header-logo header-logo

Mental health

12 September 2013
Issue: 7575 / Categories: Case law , Mental health
printer mail-detail

A NHS Trust v Dr A [2013] EWHC 2442 (COP), [2013] All ER (D) 07 (Sep)

Generally, it was undesirable to extend the meaning of medical treatment under the Mental Health Act 1983 too far so as to bring about deprivation of liberty in respect of sectioned or sectionable patients beyond what was properly within the ambit of the Act. There was a recognisable need for identifying a clear dividing line between what was and what was not treatment for a mental disorder with the meaning of the Act, but in medicine, as in the law, it was not always possible to discern clear dividing lines. In case of uncertainty the appropriate course was for an application to be made to the court to approve the treatment. That approach ensured that the treatment given under s 63 would be confined to that which was properly within the definition of s 145.

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

Slater Heelis—Chester office

Slater Heelis—Chester office

North West presence strengthened with Chester office launch

Cooke, Young & Keidan—Elizabeth Meade

Cooke, Young & Keidan—Elizabeth Meade

Firm grows commercial disputes expertise with partner promotion

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

Blake Morgan managing partner appointed chair of CBI South-East Council

NEWS
The House of Lords has set up a select committee to examine assisted dying, which will delay the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill
The proposed £11bn redress scheme following the Supreme Court’s motor finance rulings is analysed in this week’s NLJ by Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers
In this week's issue, Stephen Gold, NLJ columnist and former district judge, surveys another eclectic fortnight in procedure. With humour and humanity, he reminds readers that beneath the procedural dust, the law still changes lives
Generative AI isn’t the villain of the courtroom—it’s the misunderstanding of it that’s dangerous, argues Dr Alan Ma of Birmingham City University and the Birmingham Law Society in this week's NLJ
James Naylor of Naylor Solicitors dissects the government’s plan to outlaw upward-only rent review (UORR) clauses in new commercial leases under Schedule 31 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, in this week's NLJ. The reform, he explains, marks a seismic shift in landlord-tenant power dynamics: rents will no longer rise inexorably, and tenants gain statutory caps and procedural rights
back-to-top-scroll