- Published on
KembaraXtra-Case Law-R v Hallstrom ex p W; R v Gardner ex p L (1986)
Core Principle
Core Principle
- Section 3 of the Mental Health Act (MHA) 1983 cannot be used to allow compulsory treatment in the community. Admission under the act must be for actual treatment in a hospital setting, not just to facilitate community treatment.
- L was admitted under Section 3 of the MHA 1983 for treatment.
- He was granted a leave of absence under Section 17.
- Issue: Was L's return to the hospital to obtain a second opinion a termination of the initial leave of absence?
- If a leave of absence lasts longer than six months, the patient is no longer under the control of the Act (s 17(5)).
- L alleged that either his leave of absence had expired, or the recall was an abuse of law.
- The High Court held that Section 20 (renewal of admission) must be because the patient needs to be in the hospital, not to allow repeated leaves of absence and compulsory treatment in the community.
- The concept of 'admission for treatment' does not apply to those whom it is intended to admit and detain for a purely nominal period, during which no necessary treatment will be given.
- Barker v Barking Havering & Brentwood Community Healthcare NHS Trust (1999): It is lawful to renew a detention under s 20(4)(c) to cover any problems that might arise during a graduated discharge program, even if the patient does not currently need confinement.
- R (on the Application of DR) v Mersey Care NHS Trust (2002): Renewed detention was lawful where hospital treatment was a significant part of the care plan for a patient living at home.
- The Mental Health (Patients in the Community) Act 1995 extended the duration of leave of absence. Now, the leave can last up until the patient’s section is due for renewal (previously six months).
0 Comments