Jurisprudential Aspects of the ‘Right’ to Retake Absconders from Mental Hospitals in England and Wales

1995 ◽  
Vol 35 (3) ◽  
pp. 225-230
Author(s):  
Benjamin Andoh
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Nineteenth Century ◽  
Social Workers ◽  
Mental Hospital ◽  
Hospital Staff ◽  
England And Wales ◽  
Mental Hospitals ◽  
Mental Health Act ◽  
Statutory Authority ◽  
The Right

Statutory authority for retaking absconders from mental hospitals has existed ever since county asylums (the forerunners of mental hospitals) were first built in the nineteenth century. Today under the Mental Health Act, 1983 that ‘right’ can be exercised by the police, mental hospital staff, approved social workers, etc. This article looks at jurisprudential aspects of that ‘right’. It points out that ‘right’ actually means ‘power’ (not ‘privilege’, ‘claim’ or ‘immunity’). In addition it argues that the Mental Health Act, 1983 does only confer a power (rather than impose a duty) to retake absconders from mental hospitals and that there should not be statutory or other imposition of such a duty.

An Analysis of When Absconders from Mental Hospitals in England and Wales May Be Retaken

1998 ◽  
Vol 38 (1) ◽  
pp. 17-27 ◽  
Author(s):  
Benjamin Andoh
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Nineteenth Century ◽  
England And Wales ◽  
Mental Hospitals ◽  
Statutory Authority ◽  
Mental Health Patients

Clear statutory authority for retaking absconders from mental hospitals has always existed since county asylums, the forerunners of mental hospitals, were first built in the nineteenth century. This article analyses the period within which such absconders may be retaken. It considers both offenders and non-offenders who abscond or go absent without leave and looks critically at the concept of ‘discharge by operation of law', a rule of practice (rather than a statutory rule) now eradicated by s.2(1) of the long overdue Mental Health (Patients in the Community) Act 1995.

scholarly journals Discrepancies and inaccuracies in statistics for detained patients

1995 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
pp. 28-32 ◽  
Author(s):  
Teresa Nemitz ◽  
Philip Bean
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Mental Hospital ◽  
Regional Health ◽  
Mental Hospitals ◽  
Mental Health Act ◽  
Health Authorities ◽  
Government Planning ◽  
Regional Health Authorities

While conducting a study on the nature and extent of compulsory admissions to mental hospitals within the four London regional health authorities, discrepancies and inaccuracies were revealed in many of those mental hospital in-patient statistics. The nature and extent of some of these are examined. It is suggested that the value of such statistics for government planning must be questioned as is their value for research. It is recommended that a centralised system of collecting and collating such data be introduced as a matter of priority and that such a system be operated by the Mental Health Act Commission.

Current appeal system for those detained in England and Wales under the Mental Health Act needs reform

2018 ◽  
Vol 45 (3) ◽  
pp. 173-177
Author(s):  
Paul Gosney ◽  
Paul Lomax ◽  
Carwyn Hooper ◽  
Aileen O’Brien
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Current System ◽  
Clinical Approach ◽  
England And Wales ◽  
Mental Health Act ◽  
Psychiatric Conditions ◽  
The Individual ◽  
The Right

The approach to managing the involuntary detention of people suffering from psychiatric conditions can be divided into those with clinicians at the forefront of decision-making and those who rely heavily on the judiciary. The system in England and Wales takes a clinical approach where doctors have widespread powers to detain and treat patients involuntarily. A protection in this system is the right of the individual to challenge a decision to deprive them of their liberty or treat them against their will. This protection is provided by the First-tier Tribunal; however, the number of successful appeals is low. In this paper, the system of appeal in England and Wales is outlined. This is followed by a discussion of why so few patients successfully appeal their detention with the conclusion that the current system is flawed. A number of recommendations about how the system might be reformed are offered.

scholarly journals Compulsory admission to mental hospital in Thailand and England

