2011
|
|
Cases Reported |
| Seal v UK | 1 |
| Issue: Whether there were breaches of Art 6 and/or Art 14 ECHR as a result of the striking out of a claim against the police for the exercise of powers under s136 Mental Health Act 1983 for failing to seek leave under s139 of the Act. | |
| R v Khan, Khan and Khan; Attorney General’s Reference Nos 37, 38 and 65 of 2010 | 14 |
| Issue: Whether a custodial sentence for people trafficking was correct when the offender met the criteria for a hospital order; the effect of the mental disorder on the question of whether a sentence should be increased as unduly lenient. | |
| R (Public Interest Lawyers and RMNJ Solicitors) v Legal Services Commission | 17 |
| Issue: The lawfulness of the process of tendering for legal aid contracts in public law and mental health law. | |
| DL v South London & Maudsley NHS Trust Foundation & Secretary of State for Justice | 34 |
| Issue: Whether a decision not to grant an absolute discharge was adequately reasoned. | |
| Secretary of State for Justice v RB | 37 |
| Issue: The relationship of the Upper Tribunal to the Court of Appeal and the High Court in terms of precedent; whether a conditional discharge under s73 Mental Health Act 1983 was unlawful if the conditions amounted to a deprivation of liberty for the purposes of Art 5 ECHR; whether a Tribunal had been entitled to discharge. | |
| R v Coonan (formerly Sutcliffe) | 49 |
| Issue: Whether a whole life tariff was appropriate for a man who committed multiple murders; the approach to mitigation on grounds of mental disorder when the jury had rejected a claim of diminished responsibility. | |
| R v Coonan (formerly Sutcliffe) | 55 |
| Issue: Whether a whole life tariff was appropriate for a man who committed multiple murders; the approach to mitigation on grounds of mental disorder when the jury had rejected a claim of diminished responsibility. | |
| R (SP) v Secretary of State for Justice | 65 |
| Issue: Whether a transfer direction under s47 Mental Health Act 1983 was lawful in light of the failure of one doctor providing a report to express the view that appropriate treatment was available. | |
| R v Welsh | 71 |
| Issue: Whether a life sentence was proper in relation to a conviction for manslaughter on grounds of diminished responsibility when the criteria for a hospital order were met. | |
| JLG v Managers of Llanarth Court and Secretary of State for Justice | 74 |
| Issue: Whether a tribunal decision erred in law for failing to mention various matters of law, giving inadequate reasons and not explaining why detention was proportionate. | |
| R (Hertfordshire County Council) v LB Hammersmith and Fulham (JM as Interested Party) | 76 |
| Issue: Which local authority was responsible for funding aftercare for a patient who had been detained under s3 Mental Health Act 1983. | |
| AH v West London MHT and Secretary of State for Justice (Final) | 85 |
| Issue: Whether a request for a public hearing in a mental health case before a Tribunal should be allowed. | |
| LB Hillingdon v Steven Neary and Mark Neary | 89 |
| Issue: Whether representatives of the media should be allowed to attend Court of Protection proceedings; the information they should be allowed to publish. | |
| R v Maynard | 93 |
| Issue: Whether a sentence of life imprisonment was proper in light of the appellant’s refusal to cooperate with assessments for a hospital disposal and the danger he posed; the proper minimum term. | |
| R v Lizzy Henz | 96 |
| Issue: Whether a hospital order should be substituted for a sentence of imprisonment. | |
| R v David Hempston | 99 |
| Issue: Whether a hospital order with a restriction order should be substituted for a sentence of life imprisonment imposed in 1978. | |
| R v O | 106 |
| Issue: Whether a hospital order with a restriction order should be substituted for a sentence of life imprisonment imposed in 1998. | |
| In re MIG and MEG: Surrey County Council v CA, LA, MIG and MEG | 108 |
| Issue: Whether there was a deprivation of liberty in the placement in a foster home or a small group home of young people with severe learning disabilities; the principles applicable to whether such settings amounted to a deprivation of liberty. | |
| P and Q (aka MIG and MEG) v Surrey County Council, CA and LA | 125 |
| Issue: Whether there was a deprivation of liberty in a placement in a foster home or a small group home of young people with severe learning disabilities; the principles applicable to whether such settings amounted to a deprivation of liberty. | |
| Re T (A child: murdered parent) | 133 |
| Issue: Whether a conditionally discharged restricted patient who had killed his partner should be allowed contact with the child of the couple; the relationship between a Tribunal order and the Family Court’s powers; whether the Family Court should make orders that mirrored Tribunal-imposed conditions. | |
