header-logo header-logo

15 February 2007 / Neil Allen
Issue: 7260 / Categories: Features , Mental health
printer mail-detail

A call for order

Health care professionals must exercise restraint before revolving the hospital door, says Neil Allen

The psychiatric and legal professions are often uncomfortable bedfellows. One area of particular controversy concerns the re-admission of patients released into the community by mental health review tribunals. The detaining authorities will inevitably disagree with discharge decisions. Indeed, such is the fluctuating nature of mental disorder that episodes of acute illness following hospitalisation are not uncommon as patients react to the pressures of community life. However, due deference to clinical freedom must sometimes yield to legitimate fears over arbitrary detention. R (Care Principles Ltd) v Mental Health Review Tribunal and others [2006] EWHC 3194 (Admin) serves as a timely reminder that health care professionals must exercise restraint before revolving their hospital door.

The proceedings

Following his aggressive behaviour towards hostel staff and fellow residents, and threats to social workers, a young man with mild learning disabilities was detained in a medium-security hospital for psychiatric assessment. In the absence of a sufficient causal link between his conduct and mental disorder to justify continued detention, the tribunal deferred discharge to enable

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Partner hire strengthens global infrastructure and energy financing practice

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Legal director bolsters international expertise in dispute resolution team

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Corporate governance and company law specialist joins the team

NEWS

NOTICE UNDER THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925

HERBERT SMITH STAFF PENSION SCHEME (THE “SCHEME”)

NOTICE TO CREDITORS AND BENEFICIARIES UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925
Law firm HFW is offering clients lawyers on call for dawn raids, sanctions issues and other regulatory emergencies
From gender-critical speech to notice periods and incapability dismissals, employment law continues to turn on fine distinctions. In his latest employment law brief for NLJ, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School reviews a cluster of recent decisions, led by Bailey v Stonewall, where the Court of Appeal clarified the limits of third-party liability under the Equality Act
Non-molestation orders are meant to be the frontline defence against domestic abuse, yet their enforcement often falls short. Writing in NLJ this week, Jeni Kavanagh, Jessica Mortimer and Oliver Kavanagh analyse why the criminalisation of breach has failed to deliver consistent protection
Assisted dying remains one of the most fraught fault lines in English law, where compassion and criminal liability sit uncomfortably close. Writing in NLJ this week, Julie Gowland and Barny Croft of Birketts examine how acts motivated by care—booking travel, completing paperwork, or offering emotional support—can still fall within the wide reach of the Suicide Act 1961
back-to-top-scroll