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 CommitteeReview 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

Debevoise & Plimpton—Mary Lavelle

Debevoise & Plimpton—Mary Lavelle

Debevoise expands London secondaries team with addition of Mary Lavelle

Excello Law—Hestia Private Client

Excello Law—Hestia Private Client

Excello Law welcomes ex-Irwin Mitchell team to launch Hestia Private Client

Carpmaels & Ransford—Christopher Stothers

Carpmaels & Ransford—Christopher Stothers

Heavyweight patent litigator will bolster Carpmaels Ransford’s rapidly growing Litigation team as firm marks its 250th anniversary

NEWS
Lawyers have welcomed plans to create specialist rape and serious sex offences courtrooms at every Crown Court
The Supreme Court has settled a long-running dispute over part-time workers: unfavourable treatment need be a significant or effective cause, not the sole cause
Arbitration may be private, but its confidentiality is no impenetrable shield. Writing in NLJ this week, James Glaysher of Kingsley Napley examines when courts will permit arbitral material to surface in open litigation
A telecoms operator may be able to hold over under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, yet still be unable to secure a renewal: an outcome described as a legal ‘paradox’
The Financial Reporting Council’s revised Audit Enforcement Procedure will alter the balance of power in corporate investigations
back-to-top-scroll