header-logo header-logo

23 October 2014
Issue: 7627 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Mental health

R (on the application of M) v Kingston Crown Court; M v Wells Unit West London Mental Health Trust [2014] EWHC 2702 (Admin), [2014] All ER (D) 02 (Oct)

The claimant, aged 17, was facing trial for assault. He sought judicial review of the judge’s order under s 35 of the Mental Health Act 1983, remanding him to hospital for a report to be made on his mental condition. The Divisional Court, in allowing the application, held that s 35 of the Act did not permit an order to be made for the purpose of obtaining evidence relevant to an issue at trial. Although relating to a trial on indictment, the order was quashed, as it contained a jurisdictional error of such gravity as to take the case out of the jurisdiction of the court below.

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

Keystone Law—Milena Szuniewicz-Wenzel & Ian Hopkinson

Keystone Law—Milena Szuniewicz-Wenzel & Ian Hopkinson

International arbitration team strengthened by double partner hire

Coodes Solicitors—Pam Johns, Rachel Pearce & Bradley Kaine

Coodes Solicitors—Pam Johns, Rachel Pearce & Bradley Kaine

Firm celebrates trio holding senior regional law society and junior lawyers division roles

Michelman Robinson—Sukhi Kaler

Michelman Robinson—Sukhi Kaler

Partner joins commercial and business litigation team in London

NEWS
The government has pledged to ‘move fast’ to protect children from harm caused by artificial intelligence (AI) chatbots, and could impose limits on social media as early as the summer
All eyes will be on the Court of Appeal (or its YouTube livestream) next week as it sits to consider the controversial Mazur judgment
An NHS Foundation Trust breached a consultant’s contract by delegating an investigation into his knowledge of nurse Lucy Letby’s case
Draft guidance for schools on how to support gender-questioning pupils provides ‘more clarity’, but headteachers may still need legal advice, an education lawyer has said
Litigation funder Innsworth Capital, which funded behemoth opt-out action Merricks v Mastercard, can bring a judicial review, the High Court ruled last week
back-to-top-scroll