header-logo header-logo

20 January 2011
Issue: 7449 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Human rights detention breach

Court of Appeal allows appeal against detention under Mental Health Act
A man who was accused of stalking women and then detained under the Mental Health Act 1983 (the 1983 Act) has succeeded in his human rights claim.

The case, TTM v London Borough of Hackney and Ors [2011] EWCA Civ 4, concerned a Lithuanian national who was originally admitted to Homerton Hospital under s 2 of the 1983 Act for assessment and was subsequently detained under s 3 of the Act for treatment. His brother, who was his nearest living relative, initially recognised that M needed treatment but later objected to his detention. However, the Approved Mental Health Professional (AMHP) did not inform the hospital managers because she honestly believed his objection had been withdrawn.

Under the 1983 Act, an AMHP may not make a s 3 application if the nearest relative has raised an objection. If that happens then different procedures for detention must be followed.

The Court of Appeal allowed the man’s appeal, finding that he was lawfully detained but later wrongfully deprived

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

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

Nikki Bowker, head of litigation and dispute resolution at Devonshires, on career resilience, diversity in law and channelling Elle Woods when the pressure is on

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Leasehold enfranchisement specialist joins residential property team

DWF—Chris Air

DWF—Chris Air

Firm strengthens commercial team in Manchester with partner appointment

NEWS
The High Court’s refusal to recognise a prolific sperm donor as a child’s legal parent has highlighted the risks of informal conception arrangements, according to Liam Hurren, associate at Kingsley Napley, in NLJ this week
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Mazur may have settled questions around litigation supervision, but the profession should not simply ‘move on’, argues Jennifer Coupland, CEO of CILEX, in this week's NLJ
A simple phrase like ‘subject to references’ may not protect employers as much as they think. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, analyses recent employment cases showing how conditional job offers can still create binding contracts

An engagement ring may symbolise romance, but the courts remain decidedly practical about who keeps it after a split, writes Mark Pawlowski, barrister and professor emeritus of property law at the University of Greenwich, in this week's NLJ

Medical reporting organisation fees have become ‘the final battleground’ in modern costs litigation, says Kris Kilsby, costs lawyer at Peak Costs and council member of the Association of Costs Lawyers, in this week's NLJ
back-to-top-scroll