header-logo header-logo

Mental health & the case for tribunals

06 October 2017 / Keith Wilding
Issue: 7764 / Categories: Features , Mental health
printer mail-detail
nlj_7764_wilding

Keith Wilding believes there is much to recommend an expansion of the tribunal adjudication system

  • Current safeguarding laws are fragmented and complex.
  • The Law Commission has recommended a review of deprivation of liberty safeguards.

In May 2017, the Prime Minister suggested that the ‘flawed’ Mental Health Act 1983 should be replaced. The 1983 Act is only one aspect of legislation in the area of law dealing with matters of mental health, mental incapacity, and vulnerability.

The Law Commission’s final report on Mental Capacity and Deprivation of Liberty (Law Comm No 372 (Summary)) in discussing the rights of challenge to authorisations of deprivations of liberty recommends (at para 86) reviewing the question of the appropriate judicial body for determining such challenges. This seems to be a clear indication that the role of the First-tier Tribunal (a mental health tribunal) should be considered as the forum for such adjudication. There is much to recommend an expansion of the tribunal adjudication system both from the perspective of the person in respect

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

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll