R (on the application of H) v London North and East Region Mental Health Review Tribunal [2001] EWCA Civ 415, Court of Appeal

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas E. Webb
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Public Law ◽  
Mental Health Act ◽  
East Region ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Human Rights Act 1998 ◽  
Court Of Appeal ◽  
Health Review

Essential Cases: Public Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in R (on the application of H) v London North and East Region Mental Health Review Tribunal [2001] EWCA Civ 415, Court of Appeal. This case concerned whether the language of ss 72–73 of the Mental Health Act 1983 could be read in such a way as to be compatible with the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA), under s. 4 of that Act, or whether such an interpretation was not possible. In the latter case, the court should consider making a declaration of incompatibility. This note explores s. 4 HRA declarations of incompatibility. The document also includes supporting commentary from author Thomas Webb

R (on the application of H) v London North and East Region Mental Health Review Tribunal [2001] EWCA Civ 415, Court of Appeal

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas E. Webb
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Public Law ◽  
Mental Health Act ◽  
East Region ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Human Rights Act 1998 ◽  
Court Of Appeal ◽  
Health Review

Essential Cases: Public Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in R (on the application of H) v London North and East Region Mental Health Review Tribunal [2001] EWCA Civ 415, Court of Appeal. This case concerned whether the language of ss 72–73 of the Mental Health Act 1983 could be read in such a way as to be compatible with the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA), under s. 4 of that Act, or whether such an interpretation was not possible. In the latter case the court should consider making a declaration of incompatibility. This note explores s. 4 HRA declarations of incompatibility. The document also includes supporting commentary from author Thomas Webb

scholarly journals Detained patients and the right to refuse treatment

2014 ◽  
pp. 59
Author(s):  
Paul Bowen
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Interested Party ◽  
Mental Health Act ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Human Rights Act 1998 ◽  
Right To Refuse Treatment ◽  
The Right ◽  
Court Of Appeal ◽  
Right To Refuse

<p>R (Wilkinson) v. Broadmoor RMO (1) Mental Health Act Commission (2) Secretary of State for Health (Interested party) [2001] EWCA Civ 1545<br />Court of Appeal (22nd October 2001) Simon Brown LJ, Brooke LJ and Hale LJ</p><p>A detained patient’s right to refuse treatment to which he or she objects has been greatly strengthened by a recent decision of the Court of Appeal, applying the provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998, although in reaching its decision the Court of Appeal has posed as many questions for the future of the law in this area as it has answered.</p>

The law

2009 ◽  
pp. 459-498
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Compulsory Admission ◽  
Sexual Offences ◽  
Disability Discrimination ◽  
Mental Health Act ◽  
Assessment And Treatment ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Disability Discrimination Act ◽  
Health Review

Mental Health Act 1983 460 Mental Health Act 2007 462 Compulsory admission to hospital for assessment and treatment 464 Emergency holding powers 466 Mental Health Review Tribunals 468 The Mental Health Act Commission 470 Sexual Offences Act 472 Disability Discrimination Act 2005 474 Human Rights Act ...

scholarly journals Reform of the Mental Health Act 1983 – Convention Implications of the Green Paper

2014 ◽  
pp. 99
Author(s):  
Paul Bowen
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Green Paper ◽  
Mental Health Act ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Human Rights Act 1998 ◽  
The Government ◽  
The Impact ◽  
The Devil ◽  
Made In

Assessing the Convention compatibility of the Government proposals for reform of the Mental Health Act 1983 set out in the Green Paper1 is largely an exercise in speculation, for three reasons.First, the proposals are very broad; the detail, where the devil may be found, is yet to come.Second, the Convention does not permit the Strasbourg authorities to review the legality of national legislation in the abstract, but only with reference to particular cases after the proceedings are complete2. Although that will not necessarily preclude a domestic court from reviewing the lawfulness of any provision of the new Mental Health Act after incorporation of the Human Rights Act 19983, the comments that can be made in this article are necessarily confined to the<br />general rather than the specific.Third, and perhaps most significantly, it is impossible to predict the impact of the Convention following the coming into force of the Human Rights Act 1998 on 2 October 2000.

