Source: http://www.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/Jonathan_Wilson,_%27Mental_health:_update%27_(Legal_Action,_April_2016)
Timestamp: 2020-04-04 12:23:03
Document Index: 160287897

Matched Legal Cases: ['UKSC ', 'art 5', 'art 8', 'EWCA ', 'UKHL ', 'EWCA ', 'UKSC ']

[2015] UKUT 480 (AAC)M,
Charles J allowed the appeal against both aspects of the decision. Firstly, the tribunal had erred in law in its application of P v Cheshire West and Chester Council [2014] UKSC 19M. The ‘acid test’ set out in that case is that the ‘objective’ element of European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) art 5 deprivation of liberty is present if a person is under continuous supervision and control, and not free to leave. It was not necessary for Charles J to apply the test, but he agreed with counsel that it was difficult to see how the tribunal’s conclusion could be right.
150. If the patient does have that capacity does his or her consent avoid a breach of article 5? [He later answered this in the affirmative in MM v WL Clinic [2015] UKUT 644 (AAC)M: see below.] …
Comment: This is a potentially farreaching decision. It runs counter to the view that the tribunal merely applies the criteria at the time of the hearing, leaving general questions of lawfulness to the courts (see, for instance, SH v Cornwall Partnership NHS Trust [2012] UKUT 290 (AAC)M and GA v Betsi Cadwaladr University Local Health Board [2013] UKUT 280 (AAC)M). The reasoning would apply similarly to other types of case (such as restricted conditionally discharged patients) and to other unlawfulness (such as art 8 breaches).
[2015] UKUT 376 (AAC)M,
The SSJ argued that the ratio of the decision in the earlier RB case (SSJ v RB [2011] EWCA Civ 1608M) meant no tribunal can direct a conditional discharge of a restricted patient on conditions that, if they are put into effect, would result in a deprivation of liberty of the patient outside hospital.
[2015] UKUT 644 (AAC)M,
Charles J refused the SSJ permission to appeal against MM, in a stronglyworded judgment (MM v WL Clinic (No 2) [2016] UKUT 37 (AAC)M), but permission was subsequently granted by the Court of Appeal. In order to obtain finality on this point, it is hoped that the appeal is heard as soon as possible.
[2015] UKUT 37 (AAC)M,
Rule 11(7)(b) involves an assessment of a person’s capacity to appoint a representative. This involves being able to understand and weigh the advantages, disadvantages and consequences of each option. This is more than the very limited capacity required to make an application to the tribunal or have someone help to make it (see R (MH) v Secretary of State for Health [2005] UKHL 60M). Factors that the patient will have to be able to sufficiently understand, retain, use and weigh will be likely to include the following (para 58):
After appointment under r11(7)(b) the relevant issue becomes capacity to give instructions on the conduct of the proceedings to the solicitor (rather than capacity to conduct proceedings unrepresented), so the focus is on whether the patient is capable of sufficiently understanding, retaining, using and weighing, with the assistance of such proper explanation from legal advisers and experts in other disciplines as the case may require, the issues on which the patient’s instructions on the case are or are likely to be necessary in the course of the proceedings (see Masterman-Lister v Brutton & Co [2002] EWCA Civ 1889M and Dunhill v Burgin [2014] UKSC 18B at paras 16–18).
[2015] UKUT 36 (AAC)M,
[2015] UKUT 695 (AAC)M,
[2015] UKUT 251 (AAC)M,
In this case and NM v Kent County Council [2015] UKUT 125 (AAC)M, the existence of the MHA 1983 s18(3) ‘statutory authority to return’ in guardianship and the absence of an explicit equivalent in DoLS proved decisive. However, it must be at least arguable that: returning a patient would very rarely itself amount to deprivation of liberty and therefore restraint could be authorised by MCA 2005 ss5–6; and where it does amount to deprivation of liberty, that is implicitly authorised under DoLS (see DCC v KH (2009) COP 11729380 and Re ADE (Scope of Schedule A1) (2010) COP 11821802).
[2015] UKUT 659 (AAC)M,
2.It did not follow from the tribunal’s decision that AM lacked credibility that the allegations were true, even if they were viewed as credible at the time. The tribunal has to be cautious about what on investigation may amount merely to ‘institutional folk-lore’ (R (AN) v Mental Health Review Tribunal [2005] EWHC 587 (Admin)M at para 129) but in this case it had failed to scrutinise the evidence carefully or take into account various difficulties in relation to the evidence.
[2015] UKUT 216 (AAC)M,
UTJ Wright stated, as guidance, that there is no requirement in the MHA 1983, its Code of Practice, the Practice Direction (First-tier Tribunal Health Education and Social Care Chamber: Statements and Reports in Mental Health Cases) or the TP(FTT)(HESCC) Rules that: (a) the social circumstances report be prepared by a social worker or community psychiatric nurse, or that that report writer be a different person from the person who prepares the nursing report; (b) the report writer attend the tribunal to speak to the report (see Mental Health Act 1983: Code of Practice, para 32.15); or (c) the social circumstances report include details about MHA 1983 s117 after-care in every case – as in this case, the patient may not have progressed to the point where the issue would arise (see AM v West London Mental Health NHS Trust and SSJ [2012] UKUT 382 (AAC)M).
Date: 1/4/16🔍