R (A) v (1) Secretary of State (2) Mental Health Review Tribunal
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 10 February 2003 |
| Date | 10 February 2003 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
Court and reference: Administrative Court; CO/646/03
Stanley Burnton J
Appearances: P Bowen (instructed by Scott-Montcrieff, Harbour & Sinclair) for A; E Laing (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) for the defendants.
Whether the second hearing in an application to the Mental Health Review Tribunal before a differently constituted tribunal panel was fair.
A had been detained under ss. 37/41 Mental Health Act 1983. In September 2001 a Mental Health Review Tribunal directed her conditional discharge, deferred until the conditions imposed were implemented. Thereafter, A was transferred from Hampshire to Berkshire, which involved a transfer from one tribunal area to another, and the president of the tribunal panel which heard her case in September 2001 retired. The administration of her case was transferred to the new tribunal area, under r17(2) Mental Health Tribunal Rules 1983. In February 2003 a fresh panel of the tribunal was due to reconsider A's application under its duty to monitor the implementation of the direction for deferred conditional discharge. In judicial review proceedings, A argued that was unfair, and that she had a right to have her case considered by, so far as possible, the same members as heard her original application.
At an application for permission to proceed and for a stay of the tribunal hearing, the questions arising were (1) whether, arguably, A had a right to have her case considered by, so far as possible, the same members as heard her original application; (2) if so, whether there were qualifications to that right and, if so, what; and (3) whether it was right to grant a stay on the material before the court.
Under r8 of the 1983 Rules, "Unless the application belongs to a class or group of proceedings for which members have already been appointed, the members of the tribunal who are to hear the application shall be appointed by the chairman." Under r17(1), "Where any proceedings in relation to a patient have not been disposed of by the members of the tribunal appointed for the purpose, and the chairman is of the opinion that it is not practicable or not possible without undue delay for the consideration of those proceedings to be completed by those members, he shall make arrangements for them to be heard by other members of the tribunal."
1. This is an application on behalf of a lady to whom I shall refer as "A" (there, is I think, an application for anonymity and that will be granted) for permission to apply for relief in respect of a Mental Health Review Tribunal hearing due to take place in four days' time; that is to say on Friday 14 February. The claimant is the subject of a restriction order. She appeared before a Tribunal in September 2001. The Tribunal made an order for her conditional discharge. Its decision is set out at pp27-30 of the bundle. Its reasons are set out at pp29 and 30. From those reasons one sees (a) what the diagnosis of her mental illness was; (b) to some extent its symptoms; and (c) the then views of the psychiatrist whose evidence was before the Tribunal. That evidence included the evidence of her RMO, Dr Warren, and of an independent psychiatrist, Dr Mikhail. There was also evidence from her approved social worker, Miss Martin. They were then unanimous that the claimant did not need to remain in hospital for treatment and, indeed, it was counter-productive that she should do so, and that she could appropriately be transferred to an appropriate hostel. The decision reads:
"The Tribunal accepts the evidence of Dr Warren, Dr Mikhail and Miss Martin and recommends a conditional discharge to be deferred until suitable accommodation, as approved as Dr Warren, has been identified."
That conditional discharge never took effect.
2. The evidence before me, I have to say, is unsatisfactory in a number of respects. One would like to know, even for the purposes of this hearing, what happened in the interim and what medical evidence is likely to be available to the Tribunal on...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R (M and another) v Lambeth London Borough Council and another
... ... (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) Secretary of State for the Home Department ... Mr John ... M and A sought the judicial review of the respective decisions and three preliminary ... the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health state: “In practice, age ... he is blind, deaf or dumb or suffers from mental disorder of any kind or is substantially and ... Rent Tribunal ex p. Zerek [1951] 2 KB 1, 6 : ... ...