| MP v Mersey Care NHS Trust | 146 |
| Issue: Whether a decision to set aside a discharge on the basis of a comment by the Tribunal that consideration should be given to a community treatment order was lawful. | |
| CM v DHNHSFT and Secretary of State for Justice | 153 |
| Issue: Whether the upholding of detention on the basis of the nature of the patient’s disorder was rational. | |
| R v Taher Ahmed Chowdhury | 157 |
| Issue: Whether a restriction order was necessary; undertakings from a patient to deal with risks posed. | |
| PS v Camden and Islington NHS Foundation Trust | 159 |
| Issue: Whether a reference made on the revocation of a Community Treatment Order lapsed when the patient was placed on a fresh CTO; whether a letter complaining about a Tribunal decision should be treated as an application to the Tribunal. | |
| R v MB | 163 |
| Issue: Whether a trial of the facts in relation to a defendant who was unfit to stand trial jointly with a trial of the guilt of co-defendants was unfair in light of attacks by co-defendants on the unfit defendant. | |
| R (TTM (By his Litigation Friend TM)) v LB Hackney and East London NHS Foundation Trust | 171 |
| Issue: Whether a patient released from detention under s3 Mental Health Act 1983 on a grant of habeas corpus based on a finding that the nearest relative had not withdrawn his objection was entitled to a declaration that his detention had been unlawful; whether damages should be awarded for this detention or for breaches of Arts 5 and/or 8 ECHR; whether the requirement of leave under s139 of the 1983 Act to bring a claim for damages was compatible with Art 6 ECHR; whether it had been proper to make use of 2 medical recommendations from doctors without previous acquaintance with the patient; whether a local authority is liable for the actions of an Approved Mental Health Professional and so a party to a potential action for damages. | |
| R v Creed | 186 |
| Issue: Whether the propensity evidence provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 applied to the determination of whether a defendant who was unfit to stand trial had committed the actus reus of the offence charged. | |
| TR v Ludlow Street Healthcare Ltd | 190 |
| Issue: The correct route to challenge a case management decision by a Tribunal; whether permission to appeal should be granted in relation to decisions not to order disclosure and adjourn a hearing. | |
| KL v Somerset Partnership NHS Foundation Trust | 194 |
| Issue: Whether there was adequate treatment in hospital to justify liability to detention. | |
| R (Cart) v Upper Tribunal; R (MR (Pakistan) v Upper Tribunal | 196 |
| Issue: The extent to which decisions by the Upper Tribunal were amenable to judicial review. | |
| R v McKenzie | 220 |
| Issue: Whether findings that a defendant who was unfit to stand trial had committed the acts of various sexual offences were safe; the use of propensity evidence. | |
| P v Independent Print and Others | 226 |
| Issue: Whether the judge had erred in hearing an application by the media to attend a hearing in the Court of Protection without proper notice; whether he had erred in the decision to allow them to attend; the role of the best interests of the subject of the proceedings in such a decision. | |
| R (NM) v Secretary of State for Justice | 235 |
| Issue: Whether an investigation into a sexual assault on a prisoner with learning difficulties was adequate. | |
| MB v BEH MH NHST & Secretary of State for Justice | 246 |
| Issue: Whether an indication that an application for discharge would not succeed and a suggestion that it be withdrawn breached natural justice; whether a remedy should be granted. | |
| DN v Northumberland Tyne & Wear NHS Foundation Trust | 249 |
| Issue: Whether a Tribunal decision was adequately reasoned; the interplay between the Mental Health Act 1983 and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards under the Mental Capacity Act 2005. | |
| R v Abdi | 256 |
| Issue: Whether a restriction order under s41 Mental Health Act 1983 was proper. | |
| In re A and In re C | 258 |
| Issue: Whether locked bedrooms in a domestic setting, designed to protect a child and an adult with learning disabilities and behavioural problems, amounted to a deprivation of liberty under Art 5 ECHR; whether there was any state responsibility. | |
| Massie v H | 288 |
| Issue: The proper appeal route in relation to the displacement of a nearest relative under s29 Mental Health Act 1983 | |
| CL v Board of State Hospital | 290 |
| Issue: Whether there had been adequate consultation before a new policy prohibiting patients receiving food from visitors or outside sources had been introduced; whether the policy breached Art 8 ECHR. | |
