header-logo header-logo

A liberty worth defending

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

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

Hamlins—Maddox Legal

Hamlins—Maddox Legal

London firm announces acquisition of corporate team

Ward Hadaway—Nik Tunley

Ward Hadaway—Nik Tunley

Head of corporate appointed following Teesside merger

Taylor Rose—Russell Jarvis

Taylor Rose—Russell Jarvis

Firm expands into banking and finance sector with newly appointed head of banking

NEWS
Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB) continues to stir controversy across civil litigation, according to NLJ columnist Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School—AKA ‘The insider’
SRA v Goodwin is a rare disciplinary decision where a solicitor found to have acted dishonestly avoided being struck off, says Clare Hughes-Williams of DAC Beachcroft in this week's NLJ. The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) imposed a 12-month suspension instead, citing medical evidence and the absence of harm to clients
In their latest Family Law Brief for NLJ, Ellie Hampson-Jones and Carla Ditz of Stewarts review three key family law rulings, including the latest instalment in the long-running saga of Potanin v Potanina
The Asian International Arbitration Centre’s sweeping reforms through its AIAC Suite of Rules 2026, unveiled at Asia ADR Week, are under examination in this week's NLJ by John (Ching Jack) Choi of Gresham Legal
In this week's issue of NLJ, Yasseen Gailani and Alexander Martin of Quinn Emanuel report on the High Court’s decision in Skatteforvaltningen (SKAT) v Solo Capital Partners LLP & Ors [2025], where Denmark’s tax authority failed to recover £1.4bn in disputed dividend tax refunds
back-to-top-scroll