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

Freeths—Ruth Clare

Freeths—Ruth Clare

National real estate team bolstered by partner hire in Manchester

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Partner appointed head of family team

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

Firm strengthens agriculture and rural affairs team with partner return

NEWS
Conveyancing lawyers have enjoyed a rapid win after campaigning against UK Finance’s decision to charge for access to the Mortgage Lenders’ Handbook
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has launched a recruitment drive for talented early career and more senior barristers and solicitors
Regulators differed in the clarity and consistency of their post-Mazur advice and guidance, according to an interim report by the Legal Services Board (LSB)
The Solicitors Act 1974 may still underpin legal regulation, but its age is increasingly showing. Writing in NLJ this week, Victoria Morrison-Hughes of the Association of Costs Lawyers argues that the Act is ‘out of step with modern consumer law’ and actively deters fairness
A Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) ruling has reopened debate on the availability of ‘user damages’ in competition claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Edward Nyman of Hausfeld explains how the CAT allowed Dr Liza Lovdahl Gormsen’s alternative damages case against Meta to proceed, rejecting arguments that such damages are barred in competition law
back-to-top-scroll