DP v Hywel DDA Health Board [Upper Tribunal (AAC); HMW/1339/2011]
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judgment Date | 21 September 2011 |
| Neutral Citation | [2011] UKUT 381 (AAC) |
| Date | 21 September 2011 |
| Court | Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber) |
[2011] UKUT 381 (AAC)
Upper Tribunal (AAC); HMW/1339/2011
UTJ Jacobs
Whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to consider a purported application by a nearest relative under s66(1)(g) Mental Health Act 1983 after a barring order had been withdrawn because it was not accepted that the person was the nearest relative.
DP was detained under s3 Mental Health Act 1983 in December 2010; the application for detention recorded that he did not have a nearest relative. In March 2011, WP, DP's father, purported to discharge him under s23 of the 1983 Act; this was barred under s25, but the hospital received legal advice that as WP was not ordinarily resident in the UK, he was not the nearest relative and so the s23 discharge and the barring of it under s25 were of no effect. The s25 order was then withdrawn. When WP applied to the Tribunal under s66(1)(g) of the 1983 Act, the Tribunal indicated that he was not entitled to do so as he had not been accepted as the nearest relative. Permission to appeal this decision to the Upper Tribunal was granted.
Decision: The decision of the Mental Health Review Tribunal for Wales made on 22 March 2011 did not involve the making of an error on a point of law.
~Direction: Save for the cover sheet, this decision may be made public (r14(7) of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008 (SI No 2698)). That sheet is not formally part of the decision and identifies the patient by name.
Reasons for Decision
A. The Issues
1. This case raises 2 issues. First: what decisions have been taken and on what basis? Second: does the tribunal have jurisdiction to decide whether a person who purports to be a patient's nearest relative is ordinarily resident in the UK?
B The Parties
2. The appellant is DP, who is a mental patient detained under s3 of the Mental Health Act 1983. (All references are to that Act.) The respondent is the detaining authority. His father is WP, who claims to be his nearest relative.
C. History
3. It has been difficult to understand precisely what has happened in this case. I am grateful for the submission provided on behalf of the detaining authority by Richard Jones, a Consultant with the authority's solicitors, Morgan Bruce LLP. DP's solicitors, RMNJ, have not replied to that submission.
4. DP has been detained under s3 since 17 December 2010. The statutory form under which he was detained said that he...
To continue reading
Request your trial