Donoghue v Poplar Housing and Regeneration Community Association Limited and another [2001] EWCA Civ 595, Court of Appeal

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas E. Webb
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Public Law ◽  
Public Body ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Human Rights Act 1998 ◽  
Court Of Appeal ◽  
Public Bodies

Essential Cases: Public Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Donoghue v Poplar Housing and Regeneration Community Association Limited and another [2001] EWCA Civ 595, in the Court of Appeal. This case concerned whether Poplar Housing was a public body for the purposes of s. 6(3)(b) of the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA). Public bodies are required to act in accordance with the HRA. The document also includes supporting commentary from author Thomas Webb.

scholarly journals Medical treatment under Part IV of the Mental Health Act 1983 and the Human Rights Act 1998: review of Article 3 and 8 case law

2009 ◽  
Vol 33 (3) ◽  
pp. 111-115 ◽  
Author(s):  
Martin J. R. Curtice
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Medical Treatment ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Mental Health Act ◽  
Consent To Treatment ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Human Rights Act 1998

Since the introduction of the Human Rights Act 1998, all courts and tribunals are obliged to interpret all laws and statute consistently and compatibly with the Human Rights Act. This includes the Mental Health Act 1983 (and the 2007 amendments) and mental health review tribunals. Mental health case law has evolved with regard to medical treatment under Part IV (Consent to Treatment) of the Mental Health Act being compliant with the Human Rights Act. Review and analysis of such case law can aide everyday clinical decision-making as well as improving knowledge of the Human Rights Act.

scholarly journals Article 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998: implications for clinical practice

2009 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 23-31 ◽  
Author(s):  
Martin Curtice
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Family Life ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Private Life ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Human Rights Act 1998 ◽  
The Right ◽  
Health Review

SummaryThe Human Rights Act was introduced into UK law in 2000 and must be considered in all cases, including mental health review tribunals. Article 8 (the right to respect for private and family life) comprises two parts and has embedded in it ‘tests’ that must be applied when assessing any interference with this protected right. A review of Article 8 case law reveals how it is used and how it can be applied in a myriad of clinical situations. Because it involves the right to respect for private life, and is in a sense individualised, it will potentially affect people (both patients and staff) in the mental health services in a variety of ways. Article 8 has implications not only for patients but also for clinicians and healthcare organisations.

scholarly journals The Law Society’s Response to the Draft Mental Health Bill

2014 ◽  
Vol 1 (12) ◽  
pp. 70
Author(s):  
Law Society
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Mental Disorder ◽  
Mental Health Act ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Human Rights Act 1998 ◽  
The Law

<p>The Law Society has long campaigned for reform of the Mental Health Act 1983 (‘the 1983 Act’), which is widely recognised as out of date and not fully compatible with the Human Rights Act 1998. However the Law Society believes that the proposals contained in the Draft Mental Health Bill 2004 (‘the Bill’) are misconceived and fail to provide adequate safeguards to protect the rights of people with a mental disorder.</p>

scholarly journals The Consequences of Acting Unlawfully

2014 ◽  
Vol 1 (10) ◽  
pp. 35
Author(s):  
Kris Gledhill
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Mental Health Professionals ◽  
Health Professionals ◽  
Public Law ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Self Determination ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
Mental Health Act ◽  
Health Review

<p align="LEFT">The Mental Health Act 1983 provides for detention and also for treatment which would otherwise be an assault. As such, it allows for interference with the fundamental rights to liberty and to self-determination. Particularly as it does so in the context of a branch of medicine which is often highly subjective, it is hardly surprising that litigation is occasionally resorted to by those affected who wish to challenge the legality of what is occurring to them.</p><p align="LEFT">The framework for this litigation has developed, spurred on in particular by the growth of public law and human rights law. As a result, mental health professionals have to be familiar not just with the court-machinery which is central to the Mental Health Act 1983 (which provides for the Mental Health Review Tribunal to determine the legality of the ongoing detention of a patient, and refers the issue of the displacement of a nearest relative to the county court) but also with the courts which deal with questions of public law (in particular the Administrative Court) and the civil litigation courts.</p>

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document