header-logo header-logo

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

Mental health & the case for tribunals

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 of

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

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Partner joins commercial property team in Taunton office

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Londstanding London firm appoints new senior partner

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Commercial team in London welcomes technology specialist as partner

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll