Source: http://www.mhla.co.uk/legal-updates/march-2012-mental-health-law-update/
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 22:38:19+00:00

Document:
Crawford v Suffolk MH Partnership NHS Trust (2012) EWCA Civ 138, (2012) MHLO 14 — The employees had been dismissed for gross misconduct for restraining a patient on a chair which was tied to a table; they disputed the allegation that they tied the patient to the chair with a sheet. (1) The Employment Tribunal had been entitled to conclude that there had been two procedural errors (in failing to obtain the witness’s first statement, and in carrying out a practical experiment on the chair without notification to the appellants) and that they were errors that a reasonable employer would not have made; although the ET went too far in saying no reasonable employer could have preferred the witness’s evidence over the employees’, this did not invalidate the finding of unfair dismissal. (2) The case was remitted to the ET to consider the Polkey point (reduction in compensation based on chance of dismissal following fair procedure) but the 25% reduction for contributory fault (failure to report the incident) was upheld. (3) (Obiter) The court expressed scepticism about the need for suspension during the disciplinary process, and stated that, as the conduct did not deserve the epithet ‘criminal’, the police should never have been involved: while the hospital must act transparently it also owes duties to long-serving staff.
DL v A Local Authority (2012) EWCA Civ 253, (2012) MHLO 32 — The local authority brought proceedings under the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction to protect his parents from DL; these proceedings could not have been brought under the MCA 2005 as the parents did not lack capacity under that Act; DL argued that the MCA, by establishing a comprehensive scheme for adults, had displaced the inherent jurisdiction. (1) The inherent jurisdiction of the High Court in relation to vulnerable adults survives the implementation of the MCA 2005, which only relates to adults who lack capacity as defined in the Act. (2) The absence of any express provision in relation to the inherent jurisdiction implies that it continues to be available, as ‘the great safety net’, where the Act does not apply; in any event, there is a strong policy justification, the protection of vulnerable adults, for this conclusion. (3) The jurisdiction is in part aimed at enhancing or liberating the autonomy of a vulnerable adult whose autonomy has been compromised by a reason other than mental incapacity because they are (a) under constraint; or (b) subject to coercion or undue influence; or (c) for some other reason deprived of the capacity to make the relevant decision or disabled from making a free choice, or incapacitated or disabled from giving or expressing a real and genuine consent.
JB v MHTS (2012) MHLO 17 (ScotSC) — The MHTS declared under section 257 Mental Health (Care and Treatment) (Scotland) Act 2003 that JB was no longer to be the named person on the basis that it was inappropriate for her to continue as such. The decision was made by a Convenor (legal member) sitting alone, but should have been made by a full panel: the tribunal was faced with an important substantive decision; there was no emergency; even if there had been extant proceedings, this was not a ‘preliminary’ or ‘interim’ decision within the rules. The tribunal was therefore improperly constituted, and the appeal was allowed.
R (Broadway Care Centre Ltd) v Caerphilly County Borough Council (2012) EWHC 37 (Admin), (2012) MHLO 26 — The Claimant unsuccessfully sought permission to challenge the decision of the Defendant local authority to terminate its contract to provide care for elderly dementia sufferers.
R v Chiles (2012) EWCA Crim 196, (2012) MHLO 10 — The judge should not have should not have taken into account her concerns about the future of the NHS (she had said, ‘I cannot be confident in the current fluctuating state of the NHS that the security that the public needs to be protected from you will be ensured unless there is an another government department which has input into the issue of your release and that is what I will achieve by the section 41 order’) but there was ample material to justify the conclusion that a restriction order was necessary for the protection of the public from serious harm.
R v Dowds (2012) EWCA Crim 281, (2012) MHLO 18 — The appellant argued that voluntary acute intoxication (voluntary and uncomplicated by any alcoholism or dependence) is capable of giving rise to the partial defence of diminished responsibility on an indictment for murder under the amended Homicide Act 1957 because it is a ‘recognised medical condition’. Held: (1) the presence of a ‘recognised medical condition’ is a necessary, but not always a sufficient, condition to raise the issue of diminished responsibility; (2) voluntary acute intoxication, whether from alcohol or other substance, is not capable of founding diminished responsibility.
R v Lucas (2012) EWCA Crim 182, (2012) MHLO 16 — The renewed application for extension of time (the delay being caused by the appellant pondering negative legal advice before deciding to appeal anyway) in which to apply for leave to appeal against restriction order was refused, as there was ample material to justify the restriction order.
Re Ian Brady (2012) MHLO 19 (FTT) — (1) Ian Brady’s Mental Health Tribunal hearing will be held on 9/7/12 with a time estimate of 8 days; (2) the hearing at Ashworth will be broadcast at the Civil Justice Centre Manchester where the public and media can observe; (3) in relation to the hearing itself, the public will not be allowed to attend, and the position of the media will be the subject of further directions.
Reynolds v UK 2694/08 (2012) ECHR 437, (2012) MHLO 30 — (1) A voluntary in-patient killed himself by breaking and jumping out of a sixth-floor window: the court held that there was an arguable claim that an operational duty under Article 2 arose to take reasonable steps to protect him from a real and immediate risk of suicide and that that duty was not fulfilled. (2) There were no domestic civil proceedings available to his mother to establish any liability and compensation due as regards the non-pecuniary damage suffered by her on her son’s death, and therefore there was a violation of Article 13 in conjunction with Article 2. In particular: (a) neither the inquest nor the internal inquiry were an effective remedy; (b) the HRA claim under Article 2 was struck out by the county court because of domestic case law at that time which required gross negligence; (c) the mother had no prospect of obtaining adequate compensation for non-pecuniary damage under the Fatal Accidents Act 1976 (she was not a dependent) or the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1934 (death was instantaneous); (d) the lack of adequate compensation would itself reduce access to the civil remedy, as the legal aid ‘cost/benefit analysis’ would not be met and legal fees were unaffordable. (3) It was not necessary to examine the same complaint under Article 2 alone. (4) €7000 compensation was awarded.
