- Published on
KembaraXtra-Case Law-R v Mental Health Act Commission ex p X (1988)
Key Idea
Part IV of the Mental Health Act can apply to conditions not classified as mental disorders if those conditions are "inextricably linked" to a mental disorder.
Facts of the Case
Patient: Compulsorily detained paedophile.
Initial Treatment: Standard anti-androgen therapy (failed).
Proposed Treatment: Goserelin (synthetic drug to reduce testosterone, administered by injection, relatively new & experimental).
Commission Action: Withdrew approval for certification of the Goserelin treatment under Section 57.
Patient Action: Applied for judicial review of the Commission's decision.
Main Issue: Did the proposed Goserelin treatment require Section 57 certification?
Court Decision
The High Court quashed the Commission's decision (found it irrational).
A Section 57 certificate was not required for the Goserelin treatment in this case.
Reasons:
The drug was a synthetic 'hormone analogue', not a 'hormone' under Regulation 16 of the 1983 Regulations.
The drug was administered by 'injection', not by 'surgical implantation' as required by Regulation 16.
Important Commentary
Treatment for Sexual Deviancy:
The applicant questioned if Section 57 covered treatment for sexual deviancy.
The judge (Stuart-Smith LJ) suggested that treatment for sexual deviancy itself might not be treatment for a mental disorder.
However, if the sexual problem is "inextricably linked" to a mental disorder, then treatment for one could be considered treatment for the other.
Code of Practice Recommendation:
If there's doubt about whether treatment targets a mental disorder, obtain independent legal and medical advice.
Key Idea
Part IV of the Mental Health Act can apply to conditions not classified as mental disorders if those conditions are "inextricably linked" to a mental disorder.
Facts of the Case
Patient: Compulsorily detained paedophile.
Initial Treatment: Standard anti-androgen therapy (failed).
Proposed Treatment: Goserelin (synthetic drug to reduce testosterone, administered by injection, relatively new & experimental).
Commission Action: Withdrew approval for certification of the Goserelin treatment under Section 57.
Patient Action: Applied for judicial review of the Commission's decision.
Main Issue: Did the proposed Goserelin treatment require Section 57 certification?
Court Decision
The High Court quashed the Commission's decision (found it irrational).
A Section 57 certificate was not required for the Goserelin treatment in this case.
Reasons:
The drug was a synthetic 'hormone analogue', not a 'hormone' under Regulation 16 of the 1983 Regulations.
The drug was administered by 'injection', not by 'surgical implantation' as required by Regulation 16.
Important Commentary
Treatment for Sexual Deviancy:
The applicant questioned if Section 57 covered treatment for sexual deviancy.
The judge (Stuart-Smith LJ) suggested that treatment for sexual deviancy itself might not be treatment for a mental disorder.
However, if the sexual problem is "inextricably linked" to a mental disorder, then treatment for one could be considered treatment for the other.
Code of Practice Recommendation:
If there's doubt about whether treatment targets a mental disorder, obtain independent legal and medical advice.
0 Comments