Author: M.H.L.A.

December 2012 mental health law update

Updates from Mental Health Law Online

Alternative formats: PDF | Kindle

Cases

Tribunal

  • Ian Brady public hearing. Re Ian Brady (2012) MHLO 145 (FTT) — The tribunal’s decision is as follows: “The hearing in public of the application by Mr Ian Brady has been re-listed for Monday 17/6/13. The arrangements for the hearing will be the same as those made for the hearing which had to be adjourned last July namely that the Tribunal will hear the case at Ashworth Hospital and it will be relayed to the Civil Justice Centre Manchester for members of the public and press to watch the proceedings. The precise details of those arrangements will be published as soon as possible.”
  • Upper Tribunal case. SH v Cornwall Partnership NHS Trust (2012) UKUT 290 (AAC), (2012) MHLO 143 — The appellant was subject to a CTO. When he attended for his depot injection, he said that he did not consent to it but nonetheless he submitted to receive it without resistance. He argued that his lack of consent meant that the ‘appropriate medical treatment is available for him’ test was not met, but the tribunal did not discharge. The UT held that the issue of consent is outside the jurisdiction of the tribunal: (a) the tribunal can only consider the statutory criteria (consent does not arise until the decision to treat has been made, whereas appropriateness and availability are issues that arise prior to that decision); (b) it is the courts which provide judicial oversight of treatment under the Act.
  • Upper Tribunal case. AM v West London MH NHS Trust (2012) UKUT 382 (AAC), (2012) MHLO 139 — “The issue in this case is when a tribunal is under a duty to adjourn to obtain information on possible aftercare available to a patient. … The social work evidence before the tribunal may have been incomplete, even inadequate, but that did not affect the tribunal’s ability to give Mr M a fair hearing and to deal with his case fairly and justly. On the tribunal’s findings, Mr M had not yet progressed to the point where the issue of aftercare that was actually available would arise. Without some acceptance or insight, Mr M could not progress to the point where his management in the community could even be tested by unescorted leave, let alone where he could be conditionally discharged.” [Summary required.]
  • Upper Tribunal case. LN v Surrey NHS Primary Care Trust (2011) UKUT 76 (AAC) — “This is an interlocutory appeal against a decision of the First-tier Tribunal (Health, Education and Social Care Chamber), whereby the First-tier Tribunal declined to exclude evidence. … the issue for the First-tier Tribunal is not whether evidence is admissible, i.e., whether it can be admitted, but is whether it should be admitted. Relevance is a key consideration. Irrelevant evidence should not be admitted. However, relevance is not the only consideration. The First-tier Tribunal is also entitled to consider the weight of evidence when deciding whether to admit it. … It is wholly inconsistent for the primary care trust to say that it is confining its case to ten specific incidents and for it then to adduce evidence of complaints or other allegations relating to other incidents in order to show that those ten specific incidents are not isolated. … In my judgment, the First-tier Tribunal erred in not considering whether any specific evidence should be excluded or redacted at the beginning of the hearing or whether there needed to be a clearer ruling as to the potential relevance of the evidence. It erred in law because it failed to rule that there was an inconsistency in the way the Respondent presented its case and it failed to require the Respondent to give the Appellant adequate notice of the inference it wished the First-tier Tribunal to draw from evidence of uninvestigated complaints and allegations that was not being admitted to prove the contents of the complaints and allegations.” [Not an MHT case. Summary required.]

Best interests and capacity

  • Best interests case (medical). Re L; The NHS Trust v L (2012) EWHC 2741 (COP), (2012) MHLO 159 — The Trust sought a declaration that it was not in the best interests of L to be the subject of forcible feeding or medical treatment notwithstanding that in the absence of such nutrition and treatment she would inevitably die. The court declared (to paraphrase) that: (1) L lacked capacity to litigate and to make decisions in relation to the serious medical treatment at issue, specifically, (a) nutrition and hydration, and (b) dextrose for hypoglycaemic episodes. (2) L had capacity to make decisions as to anti-biotic treatment, analgesia and treatment of her pressure sores. (3) In L’s best interests, the clinicians were permitted: (a) to provide nutrition and hydration and medical treatment where L complies; (b) to administer dextrose solution to L despite her objections where immediately necessary to save life; (c) not to provide L with nutrition and hydration with which she does not comply (all reasonable steps to gain L’s co-operation having been taken); (d) to provide palliative care in the terminal stage of L’s illness.
  • Best interests case. A Local Health Board v J (2012) MHLO 158 (COP) — (1) The court made the following declaration and orders as sought by the Health Board: (a) J lacked capacity to make decisions regarding her medical treatment including decisions regarding the withdrawal of ANH and other life-sustaining treatment; (b) J was in a permanent vegetative state and had no prospect of recovery; (c) there were no further investigations/treatment which should be undertaken; (d) it was in J’s best interests for ANH to be withheld; (e) ANH might be withdrawn lawfully by the applicant, or responsible attending medical practitioners or nursing staff; and (f) it was in her best interests to receive such treatment and nursing care as was appropriate to ensure that she retained the greatest dignity until her life came to an end. (2) In relation to the second declaration, the court considered evidence that J had said ‘die’ several times, and concluded that this had been (misinterpreted) ‘vocalisation’ (a moan or groan often repeated, and often seen in PVS) rather than ‘verbalisation’ (which would be consistent with a minimally-conscious state). [Summary based on All ER (D) report of ex tempore judgment.]
  • Best interests case. NHS Trust v K (2012) EWHC 2922 (COP), (2012) MHLO 150 — The Trust proposed to carry out surgery on K which could potentially cure her of cancer but which itself (given her co-morbidities including her 20-stone weight) raised a considerable risk of death. (1) K lacked capacity due to her chronic mental illness, and in particular her delusional belief that she did not have cancer, to make informed decisions about major medical treatment. (2) Orders were made that certain specified treatment would be lawful, subject to powers of veto given to specified people.
  • Best interests case. Re KH (A child); An NHS Trust v Mr and Mrs H (2012) EWHC B18 (Fam), (2012) MHLO 142 — “This is an application by an NHS Trust for declarations in relation to the best interests of a boy known in the proceedings as KH. The Trust seeks approval of a medical treatment plan which comes before the court because there are some matters that are not agreed and because the treatment plan involves the withholding of life-sustaining treatment in the event of a serious deterioration in KH’s condition.” [Summary required.]
  • Best interests case. An NHS Trust v DJ (2012) EWHC 3524 (COP), (2012) MHLO 138 — “As a result of his illness, DJ does not have the capacity to make decisions about his medical treatment. The trust has brought the proceedings because there is longstanding disagreement between the family and the doctors about what treatment should be given. This requires the court to make an assessment of DJ’s best interests within the framework of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. If that assessment supports the view taken by the doctors, a declaration may be granted endorsing the lawfulness of their approach.” [Summary required.]
  • Capacity case. J Council v GU (2012) EWHC 3531 (COP), (2012) MHLO 137 — “Happily, all parties have agreed a final order which they invite me to approve. I am satisfied that it is a proper order to make and its terms and provisions are fully in the interests of George. However the case has given rise to interesting questions about Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights and what the scope of the safeguards should be to ensure compliance with it for the future. I have been exhorted to give a judgment which states unambiguously that the arrangements which I approve are compliant with Article 8. It is said that this judgment is likely to be looked at in any case presenting similar facts.” [Detailed summary available.]
  • COP costs case. Re CP; WBC v CP (2012) EWHC 1944 (COP), (2012) MHLO 144 — LPM, the brother of CP (called C in the ‘blue room’ judgment) sought a costs order against the local authority. (1) The court should follow the general rule in welfare cases (that there be no order as to costs: rule 157) where it is appropriate, and it is only local authorities who have broken the law, or who are guilty of misconduct (that falls within rule 159) that have reason to fear a costs order (G v E). (2) The questions to be addressed are (a) is the departure from the general rule justified in all the circumstances, including the conduct of the parties, the outcome of the case and the role of the Applicant as a public body?; and (b) if so, what order should be made? (Neary). (3) The judge concluded that (a) the local authority’s actions were tainted with illegality, (b) the local authority’s decision making was impoverished and disorganised, (c) the local authority was responsible for the delay in referring CP’s circumstances to the Court of Protection and/or the High Court in its children and inherent jurisdictions, and (d) the local authority could have arrived at the position concluded by the court many months earlier. (4) The local authority was ordered to pay LPM’s costs to be assessed if not agreed.
  • Capacity case. Calvert v Clydesdale Bank Plc (2012) EWCA Civ 962, (2012) MHLO 131 — There is no requirement for a mortgagor to give consent or to be capable of giving consent at the time when the security is enforced. Accordingly, the bank were entitled to enforce their mortgage (by the appointment of receivers who sold the property) despite the mortgagor’s lack of capacity.

Criminal

  • Capacity case. R v Ligaya Nursing (2012) EWCA Crim 2521, (2012) MHLO 134 — “This is an appeal against conviction by Ligaya Nursing who, on 15 May 2012 in the Crown Court at Southampton, before His Honour Judge Ralls and a jury, was convicted of neglect of a person who lacked capacity, contrary to s.44 of the Mental Capacity Act 2005.” [Detailed summary available.]
  • Hybrid order case. R v Jenkin (2012) EWCA Crim 2557, (2012) MHLO 141 — Having pleaded guilty to GBH with intent (for gouging his girlfriend’s eyes out), the appellant was sentenced to life imprisonment with a six-year minimum term, combined with a hospital direction and limitation direction under s45A MHA 1983. He appealed against sentence, arguing for a restricted hospital order or alternatively an IPP sentence. (1) A hospital order means that ‘release is dependent on the responsible authority being satisfied that the defendant no longer presents any danger which arises from his medical condition’: this would be inadequate as, irrespective of his delusional disorder, the appellant posed a significant risk of serious harm to the public. (2) A life sentence should be reserved for those cases where the culpability of the offender is particularly high or the offence itself particularly grave (R v Kehoe): both those limbs were met in this case. (3) The s45A hybrid order was appropriate as the criteria were met and the disorder was treatable, but when treatment is no longer necessary the risk to the public required that he be released from hospital to prison and for the Parole Board to make the release decision.
  • Criminal appeal. R v B (2012) EWCA Crim 1799, (2012) MHLO 119 — The trial judge found the appellant unfit to plead. The appellant had admitted the act charged during an interview under caution, and the judge refused to exclude that evidence. On the basis of that evidence, the jury found that the appellant had done the act charged. (1) Given that the appellant’s mental state was the same during interview as when found unfit to plead, the Court of Appeal found it impossible to understand how the interview could have been admitted: the finding that he had done the act was therefore set aside. (2) The Court of Appeal would have ordered a retrial but has no power to do; the court noted that it was ‘high time that Parliament remedied this most unfortunate error in the law’.
  • Criminal law capacity case. G v DPP (2012) EWHC 3174 (Admin), (2012) MHLO 140 — At the Youth Court it had been argued that the case should be stayed since it would be an abuse of the court’s process to proceed to an adjudication when the appellant was unfit to plead, to participate in his trial and to instruct his defence. Having heard medical evidence from both sides, the District Judge declined to stay the proceedings, arranged for the appointment of an intermediary and accepted the intermediary’s advice as to the way in which the appellant should be assisted during the course of the hearing; he found the charge proved. This was an appeal by way of case stated in relation to the appellant’s conviction at the Youth Court. (1) The High Court set out the rules for appeals and commented that the way in which the appeal had been prepared is was lamentable. (2) The District Judge had correctly followed the guidance (from DPP v P) for proceedings in the Youth Court in which capacity is relevant. (3) The defence expert confused the propriety of a prosecution with the ability to understand the nature of proceedings and communicate instructions and the District Judge was entitled to disagree with her.
  • Sentence appeal case. AG’s reference (no 60 of 2012) sub nom R v Edwards (2012) EWCA Crim 2746, (2012) MHLO 135 — “This is a case which presented to the judge an intractable but by no means unknown sentencing problem. … The intractable difficulty presented by this defendant and by, sadly, a number of others is this: he has a variety of personality disorders, but the doctors all report that there is no medical treatment available.” [Summary required.]
  • Criminal appeal. R v Tudor (2012) EWCA Crim 1507, (2012) MHLO 127 — Following receipt of a psychiatric report which did not recommend a hospital order, the trial judge was entitled to impose an IPP sentence without adjourning for a second psychiatrist’s report.

After-care and community care

  • After-care case. R (BA) v LB Hillingdon (2012) EWHC 3050 (Admin), (2012) MHLO 148 — “This is a claim for interim relief brought on behalf of BA by his litigation friend, the official solicitor, against the London Borough of Hillingdon and Hillingdon National Health Service Primary Care Trust. The relief sought is first, an order that the claimant be provided with community care services under section 117 of the Mental Health Act 1983 against both defendants and/or section 21 of the National Assistance Act 1948 against the first defendant, and secondly an order that the defendants jointly carry out assessments of his need of community care services under section 47 of the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990.” [Summary required.]
  • LGO s117 decision. Avon and Wiltshire MH Partnership NHS Trust and Wiltshire Council 09 005 439 (2012) MHLO 147 (LGO) — “Citing section 117 of the Mental Health Act, which makes provision for patients who have been compulsorily detained under the Act to receive free aftercare, Miss M complained it was wrong for Mrs M to have funded her own care during the five years she spent as a resident of the care home. The Ombudsmen did not uphold any of Miss M’s complaints. Although they found there was no doubt Mrs M had had a severe and enduring mental illness over many years, they could not conclude that her period of residence in a care home, in the last years of her life, was linked to aftercare arising from compulsory detention in hospital some 15 years earlier. Because Mrs M’s general deterioration could not be definitely attributed to her mental health problems, the Ombudsmen could not therefore conclude that the care home’s fees should have been met from public funds. They also found that, despite some procedural failings, Mrs M did not fail to receive the medical or social care services that she needed from the trust or the council.” [Summary required.]

