2022
|
|
Cases Reported |
| R v Shanice Atkinson | 1 |
| Issue: Whether a defendant detained under s2 Mental Health Act 1983 who pleaded guilty to assaults and criminal damage in hospital should have been allowed to re-open the pleas to raise self-defence; whether the convictions were safe. | |
| R v Brennan McGinley and Connor Leo Morris (AG’s Reference under s36 Criminal Justice Act 1988) | 8 |
| Issue: Whether sentences for serious offending, including wounding with intent, were unduly lenient, one of the offenders having several mental health problems and both being assessed to pose a high risk to the public. | |
| R v Michael Charlton | 12 |
| Issue: Whether adequate credit had been given for the mental disorder of a defendant who admitted a robbery with an imitation firearm. | |
| R v Francis Junior Wellington (AG’s Reference No 1 of 2021 under s36 Criminal Justice Act 1988) | 15 |
| Issue: Whether a sentence of 5 years’ imprisonment for various offences, including drugs offending that presumptively required a sentence of 7 years, by an offender with a mental illness that arose from substance abuse was unduly lenient. | |
| R v Bernard Rebelo | 22 |
| Issue: Whether a conviction for gross negligence manslaughter for supplying unsafe weight loss supplements that led to the death of a young woman with body dysmorphia who overdosed on them was safe; the correct direction on causation in the context of supplying such supplements to a person with mental health conditions. | |
| R (Worcestershire County Council) v Secretary of State for Health and Social Care | 33 |
| Issue: If a person who had been detained under s3 Mental Health Act 1983 was placed in a different area as part of an after-care package provided for them under s117 of the 1983 Act, did that change their ordinary residence and who was responsible for after-care services if they were again detained and then discharged and left hospital? | |
| R (Worcestershire County Council) v Secretary of State for Health and Social Care | 57 |
| Issue: If a person who had been detained under s3 Mental Health Act 1983 was placed in a different area as part of an after-care package provided for them under s117 of the 1983 Act, did that change their ordinary residence and who was responsible for after-care services if they were again detained and then discharged and left hospital? | |
| DA v (1) Central and North West London NHS Foundation Trust and (2) Secretary of State for Justice | 72 |
| Issue: Whether a decision not to grant an absolute discharge to a conditionally discharged restricted patient was rational, proportionate and adequately reasoned. | |
| Strøbye and Rosenlind v Denmark | 79 |
| Issue: Whether the disenfranchisement of people made subject to guardianship and also deprived of legal capacity breached the right to vote in P1 Art 3 ECHR; whether it also breached non-discrimination standards. | |
| Caamaño Valle v Spain | 100 |
| Issue: Whether former legislation permitting a judge to remove the right to vote from an adult person found to be without capacity and so in need of guardianship breached the right to vote in P1 Art 3 ECHR; whether it also breached non-discrimination standards. | |
| Anatoliy Marinov v Bulgaria | 121 |
| Issue: Whether the disenfranchisement of a person made subject to partial guardianship on the basis of mental disorder breached the right to vote in P1 Art 3 ECHR. | |
| Mário Jorge Alves Sequeira v Portugal | 130 |
| Issue: Whether a friendly settlement for breaches of Arts 3, 5(1)(e), 8 and 13 ECHR arising from the absence of treatment for psychiatric issues and detention in a prison far away from family was based on respect for human rights. | |
| Clarissa Ihenacho v LB Croydon | 131 |
| Issue: Whether fresh evidence as to unfitness to stand trial in confiscation proceedings should be admitted on appeal; whether the appellant was able to demonstrate that she had been unfit at the time. | |
| Adrian Jones (Deceased) v R | 140 |
| Issue: Whether evidence relating the possibility that a defendant killed with diminished responsibility should be admitted on appeal. | |
| R v AAI | 146 |
| Issue: Whether a sentence of 4 years’ detention for a youth with mental disorder and consequent vulnerability who committed an offence of wounding with intent properly reflected his culpability; the impact of further evidence as to the impact of custody on him. | |
| Request for an advisory opinion under Art 29 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Dignity of the Human Being with regard to the Application of Biology and Medicine: Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine | 152 |
