2010
|
|
Cases Reported |
| R v Louie Presence Charisma | 1 |
| Issue: Whether it had been proper to give a direction under s35 Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 allowing adverse inferences to be drawn from the failure to give evidence of a man with a psychotic illness who claimed not to be able to recall the events in question. | |
| R v Ensor | 4 |
| Issue: Whether it had been proper to give a direction under s35 Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 allowing adverse inferences to be drawn from the failure to give evidence on the basis of a report to the effect that the defendant would not be able to cope with the stress of giving evidence; the relevance of the late service of the medical evidence. | |
| Cumberbatch v CPS; Ali v DPP | 9 |
| Issue: Whether police officers were acting in the execution of their duty such that offences of resisting or assaulting them in the execution of their duties were made out, including a situation involving a purported arrest under s136 Mental Health Act 1983. | |
| In re GJ | 13 |
| Issue: Whether a patient who had recently been detained under the Mental Health Act 1983 was ineligible for deprivation of liberty under the Mental Capacity Act 2005. | |
| R (Cart, U and XC) v Upper Tribunal and Special Immigration Appeals Commission | 35 |
| Issue: Whether decisions by the Upper Tribunal or the Special Immigration Appeals Commission were amenable to judicial review in light of their designation as a superior court of record or other relevant features. | |
| R v Shane Lewis | 70 |
| Issue: Whether a custodial sentence had been the only alternative to an order under the Mental Health Act 1983 for repeated offences of possession of offensive weapons or bladed articles by a man with mental health problems. | |
| R (RD and PM) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions; R (EM and Others) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions | 72 |
| Issue: Whether post-tariff life sentence prisoners transferred to hospital under s47 Mental Health Act 1983 were entitled to income support; whether the differential treatment for the purpose of welfare benefits of prisoners transferred to hospital or held under s45A of the 1983 Act and patients detained under s3/37 of the Act was justified for the purposes of Art 14 ECHR. | |
| R (V) v South London & Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust, LB Croydon | 83 |
| Issue: Whether detention under s3 Mental Health Act 1983 was unlawful in the absence of consultation with the patient’s nearest relative; whether consultation would have involved unreasonable delay when it was believed that the patient was detained under s5(2) of the Act. | |
| R v Guy Mukendi | 90 |
| Issue: Whether a suspended sentence order with conditions including a mental health treatment requirement was appropriate for an offence of theft of a car when the defendant had spent 3 months in custody. | |
| R v Dean Anthony Briscoe | 92 |
| Issue: Whether a custodial sentence was appropriate for breach of a non-molestation order. | |
| MD v Nottinghamshire Health Care NHS Trust | 93 |
| Issue: Whether the detention of a patient who failed to engage with treatment was lawful; whether there was appropriate treatment; whether a Tribunal should have exercised its discretion to discharge; the proper approach to expert evidence. | |
| R v Matthew Chapman | 102 |
| Issue: Whether it was excessive to impose a sentence of detention on a young offender with various developmental disorders who had committed a sexual assault under the influence of alcohol and who had cooperated with arrangements put in place to provide out-patient treatment for his problems. | |
| R v Sacha Steele | 107 |
| Issue: Whether a restriction order was justified. | |
| R (M) v LB Hammersmith & Fulham and LB Sutton; R (Hertfordshire County Council) v LB Hammersmith and Fulham | 110 |
| Issue: Which local authority was responsible for funding aftercare for a patient who had been detained under s3 Mental Health Act 1983. | |
| R v Donna Osker | 115 |
| Issue: Whether a restriction order was justified. | |
| RH v South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust (Restriction Order) | 118 |
| Issue: Whether a Tribunal decision not to lift a restriction order was adequately reasoned. | |
| R (SP) v Secretary of State for Justice | 126 |
| 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 Andrew Nugent | 132 |
| Issue: Whether a sentence of imprisonment for public protection was proper. | |
| R (Gill) v Secretary of State for Justice | 135 |
| Issue: Whether the failure to make reasonable adjustments to offending behaviour courses to allow a prisoner who had learning difficulties to access them was a breach of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 and/or the public law duty to comply with policy statements as to making such adjustments. | |
