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

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

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

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.

The extent to which a conviction can be regarded as ‘safe’, notwithstanding unfairness in the trial process, has had to be re-considered following the enactment of the Human Rights Act 1998, and the decision of the European Court of Human Rights in R v Condron [2000] Crim LR 679. The result is that the Court of Appeal should not disengage the issue of the fairness of the trial from the issue of whether or not the conviction is safe. In essence significant violations of the right to a fair trial provided by Art 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights are, of themselves, likely to render a conviction unsafe; see further R v Francom (2000) The Times, 24 October. In R v Togher and Others (2000) The Times, 21 November, Lord Woolf CJ went so far as observe that the approach of the Court of Appeal should be in step with that of the European Court of Human Rights with the result that the denial of a fair trial contrary to Art 6 would now inevitably lead to a finding that the resulting conviction was unsafe. Such a conclusion is a direct result of the obligation created by s3(1) of the Human Rights Act 1998 to the effect that domestic legislation, such as the Criminal Appeal Act 1995, should be read, so far as possible, in a manner that gave effect to Convention rights. R v Davis (2000) The Times, 25 July, whilst not departing from this broad proposition, emphasises that it may still be necessary to look at the circumstances of a particular case before concluding that a violation of Art 6 has rendered a conviction unsafe – it will be a matter of fact and degree. Even if an appeal against conviction succeeds the accused may still face a retrial. The Court of Appeal has the discretion to order a retrial under s 7 of the 1968 Act if it appears to the court that the interests of justice so require. If there has been a total mistrial the Court of Appeal can issue a writ of venire de novo – setting events back to where they were before the irregularity that rendered the trial a mistrial occurred. Some appeals against conviction will be partially successful in that the Court of Appeal can allow the appeal but substitute a conviction for a lesser-included offence – an obvious example being the quashing of a murder conviction and the substitution of a conviction for manslaughter. Appeal by the prosecution: against over lenient sentences

1996 ◽  
pp. 72-73
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
De Novo ◽  
Fair Trial ◽  
Direct Result ◽  
European Court ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Human Rights Act 1998 ◽  
The Times ◽  
The Right ◽  
Court Of Appeal

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.

Seeking the principle: chancels, choices and human rights

Legal Studies ◽  
2002 ◽  
Vol 22 (2) ◽  
pp. 238-258 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ian Dawson ◽  
Alison Dunn
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Public Authority ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Parish Church ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Human Rights Act 1998 ◽  
Modern Context ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Court Of Appeal

Chancel liability is an ancient property right, enforced by a Parochial Church Council, attaching to certain former rectorial lands. It requires a landowner to bear the cost of repair of the parish church chancel. The right poses particular problems for a purchaser, not least because it is hard to discover and is not limited to the value of the land. A recent decision of the Court of Appeal has found that a Parochial Church Council falls within section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 as a public authority, and that chancel liability infringes article 1 of the First Protocol of the European Convention on Human Rights. This paper will dispute the rationale used by the Court of Appeal, and in so doing will argue that whilst chancel liability is outmoded, widely regarded as incongruous and does not bear scrutiny in its modern context, it should nevertheless be removed on a principled basis, avoiding unwanted repercussions elsewhere in the law.

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 Capacity, Treatment and Human Rights

2014 ◽  
Vol 1 (10) ◽  
pp. 52
Author(s):  
Peter Bartlett
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Compulsory Treatment ◽  
Anti Psychotic ◽  
Competent Patient ◽  
Mental Health Act ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
The Right

<strong><strong></strong></strong><p align="LEFT"><em>R (on the application of PS) v. G (RMO) and W (SOAD) [2003] EWHC 2335 (Admin). Administrative Court (10th October 2003) Mr. Justice Silber.</em></p><p align="LEFT">This is the most recent in a series of cases regarding the scope of the Human Rights Act and compulsory treatment under the Mental Health Act 1983. In particular, this case concerns the right of a competent patient detained under section 37 of the Mental Health Act 1983 (MHA) to refuse anti-psychotic medication, and the scope of articles 3, 8 and 14 of the ECHR.</p>

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document