LAW

Published on

KembaraXtra-Case Law - B v Barking Havering & Brentwood Community Healthcare NHS Trust (1999)

Core Principle: This case clarifies the appropriate legal avenues for challenging inappropriate detention under the Mental Health Act 1983 (MHA 1983). It emphasizes judicial review as the preferred method due to its broader range of remedies.

I. Case Facts:

  • Patient History: "B" had a long history of personality problems and frequent hospital admissions.
  • Initial Detention: Admitted under Section 3 of the MHA 1983 after setting fire to her home.
  • Section 3 Detention: Detention was authorized for 6 months.
  • Section 17 Leave: Towards the end of the 6-month period, B was granted weekly periods of leave under Section 17 of the MHA.
  • Section 20 Extension: B's psychiatrist sought an extension of her detention under Section 20 (renewal).
  • Continued Leave: B continued to be granted weekly leave after the extension.
  • Legal Challenge: B applied for both:
    • Habeas Corpus: A writ to determine if her detention was lawful.
    • Judicial Review: To review the hospital's procedures in her case.
  • Subsequent Events:
    • Readmitted after amphetamine use and drug-induced psychosis.
    • Self-inflicted serious injuries.
    • Current Detention Acknowledged: B acknowledged her current detention was justified under Section 3 but challenged the initial renewal of her detention.
  • Main Issue: Whether habeas corpus or judicial review was the appropriate remedy in this case.

II. Court Decision:

  • Outcome: The Court of Appeal dismissed B's appeal and rejected both applications.
  • Rationale:
    • Judicial review is the preferred method because it offers a wider range of remedies.
    • Habeas corpus should only be used when no other form of relief is required.
    • Approved the principles in Re S-C.

III. Key Concepts & Implications:

  • Judicial Review:
    • Traditional Test (Pre-HRA): The decision being challenged had to be irrational (per Associated Provincial Picture Houses v Wednesbury Corp (1948)).
    • Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA) Impact:
      • Proportionality Test: Courts must now apply the principle of proportionality when conducting judicial reviews, especially when human rights are engaged.
      • Elements of Proportionality:
        1. Legitimate Aim: The detention must serve a legitimate aim.
        2. Least Restrictive Means: The aim could not be achieved by a less invasive method that infringes on the individual's rights.
        3. Justified Infringement: The importance of the objective (e.g., patient safety, public safety) must justify the degree to which the individual's rights are restricted.

IV. Summary Table

Feature Habeas Corpus Judicial Review
Purpose To determine the lawfulness of detention To review the legality and fairness of a decision
Remedies Primarily release from unlawful detention Wider range of remedies (e.g., quashing decisions, ordering reconsideration)
Appropriateness Suitable if only release is sought Preferred when broader scrutiny and remedies are needed
Standard of Review (Pre-HRA) N/A Irrationality (Wednesbury unreasonableness)
Standard of Review (Post-HRA) N/A Proportionality

V. Study Questions:

  1. What were the key facts that led to B's application for judicial review and habeas corpus?
  2. Why did the court favor judicial review over habeas corpus in this case?
  3. Explain the "irrationality" test as it relates to judicial review before the HRA 1998.
  4. What is the principle of "proportionality" under the HRA 1998, and how does it affect judicial review cases involving mental health detention?
  5. What are the three elements of the proportionality test, and how are they applied in practice?
  6. Why is proportionality considered a more rigorous test than irrationality?
  7. In the context of mental health detention, give an example of a "legitimate aim."
  8. Explain why habeas corpus might still be appropriate in some detention cases.
  9. How does B v Barking connect with the legal principles established in Re S-C?