| R (Smith) v Uxbridge Magistrates Court | 150 |
| Issue: Whether it had been lawful to remand a prisoner to the monitoring regime under s152 Criminal Justice Act 1988; the approach to such remands. | |
| Independent News and Media Ltd and Others v A | 154 |
| Issue: Whether proceedings in the Court of Protection should be open to the media; the approach to the question. | |
| DL-H v Devon Partnership NHS Trust and Secretary of State for Justice | 162 |
| Issue: Whether arguments can be raised on an appeal to the Upper Tribunal beyond those raised when permission to appeal was granted; the approach of the Upper Tribunal to a judgment of the First-tier Tribunal; whether it was necessary to consider “proportionality” as well as the statutory test for release in ss72/73 Mental Health Act 1983; whether the Tribunal was bound to discharge on the facts; whether the reasons given were adequate; the approach as to the discretion as to disposal in the Upper Tribunal. | |
| R v Jacob Richard Shulman | 172 |
| Issue: Whether convictions for rape and other offences and a life sentence should be replaced by findings that an accused had been unfit to stand trial and had committed the acts charged, and a hospital order made. | |
| RM v St Andrew’s Healthcare | 176 |
| Issue: Whether an order for non-disclosure to a patient was lawful; whether appeals from such decisions should be heard. | |
| R v James Francis Hughes (Jurisdiction) | 183 |
| Issue: Whether an accused could appeal against a sentence that had been increased on a reference by the Attorney General as unduly lenient. | |
| R v James Francis Hughes (Merits) | 188 |
| Issue: Whether a hospital order with a restriction order should be imposed in place of a life sentence. | |
| R v Helen Patsalosavvis (aka Costi) | 191 |
| Issue: Whether a restriction order was required. | |
| R (RB) v First-tier Tribunal (Review) | 192 |
| Issue: The proper ambit of a review of a decision of the First-tier Tribunal; the circumstances in which it was appropriate to challenge a review decision by judicial review; whether a condition that a patient should not leave a hostel without a condition of being escorted by a member of staff was clearly wrong in law. | |
| KF, MO and FF v Birmingham & Solihull Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust | 201 |
| Issue: Whether academic appeals could be heard; the availability of judicial review as well as an appeal of a decision of the First-tier Tribunal; the approach to an appeal to the Upper Tribunal when events had moved on, in particular when a patient detained under s2 Mental Health Act 1983 had been placed under s3 or discharged; the effect of placement on a Community Treatment Order of a s3 patient whose case had been referred to a Tribunal. | |
| R v Graham Orchard | 212 |
| Issue: Whether a sentence should be reduced to reflect the defendant’s mental disorder. | |
| R (TTM (By his Litigation Friend TM)) v LB Hackney and East London NHS Foundation Trust | 214 |
| 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 (Michael Mwanza) v LB Greenwich and LB Bromley | 226 |
| Issue: The extent of the obligation to provide aftercare under s117 Mental Health Act 1983 and/or s21 National Assistance Act 1948; whether either was engaged in relation to a man from Zambia who had been a patient under s3 of the 1983 Act some years previously and whose mental health was deteriorating because of financial difficulties, but who was being cared for by his family and who did not have leave to remain in the UK. | |
| R v Benjamin Alan Cooper | 240 |
| Issue: Whether a sentence of imprisonment for public protection plus a hospital direction under s45A Mental Health Act 1983 was justified. | |
| Kiss v Hungary | 245 |
| Issue: Whether the disenfranchisement of a person placed under guardianship breached Art 3 of Protocol 1 to the ECHR. | |
| David v Moldova | 252 |
| Issue: Whether detention during an examination to assess fitness to plead in civil proceedings breached Art 5 ECHR. | |
| Tokić and Others v Bosnia and Herzegovina | 257 |
| Issue: Whether detentions were in breach of Art 5(1)(e) ECHR. | |
| Surrey County Council v (1) MB (by his litigation friend the Official Solicitor), (2) SB, (3) Buckinghamshire PCT, (4) Oxfordshire Learning Disability Trust | 265 |
| Issue: Whether a case commenced under the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court should be transferred to the Court of Protection; whether declarations under the former regime could be made under the Mental Capacity Act 2005; whether declarations could be made under the 2005 Act to deprive a person of his or her liberty; the relevant factors as to the exercise of discretion in relation to declarations, including the impact of the availability of powers under the Mental Health Act 1983. | |