1989 ◽  
Vol 13 (7) ◽  
pp. 355-357
Author(s):  
P. Kupituksa ◽  
J. F. Macmillan ◽  
K. L. Soothill
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Mentally Ill ◽  
Mental Hospital ◽  
Compulsory Admission ◽  
Patients Rights ◽  
Mental Hospitals ◽  
Mental Health Act ◽  
Legal Provisions ◽  
National Differences

There are national differences relating to compulsory admission to mental hospitals. As a visitor from Thailand, it was of interest to me (PK) to compare procedures relating to admission, treatment and aftercare of the mentally ill in England and Thailand. In Thailand there is no equivalent of the Mental Health Act 1983. Although there are some legal provisions affecting patients' rights in Thai law, there are no legal provisions concerning ‘detained’ patients in mental hospitals.

scholarly journals What happens to patients discharged by Mental Health Review Tribunals?

1993 ◽  
Vol 17 (6) ◽  
pp. 337-338 ◽  
Author(s):  
Philip Wilkinson ◽  
Michael Sharpe
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Mental Hospital ◽  
Psychiatric Hospitals ◽  
Mental Health Act ◽  
The Right ◽  
Special Hospitals ◽  
Treatment Order ◽  
Health Review

Under the Mental Health Act (1983) Mental Hospital Review Tribunals act as a safeguard against unwarranted detention of patients in psychiatric hospitals. Detention, other than in special hospitals, is most commonly under section 2 (assessment order) or section 3 (treatment order) of the 1983 Act. Patients thus detained have the right to appeal to a Review Tribunal, which has the power to order their discharge.

scholarly journals Mental Health Act Code of Practice

1999 ◽  
Vol 23 (10) ◽  
pp. 587-589
Author(s):  
Andrew Parkin
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Old People ◽  
England And Wales ◽  
Code Of Practice ◽  
Mental Health Act ◽  
Department Of Health ◽  
The Right

The revised Code of Practice to the Mental Health Act 1983 (England and Wales) was published on 1 March 1999 (Department of Health & Welsh Office, 1999), and came into force on 1 April 1999. This code of practice replaces the previous one (Department of Health & Welsh Office, 1993) in providing guidance to professionals undertaking duties under the Mental Health Act 1983. The Mental Health Act uses the term ‘patient’ irrespective of age. However, Section 10 (2) of the Act sets out the right of 16– and 17–year-old people to determine their own admission. Section 10 states:

scholarly journals Rise in the use of section 136 of the Mental Health Act 1983 in England and Wales: A viewpoint on Loughran (2018)

2019 ◽  
Vol 60 (2) ◽  
pp. 140-146 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark Cresswell
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Recent Work ◽  
Theoretical Perspective ◽  
Causal Analysis ◽  
England And Wales ◽  
Mental Health Act ◽  
The Law

This article provides a critical viewpoint on Loughran’s recent work in Medicine, Science and the Law on the causes of the rise in the police’s use of section 136 (s136) of the Mental Health Act 1983 (Loughran M. Detention under section 136: why is it increasing? Med Sci Law 2018; 58: 268–274). The rate of this rise seems significant: by 2014, it was five times more likely that a person in England would be detained in a hospital under s136 than it was in 2000, and the trend has continued to the present day. This viewpoint considers the significance of the s136 rise from the theoretical perspective of causal analysis.

R v Westwood (Thomas): diminished responsibility and disposals under the Mental Health Act 1983

2021 ◽  
Vol 72 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Sean Mennim
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Mental Illness ◽  
England And Wales ◽  
Mental Health Act ◽  
Court Of Appeal ◽  
Diminished Responsibility

This is a commentary on R v Westwood (Thomas), where the Court of Appeal of England and Wales held that the judge had erred in assessing Westwood’s ‘retained responsibility’ as medium to high under the Sentencing Council Guideline for manslaughter by reason of diminished responsibility. Although the sentencing judge concluded that the offending was caused by Westwood’s anger, the Court of Appeal found the psychiatric evidence clearly indicated that the most significant factor was Westwood’s mental illness and that his anger at the time of the offence was a manifestation of his mental illness. Westwood’s responsibility was low, and it was appropriate to impose both a hospital and restriction order.  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document