In Court
| DOI | 10.1177/026455059904600234 |
| Published date | 01 June 1999 |
| Date | 01 June 1999 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
factors) be: (a) told the gist of any new
information before the ABRQ
IN COURT particularly the gist of a Board member’s
report; (b) allowed to make
representations to the Board before it
concludes its advice to the SoS; (c) given
Nigel Stone, Senior Lecturer in the
a copy of the Board’s report to the SoS
School of Social Work, University of
and allowed the opportunity to make
East Anglia, reviews recent appeal
representations to the SoS; (d) given
judgements and other judicial
reasons for the SoS’s decision; and
developments that inform sentencing,
(e) make further written representations as
early release and court welfare
part of the continuing process of review.
practice.
R v HOME SECRETARY, ex parte HARRY
[1998] 1 WLR 1737.
4~
.
o
i ’ *
*
t
y ,
It,
i g
A
i g
, *
k
i
to
A
Mental Health Review Tribunal
A suspect detained at a police station
(MHRT) recommended to the Home
informed the custody officer that he
Secretary that an offender subject to a
suffered from schizophrenia. He was
hospital order with s41 restriction,
examined by a pohce surgeon who noted
detained in Broadmoor Special Hospital,
that he was on regular anti-psychotic
should be transferred to less security in a
medication, but considered him lucid and
Regional Secure Unit. The Secretary of
fit to be interviewed. When asked 13
State (SoS) referred the proposal and the
hours after arrest if he wanted a solicitor
patient’s dossier to the Advisory Board
or anyone present during interview, the
on Restricted Patients (ABRP).
suspect declined, indicating that he was
Following an inquiry and report by one
anxious to get home. Was evidence
of its members, the Board recommended
obtained in the subsequent interview
against transfer and this advice was
without an appropriate adult present
accepted by the SoS. The patient sought
properly admissible? The Court of
judicial review, arguing that the SoS’s
Appeal has ruled not, being in breach of
decision was irrational and improper but
the PACE Code, flawed and inadmissible.
the High Court determined that in such
The trial judge’s decision to allow the
cases, where the SoS was in any doubt
evidence to stand on the basis that the
about the MHRT’s recommendation, he
suspect showed no acute symptoms and
was not only entitled but bound to seek
was able to deal with the interview in a
further advice, the obvious source being
lucid way was wrong, failing to have
the ABRP. However, the judge agreed
regard to the wide range of duties of the
that the procedures followed had not
appropriate adult built into the Code. R v
complied with the requirements of
ASPINALL The Times 4 February 1999.
fairness as the patient had not been
supplied with a copy of the ABRP
member’s report, or informed of its
contents, or invited to make fresh
ommil=
representations before the SoS acted
upon it. The Home Office had now
Two prisoners allocated to ’close
accepted that in fairness a patient should
supervision centres’ sought judicial
(subject to public interest immunity
review, arguing that they had not been
144
given adequate reasons for the decision
that he presented a continuing danger to
or opportunity to make representations
the public. The Court agreed that in the
against their allocation. Though the judge
absence of s2 a court would not have
agreed that the scheme had been
considered a life sentence in this case
introduced in an ’unimaginative manner’,
(six years was...
To continue reading
Request your trial