2009
|
|
Cases Reported |
| Dybeku v Albania | 1 |
| Issue: Whether conditions of detention breached Art 3 ECHR in light of the mental illness of a prisoner; whether the rejection of an application to transfer him from prison or release him breached Art 6. | |
| Dodov v Bulgaria | 11 |
| Issue: Whether the disappearance from a nursing home of a patient with Alzheimer’s disease engaged Art 2 ECHR; whether the criminal, disciplinary and civil remedies in domestic law provided an effective remedy under Art 2; whether there were deficiencies in police efforts to locate the patient that breached Art 2; whether the length of civil proceedings breached Art 6. | |
| Renolde v France | 24 |
| Issue: Whether the failure to prevent the suicide of a mentally-ill prisoner breached Art 2 ECHR; whether a disciplinary punishment involving segregation breached Art 3. | |
| Savage v South Essex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust | 41 |
| Issue: Whether the substantive art 2 obligation to protect the life of a detained patient arose when staff know or ought to know that there was a “real and immediate” risk to life. | |
| R (FB) v DPP and Equality and Human Rights Commission | 61 |
| Issue: Whether a decision not to proceed with a prosecution because the victim had a history of mental disorder was irrational and/or breached the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 and/or breached Art 3 ECHR. | |
| R (Blouet) v Bath & Wansdyke Magistrates Court | 71 |
| Issue: The correct process when a defendant might be made subject to a hospital order without a conviction on a summary trial. | |
| Kerrie Francis Gray v Thames Trains Ltd and Network Rail | 73 |
| Issue: Whether a cause of action by a man suffering a mental disorder who committed a manslaughter was barred on public policy grounds. | |
| R v Moyle | 91 |
| Issue: Whether a murder conviction was unsafe on the basis that the defendant had been unfit to stand trial or a verdict of manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility was proper. | |
| R (MN) v Mental Health Review Tribunal | 98 |
| Issue: Whether an application to the Tribunal by a restricted patient continued when the patient’s status changed at the end of the restriction order. | |
| Dorset Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust v MH | 102 |
| Issue: (i) whether the Upper Tribunal could consider an interlocutory order as to disclosure; (ii) the proper approach to questions of disclosure; (iii) the process to be followed in disputes as to disclosure; (iv) whether the First-tier Tribunal could reconsider the direction made by the Deputy Regional Tribunal Judge; and (v) the approach to precedent in the Upper Tribunal | |
| In the Matter of X (No 2) | 109 |
| Issue: Whether the Tribunal could defer the implementation of a discharge based on a finding that the criteria for the detention of a civil patient were no longer met. | |
| Berkova v Slovakia | 115 |
| Issue: Whether the time taken over various court proceedings, including guardianship proceedings, breached Art 6 ECHR; whether the failure to hear from the subject of a guardianship order in proceedings to restore capacity breached Art 6; whether a 3-year restriction on making a further application to restore capacity breached Art 8; the application of Art 13. | |
| R v Peltier | 130 |
| Issue: The appropriate sentence for 3 street robberies in light of the involvement of mental health problems in the offending, the progress made in treatment and the time spent in custody. | |
| R (D) v Secretary of State for Justice | 133 |
| Issue: Whether an injunction preventing the return of a patient to prison should be discharged. | |
| R (Alexander) v Isleworth Crown Court | 136 |
| Issue: Whether the custody time limits should be extended in light of delays in assessing fitness to stand trial | |
| In the Matter of Magowan | 140 |
| Issue: Whether the lack of community care provision for a detained patient breached Arts 5 or 8 ECHR or community care legislation | |
| In re P | 146 |
| Issue: Whether the previous approach to the execution of a will of a patient without capacity applied under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 | |
| In re M | 154 |
| Issue: Whether a nearest relative had objected to the admission of a patient under s3 Mental Health Act 1983 | |
| R v Anderson | 162 |
| Issue: Whether a restriction order under s41 Mental Health Act 1983 was justified. | |
| In the Matter of BS | 167 |
| Issue: Whether an order should be made requiring submission to a medical examination to assess capacity to manage affairs. | |
| R (Varma) v Redbridge Magistrates’ Court | 173 |
| Issue: Whether a conviction imposed at a hearing set to consider whether to impose a hospital order without a conviction was fair; who should bear the costs of the judicial review action. | |
| R (EM and Others) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions | 178 |
| Issue: Whether the differential treatment for the purpose of welfare benefits of prisoners transferred to hospital and patients detained under s3/37 Mental Health Act 1983 was justified. | |
| R v C | 189 |
| Issue: The proper test for capacity to consent to sexual touching. | |
| Re F | 196 |
| Issue: The proper test for making interim orders and directions under s48 Mental Capacity Act 2005. | |