| Issue: Whether the ECtHR had competence to give an advisory opinion as to (i) what “protective conditions” were required to secure respect for integrity without discrimination when a person was detained for involuntary psychiatric treatment to protect their health and (ii) whether the same protective conditions were required in relation to involuntary treatment to protect others. | |
| MB v Poland | 168 |
| Issue: Whether there was a breach of Art 5(1)(e) ECHR when detention on the basis of mental disorder was ordered in January 2015 on the basis of medical reports from January and February 2014 and put into effect in August 2015; the impact of a subsequent judicial review based on updated medical evidence. | |
| N v Romania (No 2) | 177 |
| Issue: Whether removing legal capacity under a regime which provided only for full capacity or full incapacity breached Art 8 ECHR; whether a change of guardian through a process not involving the person without capacity breached Art 8. | |
| Denis and Irvine v Belgium (Chamber) | 191 |
| Issue: Whether ongoing preventive detention was in breach of Art 5(1) ECHR when the underlying offence could no longer lead to such a sentence being imposed in light of legislative change; whether there was a breach of Arts 5(4) and 13 from the introduction of a 3-year probationary period on an order for release. | |
| Denis and Irvine v Belgium (Grand Chamber) | 200 |
| Issue: Whether ongoing preventive detention was in breach of Art 5(1) ECHR when the underlying offence could no longer lead to such a sentence being imposed in light of legislative change; whether there was a breach of Arts 5(4) and 13 from the introduction of a 3-year probationary period on an order for release. | |
| Ecila Henderson (by her Litigation Friend) v Dorset Healthcare University NHS Foundation Trust | 228 |
| Issue: Whether recovery of tortious damages flowing from a community patient killing her mother in circumstances of a negligent failure to recognise a deterioration in her condition was precluded by public policy when responsibility for the killing was diminished. | |
| R v Simon James Finch (Solicitor General’s Reference) | 247 |
| Issue: Whether 4½ years’ imprisonment for breaching the Official Secrets Acts 1911 and 1989 and the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 was unduly lenient; the impact of a diagnosis of autism/Asperger’s which helped to explain the defendant’s sense of grievance but not his conduct. | |
| R v Samir Kader | 259 |
| Issue: Whether an extended sentence of 4 years’ imprisonment and a 1-year extended licence for unlawful wounding was manifestly excessive in light of, inter alia, inadequate account of the appellant’s mental health condition at the time of the offending. | |
| R v PC | 262 |
| Issue: Whether the minimum term under a life sentence combined with a hybrid order under s45A Mental Health Act 1983 of 12 years was manifestly excessive for a manslaughter by diminished responsibility. | |
| R v Timothy Dempsey | 266 |
| Issue: Whether the judge had been wrong not to find that a firearms offence committed by a defendant with a delusional disorder that was difficult to treat involved exceptional circumstances so as to allow a minimum custodial term of 5 years to be avoided. | |
| R v Kyle Landen | 273 |
| Issue: Whether an extended sentence was proper for a man with an emotionally unstable personality disorder who made threats to kill. | |
| CS v Elysium Healthcare & Secretary of State for Justice | 275 |
| Issue: Whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to consider an application made by a patient who was a restricted patient under ss47/49 Mental Health Act 1983 (transfer from prison to hospital) who became a restricted patient under ss37/41 (hospital and restriction order sentence) before the hearing. | |
| Ražnatović v Montenegro | 282 |
| Issue: Whether suicide by a voluntary patient who left hospital grounds revealed a breach of Art 2 ECHR; whether family members had to take a criminal prosecution to exhaust domestic remedies. | |
| R v Jack Halliwell | 287 |
| Issue: Whether adequate credit had been given for the mental disorder of a defendant convicted of attempted murder. | |
| WA v Switzerland | 289 |
| Issue: Whether an order for preventive detention made in 2013 in relation to convictions in 1993 leading to a sentence of imprisonment that expired in 2010, and based on legislative changes effective from 2007 but also fresh evidence of the nature of the person’s mental disorder, breached Arts 5(1) and 7 ECHR and Protocol 7 Art 4. | |
| R v John James Lundy | 302 |
| Issue: Whether a life sentence combined with a hospital and limitation direction under s45A Mental Health Act 1983 was manifestly excessive in light of the risk of recall from life licence for a minor offence. | |