| A Primary Care Trust and P v AH and A Local Authority | 275 |
| Issue: The appropriate steps to assess the medical needs of an adult without capacity to decide; the power to make declarations under s15 Mental Capacity Act 2005 as to detention in hospital for treatment; how to ensure compliance with Art 5 ECHR. | |
| The PCT v P, AH and The Local Authority (Note) | 281 |
| Issue: The placement of an individual without capacity; the impact of Arts 5 and 8 ECHR in light of P’s wish to return home and the decision that he should be placed in independent accommodation. | |
| In Re BJ; Salford City Council v BJ | 283 |
| Issue: The appropriate regime for reviewing the deprivation of liberty of a person without capacity whose placement was outside the deprivation of liberty provisions of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. | |
| Puttrus v Germany | 287 |
| Issue: Whether the detention of a man sent to hospital for preventive reasons remained lawful for the purposes of Art 5(1)(e) ECHR after some 24 years. | |
| Stojanovski v the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia | 292 |
| Issue: Whether detention was justified for the purposes of Art 5 ECHR | |
| Halilović v Bosnia and Herzegovina | 299 |
| Issue: Whether conditions of detention breached Art 3 ECHR; whether detention was in breach of Art 5. | |
| In re M; ITW v Z and Others (Note) | 304 |
| Issue: The correct approach to the execution of a will of a patient without capacity. | |
| In Re George Douglas Key (Deceased) | 308 |
| Issue: Whether a deceased had lacked testamentary capacity when he executed a will. | |
| Savage v South Essex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust | 311 |
| Issue: Whether the failure to prevent a patient detained under s3 Mental Health Act 1983 committing suicide breached Art 2 ECHR; whether the adult daughter of the victim was a victim for the purposes of s7 Human Rights Act 1998; the appropriate remedies. | |
| R v Anthony John Hardy | 324 |
| Issue: Whether a whole life term was required for a man with mental disorder who admitted 3 murders. | |
| AH v West London MHT and Secretary of State for Justice | 326 |
| Issue: The proper approach to a request for a public hearing in a mental health case before a Tribunal; whether a decision to refuse a hearing was correct. | |
| R v Andrew Richard Walton (Aka Wright) | 335 |
| Issue: Whether previous convictions should be set aside in light of fresh evidence of unfitness to stand trial; the appropriate disposal | |
| LC v DHIC (CHL), Secretary of State for Justice, CUK | 337 |
| Issue: The circumstances in which a deferred conditional discharge could be set aside; the adequacy of the reasons of the Tribunal; whether a refusal of permission to appeal should be based on supplemental facts. | |
| RH v South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust | 341 |
| Issue: Whether the decision not to lift a restriction order was adequately reasoned; the proper test for the lifting of a restriction order; the approach to granting permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal from the Upper Tribunal. | |
| R v Clare Dunn | 349 |
| Issue: Whether convictions for ill-treating patients without capacity were safe. | |
| R (Cart) v Upper Tribunal | 353 |
| Issue: Whether decisions by the Upper Tribunal were amenable to judicial review; if so to what extent. | |
| G v E, A Local Authority and F | 364 |
| Issue: Whether the removal of a learning-disabled adult from his carer and placement in residential units without an order under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 had breached Arts 5 and 8 ECHR; whether an interim declaration under the Act authorising his continued placement meant further detention was not unlawful; the appropriate placement pending a final hearing. | |
| G v E, A Local Authority and F | 395 |
| Issue: Whether the Mental Capacity Act 2005 was compatible with Art 5 ECHR only if the judge considered whether the criteria for detention were made out as a threshold question before considering best interests; whether an interim declaration under the Act meant further detention was not unlawful; the propriety of a best interests finding. | |
| G v E, Manchester City Council and F | 407 |
| Issue: Whether a local authority 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 residential units without an order under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 should be identified. | |
| Rabone and Rabone v Pennine Care NHS Trust | 413 |
| 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 | |
View as
Sort by
Display
per page
