Source: http://www.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/MHA_1983_s29
Timestamp: 2019-11-22 20:57:06
Document Index: 584453870

Matched Legal Cases: ['EWCA ', 'EWCA ', 'UKHL ', 'art 5', 'art 5', 'EWCA ']

MHA 1983 s29 - Mental Health Law Online
See Nearest relative. See Civil Procedure Rules 1998.
JT v UK 26494/95 [2000] ECHR 133 — Case struck out of list, as friendly settlement reached to ensure MHA compliant with Article 8: MHA to be amended to allow patient to apply for displacement of NR where reasonably objected; and to allow exclusion of certain persons from acting as NR.
MH v UK 11577/06 [2013] ECHR 1008, [2013] MHLO 94 — (1) The ECtHR considered this case, which involved a patient lacking capacity to apply to the tribunal, in three separate stages: (a) The first 27 days of detention under s2. With some emergency detentions a habeas corpus application might be a sufficient remedy, but with this one it would have been wholly unreasonable to expect such an application. Additionally, it would not have been reasonable to expect her nearest relative via solicitors to request a tribunal reference from the Secretary of State. Therefore, neither the patient nor her nearest relative were able in practice to avail themselves of the normal remedy granted by the 1983 Act because the special safeguards required under Article 5(4) for incompetent mental patients in a position such as hers were lacking. There was a violation of Article 5(4). The necessary special safeguards 'may well include empowering or even requiring some other person or authority to act on the patient’s behalf' (i.e. referring the case ..→
Nora McClelland v Simon S [2000] EWCA Civ 3028 — Unsuccessful appeal against s29 displacement order.
R (AX London) v Central London County Court [1999] EWCA Civ 988 — The county court can, on an ex parte application, make an interim displacement order under s29; it is lawful to detain a patient under s3 on the basis of it, although unless there are cogent reasons it is preferable to wait until the final order; even if the order had been declared invalid, the decision to admit the patient would still be valid.
R (B) v Uxbridge County Court [2000] EWHC 641 (Admin) — Unsuccessful appeal against s29 displacement order.
R (Holloway) v Oxfordshire County Council [2007] EWHC 776 (Admin) — The without-notice interim displacement order under s29, and the subsequent detention under s3, were lawful: (1) neither the culpable failure of the council to inform the NR, nor the failure of the judge to enquire into this, deprived the court of jurisdiction; (2) the safeguards in the Act meant that the interim relief did not cause irreversible prejudice, thus Article 6 was not engaged; (3) (obiter) s6(3) would have provided the Trust with a defence to false imprisonment.
R (MH) v Secretary of State for the Department of Health [2004] EWHC 56 (Admin) — This case concerned the operation of s29(4) which extends s2 while s29 displacement proceedings take place.
R (MH) v Secretary of State for the Department of Health [2005] UKHL 60 — Mental disorder — Mental health review tribunal — Discharge of patient — Detained patient incompetent to apply for own discharge — Extension of detention pending determination of approved social worker's application to displace nearest relative — Whether statutory scheme incompatible with patient's Convention right to liberty — Mental Health Act 1983, ss 2, 29(4) — Human Rights Act 1998, Sch 1, Pt I, art 5(4). The scheme for the review of a patient's detention under the 1983 Act was capable of being operated so as to give practical effect to the patient's right, guaranteed by art 5(4) of the European Convention on Human Rights, to take proceedings to have the lawfulness of her detention speedily decided by a court and for review thereafter at reasonable intervals.
Re Whitbread (No 2) (Habeas Corpus: Continued Detention) [1999] EWHC Admin 2 — (1) The duty to discharge under s72 following a Tribunal decision to discharge on a future date is subject to s29(4) which provides a further basis for detention during displacement proceedings; (2) The managers' reasons for upholding the RMO's barring certificate were adequate.
Smirek v Williams [2000] EWCA Civ 3025 — Unsuccessful appeal against displacement order under s29.
Reference Guide to the Mental Health Act 1983, 33. Nearest relatives [Note that the chapter number relates to the old Reference Guide] — paragraphs 33.38 to 33.59
Court procedure legislation. Civil Procedure (Amendment) Rules 2005 — These Rules amend the Civil Procedure Rules by enabling a patient to be made a respondent to a s29 nearest relative displacement application. In force 4/4/05. The amended Rule (CCR Order 49 rule 12) was revoked on 6/4/07 but a similar position is retained in CPR PD8A para 18.3 which states: "(1) the nearest relative must be made a respondent, unless (a) the application is made on the grounds that the patient has no nearest relative or that it is not reasonably practicable to ascertain whether he has a nearest relative; or (b) the court orders otherwise; and (2) the court may order that any other person shall be made a respondent."
Appointment by court of acting nearest relative
Retrieved from "http://www.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/index.php?title=MHA_1983_s29&oldid=38637"