Source: http://www.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/March_2010_chronology
Timestamp: 2013-06-20 05:13:26
Document Index: 718528578

Matched Legal Cases: ['EWCA ', 'EWCA ', 'EWCA ', 'EWCA ', 'EWCA ', 'EWCA ']

March 2010 chronology - Mental Health Law Online (Wikimentalhealth)
Jump to: navigation, search	See March 2010 update for a summary of these changes.
31/03/10: Case summary added (other capacity cases). Independent News and Media Ltd v A (2010) EWCA Civ 343 — The judge's decision (that designated representatives of the media could attend the hearing in the Court of Protection and thereafter apply to the judge for authorisation to publish information disclosed in the proceedings) was upheld, but his approach (that article 10 was not engaged when the media's application was made but rather when the court decided that there was "good reason" under Rule 93(1)(a)) was not.
31/03/10: Case transcript added (best interests). G v E (2010) EWHC 621 (Fam) — E lacked capacity and was being deprived of his liberty at a residential unit by the local authority. They had breached his Article 5 rights by doing so without seeking a DOLS authorisation or court order, and had breached his Article 8 rights by actions including a failure properly to involve his carer. However, the court authorised continuing deprivation of liberty at the residential unit pending the final hearing as this was in his best interests. There is no threshold condition for an order under s16 depriving someone of his liberty, other than that P lacks the relevant capacity. When considering DOL there is a clear distinction between a placement at home, with family or an adult carer, and a residential placement. Hearsay from an incompetent witness is admissible but no weight would be given to E's statements.
30/03/10: Case summary added (miscellaneous). Mezey v South West London and St George's Mental Health NHS Trust (2010) EWCA Civ 293 — Dr Mezey had admitted a conditionally-discharged patient informally to a secure ward without informing the Home Office, and granted him unescorted leave that day without personally assessing him; the patient went AWOL and killed a stranger. The Trust's formal investigation, although it found her conduct inappropriate and not in accordance with the standards of good practice, did not call into account her capability to practise. The Trust were therefore not entitled to convene a capability panel under the Maintaining High Professional Standards in the modern NHS (MHPS) framework.
28/03/10: Case summary added (best interests). Dorset CC v EH (2009) EWHC 784 (Fam) — The Official Solicitor's view and independent expert's opinion was that EH, an elderly lady with dementia, should be assisted to continue to live at home; notwithstanding this, the judge agreed with the local authority that it was in EH's best interests to be deprived of her liberty in residential accommodation for her own safety.
26/03/10: Case summary added (criminal law). R v Osborne (2010) EWCA Crim 547 — It was neither necessary nor expedient in the interests of justice to admit fresh evidence that the claimant suffered from ADHD: it would not afford any ground for allowing the appeal against conviction on the basis of diminished responsibility.
26/03/10: Important new secondary legislation added (welfare benefits). Social Security (Persons Serving a Sentence of Imprisonment Detained in Hospital) Regulations 2010 — These Regulations amend the relevant social security legislation so that post-tariff indeterminate-sentence prisoners who have been transferred under the MHA do not receive benefits on their tariff expiry date, but must wait until their actual release, thus reversing the Court of Appeal decision in R (D and M) v SSWP (2010) EWCA Civ 18. In force 25/3/10.
26/03/10: New case summary (disability discrimination). Thomas-Ashley v Drum Housing Association Ltd (2010) EWCA Civ 265 — The appellant argued that a possession order should be set aside as, on the grounds of her bi-polar affective disorder, the maintanence of the "no animals" provision made it impossible for her to enjoy the premises under s24A Disability Discrimination Act 1995. (1) The prohibition against keeping animals in the premises did not make it impossible or unreasonably difficult for her to enjoy the premises. (2) In any event: (a) the "no animals" term would have had the same effect if the appellant did not have the disability of bipolar disorder; and (b) no reasonable steps the respondents should have taken but failed to take were identified, particularly as variation of the term would have lead to forfeiture by the head lessor.
26/03/10: New case summary (miscellaneous). Maga v Trustees of the Birmingham Archdiocese of the Roman Catholic Church (2010) EWCA Civ 256 — The claimant brought proceedings, by the Official Solicitor as his litigation friend, against the Archdiocese for damages for sexual abuse in 1975/6 by Father Clonan: (1) the priest's sexual abuse of the claimant was so closely connected with his employment that it would be fair and just to hold the Archdiocese vicariously liable; (2) obiter, the Archdiocese owed a duty of care to the claimant and was negligent.
15/03/10: New case summary added (Tribunal reasons, transcript published today). MD v Nottinghamshire Health Care NHS Trust (2010) UKUT 59 (AAC) — The Tribunal decided that appropriate treatment was available at Rampton, or alternatively that MD was benefiting from the ward milieu; their reasons were adequate. (1) The detention was not mere containment: (a) treatment could be appropriate even without the possibility of risk reduction; (b) although if there was no prospect of the patient progressing beyond milieu therapy (to engage in psychotherapeutic work) there might come a point at which treatment was no longer appropriate, MD was not at that stage. (2) There was no practical distinction in this case between s72(1)(b)(i) and (iia) so if the tribunal dealt properly with head (iia), its reasoning covered head (ii). (3) The Tribunal was entitled to rely on the evidence, and make the findings of fact, which it did. (4) Although treatment is not defined by reference to its likely effect, as a practical matter, that will have been taken into account in deciding whether the treatment could be given for a permitted purpose. (5) In relation to experts: (a) the duty on parties to co-operate in rule 2(4) must include making their experts available to comply with any directions that are given by the tribunal; (b) the medical examination and expert panel reduce the need for parties to have their own expert evidence.
15/03/10: New case added (after-care). R (M) v Hammersmith and Fulham LBC and Sutton LBC (2010) EWHC 562 (Admin) — M moved from Hammersmith to a hostel in Sutton, but Hammersmith continued to pay; he was subsequently placed under s3 in a Sutton hospital and surrendered his tenancy; as he was resident in Sutton when admitted, Hammersmith was not responsible for future accommodation costs under s117. [Summary required.]
06/03/10: Case summary added. Key v Key (2010) EWHC 408 (Ch) — Successful challenge to will on the grounds of want of testamentary capacity and want of knowledge and approval.
02/03/10: Case summary added (discrimination, prisoners; judgment 26/2/10). R (Gill) v SSJ (2010) EWHC 364 (Admin) — The Defendant's failure to offer the Claimant, who was a short-tariff lifer with learning disability, sufficient suitable offending behaviour work to give him the opportunity to demonstrate safety for release, unlawfully breached the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 and breached his public law duties.
02/03/10: Case added (criminal law). Juncal v UK 32357/09 (2010) ECHR 249 — Lawfulness of detention. Statement of facts and questions to the parties lodged at court. [Summary required.]
Retrieved from "http://www.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/index.php?title=March_2010_chronology&oldid=14855"
Printable version	Permanent link	- This page was last modified at 17:36 on 11 April 2010. Page credits: Jonathan Privacy policy