1999
|
|
Cases Reported |
| Re W (habeas corpus: extension of s2 detention) | 1 |
| Issue: Whether there was jurisdiction to detain under s2 Mental Health Act 1983 pending the outcome of an application to displace the nearest relative under s29 of the Act made after a Tribunal had ordered discharge under s72 of the Act; whether the hospital managers’ decision to uphold a barring order under s25 of the Act was proper. | |
| R v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex p Gaynor Gilkes | 7 |
| Issue: Whether it was lawful in making a transfer direction under s47 Mental Health Act 1983 to rely on an assessment which was made for the purposes of s37 of the Act 6 weeks previously; whether it was lawful to transfer the prisoner to hospital at the end of their sentence. | |
| R v Paul James Aspinall | 12 |
| Issue: Whether an interview of a man suffering from schizophrenia conducted without the presence of an appropriate adult should have been admitted into evidence at the trial. | |
| Wilkinson v Secretary of State for Scotland | 17 |
| Issue: Whether the detention of a paedophile under the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984 was proper. | |
| R v (1) Central London County Court (2) Managers of Gordon Hospital ex p London | 21 |
| Issue: Whether a county court may make interim orders to displace a nearest relative; whether a s3 detention following an interim displacement is valid. | |
| R v Lee Michael Cox | 30 |
| Issue: Whether a restriction order was appropriate on the facts. | |
| Musial v Poland | 35 |
| Issue: Whether proceedings to determine the lawfulness of detention on grounds of mental disorder were conducted speedily. | |
| Joseph Arnold Warren v UK | 42 |
| Issue: Whether the continued detention of a patient breached Art 5 European Convention. | |
| R v James Andrew Crookes | 45 |
| Issue: Whether a restriction order was appropriate on the facts, including up-to-date medical evidence. | |
| R v (1) The Mental Health Review Tribunal (2) Torfaen County Borough Council (3) Gwent Health Authority ex p Russell Hall (High Court) | 49 |
| Issue: Whether a Tribunal erred in imposing conditions which it did not know would be put into practice; whether the aftercare authorities had failed in their obligations towards the patient. | |
| R v Mental Health Review Tribunal ex p Russell Hall (Court of Appeal) | 63 |
| Issue: Whether a Tribunal erred in imposing conditions which it did not know would be put into practice. | |
| Michael Ferguson v State Hospital Management Committee | 69 |
| Issue: Whether a patient with a personality disorder should be discharged on the basis that he was not treatable; whether containment in a structured environment together with nursing care amounted to treatment. | |
| R v Maidstone Crown Court ex p LB Harrow | 84 |
| Issue: Whether a supervision order under s5 Criminal Procedure Act 1964 following a judge purporting to accept a special verdict of Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity without empanelling a jury could be challenged by judicial review. | |
| Jean Cotterham v UK | 97 |
| Issue: Whether Tribunal proceedings were heard speedily. | |
| R v Mental Health Review Tribunal, London North and East ex p Manns | 101 |
| Issue: Whether a Tribunal decision was rational in light of the patient’s lack of symptoms of mental illness; whether its reasons for rejecting evidence in support of release were adequate. | |
| Beverley Palmer v (1) Tees Health Authority (2) Hartlepool and East Durham NHS Trust | 106 |
| Issue: Whether there was a duty of care towards the family of a child killed by a mentally disordered man being seen as an out-patient but not detained. | |
| Sean Croke v Ireland | 118 |
| Issue: Whether Irish legislation for the detention of those of unsound mind complied with Art 5 European Convention | |
| Re GK (Patient: Habeas Corpus) | 128 |
| Issue: Whether a nearest relative application for discharge was properly delivered on being placed in the named administrator’s pigeon-hole for the purposes of the time limit of the barring order. | |
| Manchester City Council v MI | 132 |
| Issue: Whether the County Court was correct to displace a nearest relative. | |
| Matter v Slovakia | 135 |
| Issue: Whether the length of proceedings to determine the applicant’s legal capacity breached Art 6 European Convention; whether a compulsory medical examination as an in-patient breached Art 8 of the Convention. | |
| R v Pathfinder NHS Trust ex p W | 142 |
| Issue: Whether it was proper for the Responsible Medical Officer to reclassify a patient where a Tribunal has recently considered the matter and reached a contrary conclusion, where there has been no significant change in circumstances. | |
| AM v Herefordshire County District Council | 145 |
| Issue: Whether the displacement of a nearest relative was lawful; whether an adjournment should have been allowed for legal representation. | |
| R v LB Richmond ex p W; R v Redcar and Cleveland BC ex p A; R v Manchester City Council ex p S; R v LB Harrow ex p C | 149 |
| Issue: Whether after-care services provided to formerly detained psychiatric patients under s117 Mental Health Act 1983, including accommodation, are to be provided free under that section, or whether it was a gateway to services provided under other statutes for which charges are to be made. | |
| Noel Ruddle v Secretary of State for Scotland | 159 |
| Issue: Whether a patient with a personality disorder should be discharged on the basis that he was not treatable; whether containment in a structured environment together with nursing care amounted to treatment. | |
| FC v UK | 174 |
| Issue: Whether the absence of a provision allowing a patient to change their nearest relative breached Art 8 European Convention. | |
| Re TF (A Child: Guardianship) – JF v LB Hackney | 175 |
| Issue: Whether the desire of a 17 year old with the mental age of a 5–8 year old to return to her parents, with a consequent risk of neglect and exposure to danger, was “seriously irresponsible conduct” for the purposes of the definition of “mental impairment” within the Mental Health Act 1983; whether the local authority should have used the wardship jurisdiction of the High Court rather than seeking guardianship under s7 Mental Health Act 1983; whether the child’s nearest relative’s objection to the use of guardianship was unreasonable for the purposes of s29 of the Act. | |
| Re D (mental patient: nearest relative) | 181 |
| Issue: What amounts to “caring for” a patient so as to become a “nearest relative” under the Mental Health Act 1983; the test to be applied when a patient challenges his detention under s3 of the Act on the basis that the social worker consulted as nearest relative the wrong person. | |
| Bath and North East Somerset Council v AJC | 184 |
| Issue: Whether a local authority could renew a guardianship order in respect of which a Tribunal had purported to grant a deferred discharge, the local authority being of the view that a deferred discharge was not permitted. | |
| Broadmoor Hospital Authority & Another v R | 186 |
| Issue: Whether a Special Hospital had the power to seek to prevent the publication of a book by a patient; whether the injunction should be granted on the facts. | |
| R v London South and South West Region Mental Health Review Tribunal ex p Moyle | 195 |
| Issue: Whether a Tribunal erred by declining to consider whether a patient met the criteria for admission to hospital. | |
| R v Anglia and Oxfordshire Mental Health Review Tribunal ex p Hagan | 204 |
| Issue: Whether the power of reclassification has to be used to delete a reference to a form of disorder in remission. | |
View as
Sort by
Display
per page
