scholarly journals Response of the Mental Health Act Commission

1993 ◽  
Vol 17 (8) ◽  
pp. 483-483
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Mental Health Act ◽  
The Law ◽  
Consultation Paper ◽  
Law Commission

The Commission welcomes the opportunity to comment on Dr Oyebode's paper. As a former medical member of the Commission, Dr Oyebode can write with authority on the frustrations felt by many Commissioners when carrying out their statutory obligations to ensure that the requirements of Section 58 of the Act are being met. His paper is particularly opportune considering the recent publication by the Law Commission of its consultation paper No. 129 (Law Commission, 1993).

scholarly journals ‘Mentally Incapacitated Adults and Decision Making’: implications of the Law Commission consultation paper for old age psychiatrists

1992 ◽  
Vol 16 (12) ◽  
pp. 740-742 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. M. Benbow ◽  
R. Jones ◽  
G. Rands ◽  
J. P. Wattis
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Old Age ◽  
Main Concern ◽  
Mental Health Act ◽  
People With Dementia ◽  
Decision Making Capacity ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Consultation Paper ◽  
Law Commission

Old age psychiatrists' main concern with regard to incapacity is with patients with dementia. Dementia is predominantly a disorder of old age, probably affecting over half a million people in the UK, and it inevitably affects decision-making capacity. The 1983 Mental Health Act does not appear to have been framed with particular consideration for this group and it is vital that any new laws pay special attention to people with dementia.

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.

Mental capacity and deprivation of liberty: the Law Commission’s consultation paper

2015 ◽  
Vol 17 (5) ◽  
pp. 331-334 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tim Spencer-Lane
Keyword(s):  
Design Methodology ◽  
Service Users ◽  
Consultation Process ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Opportunity To Respond ◽  
Future Paper ◽  
The Law ◽  
Practical Implications ◽  
Consultation Paper ◽  
Law Commission

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to introduce the readership to the consultation being held by the Law Commission concerning proposed revisions to the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). Design/methodology/approach – Discussion of the consultation being held by the Law Commission concerning proposed revisions to the DoLS. Findings – These are as yet unknown as the consultation period is ongoing – it is planned that a future paper will examine the findings and recommendations from the consultation process. Practical implications – There has been criticism of the DoLS since their introduction in 2009. A new scheme provides the opportunity to respond to some of the criticisms and to develop more appropriate processes. The paper invites readers to take part in the consultation process and to respond to the proposals that have been developed. Social implications – A new and more appropriate scheme would be beneficial for service users and families/caregivers. Originality/value – This is the first opportunity for a revision to the DoLS scheme and introduction of the proposed scheme and the consultation process to the readership is highly appropriate and valuable to the Journal.

The Reliability of Expert Evidence: Reflections on the Law Commission's Proposals for Reform

2009 ◽  
Vol 73 (6) ◽  
pp. 488-507
Author(s):  
Liz Heffernan ◽  
Mark Coen
Keyword(s):  
Expert Evidence ◽  
Criminal Courts ◽  
Trial Judge ◽  
Ongoing Controversy ◽  
American Experience ◽  
The Us ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Law ◽  
Consultation Paper ◽  
Law Commission

The problems associated with the use of expert evidence by the criminal courts have been the subject of ongoing controversy. The Law Commission of England and Wales has recently added its voice to the debate with the publication of a Consultation Paper on the admissibility of expert evidence. This article examines the current law governing the reliability of expert evidence. It analyses the Law Commission's recommendation for the creation of a new statutory rule which would require the trial judge to assess evidentiary reliability as a matter of admissibility. The authors chart the emergence of the US Daubert test, on which the recommendation is based, and consider the lessons to be learned from American experience. While welcoming the recommendation in principle, the authors argue that the crafting and implementation of the proposed admissibility requirement would present formidable challenges.

scholarly journals Unfitness to Plead and the Vulnerable Defendant: An Examination of the Law Commission's Proposals for a New Capacity Test

2011 ◽  
Vol 75 (3) ◽  
pp. 194-203 ◽  
Author(s):  
Helen Howard
Keyword(s):  
Mental Capacity ◽  
Mental Capacity Act 2005 ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Many ◽  
Mental Capacity Act ◽  
Consultation Paper ◽  
Law Commission ◽  
Self Defence ◽  
Made In

The Law Commission published Consultation Paper No. 197 in October 2010 on unfitness to plead. Among the many issues to be covered were: an examination of the test for capacity which is narrower than the test for capacity under the Mental Capacity Act 2005; the scope of the trial of facts; and whether accident, mistake or self-defence could be raised as part of the defence in the context of unfitness to plead. This article will examine some of the proposals made in the Law Commission's Consultation Paper with particular focus on the meaning of capacity, along with the scope and limitations of the current law on unfitness to plead.

2. Intestacy

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brian Sloan
Keyword(s):  
Theoretical Basis ◽  
Social Conditions ◽  
Detailed Account ◽  
The Law ◽  
Relevant Work ◽  
Consultation Paper ◽  
Law Commission

This chapter deals with the law of intestacy. The first section consists of an introduction to intestacy, dealing with the basic terms and rules, the incidence of intestacy, and the evolution and theoretical basis of the law. The second section gives a more detailed account of the current law. Considerable reference is made to relevant work of the Law Commission, most recently Intestacy and Family Provision Claims on Death (Law Com. No. 331, 2011), which was preceded by Consultation Paper 191 (2009) and sought to modernise the law of intestacy in light of contemporary social conditions. The Commission's suggestions were largely enacted in the Inheritance and Trustees' Powers Act 2014.

scholarly journals Misapplication of mental impairment under the Mental Health Act 1983

2006 ◽  
Vol 30 (2) ◽  
pp. 69-70
Author(s):  
Anjum Bashir ◽  
Sheila Tinto
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Public Policy ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Royal College ◽  
Mental Impairment ◽  
Health And Human Rights ◽  
Mental Health Act ◽  
The Law

As Professor Eastman (2000) has noted: the law is fond of ‘using’ psychiatry for its own ends at times, but the Mental Health Act 1983 is an example of psychiatrists using the law as a tool of public policy. This makes their education in and interpretation of it all the more vital. The MRCPsych part II module ‘Ethics and the Law’ requires candidates to demonstrate knowledge of relevant mental health and human rights legislation, and to illustrate the appropriate application of such information (Royal College of Psychiatrists, 2001). We submit a masked case study that in practice seems to us a misinterpretation of the Act.

A Supreme Court for the United Kingdom?

Legal Studies ◽  
2004 ◽  
Vol 24 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 36-44 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brenda Hale
Keyword(s):  
United Kingdom ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Question Mark ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
The Law ◽  
Consultation Paper ◽  
Law Commission

The Government's Consultation Paper does not have a question mark in its title. It does not purport to be a serious discussion of the role of a Supreme Court in a democracy. This is scarcely to be expected of such a document or its respondents, so I propose to respond in its own terms rather than on the loftier plane usually adopted by contributors to this journal. More unexpectedly, the Consultation Paper does not even put forward a serious set of options to consider. At the Law Commission, we always had (at least a metaphorical) question mark in our title because we almost always put forward two options which do not appear in this consultation: the ‘do nothing’ and the ‘let’s abolish it' options. Both have a lot to be said for them here.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document