VI. Key Takeaways:

  • B v Barking establishes judicial review as the preferred route for challenging mental health detention due to its broader remedies.
  • The HRA 1998 significantly impacts judicial review through the principle of proportionality, requiring a more nuanced and rights-based assessment of detention decisions.
  • Understanding the proportionality test is crucial for evaluating the legality of detention under the MHA 1983.
Would you like me to convert 3 more case law summaries into the same Weebly HTML style so you can have a consistent format for your KembaraXtra Case Law series?
Picture
Published on
KembaraXtra-Case Law-R (on the Application of C) v MHRT (2001)
Core Principle: Undue delay in scheduling a discharge hearing by the Mental Health Review Tribunal (MHRT) can violate Article 5 of the Human Rights Act 1998 (right to liberty and security).
Facts of the Case:
  • An applicant ("C") sought judicial review of the MHRT's standard practice of scheduling discharge hearings approximately eight weeks after an application was submitted.
  • The initial court refused the application.
  • C appealed this decision.
Court of Appeal Decision:
  • The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, establishing that the MHRT’s practices violated the HRA.
  • The court acknowledged that an eight-week timeframe wasn't inherently inconsistent with the HRA.
  • However, the court found the eight-week practice was for convenience, not necessity.
  • Key Holding: If an earlier hearing is requested, there should be a good reason for denying it.
  • A blanket practice without any consideration for individual circumstances and requests for earlier hearings is incompatible with the standards set by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR).
Key Takeaways & Implications:
  • This case highlights the importance of timely hearings in mental health law, emphasizing the right to have one's detention reviewed without undue delay.
  • MHRTs must be prepared to schedule hearings earlier than the standard timeframe if warranted by the individual's circumstances.
  • A rigid, inflexible scheduling system can be considered a violation of Article 5.
Context & Related Cases:
  • E v Norway (1990): The eight-week delay may have originated from this decision, but it cannot be applied rigidly without considering individual circumstances.
  • Cotterham v UK (1999): Delays caused by factors specific to the patient's case (e.g., obtaining medical reports) may be justifiable and not a breach of Article 5.
  • R (on the Application of KB and Others) v MHRT (2002): If delays are caused by systemic issues (e.g., excessive workload or staff shortages), the responsibility lies with central government.
Important Considerations for Analysis:
  • The "reasonableness" of a delay is fact-dependent and must be assessed on a case-by-case basis.
  • "Good reason" for refusing an earlier hearing request will vary, but should always relate to the practicalities and necessities of the specific case, not administrative convenience.
  • This case emphasizes the state's obligation to organize its legal system to allow for timely reviews of detention, especially in the context of mental health.
Picture
Published on
KembaraXtra-Case Law-R (on the Application of H) v Ashworth Hospital Authority (2002)
Core Principle
  • Even when a patient has been approved for discharge, the hospital can delay that discharge under specific circumstances. The priority is to protect the patient and/or others who might be at risk.
Facts of the Case
  • Discharge Approved: Patient H had been granted a discharge from Ashworth Hospital.
  • Hospital's Response: The hospital disagreed with the discharge and applied to the court for a "stay" (temporary suspension) of the discharge order. This allowed them time to seek a judicial review (a court examination of the lawfulness of the decision).
  • High Court's Action: The High Court granted the stay, preventing H's immediate release.
  • H's Appeal: H appealed the High Court's decision and the hospital's decision to readmit and detain him during this period.
Court Decision (Court of Appeal)
  • Partial Allowance of Appeal: The Court of Appeal allowed H's appeal in part.
  • Upheld Right to Grant Stay: However, the court rejected H's argument that the court didn't have the power to grant a stay of the discharge order.
  • Conditions for Lawful Stay: The court established criteria for when delaying discharge is lawful:
    • Strong Evidence of Unlawful MHRT Decision: There must be substantial evidence suggesting the Mental Health Review Tribunal (MHRT) decision to discharge was legally flawed.
    • Evidence of Risk: There needs to be proof of risk and dangerousness to the patient or others if discharged immediately.
    • Speedy Determination: The validity of the MHRT's decision must be determined quickly through the judicial review process.
Key Implications/Commentary
  • Deferral for Aftercare: The MHRT itself also has the authority to defer a discharge. This is permissible to ensure appropriate aftercare arrangements are in place before the patient is released, if there is a risk to the patient or others.
Related Case
  • R (on the Application of B) v Mental Health Review Tribunal (2003): Supports the principle of deferring discharge to ensure suitable aftercare.



