scholarly journals Theresa May Wants to Stop ‘Unnecessary Detentions’ with New Mental Health Act

2018 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Elizabeth Maitland
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Fair Trial ◽  
Human Right ◽  
Mental Health Act ◽  
Assistance Dogs ◽  
Independent Review ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Moment ◽  
Danger To Others ◽  
Theresa May

At RECOVERY Assistance Dogs we filled in an Independent Review of the 2007 Mental Health Act by February 28, 2018. The review was about when a person can be admitted, detained, and treated in hospital without their agreement. We made our point that people should have the Human Right to a Fair Trial before they can be locked up against their will. The Law says that only people who are a danger to others or themselves should be detained involuntarily. Yet at the moment people are have to submit to ‘unnecessary detentions’ for being ‘high’, unable to answer the question correctly or other reasons that a Court of Law would dismiss

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.

Introduction

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-4
Author(s):  
Ian Cummins
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Prime Minister ◽  
Hostile Environment ◽  
Home Office ◽  
The Real ◽  
Senior Member ◽  
Mental Health Act ◽  
Theresa May

When Theresa May became Prime Minister in July 2016, she made a speech on the steps of Downing Street in which she outlined a series of ‘burning injustices’ her administration would seek to tackle. Many were struck by the irony of this commitment to tackling inequality and disadvantages coming, as it did, from a senior member of the coalition and Conservative governments that since 2010 had introduced a series of policies which had targeted those living in poverty and the most vulnerable. The scandals of the revelation of the real impact of the ‘hostile environment’ created by May’s Home Office and the appalling treatment of the Windrush generation lay ahead. In May 2017, May announced that a review would be undertaken of the ‘flawed’ Mental Health Act (MHA). In making the announcement she stated:...

7. Mental Health Law

Medical Law ◽  
2019 ◽  
pp. 351-419
Author(s):  
Emily Jackson
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Community Treatment ◽  
Health Law ◽  
Persons With Disabilities ◽  
Mental Health Law ◽  
Mental Health Act ◽  
Independent Review ◽  
History Of ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
The Uk

All books in this flagship series contain carefully selected substantial extracts from key cases, legislation, and academic debate, providing able students with a stand-alone resource. This chapter discusses mental health law in the UK. It begins with a brief history of mental health law and policy. This is followed by discussions of: admission to the mental health system; treatment of the mentally ill under the Mental Health Act 1983; Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and Cheshire West, and Community Treatment Orders. It also looks at the implications of the Human Rights Act and the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD) for mental health law. It also considers the conclusions of the Independent Review of the Mental Health Act 1983.

scholarly journals ‘Role Over’ or Roll Over? Dirty Work, Shift and Mental Health Act Assessments

2019 ◽  
Vol 49 (8) ◽  
pp. 2187-2206 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sarah Vicary ◽  
Alys Young ◽  
Stephen Hicks
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Sociological Theory ◽  
Doctor Who ◽  
Dirty Work ◽  
Medical Assessment ◽  
Mental Health Act ◽  
The Social ◽  
Independent Review ◽  
Using Data ◽  
Verbatim Quote

Abstract The rise in numbers of applications for people being formally detained in hospital is one of the reasons given for the independent review of the Mental Health Act in England and Wales. These figures have led to concerns that the legislation might be flawed, including in relation to the process of Mental Health Act Assessments. Discussed in this article are two of the roles involved: the doctor who is responsible for conducting a medical assessment and the Approved Mental Health Professional (AMHP) who is responsible for assessing the social circumstances and in addition making the application. Using data from a study into AMHPs and the lens of the sociological theory ‘dirty work’, we discuss shift, an aspect of dirty work not yet applied in this context. We focus on AMHPs’ perceptions of the behaviour of doctors as encapsulated in the verbatim phrase ‘role over’. We argue that AMHPs, including social workers, justify or, to play on the words of the verbatim quote, roll over. This finding adds to the understanding of behaviour as it is understood within psychiatric occupations, including social work, during Mental Health Act Assessments.

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).

The Right to a Fair Trial in International Law

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Clooney Amal ◽  
Webb Philippa
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Fair Trial ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Human Right ◽  
The World ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Right

This book brings together the diverse sources of international law that define the right to a fair trial in the context of criminal proceedings. It aims to make the law accessible to counsel and meaningful to victims in courtrooms all over the world. By focusing on what the right to a fair trial means in practice, it seeks to bring to life the commitment made by over 170 states parties to the ICCPR. The book is subdivided into 14 substantive chapters each dealing with one component of the right to a fair trial. Each chapter collates and analyses international sources, highlighting both consensus and division in the international jurisprudence. The book aims to be the global reference for the most frequently litigated human right in the world.

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.

scholarly journals The common law defence of automatism: a quagmire for the psychiatrist

2015 ◽  
Vol 21 (4) ◽  
pp. 242-250 ◽  
Author(s):  
Keith J. B. Rix
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Psychiatric Disorder ◽  
Psychotropic Drugs ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Burden Of Proof ◽  
Standard Of Proof ◽  
Mental Health Act ◽  
The Common ◽  
The Law

SummaryThis article sets out the complicated and confused law on automatism and identifies the role of the psychiatrist, including paradoxically a role in cases of non-psychiatric disorder where the law requires evidence from a doctor approved under section 12 of the Mental Health Act. Legal definitions of automatism are introduced. The internal/external distinction, evidential burden, burden of proof, standard of proof, prior fault, intoxication and the degree of impairment illustrate how the courts limit the defence. Detailed accounts are given of cases in which the defence of automatism has been based on psychiatric disorder and on the effects of psychotropic drugs. Suggestions are made for approaches to assessment and medicolegal reporting.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document