2004
|
|
Cases Reported |
| R (PS) v (1) Dr G (RMO) (2) Dr W (SOAD) | 1 |
| Issue: Whether a patient detained under the Mental Health Act 1983 should be medicated against his wishes | |
| R (PD) v West Midlands and North Mental Health Review Tribunal | 25 |
| Issue: Whether there was a risk of perceived bias or a breach of Art 6 European Convention where the Tribunal medical member was employed by the detaining authority at a different hospital. | |
| Rakevich v Russia | 37 |
| Issue: Whether detention in a psychiatric hospital breached Art 5 European Convention by virtue of the failure to follow domestic law; the appropriate remedy. | |
| R (Von B) v (1) East London and the City Mental Health NHS Trust and (2) Snazell | 44 |
| 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. | |
| R (IH) v (1) Home Secretary (2) Secretary of State for Health | 51 |
| Issue: Whether the provisions of the Mental Health Act 1983 relating to the deferred conditional discharge of restricted patients are compatible with Art 5 European Convention | |
| R (P) v Home Secretary | 64 |
| Issue: Whether Art 5§4 European Convention requires that the review of the ongoing detention of a life-sentence prisoner transferred to hospital under the Mental Health Act 1983 be by a single tribunal, rather than successively by a Mental Health Review Tribunal and the Parole Board; whether the present procedure provided a transferred patient with a speedy hearing. | |
| Dunn v South Tyneside Health Care NHS Trust | 74 |
| Issue: Whether a hospital was negligent in failing to prevent a patient absconding and in not taking additional steps to secure her return; whether an independent psychiatrist was qualified to give expert evidence on policies relating to absconded patients. | |
| R v John M | 86 |
| Issue: Whether a judge’s directions to a jury on the issue of unfitness to plead set the test too low; whether police interview material should have been admitted into evidence in the trial of the issue. | |
| R (Home Secretary) v Mental Health Review Tribunal | 91 |
| Issue: Whether a Tribunal had erred in law in granting a conditional discharge to a patient after concluding that the nature but not the current degree of his disorder justified detention. | |
| R (A and others) v Home Secretary | 98 |
| Issue: Whether restrictions placed on the interviewing of suspected terrorist detainees, one of whom was detained in a High Security hospital, were lawful | |
| R v Frampton | 105 |
| Issue: Whether a sentence of imprisonment should have been suspended when the defendant’s mental disorder was likely to deteriorate in prison | |
| R (P) v (1) Mersey Care NHS Trust (2) Dr Mulligan (3) Home Secretary | 107 |
| Issue: Whether a failure to transfer a patient from high secure to medium secure hospital conditions engaged Art 8 European Convention. | |
| R (IR) v (1) Dr G Shetty (2) Home Secretary | 111 |
| Issue: Whether Arts 3 and 5 European Convention were breached in transferring a prisoner from hospital back to prison; the correct approach for the court to adopt. | |
| R (IR) v (1) Dr G Shetty (2) Home Secretary (No 2) | 130 |
| Issue: Whether a decision as to “technical lifer” status is a sentencing exercise and so has to be taken by a Court to comply with Art 6 European Convention. | |
| R (SW Yorkshire Mental Health NHS Trust) v Bradford Crown Court (Administrative Court) | 137 |
| Issue: Whether a Crown Court judge had exceeded his jurisdiction by specifying the hospital to which a patient should be admitted following a finding that he was unfit to stand trial but had committed the actus reus of murder. | |
| R (SW Yorkshire Mental Health NHS Trust) v Bradford Crown Court (Court of Appeal) | 142 |
| Issue: Whether a judicial review of a Crown Court order made after a defendant had been found unfit to stand trial and to have done the act charged against him constituted ‘a criminal cause or matter’ within the meaning of s18(1)(a) of the Supreme Court Act 1981 and was therefore outwith the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal | |
| R (LI) v Mental Health Review Tribunal | 150 |
| Issue: Whether the Tribunal’s reasons were adequate; whether the Tribunal had properly addressed the discharge criteria in s72(1)(b) Mental Health Act 1983; whether the Tribunal had relied upon an irrelevant matter in refusing an application for discharge | |
| R (MH) v (1) Secretary of State for Health (2) Mental Health Review Tribunal | 155 |
| Issue: The requirements of Art 5 European Convention in relation to patients without capacity and patients detained following the barring of a nearest relative application to discharge; the test a Tribunal should apply when a barring order had been made in relation to a patient detained under s2 Mental Health Act 1983. | |
| R (Home Secretary) v Mental Health Review Tribunal | 170 |
| Issue: Whether a Tribunal decision to direct the absolute discharge of a conditionally discharged patient should be quashed where the Home Secretary had not had an opportunity to express his views on the suitability of the patient for absolute discharge. | |
| R (PD) v West Midlands and North Mental Health Review Tribunal | 174 |
| Issue: Whether there was a risk of perceived bias or a breach of Art 6 European Convention where the Tribunal medical member was employed by the detaining authority at a different hospital. | |
| R (Home Secretary) v Mental Health Review Tribunal | 184 |
| Issue: Whether a Mental Health Review Tribunal should have considered directing a conditional, rather than absolute, discharge where it had found that a restricted patient did not suffer from a mental disorder; whether an absolute discharge may be deferred; whether the Tribunal had correctly applied the treatability test; whether the decision was adequately reasoned. | |
| R (W) v Doncaster Metropolitan Borough (Administrative Court) | 189 |
| Issue: Whether a social worker’s refusal to approve hostel accommodation and thereby allow a patient to be conditionally discharged was in breach of s117 Mental Health Act 1983 and/or Art 5 European Convention and, if so, whether the tort of false imprisonment was made out. | |
| R (W) v Doncaster Metropolitan Borough (Court of Appeal) | 201 |
| Issue: Whether a social worker’s refusal to approve hostel accommodation and thereby allow a patient to be conditionally discharged was in breach of s117 Mental Health Act 1983 and/or Art 5 European Convention and, if so, whether the tort of false imprisonment was made out. | |
| R v Borkan | 216 |
| Issue: Whether a jury should have been empanelled to consider fitness to stand trial | |
| R (Razgar) v Home Secretary | 218 |
| Issue: Whether an asylum seeker’s rights under Art 8 ECHR were engaged by the decision of the Home Secretary to remove him where this might affect his mental stability. | |
| HL v UK | 236 |
| Issue: Whether the detention of an incompetent compliant patient was in breach of Art 5 European Convention. | |
| R (G) v Mental Health Review Tribunal | 265 |
| Issue: Whether a condition of discharge of residence in a hospital amounted to a discharge from hospital | |
| R (Home Secretary) v Mental Health Review Tribunal | 273 |
| Issue: Whether a condition of discharge that a patient not leave a hostel without staff amounted to a discharge from hospital. | |
| R v Preston | 277 |
| Issue: Whether the requirements of s37 Mental Health Act 1983 relating to medical reports had been satisfied where a defendant had been ordered to be detained in hospital | |
| R (C) v South London and Maudsley NHS Trust and Mental Health Review Tribunal | 280 |
| Issue: Whether an application for compulsory admission to hospital was invalid because of apparent discrepancies as to the previous acquaintance with the patient of the recommending doctor; whether a decision to adjourn a s2 Tribunal hearing part-heard for over a week was lawful. | |
| R (Mersey Care NHS Trust) v Mental Health Review Tribunal | 284 |
| Issue: Whether a Tribunal’s decision to allow a public hearing was based on an error of law in relation its powers to control publicity; whether r21(1) Mental Health Review Tribunal Rules 1983 set a threshold test only; whether the Tribunal’s reasons were adequate. | |
| R (Miah) v Home Secretary | 302 |
| Issue: Whether a sentence of imprisonment continues to run after a prisoner has been transferred to hospital under s47 of the Mental Health Act 1983 without a s49 restriction direction. | |
| R (Abu-Rideh) v Mental Health Review Tribunal | 308 |
| Issue: Whether a Mental Health Review Tribunal considering the case of patient detained as a suspected terrorist under s21 Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 and transferred to hospital under ss48 and 49 Mental Health Act 1983 was obliged to consider whether he could be treated in the community. | |
| R v Lomey | 316 |
| Issue: Whether a life sentence should be substituted by an absolute discharge or a hospital order. | |
| Bartram v Southend Magistrates Court | 319 |
| Issue: Whether a Mental Health Act 1983 disposal was inappropriate where it was no longer appropriate that the accused be the subject of a s37 hospital order. | |
| R (Anderson) v HM Coroner for Inner North Greater London | 324 |
| Issue: Whether an inquest verdict of unlawful killing should be quashed in circumstances where the deceased had been removed by police officers under s136 of the Mental Health Act 1983 and restrained for 20 minutes | |
| Tam v Slovakia | 337 |
| Issue: Whether detention in a psychiatric hospital violated Art 5(1) and (4) where the reviewing court had made procedural errors and had communicated its decision to the detainee 3 years after it was made | |
| R (MH) v Secretary of State for Health | 345 |
| Issue: The requirements of Art 5 European Convention in relation to patients without capacity detained under s2 Mental Health Act 1983 and patients detained under s2 pending an application to displace their nearest relative in the county court. | |
| R (CS) V Mental Health Review Tribunal | 355 |
| Issue: Whether the Tribunal was correct to uphold the liability to detention of a patient on 4-weekly leave | |
| R (Takoushis) v HM Coroner for Inner North London | 365 |
| Issue: Whether a jury ought to have been summoned and expert evidence heard in respect of the adequacy of a system which failed to prevent a psychiatric patient absconding from hospital and killing himself. | |
View as
Sort by
Display
per page