Powers of attorney

  • EPA case. Re Johnston (2012) MHLO 130 (EPA) — The donor appointed two attorneys to act jointly and severally. The donor included the following restriction: “The property at [address] shall not be disposed of without the agreement of A, B and C, as children of [the donor] in addition to the attorneys.” On the attorneys’ application the restriction was severed as being ineffective as part of an EPA. [OPG summary – EPA case.]
  • LPA case. Re Edmonds (2012) MHLO 129 (LPA) — The donor appointed a sole attorney and then two replacements, the latter to act jointly for some decisions and jointly and severally for others. She then directed as follows: “I would like my replacement attorneys to act jointly as much as possible and always where any transaction is valued at more than £5,000.” On the application of the Public Guardian the words “as much as possible and always” were severed on the ground that they were uncertain and incompatible with the appointment type. [OPG summary – LPA case.]

ECHR

  • ECHR case. X v Finland 34806/04 (2012) ECHR 1371, (2012) MHLO 128 — “The applicant alleged, in particular, under Article 6 of the Convention that she did not receive a fair hearing in the criminal proceedings against her in that she was not given an opportunity to be heard at an oral hearing on the need to appoint a trustee for her for the purpose of those proceedings and that she was not given an opportunity to examine witnesses on her behalf. She also alleged under Articles 5 and 8 of the Convention that she was unnecessarily and unlawfully subjected to involuntary care in a mental institution and to forced administration of medication. She further claimed under Article 13 of the Convention that she did not have an effective remedy to challenge the forced administration of medication.” [Detailed summary available via external link.]

Immigration

  • Deportation case. JO (qualified person – hospital order – effect) Slovakia (2012) UKUT 237 (IAC), (2012) MHLO 132 — The respondent had been charged with attempted murder, found not guilty by reason of insanity, and made subject to a restricted hospital order. The Secretary of State made a deportation order under the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006. Under those regulations, (a) a ‘qualified person’ (jobseeker or worker) is entitled to reside in the UK while he remains a qualified person, (b) after five years of such residence he is entitled to reside in the UK permanently, (c) a worker or self-employed person’s periods of inactivity due to illness or accident are treated as if they were periods of activity. (1) The term ‘illness’ should not be given a narrow or restricted meaning, either in terms of the type of illness (to exclude mental illness) or the period of incapacity (to exclude long-term illnesses). (2) Although a prison sentence does not count towards the qualifying period for permanent residence, time spent subject to a hospital order does: ‘The distinction is that a prison sentence follows the choice of an individual to act in a criminal manner, whereas a Hospital Order results from a finding that the individual suffers from a mental disorder and is not therefore criminally responsible for their otherwise culpable behaviour.’ [This distinction is fallacious, as it is mental state at sentencing that is relevant and most hospital orders follow a criminal conviction.] (3) The Secretary of State’s challenges in relation to the respondent’s ‘integration’ and work history were rejected as (respectively) integration was not relevant because the respondent fell within the regulations, and the FTT were entitled to reach the view it did as to work history.
  • Immigration case. C v SSHD (2012) EWHC 1543 (Admin), (2012) MHLO 125 — Immigration case with mental health background: “In essence, the claimant’s case is that the length of the detention, the unlikely prospect of removal, the deterioration in the mental health of the claimant together with independent evidence of torture, were all factors which would lead to a conclusion that the claimant’s detention was unlawful, even taking account of an absconding risk which, when properly examined, was not of the highest.” [Summary required.]

Miscellaneous

  • Negligence case. Selwood v Durham CC (2012) EWCA Civ 979, (2012) MHLO 160 — “This is an appeal from a striking-out order of HH Judge Walton sitting in the Newcastle upon Tyne County Court on 25 February 2011. The claimant, the appellant in this court, had brought an action for personal injuries against Durham County Council, (her employer) and two NHS trusts with whom she collaborated in the course of her work. She alleged that all three defendants had been negligent and that, as a result, she had been exposed to danger, in the course of her employment, from a man to whom I shall refer as GB who was mentally disturbed and had threatened to harm her. In the event, GB attacked her with a long-bladed knife and caused very serious injuries. The two NHS trusts (the respondents in this court) applied to strike out the action contending, successfully, that they did not owe her any duty of care in respect of the action of a third party. The appellant appeals against that decision with the permission of Macduff J. The appeal therefore raises the question of whether it is reasonably arguable that such a duty was owed in the circumstances of the case. The claimant had also pleaded that there had been a breach by the second and third defendants of her right under article 2 of the European Convention of Human Rights. The judge also struck out those claims and that issue is raised in this appeal.” Appeal allowed and all issues sent for trial. [Detailed summary available.]
  • Negligence claim. Buck v Norfolk and Waveney MH NHS Foundation Trust (2012) MHLO 123 (CC) — The defendant Trust granted unescorted leave to a detained patient who then ran in front of a bus. The claimant bus driver suffered PTSD and sued the Trust. The court held that a custody authority responsible for the negligent release of a patient did not owe a duty to a victim unless that victim had been identifiable: the Trust therefore owed no duty of care to the driver.
  • Housing case. Southend-on-Sea BC v Armour (2012) EWHC 3361 (QB), (2012) MHLO 152 — The recorder’s decision to refuse to grant a possession order (on the basis that by the time of the delayed hearing possession was no longer appropriate because there had been full compliance with the terms of the tenancy for the 12 months prior to the hearing) was upheld on appeal.
  • Housing case. Southend-on-Sea BC v AR (2012) EW Misc 25 (CC), (2012) MHLO 151 — The claimant local authority sought possession of an introductory tenancy on the basis of the defendant’s antisocial behaviour. (1) The procedure was followed properly so there was no defence to the claim under the Housing Act 1996. (2) The original decision to seek possession was a necessary and proportionate interference with the defendant’s Article 8 rights: in particular, the diagnosis of Aspergers and depression (which led to lack of litigation capacity and appointment of a litigation friend) did not explain the defendant’s conduct and was properly considered by the claimant. (3) However, there had been full compliance with the terms of the tenancy for the 12 months prior to the delayed final hearing, so possession was no longer proportionate. (4) No order for costs (despite the claimant seeking costs).
  • Scottish case. RM v Scottish Ministers (2012) UKSC 58, (2012) MHLO 133 — “This appeal raises a question as to the effect of a commencement provision in a statute which provides that provisions “shall come into force” on a specified date, and a consequential question as to the effect of a provision conferring upon Ministers the power to make regulations, where the provisions which are subject to the commencement provision cannot come into effective operation unless such regulations have been made. … These questions arise in relation to the Mental Health (Care and Treatment) (Scotland) Act 2003 (“the 2003 Act”). The relevant substantive provisions are contained in Chapter 3 of Part 17, comprising sections 264 to 273. That Chapter is concerned with the detention of patients in conditions of excessive security.” [Detailed summary available.]
  • Miscellaneous (limitation) case. RAR v GGC (2012) EWHC 2338 (QB), (2012) MHLO 154 — (1) In relation to limitation the court held as follows: ‘I am satisfied that it would be fair and just to invoke the discretion afforded to the court by section 33 of the 1980 Act and permit this trial to proceed. I do so for the following reasons: (i) Having read the lengthy report of Dr Roychowdhury, it is clear that as a result of the abuse perpetrated upon her, the mental health of the claimant has been adversely affected. It has fluctuated over the years, at its worst, it has entailed compulsory hospitalisation. I find that the mental health of the claimant played a real part in the delay which has occurred in the bringing of the civil claim. I accept that the nature of the matters to be explored in this case are of themselves a deterrent for a person in the position of the claimant in bringing such a claim. (ii) In 1977/1978 the defendant had cause to consider allegations of sexual assault upon the claimant by reason of the criminal proceedings. That he did so, and that his memory remains to this day, is evidenced by the detailed witness statement which the defendant has filed in these proceedings. (iii) This case depends upon the evidence of two people, the claimant and the defendant. Although the claimant will find it distressing to give evidence, the detail contained in her witness statement demonstrates that she is able to remember and articulate her memories, however unpleasant. There is nothing in the witness statement of the defendant which demonstrates any difficulty on his part remembering the detail of relevant periods. The evidence of both parties remains sufficiently cogent to enable a fair trial to take place. (2) The other issues considered were: (ii) What was the nature and extent of the alleged assaults perpetrated by the defendant upon the claimant? (iii) What is the nature and extent of any resultant personal injury and loss? (iv) What is the appropriate level of damages?
  • Miscellaneous case. R (Tracey) v Cambridge University Hospital NHS Foundation (2012) EWHC 3670 (Admin), (2012) MHLO 146 — “This is a claim for judicial review and a claim pursuant to section 7 Human Rights Act 1998 in respect of: (i) the failure by the first defendant to treat the claimant’s late wife, Janet Tracey lawfully; (ii) the failure by the first defendant to treat Janet Tracey in a manner that respected her rights under Articles 2, 3 and 8 ECHR, and in a manner that respected the claimant’s rights under Article 8 ECHR; and (iii) the failure by the first defendant to have in place and to operate lawfully an appropriate policy on the use of Do Not Attempt Cardio-Pulmonary Resuscitation orders; (iv) the failure by the second defendant effectively to promulgate any clear policy or guidance on the use of DNACPRs, which is accessible to patients and their families, and which properly informs them of their rights and legitimate expectations in respect of the use of DNACPRs by hospitals such as that operated by the first defendant.” [Summary required.]

Legislation

  • Draft legislation. Mental Health (Discrimination) (No. 2) Bill 2012 — The Mental Health (Discrimination) Bill 2010 ran out of Parliamentary time so was reintroduced in 2012. The 2012 Bill has been approved by the House of Commons and will have its Second Reading in the House of Lords on 18/1/13. As with the previous Bill, if enacted it would: (1) Repeal s141 MHA 1983 so that the seat of an MP is no longer vacated upon long-term detention under the Act; (2) amend the Juries Act 1974 so that (in addition to the existing category of those lacking capacity) only those liable to be detained under the MHA are excluded from jury service (see jury service page for current provisions); (3) amend the Companies (Model Articles) Regulations 2008 so that a person no longer ceases to be a director when ‘by reason of that person’s mental health, a court makes an order which wholly or partly prevents that person from personally exercising any powers or rights which that person would otherwise have’; (4) amend the School Governance (Constitution) (England) Regulations 2007 so it is no longer the case that ‘[a] person is disqualified from holding or from continuing to hold office as a governor of a school at any time when he is detained under the Mental Health Act 1983’.
  • Legislation (from 2008). Mental Health (Cross-border Visits) (Scotland) Regulations 2008 — “These Regulations make provision in connection with escorted mental health patients who visit Scotland whilst on leave of absence under the law of England and Wales, Northern Ireland, the Isle of Man or any of the Channel Islands.” In force 6/5/08.

Articles

Life and death

  • John Aston, ‘Brain damaged woman allowed to “die with dignity”, judge rules’ (Independent, 13/11/12). This article sets out some further details of the evidence which do not appear in the All ER (D) report of the ex tempore judgment. See A Local Health Board v J (2012) MHLO 158 (COP)
  • Terri Judd, ‘Family “devastated” as court orders life saving treatment is to be withheld if the condition of their severely ill father deteriorates significantly’ (Independent, 8/10/12). Although L was in a minimally-conscious state rather than a vegetative state (as originally asserted by the Trust), Moylan J held that it would be in L’s best interests to withhold life saving treatment if his condition deteriorated significantly. See Settled cases and forthcoming judgments
  • Jane Dreaper, ‘Down’s syndrome patient challenges resuscitation order’ (BBC, 13/9/12). The basis of the claim is that a do-not-resuscitate order was placed on the patient’s file (on account of ‘Down’s syndrome, unable to swallow (Peg [percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy] fed), bed bound, learning difficulties’) without consulting or informing him or his family and without provision for review. See Settled cases and forthcoming judgments#Re AWA (do not resuscitate)
  • Cathy Gordon, ‘NHS trust wins intervention ruling over man’s life-prolonging treatment’ (9/8/12). The judge decided that ‘[i]t would be not only inappropriate, it would be distressing for him to be subjected to any aggressive forms of treatment of a kind that may result in some short prolongation of what has to be seen as a distressing life.’ See Settled cases and forthcoming judgments#Re HH (needle phobia etc, Pauffley J)

Other

  • Mental Health and Mental Capacity Law Blog, ‘X v Finland – Are we in trouble?’ (18/7/12). This article argues that ‘[i]t is at best highly doubtful that the approach in the Mental Health Act 1983, where compulsory treatment flows from detention automatically and with limited distinct procedural and substantive safeguards, is consistent with Article 8 of the ECHR’. See X v Finland 34806/04 (2012) ECHR 1371, (2012) MHLO 128
  • What Do They Know website, ‘Cost to HBC of legal proceedings in Neary v Hillingdon’ (FOI request made 27/7/12). The FOI reply, dated 24/8/12, states that the costs to LB Hillingdon were: (1) solicitor costs 464.35 in-house hours (£32,318.31 at notional charge-out rate of approx £69.60ph); (2) counsel £32182; (3) expert reports £5231.65; (4) compensation £35,000; (5) court costs ordered and future costs not known at time of reply. See Re Steven Neary; LB Hillingdon v Steven Neary (2011) EWHC 3522 (COP)
  • Michael Kennedy and Bilkiss Bashir, ‘Short Changed’ (Private Client Adviser, February 2012). This article concludes: ‘For now, the argument as to the legality and power for a local authority to charge someone deprived of their liberty and compelled to live in a care home remains open to lively debate.’ See DM v Doncaster MBC (2011) EWHC 3652 (Admin)

Website

  • Redesigned home page now online, including donation button. Mental Health Law Online is free to use and maintained on a voluntary basis. If you or your organisation find this website useful, please consider making a donation to contribute to its upkeep. See Main Page
  • Discussion list. Please subscribe to Mental Health Law Online’s new discussion list. This is separate from the email updates list, which remains unchanged. The discussion list covers all aspects of mental health law in England and Wales, from the Mental Health Act 1983 and the Mental Health Tribunal, to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Court of Protection. See Discussion
  • CPD tests for October and November 2012. These CPD tests have been uploaded and are available to subscribers. Obtain 12 CPD points online for £60. See CPD scheme
  • New page. Wales — This page sets out some of the documents which are different for Wales.
  • New resources page. Enforcement Instructions — This Home Office/UK Border Agency manual contains guidance and information for officers dealing with enforcement immigration matters within the United Kingdom. Chapter 55 is entitled ‘Detention and temporary release.’ Paragraph 55.10 states: ‘The following are normally considered suitable for detention in only very exceptional circumstances, whether in dedicated immigration detention accommodation or prisons: … those suffering from serious mental illness which cannot be satisfactorily managed within detention (in CCD cases, please contact the specialist Mentally Disordered Offender Team). In exceptional cases it may be necessary for detention at a removal centre or prison to continue while individuals are being or waiting to be assessed, or are awaiting transfer under the Mental Health Act …’
  • Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!

November 2012 mental health law update

Updates from Mental Health Law Online

Alternative formats: PDF | Kindle

Case law

  • Section 117 case. R (Sunderland City Council) v South Tyneside Council (2012) EWCA Civ 1232, (2012) MHLO 117 — The chronology in this s117 responsibility dispute was as follows: (a) SF lived at a college hall of residence in Sunderland, (b) she had voluntary admissions to various hospitals, (c) she was voluntarily admitted to a South Tyneside hospital, (d) the college terminated her placement and her licence to remain at the hall of residence, (e) she was detained under s2 then s3 at the South Tyneside hospital. (1) It was common ground that (a) the relevant s117 authority is the relevant LSSA for the area in which a patient is resident when he is detained (Hall), (b) during a period of detention the patient is not ‘resident’ for s117 purposes in the place of detention (JM); and (c) SF remained resident in Sunderland during the hospital admissions, at least until the Sunderland placement was terminated: therefore the question was where she was resident after that. (2) The High Court judge had decided she remained resident in Sunderland: (a) the South Tyneside placement was ‘not compulsory, but it was closely analogous to a compulsory admission’ so was to be disregarded, as if it were a place of detention; (b) she was not in hospital ‘as part of the regular order of her life for the time being’ (applying the test in Shah); (c) the loss of her Sunderland accommodation was not voluntary (as in JM) so did not affect her area of residence. (3) The Court of Appeal overturned that decision: (a) a voluntary period in the same hospital as subsequent detention is not to be treated the same as the period of detention; (b) the judge had wrongly followed the approach in Shah (which related to ordinary residence in a very different statutory context); the approach in Mohamed was more helpful (this included that ‘so long as that place where he eats and sleeps is voluntarily accepted by him, the reason why he is there rather than somewhere else does not prevent that place from being his normal residence’); (c) decisively, voluntary and third-party termination of accommodation have ..→ [Detailed summary available on case page.]
  • Lawfulness of transfer decision. R (L) v West London MH NHS Trust (2012) EWHC 3200 (Admin), (2012) MHLO 114 — The claimant began proceedings to challenge the decision to transfer him from a medium secure unit to Broadmoor high secure hospital. (1) The claimant no longer wished to challenge the transfer decision, but the claims were of general importance and merited review, and were not merely academic, so the judge proceeded to hear the case and set out his reasons at extraordinary length. (2) The potential adverse consequences of a transfer to high security are: (a) the potential for delaying the ultimate date of discharge from detention; and (b) the potential for more restrictive detention conditions. (3) The nature of the decision making process as to whether a patient should be transferred from medium to high security is such as to engage a common law duty of fairness. (4) Subject to the need to protect persons from the risk of harm or some other substantial reason, that duty of fairness requires: (a) the patient and his advisers to be informed of any intention to refer him to high security; (b) the gist of the reasons for referral and any relevant reports to be provided; (c) the gist to be sufficiently detailed to enable meaningful and focussed representations, and reasons to be given if reports are withheld; (d) requests for additional information to be considered; (e) all such information to be communicated in time for the patient to make representations before the earliest possible of (i) the admissions panel meeting, (ii) the high security hospital accepting, (iii) the medium secure hospital deciding to transfer, or (iv) the decision being implemented; (f) all such information to be communicated immediately upon transfer at the latest; (g) reasons for the various decisions to be communicated, and to be sufficiently detailed to enable the patient to decide whether a worthwhile challenge can be made (see para 557-8). (5) In this case, in various ways, the requirements of the common law duty of fairness were not complied with and a declaration to that effect was ..→
  • Capacity case. A, B and C v X, Y and Z (2012) EWHC 2400 (COP), (2012) MHLO 112 — The court considered X’s capacity to marry, make a will or power of attorney, manage affairs, and litigate. (1) X did not lack capacity to marry. The basis for this assessment was correctly stated in Sheffield as follows: (a) it is not enough that someone appreciates that he or she is taking part in a marriage ceremony or understands its words; (ii) he or she must understand the nature of the marriage contract; (c) this means that he or she must be mentally capable of understanding the duties and responsibilities that normally attach to marriage; (d) that said, the contract of marriage is in essence a simple one, which does not require a high degree of intelligence to comprehend, and the contract of marriage can readily be understood by anyone of normal intelligence. (2) The judge did not make a general declaration that X lacked testamentary capacity, but qualified this by saying that (a) there would be increasingly many times when X lacked such capacity, and (b) any will now made, if unaccompanied by contemporary medical evidence asserting capacity, might be seriously open to challenge. (3) The same observations applied to X’s capacity to revoke or create lasting or enduring powers of attorney. (4) X lacked capacity to manage his own affairs: although a snapshot of X’s condition at certain times would reveal an ability to manage his affairs, the general concept of managing affairs is an ongoing act and relates to a continuous state of affairs whose demands may be unpredictable and may occasionally be urgent. (5) X also lacked capacity to litigate: this required separate consideration because the time frame involved is different to managing affairs on the one hand, or making a will or granting power of attorney on the other. The basis for this assessment was stated in Masterman-Lister: ‘whether the party to the legal proceedings is capable of understanding, with the assistance of proper explanation from legal advisers and experts in other disciplines as the case ..→
  • Capacity case (imprisonment for contempt). SCC v JM (2012) MHLO 111 (COP) — (1) One of JM’s children, WM, had breached court orders by, amongst other things, (a) arranging for JM to be taken from the care home to hear judgment delivered, and separately to see a solicitor, (b) discussing the possibility of moving back home with him, (c) harassing her father and employees of the local authority and care home. (2) WM was sentenced to five months’ imprisonment for contempt because (a) there had been a considerable number of breaches of court orders, and (b) she had no intention, unless restrained by a severe measure by the court, of obeying the orders herself.
  • Capacity case (deputyship). Re AS; SH v LC (2012) MHLO 113 (COP) — AS’s niece objected to a panel solicitor’s application to be appointed deputy with specific authority to sell a property. (1) Generally speaking the order of preference for the appointment of a deputy is: (a) P’s spouse or partner; (b) any other relative who takes a personal interest in P’s affairs; (c) a close friend; (c) a professional adviser, such as the family’s solicitor or accountant; (d) a local authority’s Social Services Department; and finally (e) a panel deputy, as deputy of last resort. (2) The court prefers to appoint a family member or close friend because of: (a) familiarity with P’s affairs, wishes and communication methods; (b) likely greater ability to consult with P and encourage participation; (c) reasons of economy; (d) the concept of deputyship of last resort. (3) The appointment of a family member will generally be a less restrictive alternative, though the question remains as to whether this will achieve the desired objective as effectively as the appointment of a panel deputy. (4) The court would not appoint a family member in cases involving, for example: (a) financial or other abuse; (b) conflict of interests; (c) an unsatisfactory track record in managing financial affairs; and (d) ongoing friction between various family members. (5) On the facts, the niece was appointed as there was no need for a deputy of last resort. (6) The general rule as to costs (that AS pay) was followed.
  • Family Division case involving capacity. Re CA (A Baby); Coventry City Council v C (2012) EWHC 2190 (Fam), (2012) MHLO 110 — The mother in this case consented to life-sustaining surgery and pain relief during childbirth; on the day of birth she initially refused to consent to the local authority accommodating her daughter under Children Act 1989 s20 but later, after morphine and encouragement, consented. (1) Detailed guidance, approved by the President of the Family Division, was given for social workers in respect of obtaining s20 consent from a parent to the removal of a child immediately or soon after birth, including the following: (a) the social worker is under a personal duty to be satisfied that the person giving consent has capacity; (b) consent must be fully informed; (c) the obtaining of such consent and the subsequent removal must be both fair and proportionate. (2) Capacity is issue- and situation-specific: in this case the fact that the mother could make decisions about surgery and pain relief did not indicate that she could make decisions about the removal of her child; the judge seriously doubted the social worker’s assessment that she had such capacity. (3) There was no informed consent because (a) the mother was never told that continued refusal of consent would result in the child staying in hospital with her for another day or two, and (b) she was told that removal was only a temporary arrangement when it was highly unlikely to be anything of the sort. (4) In relation to fairness, the local authority had settled an HRA damages claim, accepting that (a) s20 consent should not have been sought on the day it was, and (b) removal was not a proportionate response to the risks that then existed. (5) The court made the care order and (adoption) placement order which the local authority had sought, as the case for that was overwhelming. [Detailed summary available on case page.]
  • Capacity case. Dunhill v Burgin (2012) EWHC 3163 (QB), (2012) MHLO 115 — The ‘compromise rule’ in the Civil Procedure Rules provides that where a claim is made by or on behalf of a party who lacks capacity to conduct the proceedings (a child or protected party), no settlement of that claim shall be valid without the approval of the court. (1) The rule applies to a claim settled at the door of the court where at the time of the settlement the claimant was not known to lack capacity. (2) The claimant was a protected party (‘a party, or an intended party, who lacks capacity to conduct the proceedings’) and the Court of Appeal had decided that she lacked capacity to settle her claim. (3) The compromise in this case was invalid; the judgment based on it must be set aside, and the substantive claim should proceed to a trial on the merits. (4) The judge granted a certificate under s12 Administration of Justice Act 1969 to enable an application to be made to the Supreme Court for permission to bring a ‘leapfrog’ appeal from this decision.
  • Capacity case. Supreme Court permission granted on 23/10/12. Dunhill v Burgin (2012) EWCA Civ 397, (2012) MHLO 33 — (1) In deciding whether the claimant had capacity to settle a claim for £12,500 (at hearing it would have been worth at least £800,000) the question was not whether she had capacity to enter into that settlement but whether she had capacity to litigate. (2) On the facts, she had lacked capacity, and the compromise would never have been approved by the court.
  • Court Martial. Court Martial in the case of Sergeant Nightingale (2012) MHLO 116 — (1) The accused pleaded guilty of possessing (a) a Glock 9mm pistol and (b) the following live ammunition: 122 x 9mm, 40 x 7.62mm, 50 x 9mm (frangible), 50 x .338 (armour piercing), 2 x .308, 74 x 5.56mm. (2) In mitigation he relied, inter alia, on evidence from a neuropsychologist and a clinicial psychologist to the effect that a brain injury had caused memory problems and confabulation. (3) He was sentenced to 18 months for the Glock and 6 months concurrently for the ammunition. [It appears that an appeal against both conviction and sentence will be lodged shortly.]

Legislation

  • Legislation. Mental Health (Approval Functions) Act 2012 — This Act states: ‘Any person who before the day on which this Act is passed has done anything in the purported exercise of an approval function is to be treated for all purposes as having had the power to do so.’ It defines ‘approval function’ as: ‘(a) the function of giving an approval for the purposes of section 12 of the Mental Health Act 1983 (practitioners approved to give medical recommendations), or (b) the function of approving a person as an approved clinician for the purposes of that Act.’ The Secretary of State’s approval functions were lawfully delegated to Strategic Health Authorities on their formation in 2002. This Act was passed with it was discovered that four SHAs had unlawfully delegated these functions to NHS mental health trusts. In force 31/10/12.
  • Legislation. External links in relation to Mental Health (Approval Functions) Act 2012: (1) Legislation.gov.uk (text of Act); (2) Parliament website: Mental Health (Approval Functions) Act 2012-13 (progress of the Bill and explanatory notes); (3) Parliament website, ‘Lords considers Mental Health (Approval Functions) Bill’ (1/11/12); (4) They Work For You: Commons debates on 30/10/12; (5) Dept of Health, ‘Action to clarify processes under the Mental Health Act’ (press release, 29/10/12); (6) Dept of Health, ‘Technical change to the process for approving doctors working under the Mental Health Act’ (letter to Local Authority Directors of Adult Social Services, 29/10/12). See Mental Health (Approval Functions) Act 2012

Articles

Newsletters

  • 39 Essex Street, ‘Court of Protection Newsletter’ (issue 27, November 2012). The cases mentioned in this issue are: CYC v PC and NC [2012] MHLO 103 (COP) — A, B and C v X, Y and Z [2012] EWHC 2400 (COP) — An NHS Trust v (1) K and (2) Another Foundation Trust [2012] EWHC 2922 (COP) — An NHS Trust v Mr and Mrs H & Ors [2012] EWHC B18 (Fam) — Re AS (unreported, 7.12.11) — Re Clarke [2012] EWHC 2256 (COP), [2012] MHLO 107, Re Clarke [2012] EWHC 2714 (COP), [2012] MHLO 108, Re Clarke [2012] EWHC 2947 (COP), [2012] MHLO 109 — SCC v JM & Ors (unreported, 31.8.12) — R (Sunderland City Council) v South Tyneside Council [2012] EWCA Civ 1232 — Kedzior v Poland [2012] ECHR 1809, Application No. 45026/07) — Bureš v. the Czech Republic [2012] ECHR 1819 (Application No. 37679/08) — RP v UK 38245/08 [2012] ECHR 1796, [2012] MHLO 102. Further information is given under the following headings: Practice and procedure – liaison with the Home Office; Guide for social workers upon when to consider making an application to the Court of Protection. See 39 Essex Street COP Newsletter
  • 39 Essex Street, ‘Court of Protection Newsletter’ (issue 26, October 2012). The cases mentioned in this issue are: Re KK; CC v KK [2012] EWHC 2136 (COP), [2012] MHLO 89 — Re J (A Child: Disclosure) [2012] EWCA Civ 1204. Further information is given under the following headings: Amendment of Schedule 3 to the MCA 2005; Serious Case Review into the murder of Martin Hyde; Draft Indian Rights of Persons with Disabilities Bill. See 39 Essex Street COP Newsletter
  • 39 Essex Street, ‘Court of Protection Newsletter’ (issue 25, September 2012). The cases mentioned in this issue are: Re MW; LB Hammersmith and Fulham v MW [2012] MHLO 82 (COP) — Coventry City Council v C, B, CA and CH [2012] EWHC 2190 (Fam) — Davis v West Sussex County Council [2012] EWHC 2152 (QB), [2012] MHLO 83 — Further information is given under the following headings: Funding; MCA literature review; Consultation on new safeguarding power. See 39 Essex Street COP Newsletter

Website

  • New website feature. Recent Twitter ‘retweets’ appear on website home page. These are often updates that have not yet been added to the website.
  • The CPD questionnaire for September 2012 is now online. Obtain 12 SRA-accredited CPD points online for £60. See CPD scheme
  • Discussion list. Please subscribe to Mental Health Law Online’s new discussion list. This is separate from the email updates list, which remains unchanged. The discussion list covers all aspects of mental health law in England and Wales, from the Mental Health Act 1983 and the Mental Health Tribunal, to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Court of Protection. See Discussion

October 2012 mental health law update

Updates from Mental Health Law Online

Cases

  • Capacity case. CYC v PC and NC (2012) MHLO 103 (COP) — (1) PC lacked capacity to litigate and lacked capacity to decide whether to resume married life with NC (upon the expiry of a 13-year sentence for his sexual offences against previous wives). (2) The resumption of married life with NC was lawful as being in her best interests.
  • Capacity case. Re Clarke (2012) EWHC 2947 (COP), (2012) MHLO 109 — (1) Michael Clarke’s application that the court postpone a decision on costs (and in the interim to make orders for disclosure and for the production of further accounts by the Deputy and the Office of the Public Guardian) was refused. (2) The costs of the other family members and the deputy would be charged from Ann Clarke’s estate. (3) In the light of the one-sided publicity that Michael Clarke gives to the affairs of the family, the three judgments were placed into the public domain.
  • Capacity case. Re Clarke (2012) EWHC 2714 (COP), (2012) MHLO 108 — Michael Clarke objected to the deputy selling of his elderly mother’s (Ann Clarke’s) house to pay for future care as he considered it to be his. (1) No party asked for an oral hearing and the judge was satisfied that there was nothing to be gained by that. (2) Thre was a balance to be struck between the consequences of (a) retaining the property and leaving Ann Clarke on a low income, or (b) selling the property and maintaining a higher standard of living for Ann Clarke until the funds are exhausted, with her having no familiar home and, if she lived long enough, no money either. (3) Mrs Clarke’s Blackpool property shall not be sold or charged during her lifetime without an order of this Court. (4) The deputyship was therefore discharged. (5) Publication of the judgments was authorised as, given Michael Clarke’s comprehensive and long-standing breaches of his mother’s entitlement to privacy, the court’s reasons should be made known.
  • Capacity case. Re Clarke (2012) EWHC 2256 (COP), (2012) MHLO 107 — Following an accident, Ann Clarke suffered brain injuries and was awarded damages of £775,000. This money was used to pay for care and buy a home in Blackpool which was worth £200-250,000. The deputy proposed to sell the house to pay for care when the remainder of the money ran out, but Michael Clarke (son and carer) applied to court to prevent this. (1) Ann Clarke had the mental capacity to make a will (in particular, one leaving the house to the applicant and nothing to his siblings). (2) Whether or not Ann Clarke had mental capacity to manage her state pension and benefits it was lawful and in her best interests for these to be paid to her carer(s) to be applied for her benefit. (3) Ann Clarke did not have the mental capacity to decide whether or not her Blackpool property should be sold.
  • Lifer appeal case. R v Petrolini (2012) EWCA Crim 2055, (2012) MHLO 105 — The appellant had unsuccessfully argued diminished responsibility at trial, but subsequently it became apparent that he had indeed been in the prodromal stage of schizophrenia at the time of the offence. The Court of Appeal (1) granted an extension of time of 16 years and 16 months, (2) quashed the conviction for murder and substituted for it a verdict of manslaughter by reason of diminished responsibility, and (3) made a restricted hospital order in place of the 16-year-tariff life sentence. The hospital order was made for admission to Broadmoor, but the intention was that the patient would remain in Carstairs hospital in Scotland.
  • Criminal case. C v R (2012) EWCA Crim 2034, (2012) MHLO 104 — The appellant appealed against his convictions for sexual offences on the basis that there had been no sexual relationship with the complainant (his step-daughter) before she was 16 years of age, and that thereafter the sexual relationship had been consensual. There was a substantial body of evidence which showed apparent consent to sexual activity after the complainant was 16 years old. But once the jury were satisfied that sexual activity had occurred when the complainant was a child, and that it impacted on and reflected the appellant’s dominance and control over the complainant, it was open to them to conclude that the evidence of apparent consent when the complainant was no longer a child was indeed apparent, not real, and that the appellant was well aware that in reality she was not consenting.
  • Legal Aid case. R (Hossacks) v Legal Services Commission (2012) EWCA Civ 1203, (2012) MHLO 106 — This appeal followed an unsuccessful judicial review of the LSC’s rejection of the appellant’s tender in relation to community care law in 2010. (1) The issues were set out by the court as follows: (a) Were any of the Appellant’s applications acceptable without clarification or amendment? (b) Leaving aside the evidence of the Commission’s communications with other applicants, should the Commission have sought clarification or suggested amendment of any of the applications, and if so should the Commission have accepted the resulting application(s)? (c) Do the Commission’s communications with other applicants show that by rejecting the Appellant’s applications, it acted in breach of its duty to treat all applicants equally? (2) The appeal had no real prospects of success and therefore permission was refused. (3) The LSC were awarded its costs: (a) the appellant’s impecuniosity and the fact that her activity both as a solicitor and as a proposed foster parent may be or indeed are in the public interest does not justify depriving the Commission of the normal order; (b) the Appellant was clearly warned of the costs risks of pursuing her application for permission to appeal and her application for disclosure, which was liable to be very expensive indeed; and (c) the court directed a rolled up hearing for her benefit, so that her claim could be determined as soon as possible, as she sought.

Newsletter

  • Mind Legal Newsletter. Mind, ‘Legal Newsletter’ (Issue 12, October 2012). This newsletter contains: (1) Articles: (a) 358 days by Mark Neary; (b) Legal capacity and the UN Convention On The Rights Of Persons With Disabilities by Lucy Series. (2) Case reports: (a) GP v Derby City Council [2012] EWHC 1451 (Admin), [2012] MHLO 58; (b) X Primary Care Trust v XB [2012] EWHC 1390 (Fam), [2012] MHLO 54; (c) Munjaz v UK 2913/06 [2012] MHLO 79 (ECHR); (d) MS v UK 24527/08 [2012] ECHR 804, [2012] MHLO 46; (e) X v Finland [2012] ECHR 34806/04; (f) Discrimination case report. (3) Mental health and human rights update. (4) Legal Aid update. (5) News: (a) Care And Support Bill 2012; (b) Eligibility for IMHA support in Wales; (c) SOAD opinions for consenting patients on supervised CTOs; (d) Safeguarding vulnerable groups: changes to vetting and barring; (e) Mental Health (Discrimination) Bill; (f) Department Of Health Suicide Prevention Strategy; (g) Replacement of Equality and Human Rights Commission helplines. See Mind (Charity)

Articles

  • Jimmy Savile and Broadmoor. (1) Soundcloud: clips from Jerry Sadowitz’s 1987 Gobshite album and 2011 Leeds gig (it will be interesting to see which allegations make the news: ‘… a gangster, a villain, a murderer, a rapist, a … paedophile, a necrophiliac, a gerontophiliac, into … bestiality, hung round with his pals in Broadmoor …’); (2) Esther Addley, ‘Jimmy Savile’s Broadmoor role came with a bedroom and keys’ (Guardian, 12/10/12); (3) Esther Addley, ‘Jimmy Savile police investigate Broadmoor rape claims’ (Guardian, 15/10/12); (4) Ether Addley et al, ‘Jimmy Savile: nurse’s Broadmoor claim adds to ‘cascade’ of abuse allegations’ (Guardian, 11/10/12); (5) Richard Alleyne, ‘Sir Jimmy Savile organised all-girl “therapeutic” parties at Broadmoor’ (Telegraph, 16/10/12); (6) Larisa Brown, ‘Jimmy Savile’s older brother sacked from hospital after being accused of raping psychiatric patient’ (Daily Mail, 14/10/12). See High secure hospital
  • MHA convictions. BBC, ‘Winterbourne View: Care workers jailed for abuse’ (26/10/12). Eleven staff were jailed for offences under s127 Mental Health Act 1983. The article sets out the sentences as follows: (1) Wayne Rogers, 32, of Kingswood, jailed for two years after admitting nine charges of ill-treatment; (2) Alison Dove, 25, of Kingswood, was jailed for 20 months for seven counts of abuse; (3) Graham Doyle, 26, of Patchway, was jailed for 20 months for seven counts of abuse; (4) Nurse Sookalingum Appoo, 59, of Downend jailed for six months for wilfully neglecting patients; (5) Nurse Kelvin Fore, 33, from Middlesbrough, also jailed for six months for wilfully neglecting patients; (6) Holly Laura Draper, 24, of Mangotsfield, pleaded guilty to two charges of abuse and was jailed for 12 months; (7) Daniel Brake, 27, of Downend, pleaded guilty to two charges of abuse and was given a six month jail sentence suspended for two years and ordered to carry out 200 hours of unpaid work; (8) Charlotte Justine Cotterell, 22, from Yate, pleaded guilty to one charge of abuse and was given a four-month jail term suspended for two years. Cotterell was ordered to do 150 hours of unpaid work and complete 12 months supervision; (9) Michael Ezenagu, 29, from Shepherds Bush, west London, admitted two counts of abuse and was given a six month jail sentence suspended for two years and ordered to carry out 200 hours of unpaid work; (10) Neil Ferguson, 28, of Emerson Green, admitted one count of abuse and was given a six month jail term was suspended for two years and ordered to carry out 200 hours of unpaid work; (11) Jason Gardiner, 43, of Hartcliffe, who admitted two charges of abuse, was given a four month jail term was suspended for two years and ordered to carry out 200 hours of unpaid work. See MHA 1983 s127
  • MHA convictions. Avon and Somerset Police, ‘Freedom of Information: Investigations at Winterbourne View Care Home (Investigations/Operations): Question’ (17/8/12). This page gives some details of the investigation and prosecution. See MHA 1983 s127

Statistics

  • Statistics. NHSIC, ‘Inpatients formally detained in hospitals under the Mental Health Act 1983, and patients subject to supervised community treatment, Annual figures, England, 2011/12’ (24/10/12). Key facts: (1) On the 31st March, 22,267 people were subject to detention or CTO restrictions under The Act in NHS and independent sector hospitals. This represents a 6 per cent increase since the previous year and includes 17,503 people were detained in hospital and 4,764 people subject to a CTO. (2) There were a total of 48,631 detentions in NHS and independent hospitals during 2011/12. This number was 5 per cent (2,283) greater than during the 2010/11 reporting period. Total detentions in independent sector hospitals increased by 21 per cent; a large proportion of this increase was attributable to a 45 per cent increase in uses of Section 2. (3) There were 4,220 CTOs made during 2011/12, an increase of 386 (10 per cent) since 2010/11. The number of CTO recalls increased by 30 per cent and it is estimated that around 70 per cent ended in a revocation (an increase of approximately 10 percentage points since last year). The rise in CTO recalls and revocations may be linked to the 6 per cent reduction (473) in uses of Part II Section 3 of The Act. (4) There were 15,240 uses of place of safety orders (Sections 135 and 136) in hospitals during 2011/12; this figure was 6 per cent (841) greater than during 2010/11. New experimental figures estimate that 8,667 orders were made in hospitals, accounting for at least 37 per cent of all place of safety orders. (5) This report also includes some new experimental analysis on The Act using data from the MHMDS quarterly data submission files as the data source. See Statistics

Legal Aid

  • Legal Aid update. Non-means-tested non-tribunal matters — If the reasoning given in a Costs Appeal Committee decision on a proposed Point of Principle on 17/10/12 were to be followed, it appears that means-testing would not apply to any matters where ‘advice about the Tribunal and possible applications and timing of such’ is provided to the client.

Book

  • New book published. Richard Jones, Mental Health Act Manual (15th edn, Sweet & Maxwell 2012). See Books

Website/CPD

  • The CPD questionnaire for September 2012 is now online. Obtain 12 SRA-accredited CPD points online for £60. See CPD scheme
  • Discussion list. Please subscribe to Mental Health Law Online’s new discussion list. This is separate from the email updates list, which remains unchanged. The discussion list covers all aspects of mental health law in England and Wales, from the Mental Health Act 1983 and the Mental Health Tribunal, to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Court of Protection. See Discussion

