O, R (on the application of) v The Mental Health Review Tribunal, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, October 17, 2006, [2006] EWHC 2659 (Admin)

Extract

---

O, R (on the application of) v The Mental Health Review Tribunal, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, October 17, 2006, [2006] EWHC 2659 (Admin)

SMITH BERNAL WORDWAVE

CO/2070/2006

Neutral Citation Number: [2006] EWHC 2659 (Admin)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION

THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT

Royal Courts of Justice

Strand

London WC2

Date: Tuesday, 17 October 2006

B E F O R E:

MR JUSTICE COLLINS

- - - - - - -

THE QUEEN ON THE APPLICATION OF O

(CLAIMANT)

-v-

THE MENTAL HEALTH REVIEW TRIBUNAL

(DEFENDANT)

- - - - - - -

Computer-Aided Transcript of the Stenograph Notes of

WordWave International Limited

A Merrill Communications Company

190 Fleet Street London EC4A 2AG

Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7831 8838

(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)

- - - - - - -

MR ROGER PEZZANI (instructed by CGM Solicitors) appeared on behalf of the CLAIMANT

MR TIM WARD (instructed by Treasury Solicitor) appeared on behalf of the DEFENDANT

- - - - - - -

J U D G M E N T

1. MR JUSTICE COLLINS: This is a claim for judicial review of a decision of the Mental Health Review Tribunal that it had jurisdiction to continue to consider the claimant's case following what was alleged to be a valid withdrawal of his application.

2. The decision in question was made as long ago as 30 November 2005, but the written reasons were not communicated to the claimant until January 2006. I granted permission in March and directed that the claim should be heard as soon as possible. Regrettably, it has not been possible to hear it until today. The result of the delay is that the claimant has been moved to another hospital from that in which he was detained, and it may be that, in those circumstances, the issue that is at stake in this application has become somewhat academic. Nonetheless, the point is an important one and it may affect the future conduct of the Tribunal, and so the future manner in which this particular claimant is dealt with.

3. He was detained pursuant to section 3 of the Mental Health Act, suffering from a mental illness that was probably paranoid schizophrenia. The claimant made an application, as he was entitled to do, pursuant to the Mental Health Act to the Mental Health Review Tribunal. That application was that he should be discharged. In due cou...

See the full content of this document

---