Annie McGlynn v Mental Health Tribunal for Scotland
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judgment Date | 02 March 2006 |
| Date | 02 March 2006 |
| Court | Sheriff Principal (Scotland) |
Sheriff Principal EF Bowen
O'Carroll, Advocate, for AM; Wilson, Solicitor for the MHO; K Campbell, Advocate, for the Mental Health Tribunal
Whether a Tribunal erred in failing to consider the making of an interim Compulsory Treatment Order in relation to a patient detained under a short term detention certificate
AM was the subject of a Short-Term Detention Certificate under s. 44 Mental Health (Care and Treatment) (Scotland) Act 2003, which was due to expire on 14 November 2005. An application was made under s. 63 of the Act for a Compulsory Treatment Order: by virtue of s. 68, this extended the s. 44 detention for 5 days. By virtue of r8 Mental Health Tribunal for Scotland (Practice and Procedure) (No 2) Rules 2005, a Tribunal had to be held within the 5-day period, which was to determine whether an interim CTO should be made and, if not, to determine the application. On 18 November 2005, when the Tribunal met, it made a CTO: however, it did not consider first whether to make an interim CTO. The decision was challenged on appeal; the Respondents did not seek to support the decision.
1. This is an appeal against the decision of the Mental Health Tribunal dated 18 November 2005 in terms of which the appellant was made the subject of a Compulsory Treatment Order under s. 64(4)(a) of the Act.
2. The appeal was initially directed against the Mental Health Officer ("the first respondent") who made the application. The Mental Health Tribunal ("the second respondents") were subsequently sisted as a party to the appeal. At the hearing of the appeal
the solicitor for the first respondent intimated at the outset that he did not oppose it. After I had been addressed by counsel for the appellant counsel for the second respondents indicated that he also had instructions not to oppose the appeal. In these circumstances the appeal has been allowed, technically on an unopposed basis, and it is strictly speaking unnecessary for me to express any opinion on the arguments addressed to me. Counsel for the second respondents went so far as to suggest that it would be inappropriate for me to express any such opinion, but the situation is one in which the error on the part of the Tribunal, if not obvious, ought to be highlighted.3. The applicant in this case was the subject of a short-term detention certificate...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brian Paterson v Sandra Kent, Mental Health Tribunal for Scotland andFife Health Board
...to do by r8(2) of the 2005 rules. Reference in this regard was made to Annie McGlynn v Mental Health Tribunal for Scotland [2007] Mental Health Law Reports 16.[40] It was explained that the appellant had had less than 24 hours notice of the hearing and this was insufficient to allow him to ......