| RB v Nottinghamshire Healthcare NHS Trust (Merits) | 296 |
| Issue: Whether a decision not to reconvene when a recommendation for transfer had not been followed was adequately reasoned. | |
| RB v Nottinghamshire Healthcare NHS Trust (Costs) | 299 |
| Issue: Whether the Upper Tribunal could award costs against the First-tier Tribunal. | |
| R (Elham Modaresi) v Secretary of State for Health, First-Tier Tribunal (Mental Health), West London Mental Health NHS Trust | 300 |
| Issue: Whether the failure of the Trust to process an application for a s2 Tribunal made just before a public holiday, such that the right to apply was lost, was unreasonable; whether the application should have been treated as received in time; whether the Secretary of State acted unreasonably in declining to make a reference to the Tribunal. | |
| R (Elham Modaresi) v Secretary of State for Health, First-Tier Tribunal (Mental Health), West London Mental Health NHS Trust | 311 |
| Issue: Whether the failure of the Trust to process an application for a s2 Tribunal made just before a public holiday, such that the right to apply was lost, was unreasonable; whether the application should have been treated as received in time; whether the Secretary of State acted unreasonably in declining to make a reference to the Tribunal. | |
| R (Gary Baisden) v Leicester City Council | 317 |
| Issue: Whether an assessment that there was no duty to provide accommodation under s117 Mental Health Act 1983 was arguably irrational. | |
| S v South West London and St George’s NHS Mental Health Trust | 322 |
| Issue: Whether a working diagnosis of bi-polar affective disorder and a decision to use ss5 and 2 Mental Health Act 1983 was negligent; whether damage was proved. | |
| RN v Curo Care | 337 |
| Issue: Whether a Tribunal decision should be set aside for refusal to consider and/or explain the reasons for not recommending consideration of release on a Community Treatment Order. | |
| CX v A Local Authority | 339 |
| Issue: Whether a patient’s detention under s3 Mental Health Act 1983 was unlawful because the nearest relative was misled about her rights to object which vitiated her decision not to do so. | |
| In Re JR 49 | 351 |
| Issue: Whether a decision to transfer a detained juvenile patient from Northern Ireland to a specialist service in England was lawful; the approach to the statutory test of whether a transfer “appears” to be in the “interests” of the patient. | |
| R v Annette Hopkins; R v Margaret Priest | 357 |
| Issue: Whether the defendants had been convicted properly of wilful neglect of a person lacking capacity; the elements of the offence. | |
| Hadžić and Suljić v Bosnia and Herzegovina | 367 |
| Issue: Whether detentions were in breach of Art 5(1)(e) ECHR. | |
| R (Sunderland City Council) v South Tyneside Council | 374 |
| Issue: Whether and in what circumstances admission to hospital may alter a patient’s place of residence for the purposes of s117(3) Mental Health Act 1983, so as to change the local authority responsible for the provision of aftercare under that section. | |
| Manchester City Council v G, E and F | 381 |
| Issue: Whether the local authority that was responsible for breaching the Art 5 and 8 ECHR rights of a learning-disabled adult by removing him from his carer and placing him in a residential placement without an order under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 should have been ordered to pay costs in Court of Protection proceedings. | |
| G v MHTS | 387 |
| Issue: Whether it was appropriate not to make an order that efforts be made to find an alternative hospital for a patient who did not need to be detained in high secure conditions. | |
| DP v Hywel DDA Health Board | 394 |
| Issue: Whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to consider a purported application by a nearest relative under s66(1)(g) Mental Health Act 1983 after a barring order had been withdrawn because it was not accepted that the person was the nearest relative. | |
| S v Estonia | 396 |
| Issue: Whether detention was in breach of Art 5(1)(e) ECHR. | |
| LB Hillingdon v Neary and Neary (Merits) | 404 |
| Issue: Whether the placement in a care home of a young adult without capacity was with the consent of his father; whether it amounted to a deprivation of liberty; whether DOLS authorisations were lawful; whether Arts 5(1), 5(4) and 8 ECHR were breached; the liability of a supervisory authority under the DOLS regime. | |
| Cheshire West & Chester Council v P (by his litigation friend, the Official Solicitor) | 430 |
| Issue: Whether a regime to manage the treatment, care and residence of an adult lacking capacity to decide on such matters and who presented with challenging behaviour was a deprivation of liberty | |
View as
Sort by
Display
per page