September 2012 mental health law update

Updates from Mental Health Law Online

Alternative formats: PDF | Kindle

Cases

  • UT case. CNWL NHS Foundation Trust v HJ-H (2012) UKUT 210 (AAC), (2012) MHLO 88 — The tribunal granted discharge from a CTO, deferred for 3 months, expressing the hope that in the meantime the RC would consider reducing the level of the patient’s medication. The Trust appealed. (1) The challenge to the decision to discharge was essentially an attempt to re-argue the tribunal’s assessment of the evidence, and was therefore unsuccessful. In deciding on whether there is an error of law, the UT must respect the FTT’s assessment of the evidence and fact-finding role (provided this was carried out rationally and explained): (a) the UT’s statutory jurisdiction is limited to points of law; (b) the expert composition of the FTT means its fact-finding is worthy of such respect. (2) The challenge to the deferral also failed, as there was no evidence that the tribunal had misdirected itself by granting the deferral with the intention that that the patient’s medication could be reduced in order to make her ready for discharge on a future date. (3) If the FTT’s reasons for the deferral had not been set out adequately (ironically, the judge said the reasoning was ‘not pellucid’) then its decision would still not have been set aside; if anyone had cause to complain about the deferral it was the patient rather than the Trust. (4) If a CTO patient’s condition deteriorates after a deferred discharge decision: (a) before the discharge date, he can be recalled under the CTO which still remains in force, and/or have his medication changed; (b) after the discharge date, he can be detained under s2 or s3, if there is information which was not known to the tribunal which puts a significantly different complexion on the case as compared with that which was before the tribunal.
  • Capacity case. Re KK; CC v KK (2012) EWHC 2136 (COP), (2012) MHLO 89 — KK was moved to a care home against her wishes, subject to a DOLS standard authorisation, and appealed under MCA 2005 s21A. (1) Having heard her oral evidence, the judge disagreed with the unanimous expert evidence that she lacked capacity to make decisions about her residence and care. (2) In light of the case law and the facts of the case, she had not been deprived of her liberty.
  • Capacity case. Re SK (2012) EWHC 1990 (COP), (2012) MHLO 98 — “This is an application by the parties to certain Queen’s Bench personal injury proceedings who seek in effect to be joined in these Court of Protection proceedings. The subject of both sets of proceedings is SK, a mentally incapacitated adult aged 55. The issue which arises one way or another in both sets of proceedings is as to his care, accommodation and rehabilitation. The two applicants for joinder to these proceedings are (a) CK, aged 52, brother of SK and (b) GA Group PLC, a bus company whose bus struck SK in November 2008, causing him severe lasting brain and physical injuries. That company is the defendant in the Queen’s Bench proceedings.” [Summary required.]
  • Best interests (medical) case. NHS Trust v Baby X (2012) EWHC 2188 (Fam), (2012) MHLO 99 — “The question in this case is whether a baby known as X should be removed from a ventilator and made the subject only of palliative care. As the evidence is that he will almost certainly die within minutes, or at best hours, of such removal, it will be readily apparent that this case is both tragic and difficult. Given the nature of the question, I have thought it right to deliver this judgment in open court but nothing of course may be reported which might reasonably lead to the identification of X or his parents. An issue has arisen over the reporting restrictions order in this case; I intend to deal with this matter quite separately to this judgment.” [Detailed summary available on case page.]
  • Costs case. Re T (Children) (2012) UKSC 36, (2012) MHLO 100 — A local authority should not be liable for the costs of interveners against whom allegations have been reasonably made that are held unfounded; the general practice of not awarding costs against a party, including a local authority, in the absence of reprehensible behaviour or an unreasonable stance, is one that accords with the ends of justice and which should not be subject to an exception in the case of split hearings. (This case related to care proceedings.) [Detailed summary available on case page.]
  • LPA case. Re Gunn (2012) MHLO 97 (LPA) — The donor made LPAs for property and financial affairs and for health and welfare. The donor’s signature was witnessed in both LPAs, but in the health and welfare instrument the witness failed to state his address and registration of this LPA was refused by the Office of the Public Guardian. On the attorney’s application for an order that the instrument should be treated as if it were in the prescribed form, the court exercised its discretion under paragraph 3(2) of Schedule 1 of the MCA and declared that the instrument was to be treated as if it were an LPA for health and welfare. The court considered it relevant that the witness had stated his full address in the LPA for property and financial affairs which was executed on the same day. [OPG summary – LPA case.]
  • LPA case. Re Burdock (2012) MHLO 96 (LPA) — The donor made an LPA for property and financial affairs and included the following guidance: “(1) If the house is sold I intend to pay off Z’s student loan completely. (2) I also intend to give my three daughters, or their issue, as follows: X £30,000, Y £30,000, Z £50,000. (3) The remainder to be used for my care and needs.” On the application of the Public Guardian the provision was severed as it gave the attorneys greater gift making powers than are permitted under section 12 of the MCA 2005. [OPG summary – LPA case.]
  • LPA case. Re Krajicek (2012) MHLO 95 (LPA) — The donor made two LPAs appointing two attorneys, A and B, and two replacement attorneys, C and D, and directed them to act jointly for some decisions and jointly and severally for other decisions. She provided that “If either of the original attorneys is unable to act then C should step in. D is to step in if the second attorney is unable to act.” On the application of the Public Guardian the provision was severed because it appeared to provide for the replacement attorney to act jointly with the survivor of the original attorneys, which was incompatible with the appointment of the attorneys to act jointly for some decisions. [OPG summary – LPA case.]
  • LPA case. Re Dowden (2012) MHLO 94 (LPA) — The donor made two LPAs in which she appointed a professional attorney and a lay attorney to act jointly and severally. She directed that the professional attorney should be paid fees “in keeping with the charging rate in force at the time the work is undertaken”. She then directed that the lay attorney should be paid a reasonable hourly fee and stated that any sum paid “must be with the approval of my Solicitor/Attorney” and “will be at such rate as he feels is appropriate”. On the application of the Public Guardian the provision relating to the lay attorney’s fees being approved and set by the professional attorney was severed as being incompatible with a joint and several appointment. The judge added that, to have achieved the desired objective, the donor should have appointed the attorneys to act jointly for some decisions (in this case on agreeing an appropriate level of remuneration for the lay attorney) and jointly and severally for other decisions. [OPG summary – LPA case.]
  • LPA case. Re Sheppard (2012) MHLO 93 (LPA) — The donor of a health and welfare LPA included the following guidance: “My attorneys are to maintain the health and welfare needs of X.” On the application of the Public Guardian the provision was severed as it is not open to a donor to require attorneys to make health and welfare decisions on behalf of a third party. [OPG summary – LPA case.]
  • LPA case. Re Kerron (2012) MHLO 92 (LPA)‎ — The donor made an LPA for health and welfare, and imposed the following restriction: “If assessed as requiring nursing/residential care I would like to move promptly to a home jointly chosen by myself and my attorneys.” On the application of the Public Guardian the words “jointly” and “myself and” were severed on the ground that a health and welfare LPA can only be used when the donor lacks capacity, and if the donor lacked capacity she would not be able to choose a nursing or residential care home. [OPG summary – LPA case.]
  • LPA case. Re Darlison (2012) MHLO 91 (LPA)‎ — The donor made an LPA for property and financial affairs. In the guidance section she stated: “Oversee X’s financial welfare. X is [my] daughter.” On the application of the Public Guardian the guidance was severed on the ground that the donor of an LPA cannot authorise the attorneys to act in relation to the financial affairs of another person. [OPG summary – LPA case.]
  • LPA case. Re Norris (2012) MHLO 90 (LPA) — The donor made LPAs for property and financial affairs and for health and welfare and included the following guidance in both LPAs: “At all times to make decisions in the best interests of [my wife] during her lifetime.” On the application of the Public Guardian the provision was severed as being potentially inconsistent with the requirement in section 1(5) of the MCA that any act done or decision made must be done or made in the donor’s best interests. [OPG summary – LPA case.]
  • LGO decision. LGO decision: Kent County Council 10 012 742 (2012) MHLO 102 — “In her report concerning services for a young woman with learning disabilities, the Ombudsman says: ‘The Council’s failure to complete an assessment before the young woman was 18 caused her the injustice of losing services she was assessed as needing. The support plan that was eventually produced did not include services to meet these needs.’ In addition, the Council’s poor communication led to uncertainty, confusion and frustration for the young woman and her family, and she was denied a direct payment and the choice to arrange her own respite care.” [Detailed summary available on case page.]
  • LGO decision. LGO decision: Kent County Council 11 001 504 (2012) MHLO 101 — “In her report concerning the elderly woman’s residential care payment, the Ombudsman says: ‘The Council’s internal guidance said that staff could only use the Council’s own homes, or places it had ‘pre-purchased’, or community hospitals. The requirement to offer service users a genuine choice of placement when they are assessed as needing residential care is enshrined in law. The guidance did not adhere to these principles.'” [Detailed summary available on case page.]

Articles, blogs and newsletters

  • 39 Essex Street, ‘Court of Protection Newsletter’ (issue 24, August 2012). The cases mentioned in this issue are: Munjaz v UK 2913/06 [2012] MHLO 79 (ECHR) — XCC v AA [2012] EWHC 2183 (COP), [2012] MHLO 80 — Re SK [2012] EWHC 1990 (COP), [2012] MHLO 98 — NHS Trust v Baby X [2012] EWHC 2188 (Fam), [2012] MHLO 99 — Re T (Children) [2012] UKSC 36, [2012] MHLO 100 — LGO decision: Kent County Council 11 001 504 [2012] MHLO 101 — LGO decision: Kent County Council 10 012 742 [2012] MHLO 102 — Re Steven Neary; LB Hillingdon v Steven Neary [2012] MHLO 71 (COP). See 39 Essex Street COP Newsletter
  • Jerome Taylor, ‘Huge spike in use of controversial new ‘deprivation of liberty’ orders despite critics arguing they are not fit for purpose’ (Independent, 18/7/12). See DOLS#Other links
  • Mark Neary, ‘Pay Back Time?’ (Love, Belief and Balls Blog, 12/9/12). In this blog post, Mark Neary states that the effect of the London Borough of Hillingdon’s decision to cease paying Housing Benefit will be that from 16/10/12 he and his son Stephen will no longer be able to live together in the borough. See Re Steven Neary; LB Hillingdon v Steven Neary (2012) MHLO 71 (COP)
  • Nina Lakhani, ‘NHS watchdog claimed that whistleblower Kay Sheldon was “mentally ill”‘ (Independent, 15/8/12). See Care Quality Commission
  • Andy McNicoll, ‘CQC chief “sorry” for “very personal” comments on whistleblower’s mental health’ (Community Care, 12/9/12). See Care Quality Commission

Legal Aid

  • Legal Aid forms. The following Legal Aid forms relevant to mental health law are being updated from 1/10/12: CLSAPP1 (application for Legal Aid certificate), CLSMEANS1 (financial assessment form), MEANS1P (supplementary means assessment form for completion by prisoners), CLSMEANS2 (financial assessment form). All forms signed and dated on or after 1/10/12 must be new versions. Old forms signed before that date will be accepted until 30/10/12. New means assessment forms may be used immediately. See LSC, ‘Masterpack Forms Change Guide October 2012’ (28/9/12). See Legal Aid forms
  • Legal Services Commission, ‘Guidance on the use of agents’ (10/10/11). This document sets out the LSC’s interpretation of the Standard Civil Contract 2010 that a firm with a high secure hospital contract may do the following, either separately or in combination: (1) use agents to allow firms without HSH contracts to represent HSH patients, or (2) use 30% of their own HSH matter starts at HSHs for which they do not have a contract. See Legal Aid

Academic

  • Mental Health Foundation, ‘Mental Capacity and the Mental Capacity Act 2005 – A literature review’ (August 2012). Their summary: ‘This literature review was carried out to collate academic literature relating to mental capacity issues and to the implementation of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. Mental capacity is the ability to make one’s own decisions. The Mental Capacity Act (MCA), which came into force in 2007 and covers England and Wales, provides a statutory framework for supporting people to make decisions for themselves wherever possible as well as processes and safeguards for decision-making involving people who lack capacity to make their own decisions because of illness, injury or disability. This review has collated a broad range of literature investigating various issues relating to mental capacity and the implementation of the MCA with the aim of identifying consistent themes, problem areas and any gaps in the existing literature. The largest proportion of literature relating to the MCA in England and Wales relates more specifically to issues with older people and people who have dementia.’ See Mental Capacity Act 2005 Overview#Other external links

Statistics

  • Ministry of Justice, ‘Annual Tribunals Statistics, 2011-12: 1 April 2011 to 31 March 2012’ (28/6/12). The following paragraphs, together with their associated tables, are relevant to mental health: (1) 23. The adjournment and postponement rates for Mental Health have remained at the same levels as 2010-11 (but had previously fallen probably as a result of improved case management processes). In 2011-12, the adjournment rate was 7%, whilst that for postponements was 13%. (2) 25. Of the 222,900 total jurisdictional sitting days, 72% were for fee-paid judiciary and 28% were for salaried judiciary. The ratio of fee-paid to salaried judiciary varies by jurisdiction. In 2011-12, 97% of judicial sitting days for Mental Health were for fee-paid judiciary, whilst this was 15% for the Asylum Support tribunal. (3) 40. For the Mental Health jurisdiction, the time from receipt to disposal has been examined for the three main case types. Unfortunately, the reporting system is not able to produce analysis by single week of age, thus there is some inaccuracy regarding the median and lower and upper quartiles. 41. Given the statutory requirement for Section 2 cases to be listed within 7 days of receipt, it is not surprising that this type of case has the shortest clearance times. The waiting times have reduced when compared with previous periods due to improvements made in administrative processes. See Statistics#Annual Tribunal Statistics
  • NHSIC, ‘Guardianship under the Mental Health Act 1983 – England 2012’ (18/9/12). Key facts: (1) The number of new Guardianship cases fell by 5 per cent between 2010/11 and 2011/12 from 347 to 331 cases. This is a much smaller reduction than between the previous two reporting years, which saw a notable fall of 21 per cent, possibly attributable to the introduction of new Mental Capacity Act Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards and Community Treatment Order legislation. The number of new cases in 2011/12 was 31 per cent lower than in 2002/03 when 477 new cases were reported. (2) This is the seventh consecutive decrease in the numbers of continuing cases. The number of cases continuing at the end of the year decreased by 26 per cent (from 923 in 2002/03 to 682 in 2011/12). The number of cases closed during the reporting year was 357; a decrease of 33 per cent since 2002/03 from 534. See Statistics
  • NHSIC, ‘Mental Capacity Act 2005, Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards assessments – England, 2011-12, Third report on annual data’ (17/7/12). Key facts: (1) There has been a year-on-year increase in the number of applications completed for Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) since the safeguards were first introduced in 2009/10. There were 11,393 applications in 2011/12, which represents a 27per cent increase on the 8,982 in 2010/11 and a 59 per cent increase on the 7,157 applications in 2009/10 (the first year of the new safeguards). (2) The number of people subject to a standard authorisation at the end of the quarter had increased each quarter since the safeguards were introduced, from 536 at the end of June 2009 to 1,976 at the end of December 2011. However, between the end of December 2011 and March 2012 the numbers decreased by 16 per cent, the first fall in numbers seen. (3) Dementia accounted for 53 per cent of all applications and this is reflected in the age profile of people who are the subject of DoLS applications. (4) Fifty-eight per cent of applications relate to people over 74 and the population-based rate of applications is much higher for over 74s and over 84s. For the over 84s the application rate is 25 in 10,000. This compares to 12 in 10,000 for 75-84 year olds, 3 in 10,000 for 65-74 year olds and just 1 in 10,000 for 18-64 year olds (working-age adults). (5) There are wide variations in population-based application rates by region. The East Midlands has the highest rate of applications at 51 per 100,000, whilst London had the lowest rate at just 17 per 100,000. These compare to a rate for England as a whole of 28 per 100,000.
  • NHSIC, ‘Bi-annual analysis of Mental Capacity Act 2005, Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards Assessments (England) – October 2011 – March 2012’ (12/6/12). Key facts: The figures show that between 01 October 2011 and 31 March 2012: (1) 5,933 authorisation requests were completed. 4,255 (71.7 per cent) were received by LAs and 1,678 (28.3 per cent) were received by PCTs. (2) 3,277 (55.2 per cent) of the completed requests resulted in an authorisation. – 2,400 (56.4 per cent) of the assessments received by a LA resulted in an authorisation. – 877 (52.2 per cent) of the assessments received by a PCT resulted in an authorisation. (3) Of the total assessments completed, a slightly higher proportion was for females 3,190 (53.8 per cent) than males 2,743 (46.2 per cent). (4) At the end of the reporting period, 31 March 2012, 1,667 people were subject to a current standard authorisation. 1,421 (85.2 per cent) followed a granted LA authorisation and 246 (14.8 per cent) followed a granted PCT authorisation. See Statistics

