header-logo header-logo

15 February 2007 / Neil Allen
Issue: 7260 / Categories: Features , Mental health
printer mail-detail

A call for order

Health care professionals must exercise restraint before revolving the hospital door, says Neil Allen

The psychiatric and legal professions are often uncomfortable bedfellows. One area of particular controversy concerns the re-admission of patients released into the community by mental health review tribunals. The detaining authorities will inevitably disagree with discharge decisions. Indeed, such is the fluctuating nature of mental disorder that episodes of acute illness following hospitalisation are not uncommon as patients react to the pressures of community life. However, due deference to clinical freedom must sometimes yield to legitimate fears over arbitrary detention. R (Care Principles Ltd) v Mental Health Review Tribunal and others [2006] EWHC 3194 (Admin) serves as a timely reminder that health care professionals must exercise restraint before revolving their hospital door.

The proceedings

Following his aggressive behaviour towards hostel staff and fellow residents, and threats to social workers, a young man with mild learning disabilities was detained in a medium-security hospital for psychiatric assessment. In the absence of a sufficient causal link between his conduct and mental disorder

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Partner joins commercial property team in Taunton office

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Londstanding London firm appoints new senior partner

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Commercial team in London welcomes technology specialist as partner

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll