Refresher/re-accreditation coursebook for sale (Oct 2015)

We have 10 spare coursebooks from our October 2015 refresher/re-accreditation course, and are offering them for sale to MHLA members at £10 plus £3 postage. The 95-page coursebook contains 58 pages of original content, including a review of the most recent updates from the previous 3 years and a case study. The Appendices contain all the current Law Society documentation relating to re-accreditation.

Payment can be made by Paypal or credit/debit card (a Paypal account is not necessary) by going to the Payment and selecting the correct option (Coursebook 2). No other methods of payment are possible.

Please contact us if you have any queries.

Court of Protection Conference – London, 3 Jul 2015

Sir James Munby will be the key-note speaker at this event. To book, go to the Events page. Further details will be added shortly.

REGISTRATION FOR THIS EVENT CLOSES AT 3PM ON WEDNESDAY 1 JULY

The Second Annual MHLA Court of Protection conference will be held on Friday 3 July 2015 in London.

Keynote speaker: Sir James Munby, President of the Family Division and President of the Court of Protection.

Other confirmed speakers:
Dr Teresa Joyce, Consultant Clinical Psychologist
Niall Fry, Department of Health

Mental capacity law develops constantly. Since Cheshire West hit the news, those engaged in this field have been deluged with court decisions, rules and guidance on deprivation of liberty.

Decisions about best interests continue to require specialist knowledge, crossing over the boundaries between medical and legal practice.

The MHLA has prepared a programme of topical issues including deprivation of liberty, the new CoP rules and the psychological perspective of best interests assessments.  Join us for a stimulating day of debate.

Programme
09:00-09:30 Registration
09:30-09:45 Opening address by Nick Lewis, Chairman of the MHLA
09:45-10:45  John O’Donnell, Solicitor – Liberty: What is that?
10:45-11:15    Break-out session/ coffee break
11:15-12:00    Niall Fry, Department of Health – The Future for DOLS
12:00-13:00  Alex Ruck Keene, Barrister – The COP Rules: Where are we and where are we going?
13:00-14:00  Lunch
14:00-15:00  Keynote address: Sir James Munby, President of the Court of Protection
15:00-15:15   Coffee break
15:15-16:00   Dr Teresa Joyce, Psychologist – Providing evidence on capacity: issues for the expert witness
16:00-16:45   Sophy Miles, Barrister – The Care Act and the Court of Protection
16:45-17:00   Closing remarks by Chairman

Programme subject to change

CPD Credit: 6 Hours

SRA CPD Ref: BYE/MHLA
BSA CPD Provider ID: 1637

Accreditation scheme (panel) courses in 2015

We will be running panel courses on 1-2 June (London), 4-5 June (Leeds), 7-8 September (London) and 10-11 September (Leeds). For further details see All scheduled courses.

The Mental Health Lawyers Association is an approved provider of the two-day course which must be attended by prospective members of the Law Society’s accreditation scheme (formerly called the ‘panel’).

Ensure that you book your panel course directly with a provider which is approved by the Law Society. We have been made aware of a non-approved organisation which advertises many panel courses but which, for a large fee, merely books customers onto other providers’ courses. We will not accept such third-party bookings.

New MH practitioners are strongly encouraged also to attend the Foundation course although this is not compulsory) in order to benefit fully from the two-day panel course.

The Legal Aid contract commencing on 1 August 2014 requires that all advocacy at Mental Health Tribunals be carried out by members of the Law Society’s accreditation scheme.

The course

Our presenters include Tribunal judges, Law Society assessors, LAA peer reviewers and costs assessors, and other experienced solicitors with a wealth of practical experience of representing patients at Mental Health Tribunals.

The course is supported by a 300-page coursebook which is updated for each course. The coursebook contains over 200 pages of original content, plus several appendices (including the peer review guidance, the latest Law Society practice note, and recent MHT Practice Directions).

Topics include:

  • The European Convention on Human Rights and mental health law
  • Civil sections and CTOs
  • Criminal detaining sections
  • Special considerations in restricted cases
  • Psychiatric information
  • Consent to treatment provisions
  • Nearest relative
  • Mandatory and discretionary references
  • Ethical and other conduct guidance
  • Interface between Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Mental Health Act 1983
  • Legal Aid
  • The Mental Health Tribunal and its Rules
  • Case preparation
  • Advocacy

The course has been held several times, in various cities, since 2011. Feedback from all of these courses has been excellent.

