KL HM 2479 2010
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judge | Judge M. Rowland |
| Judgment Date | 10 June 2011 |
| Neutral Citation | 2011 UKUT 233 AAC |
| Subject Matter | Mental health |
| Respondent | Somerset Partnership NHS foundation Trust |
| Court | Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber) |
| Docket Number | HM 2479 2010 |
| Appellant | KL |
IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL Case No. HM/2479/2010
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS CHAMBER
Before: Upper Tribunal Judge Rowland
The Appellant appeared in person.
The Respondent was represented by Ms Susanna Rickard of counsel, instructed by Bevan Brittan LLP
Decision: The patient’s appeal is dismissed.
It is directed that, save for the frontsheet (which identifies the Appellant by name), this decision may be made public.
REASONS FOR DECISION
1. On either 5 or 7 January 2010, the Appellant was detained in hospital for treatment under section 3 of the Mental Health Act 1983, having been detained for assessment on 29 December 2009 and been diagnosed as suffering from paranoid schizophrenia. It is unnecessary to set out the history of previous admissions. While detained, the Appellant was treated by Clopixol depot injections. From March 2010, he was granted extended leave under section 17 on condition that he complied with medication requirements and attended outpatient reviews. He lived at home with his wife and daughter and attended his local community mental health treatment base fortnightly for medication and to see his key worker. On a date that is not revealed in the papers before me, he made an application to the First-tier Tribunal for discharge.
2. The case came before the First-tier Tribunal on 17 June 2010. Despite the Appellant’s contentions to the contrary, the First-tier Tribunal was satisfied that he was suffering from mental disorder of a nature or degree which made it appropriate for him to be liable to be detained in a hospital for medical treatment and the Appellant was not discharged. However, the First-tier Tribunal gave the following directions –
“1. The Responsible Clinician is to inform the tribunal office by 4pm 19th July 2010 whether a community treatment order has been made and the reasons for any such decision.
2. If a CTO has not been made, the tribunal judge should be so informed and the tribunal will consider whether to reconvene.”
3. Under the heading “Recommendations”, the First-tier Tribunal said –
“With a view to facilitating discharge on a future date, the Tribunal recommends that: -
The responsible clinician consider whether to make a community treatment order in respect of the patient.
In the event of any such recommendation not being complied with by 19th July 2010, the Tribunal will decide whether to reconvene. In coming to its decision, the Tribunal will take into account any representations made by the parties on or before that date.”
4. A community treatment order was made on 2 July 2010 and the patient has remained subject to that order ever since, applications to the First-tier Tribunal heard on 29 November 2010 and 30 March 2011 having been unsuccessful.
5. However, on 19 July 2010, the Appellant sought permission to appeal against the decision of 17 June 2010 and, on 4 August 2010, a judge of the First-tier Tribunal, who had not been the judge sitting on 17 June 2010, granted permission to appeal.
6. The Appellant’s contention at the hearing before me was that he had been misdiagnosed and was not suffering from any mental disorder whatever. He criticised the particular medical treatment he had been given and other aspects of the way he had been treated. However, an appeal to the Upper Tribunal lies only on a point of law. The First-tier Tribunal was the final judge of matters of fact and medical judgment and, in the absence of an error of law, I am unable to interfere with the First-tier Tribunal’s decision in relation to such matters. The First-tier Tribunal found that the Appellant was suffering from “a chronic delusional disorder with exacerbations when he ceases medication” and it gave reasons for its finding, clearly based on the reports before it. Moreover, having heard the Appellant give evidence, it found that, due to “the persisting lack of insight in to his condition as well as the currently held paranoid beliefs and presentation”, the Appellant’s disorder “was of both a nature and degree to make it appropriate for him to be liable to be detained in a hospital for medical treatment”. The First-tier Tribunal’s conclusion on this issue was one it was entitled to reach and for which adequate reasons have been given. I therefore cannot interfere with it.
7. The ground upon which the Appellant was granted permission to appeal was a more technical one. It had been advanced by the solicitor who represented the Appellant before the First-tier Tribunal and who drafted the application for permission to appeal and the appeal. The key part of the application for permission states –
“It is submitted that … there must be an element of hospital treatment in the patient’s on-going care plan for the liability to be detained to be justified.
It is submitted that, on the facts of this particular case, there was insufficient evidence placed before the tribunal that the patient was receiving any form of hospital treatment and so it cannot be said that an ongoing liability to detention was justified.”
8. The Respondent concedes that the first of those submissions is correct but does not agree with the second submission and asserts that the Appellant was...
To continue reading
Request your trial