header-logo header-logo

16 February 2011 / Mark Mullins
Issue: 7453 / Categories: Features , Public
printer mail-detail

A liberty worth defending

Mark Mullins reports on unlawful detention

On the 30 January 2009 an approved mental health professional (AMHP) working for the London Borough of Hackney made an application for the compulsory admission to hospital, under s 3 of the Mental Health Act 1983 (MHA 1983), of M, a painter and decorator. Her application stated that she had consulted with M’s brother (his “nearest relative”) and that he did not object.

The procedure for compulsory admission under MHA 1983  says that a s 3 application “may not be made” if the “nearest relative” objects (s 11(4)(a)). An application “which appears to be duly made” may be acted upon by hospital managers without further proof of any fact or opinion in it and gives a hospital legal authority to detain and treat a patient (s 6(3)).

The AMHP’s application was accepted and M was detained in the hospital trust’s hospital.

Habeas corpus proceedings

Habeas corpus proceedings brought urgently in the Administrative Court were decided on 11 February 2009. Burton J. heard oral evidence from M’s brother

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

Ogier—Martin Livingston

Ogier—Martin Livingston

Martin Livingston joins Ogier in Cayman to strengthen regulatory support

Blake Morgan—47 promotions

Blake Morgan—47 promotions

Blake Morgan announces 47 summer promotions across UK offices

NEWS
Consultant-led law firms should prepare for closer regulatory attention as oversight evolves
Artificial intelligence may draft workplace grievances, but employers cannot treat them any differently from conventional complaints
From dishonest claimants to judicial promotions and procedural skirmishes, the latest legal developments offer plenty for litigators to digest
Fresh guidance is set to influence how courts decide whether hearings take place online or in person
County Court judges remain divided over whether landlords can lawfully force entry to carry out essential safety inspections after tenants ignore access injunctions
back-to-top-scroll