Cost

  • MHLA members: £300
  • Group bookings: £270 (10% discount) for groups of three or more MHLA members
  • Non-members: £390

CPD

12 SRA-accredited hours

MHLA 15th Annual Conference & AGM, 14 November 2014, London

The 15th Annual Conference will be held at the Victory Services Club in London on 14 November 2014

CPD: 6 hours – reference BYE/MHLA – advanced level

The conference will be preceded by the Pre Conference Meal on Thursday, 13 November, at the Portman, a short walk from the Victory Services Club.

Details about how to book for the meal are on the booking form below.

Programme

9.00am Registration and Coffee

9.30am Richard Charlton Chairman’s Address and Welcome

9.45am LAA Policy Team & Mental Health Unit Contract Issues
Q & A Session, Chaired by Karen Wolton

10.45am Dr Jonathan Cripps Role of the Medical Member & changes in procedures

11.40am Coffee

12.10pm Judge Mark Hinchliffe The Operation of the First Tier Tribunal

1.00pm Buffet Lunch

2.00pm Annual General Meeting Voting of Officers and Committee Members,
Presentation of Accounts

2.30pm Mr Justice Charles The View from the Upper Tribunal

3.10pm Alastair Pitblado Developments in Mental Health Practice – The Official Solicitor’s View

3.50pm Coffee

4.05pm Sophy Miles & Tam Gill Legal Update & the new MHA Code of Practice

5.00pm Richard Charlton Closing Address

5.10pm Informal Reception

Booking

You can use the booking form, or pay online using the Paypal form below. Please click here for the booking form.

Pay online via Paypal/card

There is a discount for sending more than two delegates. Please use the booking form (not Paypal) for this purpose.

Options:
Names of all delegates
Dietary or other requirements

MHLA course: Introduction to the Court of Protection – 9 & 10 December 2014

This successful one day course has been extended to two days to provide an intensive introduction to this area of work.

It is presented by Sophy Miles and Floyd Porter of Miles and Partners LLP, both experienced Court of Protection lawyers, who have been involved in significant cases in this fast-moving area of law.

The course will be highly practical with a detailed case study. The course materials will include helpful precedents which you can use in your practice.

Programme

Day 1

AM- An overview of the Mental Capacity Act
PM- Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards

Day 2

AM- The jurisdiction of the Court: Rules, Procedure and Legal Aid
PM- Practical Case Study

Venue Garden Court Chambers, London

Cost

MHLA members: £300
Group bookings: £250 (for the third and subsequent MHLA members)
Non-members: £390

CPD

12 hours

Booking

Please note that this course is now fully booked.

Cancellation

All cancellations must be made in writing. If your booking is cancelled up to two weeks before the course, the full fee, less £25 administration charge, will be refunded. We regret that no refund is possible if notice of the cancellation is received less than two weeks before the date of the course. Places may also be transferred, at no extra cost, to another delegate if the original delegate is unable to attend.

Queries

If you have any queries then please contact our administrator Peter Lyle on admin@mhla.co.uk

Accreditation scheme courses in 2014

Please contact our administrator on admin@mhla.co.uk to express an interest in attending future courses.

The Mental Health Lawyers Association is an accredited provider of the two-day course which must be attended by prospective members of the Law Society’s accreditation scheme (formerly called the ‘panel’).

New MH practitioners are strongly encouraged also to attend the Foundation course on 31 October 2014 (although this is not compulsory) in order to benefit fully from the two-day panel course.

The Legal Aid contract commencing on 1 August 2014 requires that all advocacy at Mental Health Tribunals be carried out by members of the Law Society’s accreditation scheme.

The course

Our presenters include Tribunal judges, Law Society assessors, LAA peer reviewers and costs assessors, and other experienced solicitors with a wealth of practical experience of representing patients at Mental Health Tribunals.

The course has been held several times, in various cities, since 2011. Feedback from all of these courses has been excellent.

Cost

  • MHLA members: £300
  • Group bookings: £250 (for the third and subsequent MHLA members)
  • Non-members: £390

CPD

12 SRA-accredited hours

Booking

To book a place, please send an email to our administrator Peter Lyle on admin@mhla.co.uk

Alternatively, if you are sending up to two delegates, you can use the form below to pay by card or Paypal.

Numbers:
Names of all delegates:
Firm name and email address:

Cancellation

All cancellations must be made in writing. If your booking is cancelled up to two weeks before the course, the full fee, less £25 administration charge, will be refunded. We regret that no refund is possible if notice of the cancellation is received less than two weeks before the date of the course. Places may also be transferred, at no extra cost, to another delegate if the original delegate is unable to attend.

Queries

If you have any queries then please contact our administrator Peter Lyle on admin@mhla.co.uk

July 2014 mental health law update

Updates from Mental Health Law Online

Cases

  • Legal Aid case. R (Public Law Project) v SSJ (2014) EWHC 2365 (Admin), (2014) MHLO 46The proposed legal aid ‘residence test’ was unlawful: (1) the statutory instrument containing it was ultra vires and unlawful, as LASPO did not permit such a criterion to be introduced by secondary legislation; (2) residence is not a lawful ground for discriminating between those who would otherwise be eligible for legal assistance by virtue of Schedule 1 LASPO. [Detailed WLR (D) summary available.]
  • Criminal appeal. R (M) v Kingston Crown Court (2014) MHLO 50 (DC)M had admitted to GBH but the Crown wanted to pursue GBH with intent, and the judge made an order under s35 (remand for report) to gather evidence about intent. (1) The purpose of an order under s35 was to inform the court of a defendant’s fitness to plead and his diagnosis, not to advance one party’s claim. (2) The judge’s misinterpretation of s35 was a jurisdictional error so the High Court was entitled (despite the limitation in s29(3) Senior Courts Act 1981) to quash the order made under it.
  • Transfer procedure. R (L) v West London MH NHS Trust (2014) EWCA Civ 47, (2014) MHLO 49(1) There was no challenge to the first instance judge’s finding that the common law duty of procedural fairness applies to decisions to transfer from medium to high security. (2) However, the judge had gone beyond what fairness requires, by requiring an overly-adversarial procedure. (3) Relief should not have been given on the facts of L’s case, including because he had been able to put across his side of a disputed incident and had ceased objecting to transfer. (4) The ability of the decision-making process to achieve fairness has an undesirable element of fortuity. The decision-making process should therefore be “amended so that, absent urgency, a clinical reason precluding such notification, or some other reason such as the exposure of other patients or staff to the risk of harm, the ‘gists’ of the letter of reference to the high security hospital by the hospital that wishes to transfer the patient and the assessment by the clinician from the high security hospital are provided to the patient and/or his representative, and that the patient be afforded an opportunity to make written submissions to the panel.”
  • Sentencing case. AG’s ref (no 34 of 2014) sub nom R v Jenkin (2014) EWCA Crim 1394, (2014) MHLO 56Criminal sentencing case with mental health background (a s45 hybrid order had been given in conjunction with life sentences). The Court of Appeal clarified that if a sentencing court “chooses to work with the currency of minimum terms, as it generally will do in homicide cases involving mandatory or discretionary life sentences, it does not need to have regard to the early release provisions”. In this case, the judge should not have halved the 12-year minimum term to 6 years. A minimum term of 13 years 4 months was substituted.
  • EPA case. Re AB (Revocation of Enduring Power of Attorney) (2014) EWCOP 12, (2014) MHLO 55 — “This is an application for the court to revoke an Enduring Power of Attorney (‘EPA’) on the ground that, having regard to all the circumstances, the attorneys are unsuitable to be the donor’s attorneys. … MD and WD have breached their fiduciary duties in several ways and in the circumstances I am satisfied that they are unsuitable to be AB’s attorneys, and I shall revoke the EPA. As far as the choice of deputy is concerned, the appointment of an independent professional deputy or panel deputy would be disproportionate. What is left of AB’s estate would rapidly be eroded by the professional deputies’ costs. I agree with Miss Cooper that Brent Council is best placed to act as deputy, as AB is in a residential care home and the Council is already funding the lion’s share of her care fees.”
  • Medical case. X County Council v M (2014) EWHC 2262 (Fam), (2014) MHLO 54 — “On 16 May 2014 I heard two applications by the Applicant local authority, namely: (i) an application under the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court for permission not to disclose to the First Respondent, M, the care plan for her unborn child namely to remove the child at birth; and (ii) a reporting restrictions order to prohibit a publication of the above application, the hearing of the same and the order made by the court. I granted those applications at a hearing on 20 May at which further evidence in support of the applications had been filed. I reserved judgment.”
  • Repatriation case. R (MD) v SSHD (2014) EWHC 2249 (Admin), (2014) MHLO 52 — “In my judgment, the Claimant’s detention was unlawful from the 21st October 2011 until her release on the 13th September 2012 by reason of a breach of the third Hardial Singh principle and from the 16th February 2012 until her release on the 13th September 2012 due to the failure of the Defendant to properly understand and apply her policy regarding the detention of those with serious mental illness to the circumstances of the Claimant’s case. So the Claimant’s detention was unlawful both at common law and under Article 5 of the ECHR. I have also found that the Claimant’s treatment by the Defendant by detaining her in the circumstances I have set out above amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment in breach of Article 3 of the ECHR.”
  • Medical case. United Lincolnshire Hospitals NHS Trust v N (2014) EWCOP 16, (2014) MHLO 51 — “The critical decision is whether it is in N’s best interests to continue invasive, risk laden, medical care as would be involved in a further attempt at artificial feeding. I am utterly convinced that it would not. Accordingly, I declare that it is lawful and in her best interests for the clinicians (a) not to make any further attempt to secure a means of providing artificial nutrition; (b) to withdraw the provision of intravenous fluids and dextrose; and (c) to provide such palliative care and related treatment (including pain relief) as considered appropriate to ensure she suffers the least distress and retains the greatest dignity until such time as her life comes to an end.”
  • Northern Irish case. MH v MHRT for NI (2014) NIQB 87, (2014) MHLO 48The patient challenged the MHRT’s decision on the grounds that “(i) the approach of the MHRT was unlawful and that the MHRT had not adopted the narrow focused based approach required under Article 77(1) and Article 2(4) of the Order and, (ii) the MHRT had misunderstood the meaning of “discharge” and had failed to take into account the applicant’s stated intention which was to remain in hospital as a voluntary patient if discharged from detention”. These challenges were rejected. The tribunal’s decision was the only reasonable one on the evidence.
  • Tribunal decision. Re Jared Britton (2013) MHLO 146 (FTT)Extract from decision: “In a decision given on 26 September 2011, the application by Mr Jared Britton that his application dated 4th September 2009 should be held in public was granted. The fact of this decision should be published. The reasons for the decision must not to be made public. An open hearing is now listed at Liverpool Crown Court on Wednesday 3rd April 2013 for an all day hearing starting at 10.30am.”
  • Immigration case. R (O) v SSHD (2014) EWCA Civ 990, (2014) MHLO 47 — “This issue on this appeal is whether the Secretary of State for the Home Department (“the Secretary of State”) could continue lawfully to hold the appellant, O, in immigration detention from 24 July 2010 to 6 July 2011 notwithstanding a change in the diagnosis of her mental illness and medical opinion that she should be cared for in the community. … Accordingly, I would dismiss this appeal. The new diagnosis of Dr Agnew-Davies proposed a new treatment for curing her illness but her condition could still be satisfactorily managed in detention. She could still be held in an acceptable stable mental condition in detention under the existing treatment. In any event, there was a risk of reoffending and absconding. While these would have diminished with the passage of time, there still needed to be safeguards if O was released into the community and these were not put in place to the satisfaction of the court until 6 July 2011 when she was in fact released on bail.”
  • Guardian, ‘Murderer not entitled to remain anonymous while seeking rehabilitation’ (Press Association, 16/7/14). A restricted transferred prisoner patient in medium security judicially reviewed the Secretary of State’s refusal to grant permission for unescorted community leave. Cranston J refused to make an anonymity order, a decision upheld by the Court of Appeal (Lord Dyson MR; Maurice Kay LJ, VP; Floyd LJ). It is understood that an appeal will be made to the Supreme Court. See Forthcoming judgments#Re X (anonymity)