Seaton v Seddon (2012) EWHC 735 (Ch), (2012) MHLO 28 — Chancery case partly involving, in relation to the fourth claimant, consideration of the effect of mental incapacity on statutory limitation periods. (1) If a claimant is under one disability (minority) when the cause of action accrued, and subsequently under a second overlapping disability (mental incapacity), the limitation period does not run until he is no longer under the second disability. (2) The question of disability for the purpose of limitation should be determined under the law as it stood when the proceedings were commenced (in this case: whether he was ‘of unsound mind [meaning that he] by reason of mental disorder within the meaning of the Mental Health Act 1983, is incapable of managing or administering his property and affairs’ rather than the new test of whether he ‘lacks capacity (within the meaning of the Mental Capacity Act 2005) to conduct legal proceedings’. (3) On the facts, the fourth claimant was not ‘of unsound mind’; hence he would not meet the new test either.
Wirral MBC v Salisbury Independent Living Ltd (2012) EWCA Civ 84, (2012) MHLO 27 — In Housing Benefit cases, a landlord cannot exercise an independent right of appeal to the First Tier Tribunal against a decision of the Local Authority other than in the cases for which specific provision is made by the subordinate legislation.
X v MHRT for NI (2012) NIQB 1, (2012) MHLO 31 — In previous judicial review proceedings, X had established that in NI where there is a mandatory duty to discharge it cannot lawfully be deferred. He now sought to bring a negligence and false imprisonment claim against the Tribunal and the Trust for his detention during a six-week deferral period. To sue the Tribunal he required leave of the High Court (under Article 133 Mental Health (Northern Ireland) Order 1986, the equivalent of s139): the test is whether on the materials immediately available to the court the complaint deserves fuller investigation. Leave was refused because there had been a difficult question of statutory construction and no bad faith or lack of reasonable care.
ZH v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis (2012) EWHC 604 (QB), (2012) MHLO 25 — ZH, a severely autistic, epileptic 19-year-old man, became fixated with the water during a school visit to a swimming pool and would not move from the water’s edge: the police were called; when an officer touched him on his back he jumped into the water, fully clothed; the police had him taken out of the pool and restrained him. (1) The police actions constituted assault, battery and false imprisonment. There was no need for the police to be aware of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 for the defence in ss5–6 to be made out, but on the facts it was not. When the MCA applies, the common law defence of necessity has no application, but had it applied it would have failed. (2) There was a breach of the DDA 1995 duty to make reasonable adjustments to the normal practice, policy or procedure, and the defence of justification failed. (3) The inhuman or degrading treatment breached Article 3. (4) Even treating purpose and intention as relevant, there was a breach of Article 5. (5) The intereference with ZH’s private life under Article 8 was not in accordance with the law or proportionate. (6) Quantum: PTSD £10,000; exacerbation of epilepsy £12,500; DDA £5,000; trespass to the person (loss of liberty £500, pain and distress from assault £250); total £28,250; no aggravated or exemplary damages; no additional HRA damages.
Tribunal Procedure (Amendment) Rules 2012 — By amending Tribunal Rules 32 and 35, these rules: (1) add ‘date of birth’ to the items which an application must, if possible, include; (2) remove a reference to after-care under supervision; (3) prescribe information which a reference must, if possible, include; (4) amend the rules for reports following recall of s37/41 patients (rather than the Secretary of State being required to submit reports within 6 weeks, he must immediately provide details of the RC and social supervisor who are then given 3 weeks to provide reports); (5) amend the rules for section 2 cases (the responsible authority must now provide the documents specified in the Practice Direction, rather than that which ‘can reasonably be provided in the time available’); (6) clarify the wording in relation to other cases (explicitly stating that if the responsible authority made the reference then the 3 weeks runs from the date of the reference); (7) prescribe the information required from the Secretary of State (summary of index offence, record of previous convictions, full details of liability to detention since restrictions were imposed, any further relevant information); (8) clarify that a case may be struck out without a hearing for want of jurisdiction under r8(3); (9) allow a s68 CTO reference to be disposed of without a hearing if the patient is 18 or over and either (a) the patient states in writing he does not wish to attend or be represented and the tribunal is satisfied he has the capacity to decide whether or not to make that decision (it is assumed this is intended to mean the capacity to make the decision) or (b) the representative states in writing that the patient does not want to attend or be represented. Worryingly, the consultation response states that the decision on capacity will be based on the responsible clinician’s opinion and the reports. In force 6/4/12.
Updated guidance. Court of Protection Guidance: Applications to the Court of Protection in relation to tenancy agreements — This document provides guidance on when and how to make applications in relation to signing or terminating tenancy agreements on behalf of adults who lack the mental capacity to understand or sign the agreement themselves. It sets out a ‘streamlined’ process for receiving applications relating to more than one person. Published 22/6/11 and updated in February 2012.
19/03/12 (4): Parole Board Rules 2011 — These are the rules which govern the operation of the Parole Board for England and Wales, replacing the Parole Board Rules 2004. In force 3/1/12.
Mental Welfare Commission for Scotland, ‘An investigation into the response by statutory services and professionals to concerns raised in respect of Mr and Mrs D’ (January 2012). This investigation into alleged abuse of powers of attorney concludes with recommendations for the council, NHS Board, Office of the Public Guardian, Law Society of Scotland, and the Scottish Government. See Mental Welfare Commission for Scotland.

References: EWCA 
 EWCA 
 EWCA 
 EWCA 
 EWCA 
 EWCA