribunal order. | |
| R (On the Application of B) v Ashworth Hospital Authority | 336 |
| Issue: Whether a patient detained under the classification of mental illness could be treated on a ward for those suffering from personality disorder. | |
| R v Peter Goode | 337 |
| Issue: Whether a restriction order was appropriate; whether the judge was right to express a provisional view. | |
| R (On the Application of M) v Ashworth Hospital Authority | 344 |
| Issue: The lawfulness of the seclusion policy in operation at Ashworth Hospital. | |
| R (On the Application of H) v (1) Mental Health Review Tribunal (2) Secretary of State for Health | 362 |
| Issue: Whether a Tribunal’s decision not to recommend the transfer of a patient to a location closer to his home was lawful and adequately reasoned. | |
| Petition of WM | 367 |
| Issue: Whether the administration of medication without consent breached Arts 6, 8 or 14 European Convention. | |
| R v Manchester City Council ex p S and others | 377 |
| Issue: Whether after-care services provided to formerly detained psychiatric patients under s117 Mental Health Act 1983, including accommodation, were to be provided free under that section, or whether it was a gateway to services provided under other statutes for which charges were to be made. | |
| R (On the Application of the Home Secretary) v Mental Health Review Tribunal; PG as Interested Party | 381 |
| Issue: Whether a Tribunal’s reasons were adequate when it granted a deferred conditional discharge whilst assessments were ongoing. | |
| R (On the Application of DR) v Mersey Care NHS Trust | 386 |
| Issue: Whether the renewal of a patient’s detention was lawful in light of the level of in-patient treatment being offered. | |
| South West London and St George’s Mental Health NHS Trust v “W” | 392 |
| Issue: Whether the treatability test was met in relation to a prisoner transferred to hospital at the end of his sentence. | |
| R v Jack Shepherd | 405 |
| Issue: Whether an automatic life sentence should be quashed on the basis of evidence that the defendant was not fit to stand trial. | |
| R v Stephen G | 407 |
| Issue: Whether it was possible to sentence a defendant who had already been made the subject of an order under s51 Mental Health Act 1983; whether the s51 power had been used lawfully. | |
| In Re ‘W’ | 411 |
| Issue: Whether a prisoner was entitled to refuse treatment for self-inflicted wounds. | |
| R v Ayan Mahmood | 416 |
| Issue: Whether a restriction order was appropriate | |
| R v Galfetti | 418 |
| Issue: The impact of an excessive delay in securing a bed to allow a hospital order to be made. | |
| R v Griffith | 427 |
| Issue: Whether a restriction order was appropriate. | |
| R v Joseph Chalk | 430 |
| Issue: Whether a restriction order was appropriate | |
View as
Sort by
Display
per page