| (1) Cumbria, Northumberland and Tyne & Wear NHS Foundation Trust, (2) Secretary of State for Justice v EG | 309 |
| Issue: Whether, in the case of a conditionally discharged restricted patient who had been recalled because the conditions of his conditional discharge were an unlawful deprivation of liberty and simultaneously released on leave under s17 Mental Health Act 1983, a Tribunal decision to again discharge him because he was not receiving any treatment in hospital involved an error of law; whether s72 of the 1983 Act could be construed to allow ongoing liability to detention so as to allow treatment to be given in the community under s17; whether the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court could be used to authorise detention in the community setting of a person with capacity who was therefore outside the Mental Capacity Act 2005. | |
| R v William Johnstone (AG’s Reference under s36 Criminal Justice Act 1988) | 326 |
| Issue: Whether a sentence for attempted grievous bodily harm was unduly lenient; whether the judge should have sought a medical report in light of indications that the defendant had mental disorder. | |
| R v Patrick Curran | 333 |
| Issue: Whether psychiatric evidence suggesting that a defendant was guilty of manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility rather than murder was admissible on appeal when the accused declined to admit the killing and the case against him had relied on circumstantial and forensic evidence. | |
| R v Lucy Osayamen Inneh | 338 |
| Issue: Whether a restriction order under s41 Mental Health Act 1983 was necessary in addition to a hospital order under s37 in relation to a defendant found not guilty by reason of insanity of a serious assault. | |
| R v Barbara Carol Miller | 341 |
| Issue: Whether a life sentence imposed in 1988 should be replaced by orders under ss37/41 Mental Health Act 1983 in light of fresh evidence as to the treatability of mental health conditions. | |
| R v Sanjay Nijhawan | 349 |
| Issue: Whether leave to extend time and to adduce fresh evidence should be granted in relation to a sentence of life imprisonment with a minimum term of 10 years for manslaughter by reason of diminished responsibility; whether the fresh evidence, namely expert evidence as to the impact of certain anti-depressant medication, provided a ground for appeal. | |
| R v Joshua Nash | 355 |
| Issue: Whether a judge was wrong to impose an extended sentence with an order under s45A Mental Health Act 1983 rather than orders under ss37/41 for an offender with paranoid schizophrenia who inflicted grievous bodily harm with intent on 2 people. | |
| R v Eltiona Skana | 360 |
| Issue: Whether it was wrong in principle to impose a life sentence with a hybrid order under s45A Mental Health Act 1983 rather than orders under ss37/41 of the 1983 Act for a manslaughter by diminished responsibility committed in a psychotic state; whether the minimum term was too long. | |
| R v Mark William Ellerton | 363 |
| Issue: The appropriate sentence for a defendant who admitted 2 counts of arson reckless as to whether life was endangered, who had been sentenced to orders under ss37/41 Mental Health Act 1983 without the court specifying the relevant hospital, who had served the equivalent of a custodial sentence of 4 years but who no longer met the criteria for s37 of the 1983 Act because of treatment and an improvement in his condition; the applicability of the “slip rule” to a failure to specify the relevant hospital. | |
| R v Sahme Mohamed | 368 |
| Issue: Whether a conviction for a serious assault with acid was unsafe in light of, inter alia, the giving of an adverse inference direction in relation to a defendant with a moderate learning disability and the failure to provide an intermediary; whether the judge was wrong to impose an extended sentence with an order under s45A Mental Health Act 1983 rather than orders under ss37/41. | |
| R v Jonathan Robert Keal | 372 |
| Issue: The proper understanding of “wrongness” in the insanity test, and whether it required a choice to do something known to be wrong. | |
| DD v Sussex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust and Secretary of State for Justice | 380 |
| Issue: Whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to consider an application made by a patient who was detained as a restricted patient at the time of the application by reason of findings of unfitness to stand trial and having committed the acts charged, but who was conditionally discharged by the Secretary of State before the hearing; whether the Upper Tribunal should consider an appeal which was academic. | |
View as
Sort by
Display
per page