Legislation

  • Secondary legislation. Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013 — These regulations were required to be made by the European Union’s Directive 2011/83/EU. They specify the circumstances in which consumers can cancel contracts and the related information which must be supplied by traders, and create a criminal offence. Legal Aid is not specifically excluded, but the regulations (in relation to the “Information requirements” Part 2 and the “Right to cancel” Part 3) state that “This Part does not apply to off-premises contracts under which the payment to be made by the consumer is not more than £42” (regulations 3(4) and 27(3)). In force 13/6/14.

Legal Aid Agency

  • Legal Aid forms. New versions have been published for: CIVAPP1, 3, 5, 6, 8 & 8A; ADMIN1; MEANS1, 2 (+ guides), MEANS3; CIVCLAIM1, 1A, 5 & 5A; CW1&2, 3, 4, & CWC(MH); ECLAIM1(CIV), (MH) & (IMM). From 4/8/14 only these forms can be signed. Old forms signed before then should be submitted before 31/8/13 to avoid rejection. See Legal Aid forms
  • Legal Aid Agency, ‘Community care and mental health contract documents’ (17/7/14). From 21/7/14 the LAA will (1) issue contract documentation to those who have completed verification and (2) notify those who have not completed verification what information is outstanding and when it is required. See Legal Aid#2014 Contract
  • Legal Aid Agency, ‘Keycard 50’ (April 2014). This document is helpful if working out financial eligibility for civil Legal Aid. In force 7/4/14. See Legal Aid#External links
  • Legal Aid Agency, ‘Where to send civil work from 17/2/14’ (February 2014). Link to this document added. See Legal Aid forms

Mental Health Tribunal

Law Commission

  • Law Commission, ‘Unfitness to plead: An issues paper’ (2/5/14). Consultation runs from 2/5/14 to 25/7/14. Extract: “”We are now reviewing our provisional proposals in light of the consultation responses, and taking into account the changes to the criminal justice system since we produced the consultation paper in October 2010. … These further questions address issues such as: (1) How should special measures to enhance the defendant’s ability to participate in trial be fairly incorporated into the test for unfitness? (2) Should the procedure in the magistrates’ and youth courts mirror that in the Crown Court? (3) What should the process be for dealing with a defendant when he or she has been found unfit to plead? (4) At a hearing to deal with a defendant found unfit, what issues should be considered by the court? (5) What options should the court have in dealing with unfit defendants?”” See Consultations#Law Commission

Department of Health

  • Department of Health, ‘Stronger Code: Better Care: Consultation on proposed changes to the Code of Practice: Mental Health Act 1983’ (7/7/14). Extract from press release: “Our consultation ‘Stronger Code: Better Care’ is asking for your thoughts on a new draft Code which includes: (1) five new guiding principles; (2) significantly updated chapter on how to support children and young people, on the use of restraint and seclusion and the use of police powers and places of safety; (3) new chapters on care planning, equality and human rights, links to the Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards, and support for victims.” Related documents: (1) Department of Health, ‘Mental Health Act Code of Practice consultation launched’ (press release, 7/7/14); (2) Department of Health, ‘Mental Health Act 1983: Draft Code of Practice for consultation’ (7/7/14). See Consultations#Department of Health

Ministry of Justice

  • Ministry of Justice, ‘MAPPA guidance’ (version 4, 2012). Link to this guidance added. See MAPPA

Articles, books, etc

  • New journal. International Journal of Mental Health and Capacity Law — The Journal of Mental Health Law is to be relaunched as the International Journal of Mental Health and Capacity Law. It will be an open-access online journal hosted by the University of Northumbria. The editor-in-chief will be Kris Gledhill, and volunteers (academics, legal practitioners, and mental health professionals) are sought for the editorial teams.
  • Healthwatch, ‘People’s inquiry to uncover pitfalls of discharge from hospitals and care homes’ (press release, 7/5/14). Extract: “Healthwatch England is today launching our first ever special inquiry to find out why things so often go wrong when people are discharged from health and social care institutions. In contrast to standard public inquiries, this investigation will be led by people with direct experience of unsafe discharge and will reach out to communities right across the country through site visits, focus groups, public hearings, and the mobilisation of the 148 local Healthwatch, to hear real life experiences of the discharge process and learn what can be done to improve outcomes.” Website pages include “Tell us your story about leaving hospital or care” and “Get your organisation involved”. See Miscellaneous external links

