Source: http://www.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/Mind,_%27Legal_Newsletter%27_(December_2017)?id=071217-10
Timestamp: 2018-05-21 22:24:18
Document Index: 208863545

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

Mind, 'Legal Newsletter' (December 2017) - Mental Health Law Online
Mind, 'Legal Newsletter' (December 2017)
This newsletter contains news under the following headings: (1) Thriving at Work - The Stevenson/Farmer Review of mental health and employers; (2) Mental Health and Fair Trial; (3) Section 117 and multiple diagnoses; (4) Damien Tinsley v Manchester City Council [2017] EWCA Civ 1704; (5) R(CXF) v Central Bedfordshire Council [2017] EWHC 2311 (Admin); (6) Burden of Proof in discrimination claims in the Employment Tribunal - Ayodele v Citylink [2017] EWCA Civ 1913.
1.1 Thriving at Work - The Stevenson/Farmer Review of mental health and employers 2017
1.1.2 How the vision can be achieved
1.1.3 Core standards
1.1.4 Enhanced standards
1.1.5 External support for employers
1.1.6 The government
1.1.7 Implementation and delivery
1.2 Mental Health and Fair Trial
1.3 Section 117 and multiple diagnoses
1.4 Damien Tinsley v Manchester City Council [2017] EWCA Civ 1704
1.5 R(CXF) v Central Bedfordshire Council [2017] EWHC 2311 (Admin)
1.5.1 Comment
1.6 Burden of Proof in discrimination claims in the Employment Tribunal – Ayodele v Citylink [2017] EWCA Civ 1913
The text is reproduced below and can also be viewed on Mind's website via the link at the bottom of this page.
The Mental Health and Fair Trial report was published on 27 November 2017. It makes 52 recommendations on various aspects of the criminal justice process.
JUSTICE is a law reform and human rights organisation that works to improve the justice system. They are a membership organisation of legal professionals at all stages of their career.
A group of them worked together to research and publish a report about people with mental health problems in the criminal justice system. There has been a concern about the increasing number of people with mental health problems that end up in police custody and prison.
They made 52 recommendations about how the system can be improved from all stages of the process including making sure that people with mental health problems are identified so that they have proper support and to make sure that they aren’t sent to prison inappropriately.
Section 117 and multiple diagnoses
Do aftercare services under section 117 extend to meeting needs arising from mental disorders other than the one for which the patient was originally detained?
This question arose at the annual conference of the Mental Health Lawyers Association in November to much head-scratching. I hope that this note can clear up this important issue. The question was something like this:
Mr P is detained under the Mental Health Act under a diagnosis of schizophrenia. He is later discharged and receives a package of aftercare under section 117 which meets needs arising out of that condition. Mr P later develops dementia and has additional needs. Must his aftercare package meet all needs or only those arising from the original condition?
The answer, in brief, is yes, and is found in the passage through the House of Lords of the definition of aftercare services now set out in section 117(6).
The original definition was this (emphasis added):
In this section, “after-care services” means services which have both of the following purposes:
(a) meeting a need arising from or related to the mental disorder of the person concerned; and
(b) reducing the risk of a deterioration of the person’s mental condition (and, accordingly, to reduce the risk of the person requiring admission to a hospital again for treatment for the disorder).
It was raised in the committee stage that the underlined "the" suggested that aftercare services were only those that met needs arising from the mental disorder for which the patient was detained. As such the relevant part was changed to:
(b) reducing the risk of a deterioration of the person's mental condition (and, accordingly, reducing the risk of the person requiring admission to a hospital again for treatment for mental disorder)
The reasons for the change were made explicit in the report stage:
"… [we have] changed the clause to remove the definitive article when referring to “mental disorder”…This is intended to remove any doubt about our intention that the scope of aftercare covers more than just one form of mental disorder, and is not necessarily limited to the specific disorder or disorders for which the person was previously detained under the Act and which gave rise to the right to aftercare." (16.10.2013 Column 600)
So, if Mr P’s needs increased due to his developing dementia his aftercare package must be reassessed and support provided that meets the statutory definition in relation to either condition.
Damien Tinsley v Manchester City Council (2017) EWCA Civ 1704
The Court of Appeal confirms that personal injury settlements cannot be taken into account when arranging aftercare services under section 117 of the Mental Health Act 1983.
We reported on the High Court decision in this case in our June 2017 newsletter. For the reasons set out in that article we are pleased that the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal by the local authority, the grounds of which were that:
on proper construction of section 117 the local authority is not required to provide aftercare services to a person who has received damages for their future care; and
to allow free aftercare where there was such an award would offend the principle of double recovery - the claimant having received damages to pay for care which later had to be provided for free.
The Court of Appeal considered that the first ground was "an impossible argument" given the clear decision from the House of Lords in Stennet [2005] that section 117 services cannot be charged for:
"Manchester is effectively seeking, in the teeth of the express obligation to provide s.117 services, to recover by the back door what it cannot recover by the front."
On the second ground, the local authority submitted that it should not be required to provide aftercare until Mr Tinsley can show that the funds awarded to him for his care are about to run out. Otherwise, they suggested, a person could receive a sum of money for future care then simply turn to the local authority for free care and pocket the rest.
The court considered that in even such an “extreme case” this would be a matter for the proceedings in which damages are claimed - calling into question the truth of the claimant’s account that they intended to fund their care privately – and would not permit the local authority to refuse to provide aftercare. While the court acknowledged the concerns of the local authority in cases such as these Lord Justice Longmore suggested that in reality most people would not turn to local authority support while they have the option of funding their care privately.
R(CXF) v Central Bedfordshire Council (2017) EWHC 2311 (Admin)
Burden of Proof in discrimination claims in the Employment Tribunal – Ayodele v Citylink (2017) EWCA Civ 1913
The Claimant again bears an initial burden of proof in discrimination cases.
In the last newsletter we reported on the case of Efobi v Royal Mail Group UKEAT/023/16, UKEAT/0203/16, a case decided by the Employment Appeal Tribunal, which had turned on its head many years of settled law on the burden of proof in discrimination claims.
Well, Efobi turned out to be short lived, and the Court of Appeal in the case of Ayodele has decided that the “interpretation placed on section 136 by the EAT in Efobi is wrong and should not be followed”.
To be clear, a Claimant in a discrimination claim in the Employment Tribunal must prove facts from which an inference of discrimination could be drawn before the burden of proof shifts to the employer to provide a non-discriminatory explanation.
Basically the law as it has been all along until the temporary blip created by Efobi.
The judgment in Ayodele can be found here.
Mind, 'Legal Newsletter' (December 2017)†
This is an automatically-generated list of pages which contain hyperlinks to the current page.
December 2017 chronology
Retrieved from "http://www.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/index.php?title=Mind,_%27Legal_Newsletter%27_(December_2017)&oldid=33680"