2013
|
|
Cases Reported |
| Kallweit v Germany | 1 |
| Issue: Whether a statutory extension of the maximum period of preventive detention breached Arts 5 and/or 7 ECHR; the impact of Art 46. | |
| Haidn v Germany | 13 |
| Issue: Whether the retrospective imposition of preventive detention at the end of a prison sentence breached Arts 3 and/or 5 ECHR. | |
| OH v Germany | 29 |
| Issue: Whether the extension of preventive detention breached Arts 5 and/or 7 ECHR; just satisfaction. | |
| R v Ashley Searles | 47 |
| Issue: Whether a hospital order should be imposed in place of a custodial sentence that was about to expire; whether a restriction order was needed. | |
| R v Alan Fletcher | 50 |
| Issue: Whether a hospital order should be imposed in place of a custodial sentence that was about to expire; whether a restriction order was needed. | |
| AC v Partnerships in Care Ltd and Secretary of State for Justice | 52 |
| Issue: Whether a Tribunal had misconstrued s74 Mental Health Act 1983 in declining to recommend release; whether its reasons for preferring one expert over another were adequate. | |
| MA v Secretary of State for Health and Others | 56 |
| Issue: Whether s66 Mental Health Act 1983 should be construed so as to allow the nearest relative of a s2 patient to apply to a Tribunal if a barring order is made in relation to a discharge; the role of Arts 5, 6, 8 and 12 ECHR. | |
| R v Shane William Jenkin | 61 |
| Issue: Whether a sentence of life imprisonment together with a hospital direction under s45A Mental Health Act 1983 should be replaced by a hospital order with a restriction order under ss37/41 of the 1983 Act. | |
| R v Imtiaz Ahmed | 65 |
| Issue: Whether hospital and restriction orders under ss37/41 Mental Health Act 1983 should be substituted for a sentence of imprisonment for public protection; the relevance of the patient’s immigration status. | |
| Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis v ZH (by GH, his litigation friend) | 69 |
| Issue: Whether the touching and restraint of a young man with autism and other difficulties was in his best interests and so justified; whether the police had breached the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 by not modifying their normal approach in light of his disabilities; whether there were breaches of Arts 3, 5 and/or 8 ECHR. | |
| DD v Durham County Council and Middlesbrough City Council | 85 |
| Issue: Whether leave to bring proceedings should be given under s139 Mental Health Act 1983; costs. | |
| Đorđević v Croatia | 89 |
| Issue: Whether the failure to prevent harassment by local children of a man with disabilities and his mother breached Arts 2, 3, 8 and/or 14 ECHR; whether domestic remedies had been exhausted; whether there was a breach of Art 13. | |
| Kędzior v Poland | 115 |
| Issue: Whether placement in a care home breached Arts 5(1) and (4) ECHR; whether rejecting applications to restore capacity on procedural grounds breach Art 6. | |
| Bureš v Czech Republic | 126 |
| Issue: Whether treatment in a sobering-up centre, including tying a patient to a security bed, breached Art 3 ECHR. | |
| “G” v DPP | 143 |
| Issue: Whether a youth court finding of guilt was improper in light of evidence of the defendant’s limited capacity to participate. | |
| JP v South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust | 148 |
| Issue: Whether a Tribunal decision upholding detention was adequately reasoned; whether there were breaches of Arts 6 and/or 9 ECHR. | |
| Secretary of State for Justice v MP and Nottinghamshire Healthcare NHS Trust | 154 |
| Issue: Whether a Tribunal decision to grant a conditional discharge without any conditions involved an error of law, including as to the adequacy of reasons; the correct remedy in light of the further detention of the patient. | |
| MS v North East London Foundation Trust | 158 |
| Issue: Whether a Tribunal had erroneously applied the criteria of s2 Mental Health Act 1983 to a s3 patient; whether it erroneously failed to make a recommendation; the adequacy of its reasons. | |
| MM v Nottinghamshire Healthcare NHS Trust | 161 |
| Issue: Whether a Tribunal panel should have recused itself after hearing that a psychiatric report commissioned for the patient would not be presented and the hospital sought to argue that this supported their case. | |
| MD v Mersey Care NHS Trust | 164 |
| Issue: Whether a Tribunal had improperly given priority to questions of risk and allowed containment without appropriate treatment; the relationship between risk and the criteria for detention. | |
| RC v NHS Islington and Others | 167 |
| Issue: Whether a refusal to adjourn other than to a fixed date was an error of law as an unlawful policy and/or improper on the facts. | |
| R v Scott Coley; R v Colin McGhee, R v Darren Harris | 171 |
| Issue: Whether convictions were proper in light of the law relating to insanity and/or automatism. | |
| R v Lee Robert Foye | 182 |
| Issue: Whether an order restraining flying following a finding of not guilty by reason of insanity in relation to an offence on an airline was lawful and/or justified on the facts. | |
| Coombs v Dorset NHS Primary Care Trust and Nottingham Healthcare NHS Trust | 194 |
| Issue: Whether a patient detained under the Mental Health Act 1983 could pay for treatment. | |
| R v Mark Smith | 201 |
| Issue: Whether an order restraining flying following a finding of not guilty by reason of insanity in relation to an offence on an airline was lawful and/or justified on the facts. | |
| R v SPC | 206 |
| Issue: Whether conduct caused by schizophrenia was harassment contrary to the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. | |
| R v AJR | 209 |
| Issue: Whether a restraining order preventing contact with family members following a finding of not guilty by reason of insanity in relation to a serious assault on a daughter was lawful and/or justified on the facts. | |
| TW v LB Enfield and Secretary of State for Health | 214 |
| Issue: Whether leave should be granted to allow an action for damages for wrongful detention and psychiatric injury to proceed against a local authority whose social worker made an application for detention under the Mental Health Act 1983; whether the requirement for leave breached Arts 6 and 14 ECHR. | |
| Shulepova v Russia | 221 |
| Issue: Whether detention in a psychiatric hospital was in breach of domestic law and so of Art 5(1) ECHR; whether the dismissal of court proceedings was in breach of Art 6 ECHR in light of the use of expert evidence from doctors employed by the detaining hospital. | |
| Ťupa v Czech Republic | 230 |
| Issue: Whether detention in a psychiatric hospital was based on inadequate procedures and so breached Art 5(1) ECHR; the relationship between domestic courts and the ECtHR; the level of scrutiny required. | |
| LM v Latvia | 238 |
| Issue: Whether detention in a psychiatric hospital had been in breach of Art 5.1(e) ECHR | |
| Beiere v Latvia | 247 |
| Issue: Whether detention for a psychiatric assessment pursuant to a court order was in breach of Art 5.1(b) ECHR; the admissibility of complaints in light of domestic proceedings. | |
| M v Ukraine | 255 |
| Issue: Whether detention breached Art 5.1 ECHR; the adequacy of domestic procedures; whether there had been consent to detention. | |
| Salontaji-Drobnjak v Serbia | 271 |
| Issue: Whether proceedings to remove capacity in part and the difficulties in seeking to have it restored breached Art 6 ECHR; whether the partial removal of capacity breached Art 8. | |
| Sýkora v Czech Republic | 283 |
| Issue: Whether Art 8 ECHR was breached by the removal of capacity; whether detention in a psychiatric hospital under the consent of a guardian breached Arts 5.1 and 5.4. | |
| R (L) v West London Mental Health NHS Trust | 297 |
| Issue: The fair process to be followed before a patient is transferred from a medium secure hospital to a high secure setting; whether Art 6 ECHR applied. | |
| RM v The Scottish Ministers | 412 |
| Issue: Whether the Scottish Ministers had acted unlawfully in failing to make regulations to define the types of patients and hospitals that were relevant for the power of the Mental Health Tribunal for Scotland to make a finding that the patient was held in conditions of excessive security. | |
| R v Ligaya Nursing | 421 |
| Issue: Whether the offence of wilful neglect contrary to s44 Mental Capacity Act 2005 was adequately certain; how it applied in the case of a person who had capacity in some areas; the impact of decisions to take steps or omit to take steps in a belief that autonomy was thereby being promoted. | |
View as
Sort by
Display
per page