Newsletters

  • 39 Essex Street, ‘Mental Capacity Law Newsletter’ (issue 47, June 2014). Also: (1) Lucy Series et al, ‘Mental Capacity Law Mental Discussion Paper: The Mental Capacity Act 2005, the Adults with Incapacity (Scotland) Act 2000 and the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities: The Basics’ (June 2014); (2) Sally Jones, ‘Challenges for the Office of the Public Guardian’ (June 2014). See 39 Essex Street Mental Capacity Law Newsletter
  • 39 Essex Street, ‘Mental Capacity Law Newsletter’ (issue 45, April 2014). Also: (1) Alex Ruck Keene and Catherine Dobson, ‘Deprivation of liberty in the hospital setting’ (39 Essex Street, 10/4/14); (2) Adrian Ward, ‘Scottish Adult Incapacity Law: Part 2’ (April 2014); (3) Alex Ruck Keene et al, ‘Mental Capacity Law Guidance Note: A brief guide to carrying out capacity assessments’ (31/3/14); (4) Simon Edwards, ‘Testamentary Capacity and the Mental Capacity Act’ (March 2014); (5) Alex Ruck Keene et al, ‘Deprivation of Liberty after Cheshire West: key questions for social workers and medical practitioners’ (April 2014). See 39 Essex Street Mental Capacity Law Newsletter

Events

  • MHLA panel courses. The Mental Health Lawyers Association will be running their successful two-day course for membership of the Law Society’s Mental Health Accreditation Scheme (formerly the MHRT panel) in Leeds on Monday 13/8/14 and Tuesday 14/8/14. The course will also be held in London on Tuesday 26/8/17 and Wednesday 27/8/14. Price: £300 (members); £390 (non-members); £250 (for third and subsequent members in a group). CPD: 12 SRA-accredited hours. See MHLA website for further details. See Events