| R (P) v Secretary of State for Justice | 201 |
| Issue: Whether it was necessary to have an inquiry into the self-harming behaviour of a personality-disordered inmate who was not transferred to a psychiatric hospital for some time. | |
| R v Erskine; R v Williams | 215 |
| Issue: Whether old convictions for murder were safe in light of evidence as to mental disorder that might be relevant to a finding of diminished responsibility; the correct approach to such appeals. | |
| R (PP) v Secretary of State for Justice | 236 |
| Issue: Whether a decision to refuse to consent to the transfer of a restricted patient to a less secure setting was reasonable. | |
| R (X) v Secretary of State for Justice | 250 |
| Issue: Whether a decision to refuse to consent to community leave for a restricted patient was reasonable. | |
| W Primary Care Trust v TB | 260 |
| Issue: Whether a patient requiring treatment for mental disorder in a care home that was not registered to give treatment under the Mental Health Act 1983 was ineligible to be detained under the Mental Capacity Act 2005. | |
| R (N) v Secretary of State for Health, R (E) v Nottinghamshire Healthcare NHS Trust (Equality and Human Rights Commission as Intervenor) | 266 |
| Issue: Whether a ban on indoor smoking in a high secure hospital, where outdoor smoking was not practical, breached Arts 8 and/or 14 ECHR; whether a no-smoking policy was being applied inflexibly and so unlawfully. | |
| R v Dass | 288 |
| Issue: Whether a murder conviction should be quashed on the basis of supplemental medical evidence supporting diminished responsibility; whether a disposal under the Mental Health Act 1983 was appropriate. | |
| R v Burridge | 297 |
| Issue: The lawfulness of a hospital direction under s45A Mental Health Act 1983 imposed on a young offender; the appropriate sentence. | |
| R v Haile | 300 |
| Issue: Whether a restriction order under s41 Mental Health Act 1983 was appropriate. | |
| BB v South London & Maudsley NHS Trust and the Ministry of Justice | 302 |
| Issue: Whether the Tribunal’s reasons for its decision not to discharge a patient were adequate; whether its decision should be set aside. | |
| AA v Cheshire and Wirral Partnership NHS Foundation Trust and ZZ | 308 |
| Issue: (i) whether an oral hearing on appeal was required; (ii) whether a litigation friend could be appointed; the approach when patients do not have capacity to give instructions; (iii) whether a review should be carried out by the same tribunal judge whose decision was being questioned; (iv) whether an application made by a patient in detention lapsed if the patient was placed on a Community Treatment Order. | |
| R v Morris | 323 |
| Issue: The appropriate sentence for a man transferred to hospital under s47 Mental Health Act 1983 during appeal proceedings. | |
| R v Ghulam | 325 |
| Issue: Whether a conviction was safe in light of evidence as to fitness to stand trial. | |
| C v Sevenoaks Youth Court | 329 |
| Issue: Whether an intermediary could be appointed for a juvenile defendant with mental health difficulties; the regime for paying such an intermediary; whether a prosecution was fair in light of the defendant’s difficulties. | |
| Independent News and Media Ltd and Others v A | 336 |
| Issue: Whether proceedings in the Court of Protection should be open to the media; the approach to the question. | |
| Johnston v Chief Constable of Merseyside Police | 343 |
| Issue: Whether permission to bring proceedings under s139 Mental Health Act 1983 should be granted; whether there should be a short extension to the limitation period. | |
| R v Cooper | 350 |
| Issue: Whether a restriction order under s41 Mental Health Act 1983 was appropriate. | |
| Phillip & John v R | 352 |
| Issue: The test for insanity in St Lucia. | |
| Re JK: Scottish Ministers v Mental Health Tribunal for Scotland | 360 |
| Issue: The proper approach to the lifting of a restriction order; the adequacy of the reasons given by a Tribunal. | |
| Re MM: Scottish Ministers v Mental Health Tribunal for Scotland | 372 |
| Issue: The proper approach to the lifting of a restriction order; the adequacy of the reasons given by a Tribunal. | |
| KM v Mental Health Tribunal for Scotland, Mrs Jackie Stuart and Dr Pauline Lamour | 384 |
| Issue: Whether the provision of 2 medical reports from doctors employed by the same hospital at which the patient was detained complied with the conflict of interest provisions; whether the test for proceeding despite a conflict involved a subjective or objective assessment of the need to proceed without delay. | |
| R v Andrew Lammy | 390 |
| Issue: Whether a sentence of imprisonment for public protection was justified in light of a dispute as to previous violence and psychiatric evidence. | |
| R v Stanley Frederick Roberts | 395 |
| Issue: Whether imprisonment for public protection was necessary for a man with mental health and alcohol abuse problems who admitted an offence of attempted arson. | |
| R v Wendy Hilda Airey | 398 |
| Issue: Whether a sentence of imprisonment was proper for an offence of arson reckless as to whether life was endangered committed by a women with mental health and alcohol abuse problems. | |
| R (Munday) v Secretary of State | 401 |
| Issue: Whether a decision to recall a conditionally-discharged restricted patient was lawful. | |
View as
Sort by
Display
per page
