header-logo header-logo

12 January 2018 / Keith Wilding
Issue: 7776 / Categories: Features , Mental health
printer mail-detail

Liberty, autonomy & the Mental Health Act review

nlj_7776_wilding

Keith Wilding explains why the independent review of the Mental Health Act 1983 should take a broad approach

  • The review must look beyond the 1983 Act, taking account of mental capacity and adult protection.

  • There may be confusion and overlap between various types of intervention.

  • Current thinking on compulsory intervention must be considered.

An independent review of the Mental Health Act 1983, to be chaired by Sir Simon Wessely, a past president of the Royal College of Psychiatrists, was announced by the Prime Minister on 4 October 2017. It appears to have been prompted by, among other things, the rising rates of detention under the 1983 Act of persons suffering from mental disorder but it is no doubt part of the present high profile of mental health issues. A previous review in 1999—The Report of the Expert Committee—Review of the Mental Health Act 1983 (the Richardson Report)—made cogent analysis of the 1983 Act and made a series of recommendations that never came to

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

Bell Yard Kysen—Liz Giles

Bell Yard Kysen—Liz Giles

Bell Yard Kysen appoints senior legal PR and ex-government communications adviser, Liz Giles

Clarke Willmott—Lee Edwards

Clarke Willmott—Lee Edwards

Clarke Willmott boosts Southampton commercial property team with addition of partner Lee Edwards

Lime Solicitors—four promotions

Lime Solicitors—four promotions

Lime Solicitors announces four promotions

NEWS
The Attorney General, Ellie Reeves KC MP, and Solicitor General, Andy Slaughter KC MP, marked the 25th anniversary of Pro Bono Week by joining lawyers, charities, students and parliamentarians at events celebrating voluntary legal work
Witness evidence can be compromised by AI before a solicitor sees the draft, leaving safeguards focused on authorship incomplete
Possession claims are entering a new digital era, with procedural traps awaiting practitioners who assume familiar rules still govern every step
A polished legal defence may owe more to artificial intelligence than legal merit—and creditors risk paying the price in delay and expense
An indemnity costs battle with a £20m gap could reopen an important question: what weight should an approved budget carry?
back-to-top-scroll