R (X) v Mental Health Review Tribunal
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | MR JUSTICE COLLINS |
| Judgment Date | 13 May 2003 |
| Neutral Citation | [2003] EWHC 1272 (Admin) |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Docket Number | CO/2107/2003 |
| Date | 13 May 2003 |
[2003] EWHC 1272 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand London WC2
Mr Justice Collins
CO/2107/2003
MR S SIMBLET appeared on behalf of the CLAIMANT
MR M CHAMBERLAIN appeared on behalf of the DEFENDANT
Tuesday, 13th May 2003
The claimant in this case, whom I shall refer to as "X", was convicted in 1988 of very serious offences, including homicide and grievous bodily harm, and was sentenced to an order under sections 37 and 41 of the Mental Health Act, the restriction order under section 41 being without limitation of time.
The mental disorder from which he was suffering was psychopathic disorder, which is defined in section 1(2) of the Mental Health Act as meaning:
"A persistent disorder or disability of mind whether or not including significant impairment of intelligence which results in abnormally aggressive or seriously irresponsible conduct on the part of the person concerned".
He is at present in a secure unit. He has made an application to the Mental Health Review Tribunal for his release. This came before the Tribunal on 3rd April 2003. The Tribunal had before it a number of reports, both on behalf of the hospital and also on behalf of the claimant. There were reports from two psychiatrists and two psychologists, if I may put it this way, one on each side, and there were also the usual and necessary reports from social workers.
One of the major issues, and clearly one which was fundamental and potentially determinative, was whether at the date of the hearing the claimant was still suffering from mental disorder so that the conditions for detention in hospital existed.
The psychiatrist called on his behalf stated clearly that in his view the claimant was not so suffering. He says this in his report:
"In answer to the question whether the relevant discharge applicable under section 72 of the Act has been met, the simple answer to this is that it is my considered psychiatric opinion that the terms of the Mental Health Act no longer apply to this individual, since as emphasised the serious and highly risk-laden mental disorder he did suffer from in 1988 has now remitted and he no longer suffers from any mental disorder within the meaning of the Act".
The psychologist who was treating the claimant at the unit was essentially of the same view in the sense that it was his clear recommendation that he did not need supervision, he did not need medication or monitoring for the possibility of relapse, and that he should qualify for an absolute discharge. He recognised that there might be other reasons, not least institutionalisation, which would make some sort of support desirable, but not because he was suffering from mental illness, and the same view was expressed by the psychologist who reported on behalf of the claimant.
The Secretary of State in his written submissions submitted that the claimant did still suffer from a mental disorder and that it was necessary that he be kept under some degree of supervision, even if the Tribunal decided to release him. What was said in a letter of 1st April 2003 was that in the light of the reports which the Secretary of State had considered, which included the reports which were before the Tribunal and all other previous medical evidence, he was satisfied that X continued to suffer from mental disorder and to require detention in hospital in order to continue with the treatment he was receiving, both to alleviate and prevent a deterioration in his condition and for the protection of others.
The responsible Medical Officer who was in charge of the claimant, was a Dr T. Dr T did not produce a report. Instead, there were three reports: the first in April 2002; an addendum in September 2002; and a final addendum dated 14th January 2003. The earlier reports had, as I understand it, been produced in relation to an earlier application to the Mental Health Review Tribunal. Thus, the up to date report, which was required by the rules, was that of 14th January 2003.
That was not produced by Dr T, but by a Dr B, who is described as "staff grade in forensic psychiatry". I am informed by Mr Simblet that he is now a Consultant, but at the time and indeed until earlier this year, he was acting under the general supervision, it would seem, of Dr T, who was the Consultant Forensic Psychiatrist in charge of the treatment of X and who was his RMO.
It is to be noted that Dr B indicates in his report, in the addendum on 14th January 2003, that he had discussed X's progress with the psychologist and with the approved social worker and also with Dr T.
The addendum does not in terms state whether or not the claimant was still suffering from mental disorder. It is, I suppose, implicit from the indication that X should continue to be tested with increasing degrees of freedom, subject to the continued stability of his mental state and behaviour, with the aim of working towards his first unescorted town leave and then being found suitable supervised accommodation to which he can be conditionally discharged, that indeed he was suffering from mental disorder.
But it is interesting to note that Dr B does not spell it out in terms, although it is perfectly clear that when he came to give evidence before the Tribunal, he did state that that was his view.
The Tribunal heard the appeal. It lasted from 2.30 until 7.15 in the evening and oral evidence was heard from six witnesses and the written reports, which are in the bundle, were also taken into account. The claimant was represented by Mr Simblet, who has appeared for him before me, and the authority was represented by Dr B.
Following the conclusion of the evidence and submissions made by Mr Simblet, and I assume also by Dr B, the Tribunal, not surprisingly, did not reach any immediate decision. Indeed, it would have been surprising if it had. Its obligation on the face of it was to give a determination within seven days, but what it did was to announce, very shortly after the hearing, that it proposed to adjourn the hearing to 16th May (that is this coming Friday) and they directed that Dr T should attend the adjourned hearing and, if he was unable to attend on that date, to let the Tribunal know immediately so that another date could be fixed.
The purpose of requiring his attendance was so that he could answer any questions that might arise on his report. The Tribunal also they requested the social workers to attend in order to update and answer any questions arising. They required a psychiatric report by Dr T to be submitted by 2nd May at the latest and the Secretary of State's statement in response to be submitted by 15th May.
They stated as the reasons for their decision as follows:
"There was insufficient time at the conclusion of the submissions of learned counsel at 7.15 pm for the Tribunal members to conclude their deliberations. The members therefore dispersed and in their subsequent deliberations considered that it was unacceptable that any decision should be made in this case, or even further considered, without the Tribunal having seen the RMO and received a written report from him, having regard to the public interest in the Tribunal being seen to arrive at the right decision in this particular case".
It is clear that the Tribunal has power to adjourn of its own motion. Rule 15 of the Mental Health Review Tribunal Rules 1983, SI 1983/946, provides as follows:
"(1) Before or during any hearing, the Tribunal may call for such further information or reports as it may think desirable and may give directions as to the manner in which, and the persons by whom, such material is to be furnished".
Then rule 16 provides:
"(1) The Tribunal may at any time adjourn a hearing for the purpose of obtaining further information or for such other purposes as it may think appropriate.
(2) Before adjourning any hearing, the Tribunal may give such directions as it thinks fit for ensuring the prompt consideration of this application at an adjourned hearing".
I have not specifically considered whether the circumstances fall within rule 15(1), which refers to the power to call for further information before or during any hearing. It has not been submitted that the hearing had concluded at the time that the decision was made, but whether or not it fell technically within Rule 15, clearly it fell within the more general power under Rule 16(1), which entitles the Tribunal to adjourn at any time for the purpose of obtaining further information.
Again, it refers to adjourning a hearing, but it seems to me clear that the word "hearing" must embrace the proceedings before the Tribunal until it reaches its formal decision upon the matter, and in my view, although it is no doubt exceptional and, as we shall see, there were mistakes made in the manner in which the Tribunal went about adjourning the matter, it had power in law to do what it did.
Mr Simblet accepts, as indeed he has to, that the Tribunal as a general proposition has power of its own motion to adjourn for the purpose of obtaining information, even though the parties have decided not to put that information before it.
Mr Simblet has submitted that the process before the Tribunal is adversarial and essentially it is for the parties to decide what material is appropriate to be put before the Tribunal and in general the Tribunal must reach its decision on the basis of such material as the parties choose to place before it.
Mr...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R (N) v Mental Health Review Tribunal
...the decision not to grant an adjournment was well within the principles in the case of R (X) v Mental Health Review Tribunal [2003] Mental Health Law Reports 299 and r16 of the Mental Health Tribunal Rules 1983, and it led to no injustice. 3. The claimant is now 40 years old. He was first c......
-
Table of Cases
...of Wirral Health Authority and Wirral Borough Council) v Dr Finnegan [2001] EWHC 312 (Admin) 177 R (on the application of X) v MHRT [2003] EWHC 1272 (Admin) 157 R (on the application of X) v SSJ [2009] 1 MHLR 250 113 RB v Nottinghamshire Health Care NHS Trust [2011] UKUT 73 (AAC) 164 RH v S......
-
Mental Health Tribunals - Rules of Procedure
...form its own view on the evidence, regardless of the position taken by the respective parties. In R (on the application of X) v MHRT [2003] EWHC 1272 (Admin), the High Court confirmed that the tribunal may initiate its own evidence-gathering exercise and is not restricted to basing its deci......