2012
|
|
Cases Reported |
| X and Y v Croatia | 1 |
| Issue: Whether proceedings to divest a person of capacity breached Art 6 ECHR; whether the institution of proceedings to divest another person of capacity breached Art 8 | |
| Stanev v Bulgaria | 23 |
| Issue: Whether a placement in a social care home arranged by a local authority guardian of a man declared to have impaired capacity was a deprivation of liberty for the purposes of Art 5 ECHR; whether the conditions of detention breached Arts 3 and/or 13; whether there was a breach of Art 6 in relation to proceedings to restore capacity; whether there was a breach of Art 8. | |
| R v Stead | 58 |
| Issue: Whether a hospital and limitation direction should be added to a sentence of detention. | |
| R v Raymond Chiles | 60 |
| Issue: Whether a restriction order was proper | |
| Rabone and Rabone v Pennine Care NHS Foundation Trust | 66 |
| Issue: Whether the state was under an operational obligation under Art 2 ECHR to voluntary patients who were at real and immediate risk of death; whether parents of the deceased were victims for the purposes of s7(7) Human Rights Act 1998 | |
| Attorney General’s Reference No 54 of 2011 | 87 |
| Issue: Whether the imposition of a hospital order with a restriction order was an unduly lenient sentence. | |
| R v Safdar Haider Shah | 92 |
| Issue: Whether a restriction order was proper. | |
| R (Sawida Sessay) v South London & Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust, Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis | 94 |
| Issue: Whether a person could be removed from her home to a place of safety on the grounds of mental disorder other than under ss135 and 136 Mental Health Act 1983; whether there was a false imprisonment and/or a breach of Art 5 ECHR by confinement for 13 hours without those statutory powers being used; whether the common law defence of necessity applied in relation to detention on the grounds of mental disorder; the role of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. | |
| R v Tania Louise Goucher | 107 |
| Issue: Whether a restriction order was required. | |
| R v Clark | 109 |
| Issue: Whether a custodial sentence should be replaced by a community rehabilitation order with a mental health treatment requirement | |
| Gorobet v Moldova | 113 |
| Issue: Whether Art 5 ECHR was breached by admission to hospital not in accordance with domestic law; whether treatment in hospital breached Art 3; whether a failure to commence criminal proceedings breached Art 6. | |
| R (DM) v Doncaster MBC | 120 |
| Issue: Whether charges for accommodation for a person detained under DOLS were lawful; whether accommodation was provided under s21 National Assistance Act 1948; whether there should be a different conclusion in light of s3 Human Rights Act 1998 and Art 14 ECHR and Art 1 of Protocol 1. | |
| Secretary of State for Justice v RB | 131 |
| Issue: 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. | |
| Coombs v Dorset NHS Primary Care Trust and Nottingham Healthcare NHS Trust | 144 |
| Issue: Whether a patient detained under the Mental Health Act 1983 could pay for treatment. | |
| R v Stephen Andrew Dowds | 153 |
| Issue: Whether acute involuntary intoxication was a “recognised medical condition” capable of reducing murder to manslaughter on the basis of diminished responsibility. | |
| R (W) v Dr Fintan Larkin and Secretary of State for Justice | 161 |
| Issue: Whether a recommendation that a transferred prisoner be returned to prison was lawful; whether a warrant of transfer was lawful. | |
| Tomašić and Others v Croatia | 167 |
| Issue: Whether the authorities’ failure to protect lives from acts of a man with a personality disorder breached the substantive obligations under Art 2 ECHR; whether the procedural obligation under Art 2 was breached by the failure to conduct an effective investigation into state responsibility. | |
| Bik v Russia | 181 |
| Issue: Whether there was a breach of Art 5(1) ECHR when domestic time limits for an order for detention were not met; the requirements as to time limits when liberty was in question. | |
| Sabeva v Bulgaria | 186 |
| Issue: Whether the conditions of detention in a hospital breached Art 3 ECHR; whether the process of detention breached Art 5. | |
| Witek v Poland | 196 |
| Issue: Whether there were breaches of Arts 5(1) and/or 5(4) ECHR in light of the lack of updated evidence as to a detainee’s condition and the delay in hearing an appeal. | |
| C (by his litigation friend, the Official Solicitor) v Blackburn with Darwen BC, a Care Home and Blackburn with Darwen Teaching Care Trust | 202 |
| Issue: C (by his litigation friend, the Official Solicitor) v Blackburn with Darwen BC, a Care Home and Blackburn with Darwen Teaching Care Trust | |
| DD v Lithuania | 209 |
| Issue: Whether there were breaches of Arts 5 and 6 ECHR in relation to guardianship proceedings and admission to hospital; whether forced treatment breached Art 3 ECHR | |
| DC v Nottinghamshire Healthcare NHS Trust and the Secretary of State for Justice | 238 |
| Issue: Whether an adjournment rather than the granting of a deferred conditional discharge was proper; the relationship between the two powers. | |
| DD v Durham County Council and Middlesbrough City Council | 245 |
| Issue: Whether leave to bring proceedings, in accordance with s139 Mental Health Act 1983, should be given; the role of an AMHP in deciding the hospital in which a patient should be detained; whether one local authority can be responsible for an AMHP employed by another authority. | |
| R v John Robert Parkins | 249 |
| Issue: Whether a restriction order was proper | |
| R (GP) v Derby City Council | 252 |
| Issue: Whether an AMHP had been plainly wrong to determine that consultation with a nearest relative would have involved unreasonable delay. | |
| MS v UK | 259 |
| Issue: Whether there was a breach of Art 3 ECHR in delays in admitting a mentally unwell person to hospital and holding them in a police station; whether the failure to grant a remedy in domestic proceedings breached Art 13; remedy. | |
| R v Alan Kenneth Levey | 268 |
| Issue: Whether the minimum term of a life sentence for murder was too high in light of, inter alia, the defendant’s personality disorder and the effect of the delay to a guilty plea whilst evidence was being sought as to a potential issue of diminished responsibility. | |
| DL v A Local Authority and Others | 271 |
| Issue: Whether the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court in relation to vulnerable adult who had capacity survived the introduction of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 | |
| R (RW) v Secretary of State for Justice | 288 |
| Issue: Whether it was lawful to return a prisoner from hospital to prison 6 months after his detention in hospital had been upheld by a Tribunal and it was accepted that ongoing treatment could be given in hospital; whether Art 3 ECHR was breached. | |
| EC v Birmingham and Solihull Mental Health NHS Trust | 292 |
| Issue: Whether it was possible to appeal the failure of a Tribunal not to make an extra-statutory recommendation as to transfer or leave in the case of a restricted patient or the failure to give reasons as to the absence of such a recommendation. | |
| R v Shaun Edward Tudor | 300 |
| Issue: Whether a sentence of imprisonment for public protection was improper as a judge had declined to adjourn to allow a further medical report, the report available having concluded that the defendant had an untreatable mental disorder | |
| CNWL NHS Foundation Trust v H-JH | 305 |
| Issue: Whether a decision to discharge a CTO order, and to defer that discharge, was lawful. | |
| R v Jamie Petrolini | 308 |
| Issue: Whether a conviction for murder was unsafe in light of updated medical evidence | |
| R v B | 310 |
| Issue: Whether an interview of a defendant found unfit to stand trial should have been excluded from the trial of the facts | |
| R v Darren John Yates | 313 |
| Issue: Whether a sentence of imprisonment for public protection on a defendant with schizophrenia was proper; the appropriate minimum term. | |
| X v Finland | 318 |
| Issue: Whether detention in a psychiatric hospital for the purpose of obtaining a medical report and for treatment breached Art 5 ECHR; whether action taken in criminal proceedings, including the appointment of a trustee, breached Art 6; whether forced medication breached Art 8. | |
| R v Carlton Fitzwarren Channer | 350 |
| Issue: Whether fresh evidence as to diagnosis meant that it was proper to replace a sentence of imprisonment for public protection with hospital and restriction orders | |
| Munjaz v UK | 351 |
| Issue: Whether there were breaches of Arts 3, 5, 8 and 14 ECHR arising from the use of seclusion in accordance with a hospital policy which was different from national guidance in the processes followed. | |
| Claire Selwood v Durham County Council, Tees, Esk and Wear Valleys NHS Foundation Trust and Northumberland, Tyne and Wear NHS Foundation Trust | 373 |
| Issue: Whether there was an arguable duty of care to a social worker employed by a local authority who was attacked by an informal patient allowed leave from hospital in light of joint working arrangements; whether there was an arguable claim under Art 2 ECHR. | |
| SH v Cornwall Partnership NHS Trust | 383 |
| Issue: Whether a Tribunal considering an application to discharge a community treatment order had jurisdiction to consider whether treatment given without consent was appropriate and available | |
| R v Paul Teasdale | 387 |
| Issue: Whether life sentences imposed in 1998 and 2000 should be replaced by hospital and restriction orders in light of fresh medical evidence. | |
| R (NM) v Secretary of State for Justice | 390 |
| Issue: Whether an investigation into a sexual assault on a prisoner with learning difficulties was adequate. | |
| AM v West London MH NHS Trust & Secretary of State for Justice | 399 |
| Issue: Whether a Tribunal had unlawfully failed to adjourn to seek more evidence about aftercare | |
| R (Sunderland City Council) v South Tyneside Council | 404 |
| 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. | |
View as
Sort by
Display
per page
