2000
|
|
Cases Reported |
| R v Dean David Newman | 1 |
| Issue: Whether an automatic life sentence had to be passed for a second serious offence by an offender who met the criteria for a hospital order under s37 Mental Health Act 1983. | |
| R v Paul Anthony Melbourne | 2 |
| Issue: Whether a sentence of imprisonment should be replaced by a disposal under the Mental Health Act 1983. | |
| Nora McClelland v Simon S | 6 |
| Issue: Whether the decision to displace the nearest relative under s29 Mental Health act 1983 on the basis of an unreasonable objection to an application to admit the patient for treatment under s3 of the Act would be overturned on appeal. | |
| R v James Kamara | 9 |
| Issue: Whether a restriction order under s41 Mental Health Act 1983 was necessary. | |
| R v Michelle Louise Jones | 12 |
| Issue: Whether a hospital order under s37 Mental Health Act 1937 was the appropriate sentence; whether a restriction order under s41 was needed. | |
| R v Dr James Donald Collins and Ashworth Hospital Authority ex p Ian Stewart Brady | 17 |
| Issue: Whether the force-feeding of a detained personality disordered patient who expressed the wish to die was treatment under the Mental Health Act 1983. | |
| R v Antoine | 28 |
| Issue: Where a jury was considering the case of a defendant charged with murder but found unfit to plead to determine whether he committed the act charged, whether it could consider the partial defence of diminished responsibility; whether the jury was to consider issues of mens rea or just the actus reus of the offence. | |
| Smirek v Williams | 38 |
| Issue: Whether permission to appeal should be granted to challenge the displacement under s29 Mental Health Act 1983 of a nearest relative who refused to consent to an application for admission for treatment after a Tribunal had directed the patient’s discharge. | |
| In re GM (patient: consultation) | 41 |
| Issue: Whether there was consultation with the nearest relative before making an application for admission for treatment under s3 Mental Health Act 1983; whether one interview with the patient by a social worker could be used for both an emergency application under s4 of the Act and a subsequent application under s3. | |
| Re D (mental patient: nearest relative) | 50 |
| 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. | |
| Re Doreen Trew | 53 |
| Issue: Whether the remedy of habeas corpus lies to secure the release of a patient when the medical evidence is in favour of discharge and the Mental Health Review Tribunal has wrongly adjourned the hearing without making a decision as to release. | |
| R v An Immigration Officer ex p X (Administrative Court) | 57 |
| Issue: Whether a failed asylum seeker who was detained in a psychiatric hospital could be deported under the Immigration Act 1971 or whether the Home Secretary was bound to use s86 Mental Health Act 1983. | |
| R v An Immigration Officer ex p X (Court of Appeal) | 67 |
| Issue: Whether a failed asylum seeker who was detained in a psychiatric hospital could be deported under the Immigration Act 1971 or whether the Home Secretary was bound to use s86 Mental Health Act 1983. | |
| R v Camden and Islington Health Authority ex p K | 72 |
| Issue: Whether a local health authority was obliged to provide psychiatric supervision to a restricted patient to allow a Tribunal ordered conditional discharge to put into effect. | |
| R v Mental Health Review Tribunal for the North East Thames Region ex p Brown | 81 |
| Issue: Whether it was appropriate to continue with a judicial review challenge to a Tribunal decision in light of changes in the patient’s condition. | |
| Anderson, Doherty and Reid v The Scottish Ministers and the Advocate-General for Scotland | 84 |
| Issue: Whether the provisions of the Mental Health (Public Safety and Appeals) (Scotland) Act 1999, which allow the detention in hospital of patients who are not treatable, and who could not therefore be admitted to hospital, but who require detention to prevent a risk of serious harm to the public, are in breach of Art 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights. | |
| In Re TF (An Adult: Residence) | 120 |
| Issue: Whether the High Court could grant a declaration to control the residence of and contact with her mother of an mentally disordered adult who was unable to care for herself and who was at risk of harm from her family, with whom she wished to reside, but who could not be placed under guardianship. | |
| R v (1) Tower Hamlets Health Care NHS Trust and (2) Snazell ex p Von B | 131 |
| Issue: Whether a patient who had been discharged from detention under the Mental Health Act 1983 by a Mental Health Review Tribunal could be placed under detention again by the relevant professionals despite the Tribunal decision. | |