Website

  • CPD. Obtain 12 accredited CPD points online for £60. See CPD scheme

June 2014 mental health law update

Updates from Mental Health Law Online

Case law

  • Community care case. R (ZYN) v Walsall MBC (2014) EWHC 1918 (Admin), (2014) MHLO 40 — “The issue raised by this case is whether capital derived from a personal injury settlement which is managed by a deputy appointed by the Court of Protection must be disregarded by a local authority when deciding whether the injured person can be required to contribute to the cost of care services which he or she receives. … For the reasons given, I find that the Council’s policy on charging for the cost of social care services is unlawful insofar as it takes account of any of the capital derived from the claimant’s personal injury settlement.”
  • Costs case. North Somerset Council v LW (2014) EWCOP 3, (2014) MHLO 39 — “At the conclusion of the hearing on 23 April an issue about costs arose. … I am in no doubt that, on the evidence before me, UHBT fell well short in meeting their duties to LW and her unborn child. … The cumulative effect of these factors is that part of the hearing on 15 April and the whole of the hearing on 16 April, were completely ineffective. Accordingly I am satisfied that in the premises the court is justified in departing from the general rule that there be no order as to costs: rr 157 & 159. … Accordingly I propose to order that UHBT pay the whole of the Official Solicitor’s costs of 15 and 16 April. In contrast the hearing of 23 April was an effective hearing albeit I ultimately made no order on the full evidence then before the court. Thus the usual rule will apply in respect of the hearing on 23 April, namely UHBT will pay one half of the Official Solicitor’s costs for that hearing. Those costs are to be assessed, if not agreed, on a standard basis. In respect of the costs of the local authority, on the basis that it applied for and was granted orders under the inherent jurisdiction and a RRO on the morning of 15 April. I shall direct that UHBT pay one half of the local authority’s costs of the hearing on 15 April and the whole of its costs for the hearing on 16 April. For the reason given in paragraph 43 above, I make no order for costs for the hearing on 23 April.”
  • Capacity case. North Somerset Council v LW (2014) EWHC 1670 (Fam), (2014) MHLO 38 — “In those circumstances I am satisfied that if the mother were to learn of the plan to remove her child at birth there is a very real risk she would harm herself and a very very real risk that she would cause physical harm to her baby. … On the exceptional facts of this case I was wholly satisfied that the balance fell decisively in favour of making the [Reporting Restrictions Order]. It was the only proportionate course to be taken to secure the safety of the mother and of the child. … At the hearing on 6 May it was agreed by all parties that the RRO had served its time limited purpose. I, therefore, discharged the order. … I am in no doubt that the only order I can make in EW’s welfare best interests is an interim care order.”
  • Medical case. Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust v TH (2014) EWCOP 4, (2014) MHLO 37 — “On the 14th May 2014 I granted declarations in respect of TH, a 52 year old man presently in a minimally conscious state at what has been described as the lower end of the spectrum of that condition (i.e. a very profound disorder of consciousness). There is no doubt TH lacks capacity to litigate in these proceedings and also lacks the capacity to give or withhold consent to his medical treatment. … In relation to withdrawal of nutirition and hydration I am persuaded that the correct course is to adjourn this issue to provide for a structured clinical assessment to evaluate whether there is evidence that TH’s primary neurological pathways are sufficiently intact to permit any evidence of awareness to be detected and fully to assess, over a set period of time, TH’s general awareness, responsiveness and capacity to experience pain. The National Clinical Guidelines have been drawn to my attention in some detail and Professor Barnes has highlighted the benefits of a standard assessment tool, for example the Sensory Modality Assessment and Rehabilitation Technique (SMART) and the Wessex Head Injury Matrix (WHIM).”
  • Medical case. An NHS Foundation Hospital v P (2014) EWHC 1650 (Fam), (2014) MHLO 35 — “This short judgment explains the reasons for an order I have just made as the out of hours judge in the middle of the night on 13th and 14th May 2014 on an extremely urgent application by a hospital foundation trust for a declaration that it is lawful for its doctors to treat a seventeen-year-old girl following a drug overdose notwithstanding her refusal to consent to that treatment.”
  • Deputyship case. LB Haringey v CM (2014) EWCOP B23, (2014) MHLO 36 — “This is an objection by a family member to the London Borough of Haringey’s application to be appointed as GW’s deputy for property and affairs. … Accordingly, I allow Haringey’s application and dismiss CM’s objection, and shall make an order appointing the authorised officer of Haringey Council as GW’s deputy for property and affairs on the understanding that it is in GW’s best interests, and less restrictive of his rights and freedom of action, for him to retain control over his own expenditure to a limit of £200 a week. I am surprised that CM persisted with her application to manage her uncle’s property and finances after he had expressed such trenchant opposition to her in his interview with the Special Visitor. … Nevertheless, GW’s views have not always been consistent and this matter was listed for an attended hearing on 22 May 2014, anyway, and in the circumstances I see no reason to depart from the usual order for costs…”
  • Unlawful detention case. Bostridge v Oxleas NHS Foundation Trust (2014) MHLO 42 (CC)A tribunal’s deferred discharge from s3 had also discharged a subsequent CTO: the purported recall from that CTO, and subsequent detention, had been unlawful; however, because no loss had been shown, following Lumba, nominal damages were awarded in this county court case.

Legal Aid

  • Simon Pugh, ‘Can you prove it?’ (Legal Aid Handbook blog, 17/6/14). This article refers to the draft residence test regulations which (if approved) will come into force on 4/8/14. See Legal Aid#Residence requirement

Ministry of Justice

Articles

Event

  • Event. Edge Training are running a one-day course entitled ‘Deprivation of liberty after Cheshire West: A day for experienced practitioners’ on Monday 23/6/14 in Lincoln’s Inn, London. Price: £115 plus VAT. The course aims to provide BIAs and other professionals with an in-depth understanding of the judgment and what it will mean in their daily practice. The speaker will be Aasya Mughal (barrister). See flyer for further details and booking information. See Events

Book

Website

  • CPD. The CPD questionnaires for April and May 2014 have been uploaded. Obtain 12 accredited CPD points online for £60. See CPD scheme