Case digest
| Date | 01 February 2000 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/14668203200000009 |
| Pages | 46-46 |
| Published date | 01 February 2000 |
| Author | Alison Brammer |
| Subject Matter | Health & social care,Sociology |
46 © Pavilion Publishing (Brighton) Limited The Journal of Adult Protection Volume 2 Issue 1 • February 2000
This edition’s legal column looks
at another three cases with
significant relevance in the adult
protection field. The first relates
to charging for residential care
services and, where charging is not
permitted the implications for local
authority resourcing. The second
examines the powers of the police
to disclose confidential information
in the absence of criminal
prosecution to facilitate other
regulatory activity to go ahead.
The final case considers the
important area of wrongful
detention in the context of use of
the Mental Health Act 1983 and the
responsibility of professionals to
behave with probity.Together the
three cases provide interesting food
for thought for all practitioners
working with vulnerable adults.
R v London Borough of Richmond, ex parte
Watson; Redcar & Cleveland Borough Council,
ex parte Armstrong;Manchester City Council,
ex parte Stennett; London Borough of Harrow,
ex parte Cobham; 1999 QBD
The debate about issues relating to charging for residential
accommodation discussed in relation to the Coughlan case in
the previous edition continues here. The present case makes a
contribution to the ongoing debate over charging for services
and in particular, residential accommodation, provided in meeting
the statutory duty to provide after care under Section 117 of the
Mental Health Act 1983.
THERE WERE FOUR APPLICATIONS for judicial review based on
similar facts. In each case the issue concerned whether each
of the respondent social services authorities could charge for
residential accommodation provided as after care services
under Section 117 of the Mental Health Act 1983. Each of
the applicants had been detained in hospital under Section 3
of the MHA 1983. Upon discharge from hospital they had
been provided with residential accommodation by the social
services authority. Evidence provided to the court showed that
around half of all social services authorities made a charge for
residential charge accommodation provided pursuant to S.117.
It was also submitted that if authorities did not charge this
would impose a cost of over £50 million. The arguments
raised were based around differing interpretations of S.117.
The section imposes a duty on authorities,
‘to provide ... after care services for any person (in the
circumstances of the applicants) until such time as ...
the person concerned is no longer in need if such services.’
It was agreed that residential accommodation was included in
the term ‘after care services’ and also that S.117 did not directly
confer a power to charge. The authorities did argue, however,
that S.117 should be seen as a ‘gateway’ section, imposing a
duty on authorities to ensure after care services were provided
Case digest Alison Brammer
Lecturer in Law, Department of Law,
University of Keele
Legal column
To continue reading
Request your trial