| Cornelius v de Taranto | 145 |
| Issue: Whether the distribution of a medico-legal report commissioned for legal proceedings to the Claimant’s GP and a consultant psychiatrist, which contained defamatory and confidential material, gave rise to damages for defamation and/or breach of confidence. | |
| 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 | 155 |
| 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 v Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth Health Authority ex p GP (by his father and Litigation Friend MP) and others | 163 |
| Issue: Whether a decision to close a long-stay hospital for persons with learning disabilities involved a fair consultation process, correctly applied government policy, and took account of all relevant factors. | |
| R v Uxbridge County Court ex p B | 179 |
| Issue: Whether a county court acted fairly and within its powers in displacing a nearest relative who objected to an application for admission under s3 Mental Health Act 1983 when the nearest relative had been given two hours notice, but no papers, and did not attend; whether it was intra vires to order displacement but give liberty to the nearest relative to apply to discharge or vary the order. | |
| R v Ashworth Special Hospital Trust ex p Munjaz | 183 |
| Issue: The lawfulness of the seclusion policy in operation at Ashworth Hospital. | |
| R v Daniel Ferdinand George Reynolds | 188 |
| Issue: Whether a restriction order under s41 Mental Health Act 1983 was necessary. | |
| R v Secretary of State for Health ex p L | 191 |
| Issue: The propriety of the restrictions on visits by children to patients in special hospitals. | |
| R v Moses Edward Belford | 198 |
| Issue: The proper sentence for an unprovoked attack by a person with schizophrenia who had not been taking medication and was responding to a paranoid delusion at the time; whether time spent detained in hospital under s3 Mental Health Act 1983 should count towards the sentence; whether it was appropriate to suspend the sentence. | |
| R (On the application of W) v Feggetter and another | 200 |
| Issue: Whether the Second Opinion Appointed Doctor had consulted appropriately, in accordance with s58 Mental Health Act 1983; whether he or she had to give reasons. | |
| R (On the Application of H) v Mental Health Review Tribunal | 203 |
| Issue: Whether the nearest relative of a restricted patient was a party to the proceedings before the Mental Health Review Tribunal. | |
| R (On the Application of the Secretary of State for the Home Department) v Mental Health Review Tribunal | 209 |
| Issue: Whether a Mental Health Review Tribunal dealing with a restricted patient has power to adjourn solely to obtain further information relevant to its non-statutory practice of making recommendations as to transfer. | |
| R (On the Application of C) v Mental Health Review Tribunal for the London South and South West Region | 220 |
| Issue: Whether listing a Mental Health Review Tribunal in relation to a patient detained under s3 Mental Health Act 1983 eight weeks after the patient was detained was in breach of Art 5(4) of the European Convention on Human Rights. | |
| Litwa v Poland | 226 |
| Issue: The correct meaning of “alcoholics” in Art 5§1(e); whether detention was “lawful”. | |
| R v Snaresbrook Crown Court ex p Demaar | 239 |
| Issue: Whether an order made following the acquittal of a defendant on grounds of insanity was amenable to judicial review. | |
| R v Mental Health Review Tribunal, London North and East ex p H | 242 |
| Issue: Whether a Tribunal’s reasons were adequate, whether it had erred in law in not expressly addressing whether the admission criteria were met, and the requirements of fairness in relation to the views of the medical member. | |
| JT v UK | 254 |
| Issue: Whether the absence of a provision allowing a patient to change their nearest relative breached Art 8 European Convention. | |
| Valle v Finland | 255 |
| Issue: Whether a friendly settlement for restrictions on a patient’s telephone communication with his lawyer in breach of Art 8 should be accepted. | |
| Vodenicarov v Slovakia | 258 |
| Issue: Whether Art 5§4 European Convention was breached when V was detained before his appeal against the detention order was determined. | |
| Varbanov v Bulgaria | 263 |
| Issue: Whether Art 5 European Convention was breached by detention on the order of a prosecutor to obtain psychiatric evidence as to whether an application should be made to a court for an order for committal for treatment. | |
View as
Sort by
Display
per page
