CS, R (on the application of) v Mental Health Review Tribunal & Anor, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, December 06, 2004, [2004] EWHC 2958 (Admin)
Linked as:
Extract
CS, R (on the application of) v Mental Health Review Tribunal & Anor, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, December 06, 2004, [2004] EWHC 2958 (Admin)
SMITH BERNAL WORDWAVE
CO/786/2004 Neutral Citation Number: [2004] EWHC 2958 (Admin)IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION DIVISIONAL COURT Royal Courts of Justice StrandLondon WC2 Monday, 6 December 2004 B E F O R E:MR JUSTICE PITCHFORD- - - - - - -THE QUEEN, ON THE APPLICATION OF CS(CLAIMANT)-v- MENTAL HEALTH REVIEW TRIBUNAL (RESPONDENT) ANDMANAGERS OF HOMERTON HOSPITAL(EAST LONDON & CITY MENTAL HEALTH NHS TRUST) (INTERESTED PARTY) - - - - - - - Computer-Aided Transcript of the Stenograph Notes of Smith Bernal Wordwave Limited190 Fleet Street London EC4A 2AGTel No: 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7831 8838(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)- - - - - - - MR STEPHEN SIMBLET (instructed by Hereward Forster Solicitors, 101 Barking Road, Canning Town, London E16 4HQ) appeared on behalf of the CLAIMANT MS KRISTINA STERN (instructed by Treasury Solicitors, Queen's Anne's Chambers, 28 Broadway, London SW1H 9JS & Bevan Ashford, 1 Chancery Lane, London WC1A 1LF) appeared on behalf of the DEFENDANT & INTERESTED PARTY - - - - - - -J U D G M E N T1. MR JUSTICE PITCHFORD: The claimant, whom I shall call CS, has a clinical psychiatric history, diagnosed as paranoid schizophrenia. On 7th May 2003, CS was detained in hospital under section 3 Mental Health Act 1983. On 29th October 2003, her detention was renewed. She made application for discharge on 5th November 2003. A hearing took place on 2nd February 2004, having been adjourned from January. The tribunal made a decision that CS should not be discharged. It is that decision which CS now seeks to quash as unlawful and irrational. 2. Events have, however, overtaken the decision. In reality, the application is for a declaration that the claimant's detention was unlawful and damages for her unlawful detention under the Human Rights Act 1998.3. Interim relief was refused on 20th February 2004 and permission to proceed was granted on 22nd April 2004.4. The challenge to the decision is made on the ground, first, since CS's responsible medical officer (hereafter "RMO") was not seeking an actual admission to hospital, the statutory preconditions for an admission under section 3 were not made out and, as a matter of law, the claimant should have been discharged. Second, the tribunal's decision that CS should remain liable to reca...See the full content of this document
Sponsored links
