Mental Health in UK Law

Leading Cases
  • R v Knowles and Others
    • Court of Appeal
    • 05 Feb 2015

    In considering that wider question the matters to which a judge will invariably have to have regard to include (1) the extent to which the offender needs treatment for the mental disorder from which the offender suffers, (2) the extent to which the offending is attributable to the mental disorder, (3) the extent to which punishment is required and (4) the protection of the public including the regime for deciding release and the regime after release.

  • R (Razgar) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
    • Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court)
    • 20 Nov 2002

    Bensaid is important for its statements of principle about the potential applicability of Article 8 in the context of mental health: the stress that the court placed on mental health as a crucial part of private life, associated with the aspect of moral integrity and on the preservation of mental stability as an indispensable precondition to effective enjoyment of the right to respect for private life.

  • R (H) v Secretary of State for the Home Department and another; R (on the application of IH) v Nottinghamshire Healthcare NHS Trust
    • Court of Appeal
    • 15 May 2002

    The Health Authority subject to the s.117 duty will then be bound to use its best endeavours to put in place the necessary aftercare. If, despite its best endeavours, the Health Authority is unable to provide the necessary services, the Tribunal must think again. If, as is likely in those circumstances, it concludes that it is necessary for the patient to remain detained in hospital in order to receive the treatment, it should record that decision.

  • Richen Turner v Government of the USA
    • Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court)
    • 28 Ago 2012

    (4) The mental condition of the person must be such that it removes his capacity to resist the impulse to commit suicide, otherwise it will not be his mental condition but his own voluntary act which puts him at risk of dying and if that is the case there is no oppression in ordering extradition: Rot v District Court of Lubin, Poland [2010] EWHC 1820 at [13] per Mitting J. (5) On the evidence, is the risk that the person will succeed in committing suicide, whatever steps are taken, sufficiently great to result in a finding of oppression: ibid.

  • R (H) v Ashworth Hospital Authority and Others; R (Ashworth Hospital Authority) v Mental Health Review Tribunal for West Midlands and North West Region and Others
    • Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court)
    • 09 Nov 2001

    Secondly, it appears from Mr Lloyd's note that at no stage of the hearing before the Tribunal announced their decision were the parties before the Tribunal informed of the findings of Dr Cashman as a result of his interview with H.

  • R (H) v London North and East Region Mental Health Review Tribunal
    • Court of Appeal
    • 28 Mar 2001

    Indeed, in our experience where a tribunal refuses an application for a discharge it usually gives reasons for doing so that involve a positive finding that the patient is suffering from a mental disorder that warrants his or her continued detention.

  • R v Camden and Islington Health Authority ex parte K
    • Court of Appeal
    • 21 Feb 2001

    Whether or not it is necessary to detain a patient in hospital for treatment may well depend upon the level of facilities available for treatment within the community. Neither Article 5 nor Strasbourg jurisprudence lays down any criteria as to the extent to which member States must provide facilities for the care of those of unsound mind in the community, thereby avoiding the necessity for them to be detained for treatment in hospital.

See all results
Legislation
See all results
Books & Journal Articles
See all results
Law Firm Commentaries
See all results