header-logo header-logo

Liberty, autonomy & the Mental Health Act review

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

Red Lion Chambers—Maurice MacSweeney

Red Lion Chambers—Maurice MacSweeney

Set creates new client and business development role amid growth

Winckworth Sherwood—Charlie Hancock

Winckworth Sherwood—Charlie Hancock

Private wealth and tax offering bolstered by partner hire

Browne Jacobson—Matthew Kemp

Browne Jacobson—Matthew Kemp

Firm grows real estate team with tenth partner hire this financial year

NEWS
The rank of King’s Counsel (KC) has been awarded to 96 barristers, and no solicitors, in the latest silk round
Can a chief constable be held responsible for disobedient officers? Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth, professor of public law at De Montfort University, examines a Court of Appeal ruling that answers firmly: yes
Neurotechnology is poised to transform contract law—and unsettle it. Writing in NLJ this week, Harry Lambert, barrister at Outer Temple Chambers and founder of the Centre for Neurotechnology & Law, and Dr Michelle Sharpe, barrister at the Victorian Bar, explore how brain–computer interfaces could both prove and undermine consent
Comparators remain the fault line of discrimination law. In this week's NLJ, Anjali Malik, partner at Bellevue Law, and Mukhtiar Singh, barrister at Doughty Street Chambers, review a bumper year of appellate guidance clarifying how tribunals should approach ‘actual’ and ‘evidential’ comparators. A new six-stage framework stresses a simple starting point: identify the treatment first
In cross-border divorces, domicile can decide everything. In NLJ this week, Jennifer Headon, legal director and head of international family, Isobel Inkley, solicitor, and Fiona Collins, trainee solicitor, all at Birketts LLP, unpack a Court of Appeal ruling that re-centres nuance in jurisdiction disputes. The court held that once a domicile of choice is established, the burden lies on the party asserting its loss
back-to-top-scroll