Picture
Published on
KembaraXtra-Case Law-R v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex p IH (2003)
Core Issue: Whether continued detention of a patient, even after a Mental Health Review Tribunal (MHRT) recommends conditional discharge, breaches Article 5 of the Human Rights Act (HRA) 1998 when the conditions for discharge cannot be met.
Facts:
  • Patient (IH): Subject to a restriction order under Sections 37 & 41 of the Mental Health Act (MHA) 1983.
  • MHRT Ruling: Determined IH no longer required detention due to mental illness severity. Recommended conditional discharge, dependent on psychiatric supervision.
  • Problem: Community psychiatrists were unwilling to provide the necessary supervision. Health Authority tried to arrange supervision but failed.
  • Result: IH remained detained because discharge conditions weren't met.
  • Legal Claim: IH argued continued detention violated Article 5 (right to liberty and security) of the HRA 1998.
Decision (House of Lords):
  • No Breach of Article 5: Continued detention did not breach Article 5 because the Health Authority had made its best efforts to meet the conditions for discharge, but failed.
  • Overruled Previous Case: Overturned the ruling in R v Oxford Regional Mental Health Tribunal ex p Secretary of State for the Home Department (1988).
  • Endorsed Court of Appeal Statement: MHRTs can reconsider conditional discharge decisions if there's a material change in circumstances after the deferral period but before the discharge is finalized. This means Tribunals aren't stuck with a conditional discharge order if circumstances change.
  • Section 117 MHA 1983 Claim Rejected: The Health Authority was not in breach of it's duty to provide aftercare, because they had done everything possible to fulfill that duty. The duty under Section 117 is not absolute.
Key Takeaways & Implications:
  • Conditional Discharge Realities: This case acknowledges the practical difficulties in securing community support for conditionally discharged patients. A conditional discharge is not a guarantee of immediate release.
  • Health Authority's Responsibility: The Health Authority has a duty to try and meet the conditions set for discharge. However, if they make their best efforts and fail, continued detention is permissible. The duty under Section 117 is not absolute.
  • Tribunal Flexibility: MHRTs retain some flexibility to re-evaluate conditional discharge orders if circumstances change before the discharge actually occurs.
  • Distinction from Johnson v UK (1997):
    • Johnson v UK: The tribunal in this case had determined that the patient no longer suffered from a mental disorder. Prolonged delay in discharge to arrange suitable conditions was a breach of Article 5.
    • IH: IH did not overrule Johnson v UK, but stated that a reasonable delay in order to put suitable aftercare in place did not breach Article 5.
Important Points to Consider:
  • This case highlights the tension between the right to liberty (Article 5) and the need to protect the public and ensure appropriate care for mentally ill individuals.
  • The ruling emphasizes the importance of Health Authorities demonstrating genuine efforts to meet discharge conditions.
Picture
Published on
KembaraXtra-Case Law-R v Ealing DHA ex p Fox (1993)
I. Case Overview
  • Citation: R v Ealing DHA ex p Fox (1993)
  • Focus: Outlines the responsibilities of Health Authorities (HA) when they are unable to provide required after-care services for patients discharged from mental health facilities, as directed by a Mental Health Review Tribunal (MHRT).
II. Facts
  • A patient (the applicant) was to be discharged based on the condition that a consultant psychiatrist act as his responsible medical officer (RMO).
  • Psychiatrists within the Health Authority (Ealing DHA) refused to take on this role.
  • The applicant sought judicial review of the HA's decision.
III. Legal Issues & Applicant's Claims:
  • The applicant sought:
    • A declaration that the HA erred in law by refusing community supervision.
    • An order of certiorari to quash the HA's decision (essentially, to overturn the decision).
    • An order of mandamus to compel the HA to provide supervision.
IV. Decision of the High Court
  • Granted the declaration and the order of certiorari
  • Refused the order of mandamus: The court wouldn't force doctors to act against their will, especially if the refusal stemmed from a genuine clinical judgment that the treatment was not in the patient's or community's best interest.
V. Key Principles Established (per Otton J):
  • HA's Obligations Go Beyond Doctors' Opinions: The HA can't simply accept the doctors' refusal as fulfilling their obligations.
  • Continuing Obligation: The HA has a continuing duty to try harder to make the needed arrangements for after-care.
  • Steps HA Must Take:
    1. Explore arrangements within their resources.
    2. Seek assistance from other Health Authorities that provide the necessary services.
    3. At the very least, inquire with other providers.
  • Referral to Secretary of State: If arrangements still cannot be made, the HA must refer the matter to the Secretary of State. This allows the Secretary to consider referring the case back to the MHRT under s 71(1) of the Mental Health Act.
VI. Importance of the Case
  • Highlights the HA's responsibility to actively pursue after-care arrangements for discharged patients. It is more than just accepting the refusal of individual doctors. It outlines the steps an HA must take.
VII. Subsequent Case & Clarification: R (on the Application of K) v Camden and Islington HA (2001)
  • The Court of Appeal clarified that the duty to provide after-care under Section 117 of the Mental Health Act 1983 is not an absolute obligation.
  • It's subject to budgetary discretion.
  • "All reasonable endeavours" Test: If the HA has used "all reasonable endeavors to comply" with discharge conditions, then continued detention of the patient might be lawful.
  • This case adds the caveat of budget constraints to the Fox ruling.



Picture
Published on
KembaraXtra-Case Law-R v MHRT ex p Hall (2000)
Core Principle: The Mental Health Review Tribunal (MHRT) lacks the authority to oversee or enforce the provision of after-care services. Their responsibility ends with setting the conditions for discharge.
Facts Summary:
  • A patient ("the respondent") was conditionally discharged.
  • Initial conditions were hard to meet, and were relaxed at a later stage
  • Discharge conditions were re-evaluated and made stricter.
  • Despite the discharge order, the Health Authority and local council failed to adequately arrange the necessary after-care support for the respondent.
  • The respondent sought judicial review of the Tribunal's decision, arguing the lack of after-care made the conditions unfair.
  • The initial court ruled in favor of the respondent, criticizing the authorities' inaction and quashing the Tribunal's decision.
Court of Appeal Decision:
  • The Court of Appeal overturned the lower court's decision.
  • The Court of Appeal emphasized that the Tribunal's role is limited to making the discharge decision and setting appropriate conditions.
  • Responsibility shifts to the Health Authority and local authority to implement the necessary support services after the Tribunal's decision.
  • The Tribunal cannot be held accountable for the failure of other authorities to provide after-care.
  • Conditions for discharge are valid as long as they are not irrational. The actual implementation is the responsibility of the other authorities.
  • Care plans are not a legal pre-requisite for imposing conditions. Although having a workable care plan is desirable, the absence of a care plan doesn't invalidate the Tribunal's decision per se.
Key Takeaways:
  • Division of Responsibilities: Clearly defines the separation of powers - the Tribunal makes the decision, other agencies execute it.
  • Limits of Tribunal Power: Highlights the Tribunal's lack of enforcement capabilities regarding after-care.
  • Focus on Rationality of Conditions: Emphasizes that judicial review should focus on whether the conditions themselves are reasonable, not on the likelihood of them being met due to external factors.
  • Practical Implications: The case underscores the importance of inter-agency cooperation. A well-intentioned Tribunal decision can be undermined by the failure of other bodies to fulfill their responsibilities.



Picture
Published on
KembaraXtra-Case Law-R (on the Application of H) v Ashworth Hospital Authority (2002)
Core Issue:
This case concerns the powers of the Mental Health Review Tribunal (MHRT) and the hospital authority (Ashworth HA) regarding the discharge of a patient detained under the Mental Health Act (MHA) 1983. It specifically addresses the reasonableness of the MHRT's decisions and the circumstances under which a hospital can overrule a discharge order.
Facts:
Patient's Discharge: The MHRT granted a patient (H) an absolute discharge from Ashworth Hospital.
Medical Opinion: The discharge was granted despite the fact that the overwhelming medical opinion (5 out of 6 doctors) opposed the discharge. Even the one doctor who favored discharge recommended supervised after-care.
Hospital's Response: Ashworth HA readmitted the patient under sections 3 and 13 of the MHA 1983, sought judicial review of the discharge decision, and obtained a court order to stay the discharge pending the review.
Patient's Appeal: The patient appealed the High Court's decision to stay the discharge.
Court of Appeal Decision:
Unlawful Readmission: The Court of Appeal ruled that Ashworth HA's readmission of the patient was unlawful. The hospital couldn't overrule the MHRT's discharge order unless new circumstances arose that would have led the MHRT to a different decision. No such new circumstances existed in this case.
Stay of Discharge: Despite the unlawful readmission, the court acknowledged its power to grant a stay of the discharge decision.
MHRT's Unreasonableness: The MHRT's decision to discharge the patient was deemed "Wednesbury unreasonable". The MHRT had failed to give adequate reasons for rejecting the overwhelming expert evidence against discharge.
Adequacy of Reasons: Simply stating a preference for one witness over another was insufficient. The MHRT was required to provide reasons, understandable to laypersons, that explain why the preferred evidence was conclusive. The reasons must be sufficient and comprehensible.
Key Principles & Implications:
MHRT's Duty to Give Reasons: The MHRT must provide clear, sufficient, and comprehensible reasons for its decisions, especially when those decisions contradict significant expert evidence. The reasons need to be accessible to a layperson.
Hospital's Limited Power to Overrule: A hospital cannot simply overrule an MHRT discharge order. They can only readmit if new circumstances justify it, which would likely have led the MHRT to a different decision.
Judicial Review: Hospital authorities, or indeed patients, can seek judicial review of MHRT decisions if they believe those decisions are unlawful or unreasonable.
Wednesbury Unreasonableness: This is a legal term indicating that a decision is so unreasonable that no reasonable decision-maker could have reached it. The MHRT's decision in this case was considered to meet that threshold due to the inadequate reasoning.
Relevant Legislation:
Mental Health Act 1983 (MHA 1983): The primary legislation governing the detention and treatment of individuals with mental disorders. Sections 3, 13, 23, 41, 66, 68, 73 & 77(2) are specifically mentioned.
Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA 1998): Relevant because it relates to the burden of proof in discharge applications for patients subject to restriction orders.
Mental Health Act 1983 (Remedial) Order 2001: Addresses the incompatibility of s73 with the HRA 1998.
Related Cases (Important Precedents):
Bone v Mental Health Review Tribunal (1985)
R v MHRT ex p Clatworthy (1985)
R v MHRT ex p Pickering (1986) These cases collectively emphasize the need for MHRT reasons to be sufficient and comprehensible.
Perkins v Bath DHA (1990)
R (on the Application of H) v MHRT North and East London Region (2001): Deals with the burden of proof in discharge applications for restricted patients, leading to the Mental Health Act 1983 (Remedial) Order 2001.
MHRT & Patient Rights to Appeal
Patients have the right to apply to a Tribunal once during every relevant period of detention as defined by the MHA 1983 (ss 66 and 77(2)).
Every time the detention is renewed, the patient may re-apply (s 66).
Under s 68, the hospital managers must make an application on behalf of any patient who has not exercised their right to appeal within the first six months, and for all those who have been detained for three years or more since their last review.
Patients under a supervised after-care order may also apply for review once in the first six months and then annually.
MHRT vs Hospital Managers
Under s 23 of the MHA 1983, the patient may also challenge their detention by an informal administrative mechanism.
The power to make a discharge order under this section is given to the hospital’s managers (non-executive directors) or the patient’s nearest relative, NOT healthcare professionals.
Burden of Proof - Restricted Patients
Patients subject to a restriction order (s 41) may apply to the MHRT for a discharge order under s 73.
The burden of proof lies with the Tribunal to be satisfied, or those opposing discharge to prove, that the patient suffers from a mental disorder.
Key Terms:
MHRT (Mental Health Review Tribunal): An independent tribunal that reviews the detention of patients under the Mental Health Act.
Wednesbury Unreasonableness: A legal standard for judicial review, indicating a decision is so unreasonable that no reasonable decision-maker could have reached it.
Discharge Order: An order by the MHRT or hospital managers that a patient is no longer required to be detained.
Restriction Order (Section 41): An order imposed by a court that restricts the discharge of a patient who has been convicted of a criminal offense.
How to study this material effectively:
Understand the Facts: Clearly grasp the sequence of events in the Ashworth case.
Identify the Core Issue: What legal questions were the courts trying to answer?
Memorize Key Principles: What were the main findings of the court? What impact do they have?
Know Relevant Legislation: Be familiar with the sections of the MHA 1983 and the HRA 1998.
Understand Related Cases: How do the other cases cited support or elaborate on the principles in Ashworth?
Define Key Terms: Ensure you know the definitions of terms like "Wednesbury unreasonableness," "MHRT," and "Restriction Order."
Practice Applying the Law: Consider hypothetical scenarios where you might need to apply the principles from this case. For example, what would you advise a hospital manager who wants to readmit a patient discharged by the MHRT?