Scotland

  • Scottish Law Commission, ‘Discussion Paper on Adults with Incapacity’ (discussion paper 156, 31/7/12). Consultation from 31/7/12 to 31/10/12. Extract from news release: ‘The main questions raised by the Discussion Paper are: (1) Is Scots law as it currently stands adequate to meet the requirements of the European Convention in this area? and (2) If not, how should it be changed? In particular, there is a need to decide if there should be a new procedure for authorising deprivation of liberty in residential care for adults with incapacity. If there should, what should that process be? And, very importantly, what sorts of care and what type of facilities should be regarded as involving deprivation of liberty for those who live there?’ See Consultations#Scotland

Wales

Southern Ireland

  • Harry Kennedy, ‘”Libertarian” groupthink not helping mentally ill’ (Irish Times, 12/9/12). See Southern Ireland

Website/CPD

  • CPD scheme. The July 2012 and August 2012 CPD questionnaires are now available. Obtain 12 accredited CPD points online for £60. See CPD scheme
  • Discussion list. Please subscribe to Mental Health Law Online’s new discussion list. This is separate from the email updates list, which remains unchanged. The discussion list covers all aspects of mental health law in England and Wales, from the Mental Health Act 1983 and the Mental Health Tribunal, to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Court of Protection. See Discussion
  • Kindle. You can now receive monthly updates delivered automatically to your Kindle e-reader. See Kindle updates

August 2012 mental health law update

Updates from Mental Health Law Online

Alternative formats: PDF | Kindle

Cases

Mental Health Act

  • Ministry of Justice case. R (RW) v SSJ (2012) EWHC 2082 (Admin), (2012) MHLO 87 — The responsible clinician and tribunal were of the view in March 2011 that the patient required continued treatment in detention in hospital, and the tribunal recommended transfer from Broadmoor to a medium secure unit; in June the RC sought permission for trial leave to a MSU, with return to prison being the planned consequence if it were unsuccessful; trial leave in September was unsuccessful and, that month, the Secretary of State remitted the patient to prison on the RC’s advice. (1) There had been new information since the tribunal which put a different complexion on the case, namely the unsuccessful trial leave, so the Secretary of State was entitled to take at face value the RC’s new opinion that the patient did not require treatment in hospital for mental disorder. (2) It was not necessary for the Secretary of State to consider that lack of treatment in prison might breach Article 3 or require almost immediate re-transfer to hospital; the correct approach was to consider the remission request when made, and consider transfer to hospital later if necessary. (3) Permission to amend the grounds to challenge the alleged ongoing failure to transfer under s47 was refused, but the judge directed that if a fresh application were made within six weeks that the permission application be referred to him.
  • First-tier Tribunal case. Re Ian Brady (2012) MHLO 76 (FTT) — The tribunal hearing was adjourned from 9/7/12, to a date to be fixed, because of the patient’s (physical) medical condition.
  • First-tier Tribunal case. Re Ian Brady (2012) MHLO 75 (FTT) — The media’s request for one or more representatives to be present in the tribunal room at Ashworth was refused.

Court of Protection

  • COP case. Re MW; LB Hammersmith and Fulham v MW (2012) MHLO 82 (COP) — (1) MW lacked capacity to make decisions in relation to contact with his childhood friend JC. (2) It was not in MW’s best interests for JC to visit MW’s home, so an order was granted restraining JC from doing so; this was endorsed with a penal notice because of previous breaches of an injunction. (3) The local authority and Official Solicitor’s requested that MW, who lacked litigation capacity, should not attend the hearing because this would be stressful and not conducive to the maintenance of his good mental health: the court acceded to this application. (4) Sensitive evidence was withheld from JC, at the request of the local authority and Official Solicitor, but the court came to its final decision based on the open evidence.
  • COP case. XCC v AA (2012) EWHC 2183 (COP), (2012) MHLO 80 — An arranged marriage took place in Bangladesh between DD, a British citizen with severe learning difficulties, and her cousin purely for immigration purposes. The judge: (1) exercised the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court to declare that the marriage (although valid in Bangladesh) was not recognised as a valid marriage in this jurisdiction; (2) declared that it was in DD’s best interests for an application to be made to annul the marriage, with the Official Solicitor as litigation friend; (3) stated that marriage with an incapacitated person who is unable to consent is a forced marriage within the meaning of the Forced Marriage Act 2007; and (4) stated the following guidance: ‘in my view it is the duty of a doctor or other health or social work professional who becomes aware that an incapacitated person may undergo a marriage abroad, to notify the learning disabilities team of Social Services and/or the Forced Marriage Unit if information comes to light that there are plans for an overseas marriage of a patient who has or may lack capacity. The communities where this is likely to happen also need to be told, loud and clear, that if a person, whether male or female, enters into a marriage when they do not have the capacity to understand what marriage is, its nature and duties, or its consequences, or to understand sexual relations, that that marriage may not be recognised, that sexual relations will constitute a criminal offence, and that the courts have the power to intervene.’ [Detailed summary available on case page.]
  • COP case. Re BS; SC v BS (2012) MHLO 78 (COP) — The jointly-instructed psychiatrist, although an expert in autism, did not have experience of applying the test for capacity in the context of litigation in the Court if Protection, so the court directed that an alternative expert be instructed.

Power of attorney

  • LPA case. Re Harcourt (2012) MHLO 74 (LPA) — “This application relates to an investigation by the Office of the Public Guardian into the management of Mrs Harcourt’s property and financial affairs by her daughter under a Lasting Power of Attorney. It considers the powers of the OPG and the Court of Protection when an attorney impedes an investigation and the circumstances in which the court may revoke an LPA.”
  • EPA case. Re Newman (2012) MHLO 73 (EPA) — The donor made an EPA in which, amongst other defects, he failed to select either of the following alternatives: “with general authority to act on my behalf” or “with authority to do the following on my behalf”. The court confirmed that this failure did not invalidate the EPA, because it was an immaterial difference from the prescribed form within paragraph 2(4) of Schedule 4 of the MCA. [OPG summary – EPA case.]
  • EPA case. Re Stapleton (2012) MHLO 72 (EPA) — (1) The court directed the Public Guardian to cancel the registration of the EPA, because the attorney’s financial abuse made him unsuitable. (2) A panel deputy was appointed instead. (3) D was ordered to pay his own costs (a departure from the general rule in property and affairs cases that P pays) because of D’s conduct before and during proceedings.

Local Government Ombudsman

  • LGO decision. LGO decision: Dorothy 10 013 715 (2010) MHLO 198 — “A case where a DoL application was not made promptly and the care home’s/council’s approach to restrictions placed on the complainant and her mother was flawed.” [Summary required.]

Other cases

  • Community care case. Davis v West Sussex County Council (2012) EWHC 2152 (QB), (2012) MHLO 83 — At a safeguarding vulnerable adults case conference the local authority determined that certain allegations of abuse at a care home were substantiated or inconclusive, made recommendations, and decided to refer three members of staff to their professional bodies. The claimants sought judicial review of the decisions (and of a subsequent Default Notice, although this was not pursued). (1) The local authority’s procedure was unfair, in breach of the rules of natural justice, its own guidance (based on government guidance), and legitimate expectations – a precis cannot do justice to how disgraceful the procedure was. (2) Two defences, arguing that no public law rights arose, failed: (a) there was no respect in which the duty to protect vulnerable adults conflicted with the less pressing obligation to treat other parties affected in a just manner; (b) there was a sufficient public flavour to make the process of investigation and decision a public function distinct from the contractual relationship. (3) The defendant’s arguments that no remedy should follow failed: in particular, because the decisions were unfair, inconsistent with or unsupported by the findings of external bodies, and had a serious continuing impact on the claimants and their residents and staff, and because the defendant showed an inability to recognise, even in hindsight, some basic requirements of fairness.
  • ECHR case. Munjaz v UK 2913/06 (2012) MHLO 79 (ECHR) — The applicant, C. Munjaz, is a British national who was born in 1947. Suffering from mental health problems, he has spent a number of periods in prison and hospital. The case concerned Mr Munjaz’s complaint about his placement in seclusion in Ashworth Special hospital (a high security hospital) where he was transferred in March 1994 as a result of his increasingly psychotic, aggressive and violent behaviour. Relying in particular on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life), he alleged that Ashworth’s in-hospital policy on seclusion, which had not complied with the Code of Practice under the Mental Health Act, had adversely affected his right to personal development and to establish and develop relationships with the outside world. Further relying on Article 5 (right to liberty and security), he also claimed that his seclusion had amounted to a further deprivation of his liberty lacking any basis in law and without possibility of bringing an external appeal. No violation of Article 5. No violation of Article 8. [Summary from court press release.]
  • Extradition case. Turner v Government of the USA (2012) EWHC 2426 (Admin), (2012) MHLO 84 — The appellant was unable to demonstrate that the evidence that was before the High Court was ‘decisive’ such that if it had been before the District Judge he would have concluded that she had demonstrated that her mental condition was such that it would be oppressive to extradite her to the USA.
  • Mercy killing case. R (Nicklinson) v Ministry of Justice (2012) EWHC 2381 (Admin), (2012) MHLO 77 — (1) Voluntary euthanasia is not a possible defence to murder. (2) The DPP is not under a legal duty to provide further clarification of his policy. (3) Section 2 Suicide Act 1961, in obstructing the claimants from exercising a right in their circumstances to receive assistance to commit suicide, is not incompatible with Article 8. (4) The GMC and the SRA are not under a legal duty to clarify their positions. (5) It was unnecessary in this case to decide whether or not the mandatory life sentence for murder, in a case of genuine voluntary euthanasia, is incompatible with the Convention.

Corrections

  • Revised transcript now on Bailii (the original having been withdrawn from publication at the Official Solicitor’s request). XCC v AA (2012) EWHC 2183 (COP), (2012) MHLO 80 — An arranged marriage took place in Bangladesh between DD, a British citizen with severe learning difficulties, and her cousin purely for immigration purposes. The judge: (1) exercised the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court to declare that the marriage (although valid in Bangladesh) was not recognised as a valid marriage in this jurisdiction; (2) declared that it was in DD’s best interests for an application to be made to annul the marriage, with the Official Solicitor as litigation friend; (3) stated that marriage with an incapacitated person who is unable to consent is a forced marriage within the meaning of the Forced Marriage Act 2007; and (4) stated the following guidance: ‘in my view it is the duty of a doctor or other health or social work professional who becomes aware that an incapacitated person may undergo a marriage abroad, to notify the learning disabilities team of Social Services and/or the Forced Marriage Unit if information comes to light that there are plans for an overseas marriage of a patient who has or may lack capacity. The communities where this is likely to happen also need to be told, loud and clear, that if a person, whether male or female, enters into a marriage when they do not have the capacity to understand what marriage is, its nature and duties, or its consequences, or to understand sexual relations, that that marriage may not be recognised, that sexual relations will constitute a criminal offence, and that the courts have the power to intervene.’ [Detailed summary available on case page.]
  • Corrected transcript published by OPG. Re Phillips (2012) MHLO 60 (LPA) — The donor appointed three attorneys, A, B and C. She did not name any persons to be notified, and so there were two certificate providers. The Public Guardian refused to register on the ground that one certificate provider, X, was a member of the family of A. He was the unmarried partner of A but did not live at the same address. In his Part B certificate X said: “I am the partner of A and have known the donor for 3 years.” The attorney applied to court for a direction to register and the Public Guardian was joined as respondent. The court decided that X was to be treated as a member of the family of A, and so the instrument could not be registered. The judge said: “In my judgment, anyone who describes himself in this context as the attorney’s partner is courting trouble and automatically disqualifies himself from being a person who can give an LPA certificate. This applies regardless of whether he describes himself as the attorney’s partner intentionally or inadvertently, whether they live at the same address or at separate locations, whether the relationship is intimate or platonic, and whether the statement is true or false.” Although it was unnecessary to the decision, the judge added that, even if X were not to be treated as a family member, he was not independent of the attorney, as required by the prescribed LPA form. [OPG summary – LPA case.]

Legislation

  • Draft legislation. Care and Support Bill — The draft Care and Support Bill would create single law for adult care and support, replacing more than a dozen different pieces of legislation.
  • Department of Health, ‘Draft Care and Support Bill published’ (11/7/12); Robert Long and Tom Powell, ‘Draft Care and Support Bill 2012-13 – Commons Library Standard Note’ (6/8/12); Law Society, ‘Overhaul of social care is long overdue, says Law Society’ (press release, 11/7/12). See Care and Support Bill
  • Scottish SI. Mental Health (Safety and Security) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2012 — “These Regulations amend the Mental Health (Safety and Security) (Scotland) Regulations 2005 (‘the principal Regulations’) to add the Medium Secure Service, Rohallion Clinic, Murray Royal Hospital, Muirhall Road, Perth to the list of institutions specified in regulation 2(2)(a) of those Regulations (regulation 2). The principal Regulations provide for ‘specified persons’, who may be made subject to measures to protect the safety and security of themselves and others. A person is only a ‘specified person’ if certain conditions exist, one of which is that the person is detained in a state hospital or other place specified in regulation 2(2)(a) of the principal Regulations. The Mental Health (Safety and Security) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2007 are revoked.” [Explanatory Note.] In force 1/8/12.

