scholarly journals Making your case to the mental health review tribunal in England and Wales

2005 ◽  
Vol 29 (4) ◽  
pp. 149-151 ◽  
Author(s):  
George J. Lodge
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Family Life ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Public Hearing ◽  
Reasonable Time ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Human Rights Act 1998 ◽  
The Right ◽  
Health Review

The function of the mental health review tribunal is defined in Part V of the Mental Health Act 1983. Together with statute and Common Law, it provides safeguards to those detained under the Act. The provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998 have strengthened these safeguards. The key articles in Schedule 1 of the Human Rights Act are 5(1)(e), relating to the lawful detention of persons of unsound mind; 5(4), providing that the lawfulness of such detention shall be decided speedily by a court; 6, providing for a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law; and 8, establishing the right to respect for a private and family life. The latter is relevant to disclosure, nearest relatives' rights, and treatment.

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.

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>

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

Article 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998: implications for clinical practice

2008 ◽  
Vol 14 (5) ◽  
pp. 389-397 ◽  
Author(s):  
Martin Curtice
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Clinical Setting ◽  
Case Law ◽  
European Court ◽  
Core Concepts ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Human Rights Act 1998 ◽  
Health Review

The Human Rights Act 1998 was introduced into UK law in 2000. It must be considered in all clinical cases, including mental health review tribunals. The number of mental health cases brought to the European Court of Human Rights that breach Article 3 has been very few. However, Article 3 will need to be considered in the clinical setting in complaints arising from conditions of detention, seclusion, control and restraint. This article analyses the case law, illustrating its evolution and also demonstrating the fundamental and core concepts that underpin the Act that can be used in clinical practice.

scholarly journals ECT and the Human Rights Act 1998

2014 ◽  
pp. 66
Author(s):  
Robert Robinson
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Electroconvulsive Therapy ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Mental Health Act ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Human Rights Act 1998 ◽  
Incapacitated Patients

In the current edition of the Mental Health Act Manual1, Richard Jones condemns the practice of detaining mentally incapacitated patients for the purpose of giving treatment which could lawfully be administered under common law. Jones draws particular attention to the ‘sectioning’ of compliant patients who require electroconvulsive therapy (ECT).

Human Rights Act 1998 (European Convention on Human Rights)

2021 ◽  
pp. 299-306
Author(s):  
Anna Smajdor ◽  
Jonathan Herring ◽  
Robert Wheeler
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Family Life ◽  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
Fair Trial ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Right To Life ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Human Rights Act 1998 ◽  
Forced Labour ◽  
The Right

This chapter covers the Human Rights Act 1998 (European Convention on Human Rights) and includes topics on The Right to Protection from Torture, The Right to Life, Prohibition of slavery and forced labour, Right to liberty and security, Right to a Fair Trial, The Right Not to Suffer Punishment without Legal Authorisation, Right to respect for private and family life, The Right to Freedom of Thought, Conscience and Religion, The Right to Freedom of Expression, The Right to Freedom of Assembly and Association, The Right to Marry, and The Right to Protection from Discrimination.

The positive duty of prevention in the common law and the Convention

Legal Studies ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 40 (2) ◽  
pp. 209-229
Author(s):  
Achas K Burin
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Positive Duty ◽  
New Approach ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Human Rights Act 1998 ◽  
The Common ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Relationship

AbstractTwenty years after the Human Rights Act 1998 came into force, where are we in our understanding of the relationship between tort and human rights? This paper argues that we are not as far along in our understanding as we could be. The reason for that has been the methodology we used to understand the relationship, focused as it was around remedies, limitation and causation. This paper proposes a new approach, based around the right rather than the remedy. It aims to theorise one particular cause of action – the duty in Osman v United Kingdom – to exemplify this approach. For English lawyers, who have historically used the framework of the forms of action to understand our own law, it is argued that this a good way to comprehend the European jurisprudence.

Professional secrecy and legal professional privilege

2018 ◽  
Vol 25 (2) ◽  
pp. 188-207 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jorg Sladič
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
The Netherlands ◽  
Family Life ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Civil Law ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
The Other ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Legal Professional ◽  
The Right

Legal privilege and professional secrecy of attorneys relate to the right to a fair trial (Article 6 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)) as well as to the right to respect for private and family life (Article 8 ECHR). The reason for protecting the lawyer via fundamental rights is the protection of fundamental rights of the lawyer’s clients. All legal orders apply legal privileges and professional secrecy; however, the contents of such are not identical. Traditionally there is an important difference between common and civil law. The professional secrecy of an attorney in civil law jurisdictions is his right and at the same time his obligation based on his membership of the Bar (that is his legal profession). In common law legal privilege comprises the contents of documents issued by an attorney to the client. Professional secrecy of attorneys in civil law jurisdictions applies solely to independent lawyers; in-house lawyers are usually not allowed to benefit from rules on professional secrecy (exceptions in the Netherlands and Belgium). On the other hand, common law jurisdictions apply legal professional privilege, recognized also to in-house lawyers. Slovenian law follows the traditional civil law concept of professional secrecy and sets a limited privilege to in-house lawyers. The article then discusses Slovenian law of civil procedure and compares the position of professional secrecy in lawsuits before State’s courts and in arbitration.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document