Source: http://mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/index.php?title=November_2011_update&amp;action=edit
Timestamp: 2019-05-21 10:50:53
Document Index: 396568334

Matched Legal Cases: ['EWCA ', 'EWCA ', 'EWCA ', 'EWCA ', 'EWCA ', 'EWCA ', 'art 2', 'art 1']

R (Modaresi) v SSH [2011] EWCA Civ 1359 — The claimant's s2 Tribunal application was faxed to the MHA Administrator's office on New Year's Eve, within the 14-day eligibility period, but was not faxed from there to the Tribunal office until after the bank holiday weekend, by which time the 14-day period had expired; the Tribunal therefore rejected the application; the claimant was then placed under s3; the Secretary of State refused to make a s67 reference. (1) Where the Tribunal office is closed on the 14th day of the eligibility period, the period is extended to include the next day that it is open (this is the case even though a fax application can be made when the office is closed). (2) Since the application was made on time, the claim against the Trust (that their inadequate system breached Article 5(4)) was academic. (3) The Secretary of State's decision was not vitiated by being based on the mistaken belief that the application was out of time (as the position was unclear then); requiring the claimant immediately to exercise her s3 right of application (rather than retaining that right until after a reference Tribunal) did not breach Article 5(4) as the Secretary of State would have to exercise his s67 discretion at a later date in accordance with public law principles.
Cheshire West and Chester Council v P [2011] EWCA Civ 1333 — The council sought a costs order against P in relation to the Court of Appeal proceedings. (1) The general rule on appeals from the COP to the Court of Appeal is, in accordance with CPR 44.3(2)(a), that the unsuccessful party will be ordered to pay the costs (subject, where relevant, to costs protection under s11 Access to Justice Act 1999). (2) The general rule in COP welfare cases (that there be no order as to costs) was irrelevant, as was the council's discreditable conduct at first instance. (2) Other factors were taken into account and the court made no order as to costs: 'Among the primary reasons for making no order is that the reason for and the importance of the appeal was not really at all about how P will be dealt with. The point of major importance for the local authority, and indeed local authorities generally, was how often they have to come back to court in this and other like cases.'
R v Shah [2011] EWCA Crim 2333 — Following a special verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity, a restricted hospital order was imposed; an appeal, relying on post-sentence medical evidence, was made against the restriction order. (1) In exceptional cases the court can consider good progress after sentencing, but in this case the task was to decide whether, on the material before him on the date of sentence, the judge's sentence was wrong in principle or manifestly excessive: it was not. (2) The sentence provides a mechanism for release by a Tribunal from the restriction order and the full rigour therefore of the hospital order [this is incorrect], so the appeal court should not taken over the function of that body.
R v Goucher [2011] EWCA Crim 2473 — On appeal, the restriction order was quashed: the judge had applied the correct test (whether it was necessary to protect the public from serious harm) but, as confirmed by a psychiatric report prepared for the appeal, he had got the answer wrong. [Summary based on All ER (D) report.]
De Louville De Toucy v Bonhams 1793 Ltd [2011] EWHC 3809 (Ch) — (1) There was no inconsistency between the Insolvency Rules (defining an 'incapacitated person') and the CPR (defining a 'protected party'). (2) The registrar should not have declared the claimant bankrupt: he ought to have (a) been aware that the claimant was incapable, (b) adjourned the case for a representative or litigation friend to be appointed, and (c) heard representations from such a person. (3) On the evidence, the financial situation was complex and, without proper investigation, it was impossible to be sure that it was appropriate to make a bankruptcy order, so the order was set aside and the matter referred to the registrar to be heard again. [Summary based on All ER (D) report.]
R (BA) v SSHD [2011] EWHC 2748 (Admin) — Judicial review of detention pending deportation (psychiatric background). [Summary required.]
R v Lavender [2011] EWCA Crim 2420 — (1) On the material before the sentencing judge, there was nothing wrong in principle with an extended sentence. (2) However, given the recent psychiatric evidence, it was now arguable that the option of a hospital order with or without a restriction order needed to be considered, so leave to appeal was given and a representation order was granted.