Newsletter and articles

  • 39 Essex Street, ‘Court of Protection Newsletter’ (issue 23, July 2012). The cases mentioned in this issue are: X Primary Care Trust v XB [2012] EWHC 1390 (Fam), [2012] MHLO 54 — Re E (Medical treatment: Anorexia) [2012] EWHC 1639 (COP), [2012] MHLO 55 — Re BS; SC v BS [2012] MHLO 78 (COP) — R (KM) v Cambridgeshire CC [2012] UKSC 23, [2012] MHLO 57 — HSE Ireland v SF (A Minor) [2012] EWHC 1640 (Fam), [2012] MHLO 69 — LGO decision: Dorothy 10 013 715 [2010] MHLO 198 — LGO decision: Jones 10 010 739 [2010] MHLO 199. See 39 Essex Street COP Newsletter
  • West Mercia Police, ‘Bromsgrove Care Staff Sentenced For Neglect’ (28/8/12). The victim, who had not been helped into bed or attended to in the evening, was found in the morning lying on the floor in the corner of his room in Breme House, partly dressed and in a distressed state, suffering from borderline hypothermia and complaining of hip pain. He subsequently needed to spend five weeks in hospital. For the offence of ill treating or wilfully neglecting a person without capacity, under s44 MCA 2005: Glen Walsh, aged 23 (date of birth 18/4/89), of Granary Road, Stoke Heath, Bromsgrove, and Gail Broadway, aged 38 (dob 19/3/74), of Lyttleton Avenue, Bromsgrove were both given four month jail sentences suspended for 12 months, 12 month community orders with supervision and told to carry out 125 hours of unpaid community work; Maxine Turbill, aged 46 (dob 15/9/65), of Grayshott Close, Sidemoor, Bromsgrove, was given a two month jail sentence suspended for 12 months and a 12 month community order with supervision; all three were each told to pay £500 costs and an order was made barring them from working with children under the age of 16 and vulnerable adults. They had denied the offence but were found guilty by a jury following a seven-day trial in July this year. See MCA 2005 s44

Legal Aid

  • Legal Aid information added. Non-means-tested non-tribunal matters — The information on this page may be useful to anyone considering appealing an LSC decision to nil assess a non-tribunal matter for lack of means testing, or for anyone considering the proposed Point of Principle in relation to this issue.

Practice Direction

Course

  • 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 London on Monday 10/9/12 and Tuesday 11/9/12. 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 and booking form. See Events

Website

  • Please subscribe to Mental Health Law Online’s new discussion list. This is separate from the email updates list, which remains unchanged. The discussion list covers all aspects of mental health law in England and Wales, from the Mental Health Act 1983 and the Mental Health Tribunal, to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Court of Protection. See Discussion
  • You can now receive monthly updates delivered automatically to your Kindle e-reader. See Kindle updates

July 2012 mental health law update

Updates from Mental Health Law Online.

Cases

  • Upper Tribunal case. EC v Birmingham and Solihull Mental Health NHS Trust (2012) UKUT 178 (AAC), (2012) MHLO 70 — (1) Appeals against tribunals’ refusals to hear arguments in relation to extra-statutory recommendations were dismissed as (a) there is no legal right to advance these arguments (this is a sufficient reason for not making an extra-statutory recommendation which can be implied if not stated), (b) refusal to consider a extra-statutory recommendation is neutral rather than disadvantageous to the patient, and (c) a flawed extra-statutory should have no effect because of its legal status. (2) The judge made further comments about (a) potential guidance to hospital managers about UT procedure, (b) secondary challenges by the appellants, and (c) tribunal procedure generally in relation to extra-statutory recommendations.

Article

Book

Website

  • The CPD questionnaire for June 2012 is now online. Obtain 12 SRA-accredited CPD points for £60. See CPD scheme
  • Please subscribe to Mental Health Law Online’s new discussion list. This is separate from the email updates list, which remains unchanged. The discussion list covers all aspects of mental health law in England and Wales, from the Mental Health Act 1983 and the Mental Health Tribunal, to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Court of Protection. See Discussion
  • You can now receive monthly updates delivered automatically to your Kindle e-reader. See Kindle updates

Paul Veitch – Good Legal Representation – JMHL Spring 2011

This article was first published in the Spring 2011 issue of the Journal of Mental Health Law: it is reproduced by kind permission of Northumbria Law Press.

The Case for “Good” Legal Representation

Is it worth fighting for?

Paul Veitch

“The key to any successful professional service is recruiting good calibre candidates, good training, continuing education, adequate funding and a strong professional body that is able to enforce standards of conduct”

“If we interfere with the principles which underpin law, fritter them away, pick them out of the crannies of our political and social architecture, restoration is impossible. Our only hope is an order governed by law and consent”

“It gave me the impetus to get better as you have someone on your side

A very recent right

The legal representation of patients detained under the Mental Health Act 1983 (the Act) by way of public funding is very recent. Prior to the Act legal representation was not commonplace and was not seen as desirable. A Royal Commission report in 1957 commented that “As the proceedings on applications to Mental health Review Tribunals will usually be informal and neither the patient nor the hospital or local authority will usually need to be legally represented…” It was the Legal Aid Act 1974 that granted public funding for a solicitor to prepare a case for a Mental health Review Tribunal under the Legal Advice Scheme (the Green Form, remember those uncomplicated days!). This was means-tested but did not grant funding for actual representation. Public funding for representation at the hearing was only granted on 1st December 1982 under ‘Assistance by Way of Representation’. A time span up until today’s date of only 28 years!

The current threat

It cannot be taken for granted, that the right to publicly funded representatives will be preserved in years to come. The Legal Aid scheme enshrining this right is relatively new and vulnerable to arguments that others less qualified could carry out this role.6 This would create savings that the Government is desperate to secure from the Legal Aid budget. While you are here have a look at europe casino if you want to play casino games for free or or party bingo if you are looking to play bingo games online for free through party bingo and europe casino websites. It is also noteworthy that the number of members of the Law Society’s Mental Health Tribunal Panel (the Panel) is falling. From the inception of the Panel in 1986 until 2002 membership increased each year. Membership in 2002 stood at 498; since then the numbers have dropped each year, the figure for Jan 2009 being 395. It is therefore timely to remind ourselves as to why patients detained under the Act having access to good legal representation is a fundamental right. I stress ‘good’ because if it is not good, then the arguments for diluting this right will grow stronger, and second, the legal profession will have failed in their duty to represent the weak and the vulnerable.

To make the case I divide this article into three sections. The first section will explain why we need good legal representatives. The second section will analyse what makes for a good legal representative. The final section will attempt to give some answers as to how we can develop the conditions to ensure that good legal representation remains a permanent feature of the Tribunal system.

Read the remainder of the article (PDF file)

Some people have reported an inability to view this PDF file – if you have difficulties, please email admin@mhla.co.uk: you will be emailed when the issue has been resolved.

June 2012 mental health law update

Cases

  • Nearest relative case. GP v Derby City Council (2012) EWHC 1451 (Admin), (2012) MHLO 58 — Consultation with nearest relative prior to s3 detention would not have involved unreasonable delay so (in the absence of any other justification) the failure to consult resulted in unlawful detention. [Detailed summary to follow.]
  • Anorexia treatment case. Re E (Medical treatment: Anorexia) (2012) EWHC 1639 (COP), (2012) MHLO 55 — “E is a 32-year-old woman who suffers from extremely severe anorexia nervosa, and other chronic health conditions. On 18 May 2012, an urgent application was made to the Court of Protection by her local authority, which was concerned that her position should be investigated and protected. E’s death was imminent. She was refusing to eat, and was taking only a small amount of water. She was being looked after in a community hospital under a palliative care regime whose purpose was to allow her to die in comfort. … I found that E lacked capacity to make a decision about life-sustaining treatment and declared that it was in her best interests to be fed against her wishes with all that this entails.” [Summary required.]
  • Advance decision case. X Primary Care Trust v XB (2012) EWHC 1390 (Fam), (2012) MHLO 54 — “This matter concerns an application by the XPCT for declarations under s.26(4) of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 as to the validity of an advance decision made by XB on 2nd November 2011 that he wished, amongst other things, to have his ventilation removed in certain defined circumstances.” [Summary required.]
  • DOLS appeal case. EM v SC (2012) EWHC 1518 (COP), (2012) MHLO 56 — “This is an application made by the Official Solicitor on behalf of the Applicant EM, for the discharge of the latest of a series of standard authorisations made on 16 January 2012 pursuant to the Mental Capacity Act 2005. The effect of the standard authorisation is to deprive EM of his liberty and oblige him to live at a nursing home, RH, rather than at the home which he had shared with his wife and son for many years.” [Summary required.]
  • DOLS appeal. Re HA (2012) EWHC 1068 (COP), (2012) MHLO 67 — “This case comes before me for directions today. The person whose best interests have to be considered by the court is a HA. The Official Solicitor now acts for her as her litigation friend and in that capacity has continued an application under s.21A of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (the Act) that was instigated before his appointment.” [Summary required.] Transcript provided by Alex Ruck Keene of 39 Essex Street Chambers
  • Family Division case. HSE Ireland v SF (A Minor) (2012) EWHC 1640 (Fam), (2012) MHLO 69 — “This application is made by the Health Service Executive of Ireland (‘the HSE’), the statutory authority with responsibility for children taken into public care in the Irish Republic, for an urgent order under Article 20 of the Council Regulation (EC) 2201/2003 of 27th November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No.1347/2000 (commonly known as ‘Brussels II Revised’) in respect of a 17-year-old girl whom I shall refer to as SF. At the conclusion of the hearing on 4th May 2012, I made the order sought by the HSE. This judgment sets out the reasons for my decision.” [Summary required.]
  • PI case. Sedge v Prime (2012) MHLO 66 (QB) — “This is an application for an interim payment of £300,000 to enable the Claimant to move from the ‘Little Oyster’ residential care home, Sheerness, Kent where he currently lives into his own accommodation with a 24 hour care regime. At first this is to be by way of a trial run in a bungalow which has already been rented for one year and adapted for him. If the trial is successful then permanent renting or purchase of a home are the options. If not, return to a residential home is likely.” [Summary required.]
  • RAS case. R (KM) v Cambridgeshire CC (2012) UKSC 23, (2012) MHLO 57 — “In the proceedings, brought by way of judicial review, the appellant challenges a determination made by Cambridgeshire County Council and communicated, at the latest, by a letter dated 3 June 2010 to pay him (in round numbers and as an annual sum) £85k in discharge of its duties to him under section 2(1) of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970. He contends that the determination was unlawful either because it was not adequately supported by reasons or because it was irrational. He asks that the determination be quashed and either that Cambridgeshire should conduct a re-determination of it or that the court should itself substitute for it a determination that the annual sum payable to him be £120k.” [Summary required.]
  • LPA case. Re O’Brien (2012) MHLO 65 (LPA) — The donor of a property and financial affairs LPA included the following guidance: “My handicapped son should be adequately provided for.” On the application of the Public Guardian this provision was severed on the ground that it contravened section 12 of the MCA 2005. [OPG summary – LPA case.]
  • LPA case. Re Strange (2012) MHLO 64 (LPA) — The donor of a property and financial affairs LPA included the following guidance: “I wish my attorneys to provide for the financial needs of my husband in the same manner that I might have been expected to do if I had capacity to do so.” The Public Guardian asked the court to consider whether the guidance needed to be severed as potentially contravening section 12 of the MCA 2005. In the application the Public Guardian referred to the case of Bloom (above), noting that a wife had no common law duty to maintain her husband and that the husband’s common law duty would be abolished when section 198 of the Equality Act 2010 came into force, but noting also that various other legislation (see below) imposed a duty on a wife to maintain her husband. The court did not sever the guidance and explained the position in the following terms: “In the context of clauses in an LPA in which the donor makes provision for the maintenance of his or her spouse, there should be no distinction between male and female spouses and, in principle, such clauses should be treated as valid on the basis of the specific maintenance obligations imposed by statutes such as National Assistance Act 1948, section 24(1)(b) and Social Security Administration Act 1992, section 105(3), and the absence of any distinction between husband and wife in other legislation, such as the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 and the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975.” [OPG summary – LPA case.]
  • LPA case. Re Smith (2012) MHLO 63 (LPA) — The donor appointed two attorneys to act jointly and severally. The LPA was registered by oversight even though one attorney’s signature had not been witnessed. The attorney applied for a declaration of validity, and the evidence was that the witness had been present when the attorney signed, but had not signed under the attorney’s name. The court dismissed the application, holding that it had no jurisdiction to declare that the LPA was valid. The applicant was directed to return the instrument to the OPG so that his appointment could be marked as invalid in accordance with section 10(7) of the MCA 2005. [OPG summary – LPA case.]
  • LPA case. Re McGreen (2012) MHLO 62 (LPA) — The donor appointed A as attorney and B as replacement attorney and then provided as follows on the A2 continuation sheet: “If my Replacement Attorney is no longer a partner in the firm of XYZ Solicitors, I appoint in his place a suitably qualified partner of that firm or firm which has succeeded that firm and carries on its practice, to be my Replacement Attorney.” (Only A and B had signed Part Cs.) The Public Guardian applied for severance of the provision on the ground that it was not possible to appoint a replacement attorney to take over from a replacement attorney (see Re Baldwin, below, under the heading “Replacement for replacement attorney”.) The court severed the provision for that reason and also for the following reason: “Section 19(2) of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 states that, in respect of the appointment of deputies, ‘the court may appoint an individual by appointing the holder for the time being of a specified office or position’. However, there is no comparable provision in the Act that permits the donor of an LPA to appoint an office holder to be his or her attorney. Section 10(1) states that the donee of an LPA must be an individual who has reached 18 or, if the power relates only to the donor’s property and affairs, either such an individual or a trust corporation.” [OPG summary – LPA case.]
  • LPA case. Re Llewelyn (2012) MHLO 61 (LPA) — The donor appointed attorneys including her husband to act jointly in some matters and jointly and severally in other matters. She stated that decisions were to be made jointly and severally apart from a list of specified decisions which were to be made jointly, but added a proviso to the effect that, provided her husband was able to act as one of her attorneys, all decisions could be made jointly and severally. On the application of the Public Guardian the proviso was severed as being incompatible with an appointment to act jointly in some matters and jointly and severally in others. [OPG summary – LPA case.]
  • LPA case. Re Phillips (2012) MHLO 60 (LPA) — The donor appointed three attorneys, A, B and C. She did not name any persons to be notified, and so there were two certificate providers. The Public Guardian refused to register on the ground that one certificate provider, X, was a member of the family of A. He was the unmarried partner of A but did not live at the same address. In his Part B certificate X said: “I am the partner of A and have known the donor for 3 years.” The attorney applied to court for a direction to register and the Public Guardian was joined as respondent. The court decided that X was to be treated as a member of the family of A, and so the instrument could not be registered. The judge said: “In my judgment, anyone who describes himself in this context as the attorney’s partner is courting trouble and automatically disqualifies himself from being a person who can give an LPA certificate. This applies regardless of whether he describes himself as the attorney’s partner intentionally or inadvertently, whether they live at the same address or at separate locations, whether the relationship is intimate or platonic, and whether the statement is true or false.” Although it was unnecessary to the decision, the judge added that, even if X were not to be treated as a family member, he was not independent of the attorney, as required by the prescribed LPA form. [OPG summary – LPA case.]