Picture
Published on
KembaraXtra-Case Law-R v Mental Health Act Commission ex p Smith (1998)
Core Principle
This case clarifies the scope of the Mental Health Act Commission's (MHC) jurisdiction in protecting patients detained under the Mental Health Act (MHA) 1983.
It establishes that the MHC's oversight extends beyond the strict legality of detention and medication to encompass aspects of care and treatment directly related to the detention.
Facts of the Case
Applicant: Sister of a deceased patient detained under the MHA 1983.
Complaint: The sister filed complaints with the MHC after her brother's death.
MHC's Initial Position: The MHC was willing to investigate the complaints about the appropriateness/legality of the detention and the drug dosages but refused to investigate the appropriateness of detention, care in a secure unit, or if there was an adequate risk assessment for self-harm.
Dispute: The MHC claimed it lacked jurisdiction (authority) to investigate complaints about inappropriate detention, care in the secure unit, or inadequate risk assessment regarding self-harm.
Decision of the High Court
Outcome: The High Court overturned the MHC's decision.
Reasoning:
The court stated that management, control, and treatment are inseparable parts of compulsory detention.
Because of this inseparability, the MHC did have jurisdiction under Section 120(1) of the MHA 1983 to investigate these complaints.
The Court clarified that the MHC’s power does not extend to complaints about things like bed linen or food.
Key Legislation & Sections
Mental Health Act 1983 (MHA 1983): This is the primary law governing mental health detention and treatment.
Section 120(1) MHA 1983: Grants the MHC jurisdiction to investigate complaints (this section is crucial in the courts' reasoning).
Section 11, National Health Service Act 1977 & Section 121 MHA 1983: Established and continued the MHC's existence and functions.
Sections 57-58 & Section 61 MHA 1983: Deals with the review of treatment given to detained patients (carried out by the Commission).
Implications & Significance
Patient Protection: This case strengthens the protection of detained patients by ensuring a broader scope of oversight by the MHC.
Scope of MHC's Power: The MHC has power to investigate not only the legality of the detention, but also aspects of treatment and care closely linked to the detention.
Limitations: The MHC's jurisdiction is not unlimited. Trivial complaints unrelated to the core reasons for detention (e.g., poor quality bed linen) fall outside its remit.

Understand the Facts: Make sure you understand the case. The core issue is the scope of the MHC's power to investigate the complaints.
Focus on the Reasoning: The court's reasoning is most important. Grasp the inseparability of management, control, and treatment within the context of compulsory detention. Understand why the MHC's authority has been extended to that.
Know the Relevant Legislation: Familiarize yourself with the sections of the MHA 1983 mentioned in the summary.
Consider the Implications: Understand the effect of the court's decision on patient protection and the MHC's role.
Practice Application: Consider hypothetical scenarios involving patient complaints and determine whether the MHC would have jurisdiction based on the principles established in this case.



Picture
Published on
KembaraXtra -International Law-Succession Between International Organizations:
Definition
  • Succession occurs when functions, rights, and obligations are transferred from one international organization (predecessor) to another (successor).
Modes of Succession
  • Replacement: One organization straightforwardly replaces another.
  • Absorption: One organization is absorbed into another.
  • Merger: Two or more organizations combine to form a new one.
  • Secession: Part of an organization effectively breaks away.
  • Transfer of Functions: Specific functions are moved from one organization to another.
Legal Basis
  • Succession is typically achieved through agreement between the predecessor and successor organizations.
  • The successor organization must have the constitutional competence to perform the transferred functions.
  • In some cases, succession may occur implicitly, even without an express agreement.
Consequences of Succession
  • The specific consequences depend on the agreement between the parties involved.
Typical Outcomes:
  • Assets: Assets of the predecessor organization are usually transferred to the successor.
  • Archives: Archives of the predecessor organization are typically transferred to the successor.
  • Debts: It is unclear whether debts are automatically transferred to the successor organization. The transfer of debt is something that must be negotiated and settled.



Picture
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.


Picture

Author

Learn the fact about law