R v Clark [2011] EWCA Crim 2516 — The defendant appealed against a sentence of 56 months' imprisonment for GBH (financial worries had led him to decide to kill his wife and himself). The sentencing guidelines could never have been intended to apply to such an exceptional case; the sentence was replaced with a community rehabilitation order with a mental health treatment requirement.
Hossack v Legal Services Commission [2011] EWHC 2700 (Admin) — Unsuccessful judicial review of a decision of the LSC rejecting the claimant's tender for the provision of legal services in the field of community care following a competitive tendering exercise in 2010.
Re Clare (2011) COP 8/9/11 — The donor made two LPAs, each appointing an attorney and a replacement attorney. In each she directed as follows: "My Attorney may at any time appoint a substitute to act as my Attorney and may revoke any appointment without giving a reason. Each appointment is to be in writing signed by my Attorney. Every substitute has full powers as my Attorney as if appointed by this Deed, except the power to appoint a substitute." On the application of the Public Guardian the provision was severed as being a plain breach of section 10(8)(a) of the MCA, which provides that an LPA cannot give the attorney power to appoint a substitute or successor. [OPG summary - LPA case.]
Re Dhir (2011) COP 15/11/11 — The donor set out eight restrictions, one of which was: "My attorney must not sell any of my properties unless it is required for my wife's medical treatment." On the application of the Public Guardian the restriction was severed on the ground that it authorised the attorneys to make gifts beyond the scope of the statutory power set out in section 12 of the MCA 2005. [OPG summary - LPA case.]
Re Hamilton (2011) COP 25/10/11 — The donor appointed one primary attorney and one replacement attorney. On page 5 of the LPA the donor inappropriately ticked the box indicating that the attorneys were appointed to act jointly for some decisions and jointly and severally for other decisions, and continued: "My No 1 Attorney will make all decisions re my everyday expenses and decisions [and] will make joint decisions with the Replacement Attorney in reference to any large decisions re the selling of investments, property and the eventual need of a nursing home etc." On the application of the Public Guardian the provision was severed on the ground that, having appointed the attorneys to act successively, the donor could not authorise them to make any decisions concurrently, whether jointly or jointly and severally. [OPG summary - LPA case.]
Re Stewart (2011) COP 9/11/11 — The donor included the following direction in the guidance section: "I authorise my attorneys to refuse or consent to my deprivation of liberty." The Public Guardian applied for severance on the ground that: "The deprivation of the donor's liberty is only lawful if ordered by the court or done in accordance with the procedures prescribed by law under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 as amended by the Mental Health Act 2007. The donor does not have power to authorise her attorneys to consent to the deprivation of her liberty in the absence of a court order or going through the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguarding procedures." The court determined that the direction was invalid for the reasons given by the Public Guardian. [OPG summary - LPA case.]
Re McGregor (2011) COP 16/11/11 — The donor appointed attorneys to act jointly in some matters and jointly and severally in others, and directed as follows: "Jointly - decisions on sale of house. Decisions on type of care received if no longer able to stay in own home. Severally - financial matters regarding bank accounts and general cash flow." On the application of the Public Guardian the words "decisions on sale of house" and "Severally - financial matters regarding bank accounts and general cash flow" were severed because they purported to give Health and Welfare attorneys authority to make decisions regarding the donor's property and financial affairs. (The result would be that, by implication, the attorneys would be able to decide jointly and severally all matters other than the type of care the donor would receive if no longer able to stay in his own home.) [OPG summary - LPA case.]
Re Hurren (2011) COP 28/9/11 — The Public Guardian refused to register the instrument as an LPA because the Part B certificate had been signed before the donor signed Part A, in contravention of Regulation 9 of the Lasting Powers of Attorney, Enduring Powers of Attorney and Public Guardian Regulations 2007. (The donor had subsequently lost capacity.) On the attorney's application, the court declared in the exercise of its discretion under paragraph 3(2) of Schedule 1 of the MCA 2005 that the instrument was to be treated as if it were in the prescribed form and directed registration. The Public Guardian applied to set aside the order on the ground that paragraph 3(2) did not apply in the case of defective execution. The court set aside the order, and confirmed that the discretion given to the court under paragraph 3(2) applies only to an instrument which is not in the prescribed form and does not apply to any prescribed requirements in connection with its execution. [OPG summary - LPA case.]
Re Steiner (2011) COP 17/10/11 — The donor appointed two attorneys to act jointly. She then gave the following guidance: "Should the need arise relating to the management of my financial affairs and my business interests, whoever at the time is acting for me personally as my accountant or solicitor shall adjudicate over my personal financial interests and whoever is acting professionally for me in respect of my business interests either my accountant or solicitor shall adjudicate over my business interests." On the application of the Public Guardian the court severed the provision from the LPA on the ground that it could potentially oust the jurisdiction of the court. [OPG summary - LPA case.]
Re Clarke (2011) COP 19/9/11 — The donor made an LPA for property and financial affairs, appointing her husband and daughter as attorneys and her other two daughters as replacement attorneys. She also made an LPA for health and welfare, appointing her husband and three daughters as attorneys. When an application was made to register the instruments, the husband objected on the ground that the instruments had not been properly witnessed. He alleged that the witness had not been in the house when the donor signed, but had added his signature later. The court preferred the evidence of the witness and one daughter, to the effect that the donor had signed at the dining room table and that the witness was in an adjacent room and could see her sign through glass doors separating the two rooms. Applying the old case Casson v Dade (1781), the court held that the instruments had been properly witnessed. (The husband also objected on the ground that the donor lacked capacity to make an LPA, but this was also dismissed. The donor's GP had acted as certificate provider and the court commented on the difficulties facing GPs who act as certificate providers within the time constraints of an appointment at the surgery). [OPG summary - LPA case.]
Re DC (Judicial Review) [2011] CSOH 193 — Various questions of Scots law arose in this judicial review claim for damages for unlawful detention. [Summary required.]
AB v MHTS (2011) ScotSC B694/11 — Unsuccessful challenge to MHTS decision. [Summary required.]
Re P; A Local Authority v PB [2011] EWHC 2675 (COP) — Case concerning residence, contact, and deprivation of liberty. [Summary required.]
Re FL; HN v FL and Hampshire CC [2011] EWHC 2894 (COP) — 'The primary issues requiring determination by the court were as follows: (1) FL’s capacity to make personal welfare decisions; (2) FL’s mental health needs; (3) FL’s medication; (4) The Z Home’s ability to meet FL’s physical and mental health needs; (5) Whether HN had conducted herself inappropriately or whether such conduct was justified; (6) Whether HCC and or The Z Home conducted themselves inappropriately or whether such conduct was justified; (7) Depending on the outcome of (5) and (6) whether restrictive orders should be made.' 'IPL were permitted to publish details about the case subject to the restrictions in that order.' [Summary required.]
LB Tower Hamlets v BB [2011] EWHC 2853 (Fam) — 'There are two sets of proceedings which concern BB. In the first, her litigation friend, sought guidance from the court under sections 16 and 18(k) of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 about the conduct of proceedings concerning BB and declarations that she a) lacks capacity to conduct those proceedings and b) it is in her best interests that, in the event that her marriage to MA is a valid marriage, it be annulled or that there be a declaration that it is not recognised by the law of England and Wales. In the second, the local authority as substituted applicant seeks declarations that BB a) lacks the capacity to litigate, b) lacks capacity to decide where she should live, with whom she should have contact, who should provide her with care, what care should be provided to her and the medical treatment she should receive for her mental disorder. The court is asked to make decisions on her behalf as respects those questions which the court determines she is incapacitated to answer.' [Summary required.]
Mental Capacity Act 2005 (Appropriate Body) (England) Amendment Regulations 2011 — These Regulations amend the definition of 'appropriate body' (i.e. a body which can approve certain research) in the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (Appropriate Body) (England) Regulations 2006 to clarify that, in the definition of an appropriate body, a committee recognised by the Secretary of State means a committee recognised by the Secretary of State in exercise of his powers in section 2 of the National Health Service Act 2006. See Explanatory Memorandum for background. In force 1/12/11.
Mental Health (Independent Mental Health Advocates) (Wales) Regulations 2011 — 'These Regulations contain provisions about arrangements for the appointment of Independent Mental Health Advocates. They contain provisions about who may be appointed to act as an IMHA, and persons who may be visited and interviewed by an IMHA for the purpose of providing help to a Welsh qualifying patient who has been admitted under section 4 (admission for assessment in cases of emergency) of the Mental Health Act 1983' (extract from Explanatory Note). Made 18/10/11; in force on 2/4/12 in relation to Welsh qualifying informal patients, and otherwise on 3/1/12.
Mental Health (Assessment of Former Users of Secondary Mental Health Services) (Wales) Regulations 2011 — 'These Regulations contain provisions about mental health assessments for former users of secondary mental health services' (extract from Explanatory Note). Made 18/10/11; in force 6/6/12.
Northern Ireland Act 1998 (Devolution of Policing and Justice Functions) Order 2010/976 — 'This Order amends certain statutory provisions and makes other provision in consequence of, or for giving full effect to, the Northern Ireland Act 1998 (Amendment of Schedule 3) Order 2010. That Order amends Schedule 3 to the Northern Ireland Act 1998 so that certain policing and justice matters (as defined in section 4(6) of the 1998 Act) cease to be reserved matters and become transferred matters.' (extract from explanatory note) Amends MHA 1983 s82, s82A, s86 and s139.
Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Consequential Amendments No.2) Order 2010/813 — This Order makes amendments to primary legislation, including the MHA 1983, consequential on the replacement, for England, of the registration of health and social care providers under Part 2 of the Care Standards Act 2000 with the new registration system under Part 1 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008. Amends s24, s34, s119 and s145. In force 1/10/10.
Postal Services Act 2011 — 'An Act to make provision for the restructuring of the Royal Mail group and about the Royal Mail Pension Plan; to make new provision about the regulation of postal services, including provision for a special administration regime; and for connected purposes.' (preamble) Amends MHA 1983 s134.
Second reading of Mental Health (Discrimination) Bill, Hansard HL Deb, 25 November 2011, col 1283. Mental Health (Discrimination) Bill 2010 — This Private Member's Bill, introduced by Lord Stevenson, received its first reading on 6/4/11. If enacted it would: (1) Repeal s141 MHA 1983 so that the seat of an MP is no longer vacated upon long-term detention under the Act; (2) amend the Juries Act 1974 so that (in addition to the existing category of those lacking capacity) only those liable to be detained under the MHA are excluded from jury service (see jury service page for current provisions); (3) amend the Companies (Model Articles) Regulations 2008 so that a person no longer ceases to be a director when 'by reason of that person’s mental health, a court makes an order which wholly or partly prevents that person from personally exercising any powers or rights which that person would otherwise have'; (4) amend the School Governance (Constitution) (England) Regulations 2007 so it is no longer the case that '[a] person is disqualified from holding or from continuing to hold office as a governor of a school at any time when he is detained under the Mental Health Act 1983'. See Mental Health (Discrimination) (No. 2) Bill 2012.
39 Essex Street, 'Court of Protection Newsletter' (issue 14, October-November 2011). The cases referred to are: Re S; D v R (the deputy of S) [2010] EWHC 3748 (COP)Not on Bailii, Sharma v Hunters [2011] EWHC 2546 (COP), Re GM; FP v GM and A Health Board [2011] EWHC 2778 (COP)Not on Bailii, LG v DK [2011] EWHC 2453 (COP), A Local Authority v DL [2010] EWHC 2675 (Fam), R (Sessay) v South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust [2011] EWHC 2617 (QB), DN v Northumberland Tyne and Wear NHS Foundation Trust [2011] UKUT 327 (AAC). Also mentioned is the Law Commission report on kidnapping, which includes a discussion of Re HM; PM v KH [2010] EWHC 870 (Fam). See 39 Essex Street COP Newsletter
The text of the Mental Health Act 1983 on this website has been updated: (1) the Postal Services Act 2011 amends s134, with effect from 1/10/11; (2) the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Consequential Amendments No.2) Order 2010/813 amends s24, s34, s119 and s145, wef 1/10/10; (3) the Northern Ireland Act 1998 (Devolution of Policing and Justice Functions) Order 2010/976 amends s82, s82A, s86 and s139, wef 12/4/10. See Mental Health Act 1983
Retrieved from "http://mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/index.php?title=November_2011_update&oldid=37818"
This page was last edited on 23 February 2019, at 21:47.