Legal Aid

  • Following a consultation process (held as a result of judicial review proceedings) the LSC has decided to discontinue the Specialist Support Service. Contracts will end on 6/7/12. See Consultations#Legal Services Commission

Newsletter and articles

  • 39 Essex Street, ‘Court of Protection Newsletter’ (issue 22, June 2012). The cases mentioned in this issue are: Re HA [2012] EWHC 1068 (COP), [2012] MHLO 67 — Re G [2012] EWCA Civ 431, [2012] MHLO 52 — A Local Authority v DS [2012] EWHC 1442 (Fam), [2012] MHLO 68 — Sedge v Prime [2012] MHLO 66 (QB). See 39 Essex Street COP Newsletter
  • O’Donnells Solicitors, ‘Latest news: Cheshire West’ (May 2012, no 1) and O’Donnells Solicitors, ‘Cheshire West Latest’ (May 2012, no 3). The Supreme Court is expected to decide on leave to appeal in the Cheshire West and P & Q cases by the end of June 2012. See Cheshire West and Chester Council v P (2011) EWCA Civ 1257

Events

  • The 2012 Annual ‘Taking Stock’ Conference (The Mental Health and Mental Capacity Acts in Practice) will take place at the Royal Northern College of Music in Manchester on 12/10/12. Speakers: Peter Jackson, Yogi Amin, Sue Bailey, Angela Downing, Phil Fennell, Richard Jones, Shôn Lewis, Penny Letts, Katharine Scott. Price: £155; £135 for confirmed bookings made before 15/6/12; concessions for voluntary sector organisations. CPD: 4.5 accredited hours. See flyer for further information about the programme and speakers, and for a booking form. See Events
  • The MHLA course for membership of the Law Society’s mental health accreditation scheme took place in Leeds on Monday 18/6/12 and Tuesday19/6/12. The LSC is actively considering making membership of the scheme a requirement for tribunal advocates in the next Legal Aid contract. Price: £300 (members); £390 (non-members); £250 (for third and subsequent members in a group). CPD: 12 SRA-accredited hours. See Events

Wales

  • The text of various Welsh Assembly emails has been added. 17/5/12: ‘Making of the Mental Health (Primary Care Referrals and Eligibility to Conduct Primary Care Assessments) (Wales) Regulations 2012’ — 9/5/12: ‘The Mental Health (Secondary Mental Health Services) (Wales) Order 2012’ — 9/5/12: ‘Making of the Mental Health (Regional Provisions) (Wales) Regulations 2012’ — 23/2/12: ‘Consultation on draft Regulations under the Mental Health (Wales) Measure’. See Welsh Assembly emails

Website/CPD

  • The May 2012 CPD questionnaire is now online. Obtain 12 accredited CPD points for £60. See CPD scheme
  • Please subscribe to Mental Health Law Online’s new discussion list. This is separate from the email updates list, which remains unchanged. The discussion list covers all aspects of mental health law in England and Wales, from the Mental Health Act 1983 and the Mental Health Tribunal, to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Court of Protection. See Discussion
  • You can now receive monthly updates delivered automatically to your Kindle e-reader. See Kindle updates

Links

Legislation and case law

Legal sites

Other organisations

May 2012 mental health law update

From Mental Health Law Online. Subscribe to email updates.

Case summaries

  • Upper Tribunal case. DC v Nottinghamshire Healthcare NHS Trust (2012) UKUT 92 (AAC), (2012) MHLO 53 — (1) The tribunal cannot grant a deferred conditional discharge until (a) it has found, on the balance of probabilities, that the patient should not be detained but should be subject to recall, and (b) it has drafted the conditions for the discharge. (2) A deferred conditional discharge is not a device for gathering information on whether a conditional discharge would be possible or what conditions might be appropriate. (3) On the facts (where the tribunal had decided that ‘with the exception of the availability of suitable after-care for the Patient, none of the criteria for his detention in hospital for treatment are met’ but had not drafted conditions) the decision to adjourn was correct.
  • Section 139 case. DD v Durham County Council (2012) EWHC 1053 (QB), (2012) MHLO 51 — The claimant was gate sectioned at Durham prison and detained under s2, then s3, in a Middlesborough hospital. He had complaints of false imprisonment and breaches of Article 3 and 8 relating to matters such as his being kept in seclusion, the lighting in his room, the number of people supervising his activities and a general lack of privacy. (1) He needed leave under s139 to bring civil proceedings against Durham County Council and Middlesborough City Council. This was refused: there was no realistic prospect of establishing illegality against the AMHPs who made the recommendations for s2 and s3 as AMHPs are (a) not required to choose or investigate the quality of the place of detention, (b) not required to research medical views earlier than those in the statutory recommendations, (c) not responsible for the medical or other regimes to which a detained person is subjected. (2) The AMHP who applied for s3 detention was employed by Middlesborough, so Durham claimed that Middlesborough would be vicariously liable. This was incorrect: Durham would have been liable for any wrongdoing, because vicarious liability arises not as a result of employment law but through the statutory relationship in s13.
  • PI quantum case. Verlander v Rahman (2012) EWHC 1026 (QB), (2012) MHLO 49 — Personal injury quantum judgment including the following issues: (1) whether and to what extent the claimant’s disabilities were due to frontal lobe brain damage (and are now incapable of significant improvement) or due depression or psychological factors (which may well improve over time); (2) whether the claimant had capacity to manage her properties and affairs.
  • OS’s costs case. Re D (Official Solicitor’s costs); An NHS Trust v D (2012) EWHC 886 (COP), (2012) MHLO 48 — (1) In medical cases in the Court of Protection, an order that the health authority pays half the Official Solicitor’s costs is the starting point, from which the court can depart if there is reason to do so (thus the practice under the inherent jurisdiction continues). (2) On the facts, this was the order made. Transcript provided by Alex Ruck Keene of 39 Essex Street Chambers
  • PVS case. Re D; An NHS Trust v D (2012) EWHC 885 (COP), (2012) MHLO 47 — (1) P was in a permanent vegetative state so continued medical treatment is of no benefit to him because it is futile. (2) His letter refusing life-sustaining treatment did not comply with the MCA requirements for an advance decision so could not have been relied upon; however, had the evidence on PVS not been clear cut, the judge would have given P’s previous wishes and feelings great weight. Transcript provided by Alex Ruck Keene of 39 Essex Street Chambers
  • Article 3 case. MS v UK 24527/08 (2012) ECHR 804, (2012) MHLO 46 — (1) The conditions of the applicant’s detention under s136 in a police cell beyond the 72-hour limit, while waiting for transfer to a medium secure unit, were an affront to human dignity and reached the threshold of degrading treatment for the purposes of Article 3. (2) There was no breach of Article 13 as an appropriate remedy was available in domestic law, notwithstanding the fact that he had been unsuccessful. (3) There was no claim for breach of Article 5. (4) Compensation of €3,000 was awarded.

Case transcripts

  • Capacity case. Re G (2012) EWCA Civ 431, (2012) MHLO 52 — The local authority issued proceedings under the court’s inherent jurisdiction in relation to a 30-year-old with Downs Syndrome history who was in the exclusive care of her mother. This decision relates to an unsuccessful appeal against case management orders. [Summary required.]
  • Best interests case. LB Haringey v FG (No. 2) (2011) EWHC 3933 (COP) — “There are many issues that have arisen in this case, but now the critical welfare issue is whether or not H should be returned home to live with her mother. This is an outcome sought by the mother, but opposed both by the Local Authority and by the Official Solicitor as litigation friend to H.” [Summary required.] Transcript provided by Alex Ruck Keene of 39 Essex Street Chambers
  • Capacity case. LB Haringey v FG (No. 1) (2011) EWHC 3932 (COP) — “In this case there are a number of matters: does H have capacity to conduct litigation; does she have capacity to decide where she should live, or capacity to decide where she should be educated, or capacity to decide on the extent of the contact and relationship she should have with her natural family; capacity to deal with her financial affairs, or to enter into what has been described as a tenancy agreement, and capacity in a sense to judge her own best interests in those respects?” [Summary required.] Transcript provided by Alex Ruck Keene of 39 Essex Street Chambers
  • OS’s costs case. B v B (2010) EWHC 543 (Fam) — “This is an application by the Official Solicitor for an order that Mr B do pay the Official Solicitor’s costs, on an indemnity basis, of acting on behalf of Mr B as his guardian ad litem, until the Official Solicitor was discharged by order of 19th August 2009.” [Summary required.] Transcript provided by Alex Ruck Keene of 39 Essex Street Chambers

Newsletter

  • 39 Essex Street, ‘Court of Protection Newsletter’ (issue 21, May 2012). The cases mentioned in this issue are: B v B (2010) EWHC 543 (Fam) — LB Haringey v FG (No. 1) (2011) EWHC 3932 (COP) — LB Haringey v FG (No. 2) (2011) EWHC 3933 (COP) — Dunhill v Burgin (2012) EWCA Civ 397, (2012) MHLO 33 — Re JC; D v JC (2012) MHLO 35 (COP) — Re D; An NHS Trust v D (2012) EWHC 885 (COP), (2012) MHLO 47 — Re D (Official Solicitor’s costs); An NHS Trust v D (2012) EWHC 886 (COP), (2012) MHLO 48 — Verlander v Rahman (2012) EWHC 1026 (QB), (2012) MHLO 49. See 39 Essex Street COP Newsletter#May 2012

Articles

  • Rosalind English, ‘Delay in transferring mental health patient for treatment amounted to “inhumane treatment”‘ (3/5/12). This article concludes: ‘This is a prime example of using Article 3 as a social and economic right, not a basic civil right, and thus extended leaves publicly funded authorities to carry out difficult jobs with threats of litigation looming on all sides. The UK courts recognised this claim for what it was, and dismissed it. Strasbourg should have done the same.’ See MS v UK 24527/08 (2012) ECHR 804, (2012) MHLO 46
  • Mental Health Cop Blog, ‘MS v UK’ (4/5/12). This article is in favour of the MS v UK judgment and makes points in relation to (1) place of safety arguments, (2) accessing psychiatric beds, (3) media coverage, and (4) implications. See MS v UK 24527/08 (2012) ECHR 804, (2012) MHLO 46
  • ECtHR, ‘Prolonged police detention of mentally-ill man without adequate medical care violated his Convention rights’ (Press release ref ECHR 195 (2012), 3/5/12). This is the court’s summary of the judgment. See MS v UK 24527/08 (2012) ECHR 804, (2012) MHLO 46

Legal Aid

  • LSC, ‘Legal Aid Bill gets Royal Assent’ (1/5/12). The Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 is due to amend the scope, eligibility and other aspects of the legal aid scheme on 1/4/13. In order to implement the changes, the Legal Services Commission will tender for new contracts for face-to-face advice and/or telephone advice in certain areas of law (not mental health or community care). The Commission will be replaced by the Legal Aid Agency, which will be an Executive Agency of the Ministry of Justice. See Legal Aid News

CQC

  • CQC, ‘Changes to consent to treatment for patients subject to a CTO’ (May 2012). This page explains the change to the regulations. See CQC
  • Form CTO12 section 64C(4A) – certificate that community patient has capacity to consent (or if under 16 is competent to consent) to treatment and has done so (Part 4A consent certificate). See Mental Health Act 1983 Statutory Forms

Scotland

  • Scott Blair, ‘A Summary of Mental Health Caselaw’ (21/3/12). Plagiarism is the copying of someone else’s words or ideas without attribution, intentionally or otherwise. In any place where you reproduce anything from this website, please remember to acknowledge the source and provide a link back to the relevant page. Scott Blair, a Scottish Advocate, immigration judge, MHT for Scotland legal convener, and Glasgow University external examiner, spoke on a paper entitled ‘A Summary of Mental Health Caselaw’ at a seminar on 21/3/12. In three parts it deals with cases from Scotland, England & Wales, and the ECtHR: all 20 case summaries in the second part, and eight in the third part, incorporate case summaries copied from Mental Health Law Online without any attribution (see pages 55-60, 62, 65-66, 69, 105-109, and 111). The document ends ‘© Scott Blair, Advocate’ but there is no legal entitlement to claim copyright for material copied from Mental Health Law Online. See Scotland
  • Valerie Mays, ‘Mental Health Tribunal for Scotland: Case Digest’ (December 2011). See Scotland

Wales

  • Text of two Welsh Government updates added: 25/4/12 (Mental Health – Primary Care Referrals and Eligibility to Conduct Primary Care Assessments – Wales – Regulations 2012) and 24/4/12 (Laying of the Code of Practice to Parts 2 and 3 of the Mental Health (Wales) Measure 2010). See Mental Health (Wales) Measure 2010
  • Consultation on a Separate Legal Jurisdiction for Wales (27/3/12 to 19/6/12). The Welsh Government are consulting on making things even more unnecessarily complicated, by creating an entirely separate legal jurisdiction for Wales. See Consultations#Wales

Book

Website