R (S) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
Judgment Date05 November 2002
Date05 November 2002
CourtQueen's Bench Division

QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION

Before Mr Justice Maurice Kay

Regina (S)
and
Secretary of State for the Home Department

Mental health - patient released from prison on conditional licence part way through sentence - should not be returned to prison on absconding - full consultation with doctors required before doing so - Criminal Justice Act 1991 Section 39(2) - Mental Health Act 1983 Sections 3, 18, 50(4) - Protection from Harassment Act 1997 Sections 2 & 5 & 18 - Mental Health (Patients in the Community) Act 1995 Section 2(1) - Prison Act 1952 Section 49(2) as amended by Section 119 and paragraph 7(2)(a) of Schedule 8 to the Crime & Disorder Act 1998 and by Section 77 and paragraph 8(b)(ii) of Schedule 14 to the Criminal Justice Act 1982

Patient should not have been returned to prison

A patient detained under the Mental Health Act 1983 having been released from prison on a conditional licence part way through a sentence should not, upon absconding from hospital prior to the end of his period of detention there, have been returned to prison on the revocation of the licence without full consultation with the hospital doctors.

Mr Justice Maurice Kay so held in the Queen's Bench Division when giving reasons for allowing on November 1 an application by S for judicial review of a decision to recall him to prison made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department on August 8, 2002 under section 39(2) of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 while S was subject to a detention order under section 3 of the 1983 Act.

Mr Nicholas O'Brien for S; Mr Steven Kovats for the Home Secretary.

MR JUSTICE MAURICE KAY said that the claimant suffered from bi-polar disorder and that his 30-year history of offending included several recent convictions for harassment and breaches of restraining orders contrary to sections 2 and 5 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.

Resulting sentences had been passed without adjournment for psychiatric assessment despite the provision of information regarding the claimant's mental illness.

On June 19, 2002 the claimant, who was part way though an 18-month prison sentence, was released under a licence which was conditional on his behaviour and due to expire on November 3, 2002. He was admitted to hospital on August 3, 2002.

Between his release from prison and his admission to hospital there came a point where he was not complying with his medication and that led to bizarre behaviour such as indecent exposure.

Two days after his admission to hospital...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • R (S) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 16 April 2003
  • R Jason Kessie-Adjei v Secretary of State for Justice
    • United Kingdom
    • Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court)
    • 30 March 2022
    ...to be arrested and detained for the purposes of serving their sentence ( s.254(1) CJA 2003; s.49(1) PA 1952). 11 In R (S) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2003] EWCA Civ 426 (“ R (S) v SSHD”) the Court of Appeal held that there was no pre-condition for an individual to know th......
  • R (Lunn) v Governor of HMP Moorland
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 25 May 2006
    ...the order of the court superseded the licence and it made no difference that the appellant was unaware of the fact: see R (S) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2003] EWCA Civ 426. 27 Mr. Coppel submitted that the amendment of the order had retrospective effect so that the positi......
  • R (on the Application of Raymond Woolley) v Ministry of Justice
    • United Kingdom
    • Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court)
    • 21 February 2012
    ...to any authority in which it has been doubted, over the very nearly 50 years since it was decided. Both Simon Brown LJ in R (S) v SSHD [2003] EWCA Civ 426 at paragraph 23, and Field J (sitting with Rose LJ, who was in agreement) in Murphy v SSHD [2005] EWHC 3116 (Admin) at paragraphs 12 t......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT